Hey there, after browsing through some threads on "netdecking" in the last two days, I finally decided to start my own thread on the subject - from a slightly different perspective: I honestly admit that I consider the whole discussion and even the term as pretty useless, especially as the very place the discussion takes place is a (internet!!!) forum on sharing deck ideas ...
My approach is thought neither an apology of taking tried and tested decks from the internet (which is in my book a logical operation for every player that wants to be competitive at this game) nor an apology or a bashing on the many creative people out there, trying to come up with their own ideas...
What I wanted to propose is a concept from Hearthstones "older brother" - Magic the Gathering - developped by their R&D Department to describe different types of players and different approaches to a collectible card game. Ideally these concepts help players of Hearthstone to better accept themselves and the way they approach this beautiful game, and, even more important, to better understand what thrives other players ...
1. Spike, is "the competitive player. Spike plays to win. Spike enjoys winning. To accomplish this, Spike will play whatever the best deck is. Spike will copy decks off the Internet. Spike will borrow other players’ decks. To Spike, the thrill of [Hearthstone]is the adrenalin rush of competition. Spike enjoys the stimulation of outplaying the opponent and the glory of victory." ( Mark Roswater)...
Many people in these forums would call "spike" the "netdecker" - Spike (me included) would respond to this: Who gives a f..., sure I do, I want to win at this game and adopting/tweaking deck ideas of other is just the way to discover the best deck in the most "rational", almost scientific manner...
2. Timmy on the other Hand is the "power gamer. Timmy likes to win big. He doesn’t want to eke out a last minute victory. Timmy wants to smash his opponents. He likes his cards to be impressive, and he enjoys playing big creatures and big spells." (same article)
So Timmy is one aspect of the many homebrewers out there, he likes to be tweakig decks to go as "big" as possible
3. "Johnny is the creative gamer to whom [Hearthstone] is a form of self-expression. Johnny likes to win, but he wants to win with style. It’s very important to Johnny that he win on his own terms. As such, it’s important to Johnny that he’s using his own deck. Playing [Hearthstone] is an opportunity for Johnny to show off his creativity."
So, Johnny is even more the classic "homebrewer" in these forums, and (at the worst), he is the one complaining the most about "netdecking"
What can we learn about all this in my opinion: Sure, in reality, many players will actually be hybrids of the three, which is, however, not my main point. Ideally the concept could help to stop a lot of unnecessary complaining in this forum. After having accepted what kind of player you are and understood how others tick, you can also accept what comes with it:
You can not play as a "Johnny" or a "Timmy" and expect everybody else to do so as well and having the succes that comes with "spiking" ... Ideally, you learn to see the spikes as a test and a challenge for your new decks: every once in a while you might be able to really come up with something new, edging out some victories (and then become the new Deckbuilder the spikes rip off). But most of the time you will just have to accept loosing, as long as you prefer to come with your own creations and to try these creations in competitive play... because after all, the ladder, by its very nature and incentives IS competitive, and will always be competitive!
As a last proposition, I will ad a poll on your self description - I don't add Hybrids, just pick the "main" trait of you character... and maybe describe why you picked it and if you can find yourself in these "characters"
Doesn't really translate MtG is defender's choice (or was when I last played it) and you have 20 life (or did when I last played it) 'Timmy' tries to play HS, gets whomped because he is holding 9 cards in his hand for his big win with no viable defense, and then comes here to whine about how the game isn't fair. I guess that was kind of the point though.
I agree for the most part (even though the complaining has gone way off in my book) ... an interesting approach ist highlighted by you:
What modes could foster more enjoyment for a variety of player-types? I think it would be a good idea to reflect upon!
I would really love custom modes. They are very easy to implement & would automatically grant otherwise frustrated players ways to enjoy the game by playing a mode only with basics (for beginners), without the class(es) they hate, Johnny can play lots of different modes to enjoy the deckbuilding for specific metas, Timmy can ban all early game snowball minions etc.
Doesn't really translate MtG is defender's choice (or was when I last played it) and you have 20 life (or did when I last played it) 'Timmy' tries to play HS, gets whomped because he is holding 9 cards in his hand for his big win with no viable defense, and then comes here to whine about how the game isn't fair. I guess that was kind of the point though.
Uhm Timmy would just play Control Warrior/Handlock/ramp druid... wanting to play the "big stuff" does not mean randomly putting every 7+ cost minion the game has into a deck and try to win.
That wouldn't work in MTG either.
Indeed.
Timmies also like super combos .. they don't mind if most games it doesn't come off, as long as sometimes it does. A Spike would never play a Priest Inner Fire/Divine Spirit combo deck, but Timmy would, and would love it if he got to hit you in the face with a 32/32.
It's all about winning impressive when you win, not chip chip chipping away at your opponent's health.
Doesn't really translate MtG is defender's choice (or was when I last played it) and you have 20 life (or did when I last played it) 'Timmy' tries to play HS, gets whomped because he is holding 9 cards in his hand for his big win with no viable defense, and then comes here to whine about how the game isn't fair. I guess that was kind of the point though.
Uhm Timmy would just play Control Warrior/Handlock/ramp druid... wanting to play the "big stuff" does not mean randomly putting every 7+ cost minion the game has into a deck and try to win.
That wouldn't work in MTG either.
Pretty much. Timmy would also love those big SLAMS. They hunt down those OTK decks, trying to make divine priest work and bloodlust on shaman. I'd say the more seasoned Timmys hung on to handlock and are now loving oil rogue.
Timmy and Spike are netdeckers. Timmy would go for the deck that's impressive but not necessarily #1. Spike is very much the 'look at the #1 deck, netdeck that. Zoo. Aggro decks. They'd go control if that's #1. Basically look at the deck that's winning and Spike wants that.
Johnny is the deck creator. They all want to win, but Johnny wants to make a winning deck out of his own style.
As you can insinuate, that makes the majority of any population prone to deck creation. And that's only the pure types. Many people are hybrids. Johnny/Spikes are the folks who take netdecks and tweak them and/or are as willing to netdeck as they are create their own. You can also have a person who's all three at once.
And that's not even counting the F2Pers. Many of them will know that they need to grind to get their cards. Thus you have Johnnys who grind with a mech mage to earn the cards to make the decks they want to make.
The result is a very small group of people who aren't using a netdeck. Note that the population that goes to forums like these are a very VERY small percentage of the population and do not really represent how they view the game.
I guess I'm mostly playing to win as a spike, but how I win is important. Slamming giants down in handlock is about as timmy as it gets, but then you're throwing out Arcane Golem, Power Overwhelming and Faceless Manipulator for a glorious combo finish a la johnny. At the end of the day I prefer harder to play decks with more raw power. Where does that fit in to the three?
I'd describe you as a "spike", that bases his deck decisions on "timmyish" criteria ;) Most spikes are actually hybrid, I'd say:
After all, there is usually more than one tier one deck at a given point in the game, and to make a decision in those cases, even "spikes" usually go by their preferences (the deck that brings more enjoyment to them): I, for instance, would have no problem at all to go facehunter if it is really THE best deck, but if there is any other, more interactive deck, I would always shy away from it, in favor to a more midrangy deck ...
So, I suppose I also am a Spike with "timmy" parts (I prefer consistency and going "bigger" to flashy combo decks usually)
btw. guys, thanks for all the replies, it is wonderful to see that it is possible to talk about "netdecking" in this forums without the usual "OMG Netdecking, so stupid"-nonsense...
what do mill deck players go under like they have silly combos but i have made all of them myself but yet the concept comes from other people i cant choose.
edit: looking through my deck lists yeah im johnnny all the way
maybe i would netdeck if i could, but my collection is *so* far from complete. i do enjoy making low-budget versions of popular decks, but for the most part they don't work that well. i usually end up around rank 10 or so...
you are a "soon-to-be-spike" ;)
I know your problems: It took my a long time as a F2P to grind myself to the point where I really decided that I will now spend my time on laddering rather than on trying to improve my collection with heavy "arenaing" ...
Right now, after having made that stupid legend, I am kind of going back to grinding, as I still lack sooo many legends for top-tier decks: I played Handlock, Hunter, and Zoo to Legend, besides these and Mechmage I can not really craft any "perfect" deck
Actually with an average between 4 and 5 plus the dailies (at best done in Arena) you can go almost infinite ... My arena grinding was that way too, I was at at 5,xx at best, and I was able to do almost exclusively arena with very rare "daily grinding"
Just keep on and try to do the dailies wisely, this would be my advice...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hey there, after browsing through some threads on "netdecking" in the last two days, I finally decided to start my own thread on the subject - from a slightly different perspective: I honestly admit that I consider the whole discussion and even the term as pretty useless, especially as the very place the discussion takes place is a (internet!!!) forum on sharing deck ideas ...
My approach is thought neither an apology of taking tried and tested decks from the internet (which is in my book a logical operation for every player that wants to be competitive at this game) nor an apology or a bashing on the many creative people out there, trying to come up with their own ideas...
What I wanted to propose is a concept from Hearthstones "older brother" - Magic the Gathering - developped by their R&D Department to describe different types of players and different approaches to a collectible card game. Ideally these concepts help players of Hearthstone to better accept themselves and the way they approach this beautiful game, and, even more important, to better understand what thrives other players ...
So, without further ado, I am linking to this article: http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr11b and introduce to you: Spike, Timmy and Johnny:
1. Spike, is "the competitive player. Spike plays to win. Spike enjoys winning. To accomplish this, Spike will play whatever the best deck is. Spike will copy decks off the Internet. Spike will borrow other players’ decks. To Spike, the thrill of [Hearthstone]is the adrenalin rush of competition. Spike enjoys the stimulation of outplaying the opponent and the glory of victory." ( Mark Roswater)...
Many people in these forums would call "spike" the "netdecker" - Spike (me included) would respond to this: Who gives a f..., sure I do, I want to win at this game and adopting/tweaking deck ideas of other is just the way to discover the best deck in the most "rational", almost scientific manner...
2. Timmy on the other Hand is the "power gamer. Timmy likes to win big. He doesn’t want to eke out a last minute victory. Timmy wants to smash his opponents. He likes his cards to be impressive, and he enjoys playing big creatures and big spells." (same article)
So Timmy is one aspect of the many homebrewers out there, he likes to be tweakig decks to go as "big" as possible
3. "Johnny is the creative gamer to whom [Hearthstone] is a form of self-expression. Johnny likes to win, but he wants to win with style. It’s very important to Johnny that he win on his own terms. As such, it’s important to Johnny that he’s using his own deck. Playing [Hearthstone] is an opportunity for Johnny to show off his creativity."
So, Johnny is even more the classic "homebrewer" in these forums, and (at the worst), he is the one complaining the most about "netdecking"
What can we learn about all this in my opinion: Sure, in reality, many players will actually be hybrids of the three, which is, however, not my main point. Ideally the concept could help to stop a lot of unnecessary complaining in this forum. After having accepted what kind of player you are and understood how others tick, you can also accept what comes with it:
You can not play as a "Johnny" or a "Timmy" and expect everybody else to do so as well and having the succes that comes with "spiking" ... Ideally, you learn to see the spikes as a test and a challenge for your new decks: every once in a while you might be able to really come up with something new, edging out some victories (and then become the new Deckbuilder the spikes rip off). But most of the time you will just have to accept loosing, as long as you prefer to come with your own creations and to try these creations in competitive play... because after all, the ladder, by its very nature and incentives IS competitive, and will always be competitive!
As a last proposition, I will ad a poll on your self description - I don't add Hybrids, just pick the "main" trait of you character... and maybe describe why you picked it and if you can find yourself in these "characters"
I agree for the most part (even though the complaining has gone way off in my book) ... an interesting approach ist highlighted by you:
What modes could foster more enjoyment for a variety of player-types? I think it would be a good idea to reflect upon!
Doesn't really translate MtG is defender's choice (or was when I last played it) and you have 20 life (or did when I last played it) 'Timmy' tries to play HS, gets whomped because he is holding 9 cards in his hand for his big win with no viable defense, and then comes here to whine about how the game isn't fair. I guess that was kind of the point though.
Free to try and find a game, dealing cards for sorrow, cards for pain.
I would really love custom modes. They are very easy to implement & would automatically grant otherwise frustrated players ways to enjoy the game by playing a mode only with basics (for beginners), without the class(es) they hate, Johnny can play lots of different modes to enjoy the deckbuilding for specific metas, Timmy can ban all early game snowball minions etc.
Spike can still keep playing ranked.
I think it would reduce the complaints greatly.
I play this game for fun.
I play this game to win.
I play this game to be creative.
I'm a mix of the three I guess.
Used to be a proud Handlock player.
Legend 17 times.
Still flirting with the ladder from times to times with Renolock.
Indeed.
Timmies also like super combos .. they don't mind if most games it doesn't come off, as long as sometimes it does. A Spike would never play a Priest Inner Fire/Divine Spirit combo deck, but Timmy would, and would love it if he got to hit you in the face with a 32/32.
It's all about winning impressive when you win, not chip chip chipping away at your opponent's health.
Pretty much. Timmy would also love those big SLAMS. They hunt down those OTK decks, trying to make divine priest work and bloodlust on shaman. I'd say the more seasoned Timmys hung on to handlock and are now loving oil rogue.
Timmy and Spike are netdeckers. Timmy would go for the deck that's impressive but not necessarily #1. Spike is very much the 'look at the #1 deck, netdeck that. Zoo. Aggro decks. They'd go control if that's #1. Basically look at the deck that's winning and Spike wants that.
Johnny is the deck creator. They all want to win, but Johnny wants to make a winning deck out of his own style.
As you can insinuate, that makes the majority of any population prone to deck creation. And that's only the pure types. Many people are hybrids. Johnny/Spikes are the folks who take netdecks and tweak them and/or are as willing to netdeck as they are create their own. You can also have a person who's all three at once.
And that's not even counting the F2Pers. Many of them will know that they need to grind to get their cards. Thus you have Johnnys who grind with a mech mage to earn the cards to make the decks they want to make.
The result is a very small group of people who aren't using a netdeck. Note that the population that goes to forums like these are a very VERY small percentage of the population and do not really represent how they view the game.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
I guess I'm mostly playing to win as a spike, but how I win is important. Slamming giants down in handlock is about as timmy as it gets, but then you're throwing out Arcane Golem, Power Overwhelming and Faceless Manipulator for a glorious combo finish a la johnny. At the end of the day I prefer harder to play decks with more raw power. Where does that fit in to the three?
I'd describe you as a "spike", that bases his deck decisions on "timmyish" criteria ;) Most spikes are actually hybrid, I'd say:
After all, there is usually more than one tier one deck at a given point in the game, and to make a decision in those cases, even "spikes" usually go by their preferences (the deck that brings more enjoyment to them): I, for instance, would have no problem at all to go facehunter if it is really THE best deck, but if there is any other, more interactive deck, I would always shy away from it, in favor to a more midrangy deck ...
So, I suppose I also am a Spike with "timmy" parts (I prefer consistency and going "bigger" to flashy combo decks usually)
btw. guys, thanks for all the replies, it is wonderful to see that it is possible to talk about "netdecking" in this forums without the usual "OMG Netdecking, so stupid"-nonsense...
what do mill deck players go under like they have silly combos but i have made all of them myself but yet the concept comes from other people i cant choose.
edit: looking through my deck lists yeah im johnnny all the way
you are a "soon-to-be-spike" ;)
I know your problems: It took my a long time as a F2P to grind myself to the point where I really decided that I will now spend my time on laddering rather than on trying to improve my collection with heavy "arenaing" ...
Right now, after having made that stupid legend, I am kind of going back to grinding, as I still lack sooo many legends for top-tier decks: I played Handlock, Hunter, and Zoo to Legend, besides these and Mechmage I can not really craft any "perfect" deck
Actually with an average between 4 and 5 plus the dailies (at best done in Arena) you can go almost infinite ... My arena grinding was that way too, I was at at 5,xx at best, and I was able to do almost exclusively arena with very rare "daily grinding"
Just keep on and try to do the dailies wisely, this would be my advice...