Netdecking is a proof that you aren't experienced enough to create your own decks or/and to adapt to the metagame.
According to this statement, on one hand, not being experienced enough is not shameful. For instance, my experience with some classes or even decks may be really bad. Thus I don't feel legitimate and I often just try others lists, only modifying often one or two cards.
Netdecking becomes a problem when experienced players do it. I mean, being a good player doesn't only rely on your ability to do efficient plays. It also relies on your understanding of the game. And I would, by extent, say that your ability to play efficiently relies on your understanding of the game.
And the way you understand the game comes from different things: 1° The time you spend playing seriously. 2° What you read, watch and listen to. 3° Your ability to see the flaws in your deck-list and to remedy these flaws.
This is not a mystery that good to excellent players are also good to excellent deck-builders. Actually deck-builders (I mean, the one creating serious stuff that matter in the metagame) are really few, and I can't consider myself as a deck-builder, but I'm more like a deck "dimmer". And I would feel really bad if Ihad to netdeck for Priest, Mage, Druid or Paladin, for instance, because it would mean that my understanding of these classes isn't broad enough to reshape what others have done.
On one hand I think that a deck on the internet is way more refined than anything I would make the person who posted it probably played the deck countless times.. but on the other hand copying a deck isn't like knowing how to play it.. I saw so many people playing combo renolock and failing so hard.. they just copied it..didn't even understand how it goes..
I just made a rombolock too.. didn't look at any list but made it from what I saw.. TBH the refining process is fun and also makes you understand the deck better(why do I even use this card?)
Anyway most archtype decks have the same core so like 25/30 of the cards are just part of the deck and you add those 5 tech cards.. that's how I see most decks published today..
For me it's been a while since I copied a full deck.. I started to tinker with the deck myself and the win rates are actually better than with copied decks..
Scientists don't start from scratch, why should you? After all, deck building is just experimentation.
Except most netdeckers don't even remotely bother to experiment. To put in layman's terms, scientists experiment and create stuff - pills for example. Then people just eat those pills up.
If you have a solid deck and think you 'designed' your deck, put it into the deck builder and you will find that you just arrived at the same conclusion others did before. Good decks are similar regardless of where they came from. 'Netdecking' is just a term used by novice players as an explanation for their losses. Deck doesn't matter a fraction as much as experience and skill.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Free to try and find a game, dealing cards for sorrow, cards for pain.
If you have a solid deck and think you 'designed' your deck, put it into the deck builder and you will find that you just arrived at the same conclusion others did before. Good decks are similar regardless of where they came from. 'Netdecking' is just a term used by novice players as an explanation for their losses. Deck doesn't matter a fraction as much as experience and skill.
Hmm...really? So then close your eyes and put together a random 30 cards, even if you the most skilled player to ever play you will fail hard.
Netdecks are out there complete with turn by turn guides, matchup info and strategy, and tons of streams with said decks being played by a pro/high level player. Piloting one of these to legend is laughably easy besides the time factor. Hell bots can take secret paladins to legend, these low level programs don't exactly have 'skill'.
Netdecking is equivalent to someone going to gamefaqs and using a complete walkthrough/secrets guide to beat a game. Yeah sure you beat it on your own merit, keep telling yourself that.
No it's not dishonourable, it's boring and unimaginative, to me, but I know other people play games for different reasons, so I can't criticise them.
But, using a top tier netdeck then bm-ing like you're some sort of great player, that's really d***ish (kinda like people who use the term 'white knight').
If you have a solid deck and think you 'designed' your deck, put it into the deck builder and you will find that you just arrived at the same conclusion others did before. Good decks are similar regardless of where they came from. 'Netdecking' is just a term used by novice players as an explanation for their losses. Deck doesn't matter a fraction as much as experience and skill.
Hmm...really? So then close your eyes and put together a random 30 cards, even if you the most skilled player to ever play you will fail hard.
Netdecks are out there complete with turn by turn guides, matchup info and strategy, and tons of streams with said decks being played by a pro/high level player. Piloting one of these to legend is laughably easy besides the time factor. Hell bots can take secret paladins to legend, these low level programs don't exactly have 'skill'.
Netdecking is equivalent to someone going to gamefaqs and using a complete walkthrough/secrets guide to beat a game. Yeah sure you beat it on your own merit, keep telling yourself that.
But even a guide can't explain what to do in every single situation. It gives you a general run down of how aggressive/conservative you should be, what cards to watch out for, good synergies, etc. but in the end it's still the player making most of the decisions.
Ogobum is completely right, even if you manage to build a deck that does well, chances are it will be very similar to some deck someone else has come up with up, for the simple reason that good cards get used and bad cards don't. There will be no competitive deck using Magma Rager, but there will be plenty using Knife Juggler. Now there are cases where a generally bad card can be used in a unique way to make it good, but given the simplicity of Hearthstone's mechanics this is far less likely to happen than in another game, like Magic.
Of course there are decks like Secret Paladin that basically play themselves, but there are also more difficult decks like Oil Rogue. Of course a bot can get legend with Secret Paladin but even then it takes a long time. But you'll never see a bot playing Oil Rogue to legend. Hell, most human players can't even get to rank 5 with Oil Rogue.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Its fangs are in your flesh before its hiss leaves your ears.
I'd add that, for me, there's all the difference in the world between picking a top tier deck on the one hand, and trying out an interesting, lower tier deck (say, Wailing Soul Druid, a Hobgoblin deck or a Dreadsteed deck) on the other. There's nothing wrong with trying other people's decks, it's copy and pasting the same easy-to-play, low skill s*** that winds me up - Secret Pally, Combo Druid, Tempo and Mech Mage (I play in Asia) every game I play. If you're playing Rogue or Priest I don't mind so much either.
Netdecking is an easy way to have good chances of being competitive in this game, there is nothing wrong with that, even if some people considere it dishonorable or another silly thing like that. But yeah, the fact that a lot of people use decks like Secret Paladin on ladder is annoying, but it is mostly Blizzard's fault in the end, you can not really blame players for wanting to win...
Is it dishonorable driving a car designed by someone else?
It is if you know how to desing a car and have all the materials.
IMO.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"As part of ongoing communication with the WoW developers, it has been agreed that Hearthstone is now the official source of WoW lore. We hope you look forward to seeing Ragnaros, Lightlord in Legion!"
Netdecking is pointless if you aren't actually good at the deck, so no. Deckbuilding is a different aspect of the game, one which will be pushed to the forefront with "Standard" but regardless netdecking is a part of any card game.
Wouldn't a world without net decking be a world with one person playing each deck? Honestly, most higher tier decks don't have many flex slots and for the most part decks build themselves. For insurance, you aren't going to find someone playing yeti instead of shredder, that would just be using a worse card in the four slot. And faulting sometime for playing the best cards of every class is foolish, druids will run combo, hunters run kill command and highmane, everyone runs boom. Playing decks that are 'original' usually means tossing the rules of deck building out the window, which can be fun and novel bit you certainly can't fault someone for wanting to be competitive and Pau decks with high success rates.
Scientists don't start from scratch, why should you? After all, deck building is just experimentation.
Except most netdeckers don't even remotely bother to experiment. To put in layman's terms, scientists experiment and create stuff - pills for example. Then people just eat those pills up.
That's what this is.
Not all scientists do original work. Some scientists do experients to prove or disprove other people's experiments so they can see if the original conclusion was correct. That would be like trying someone's deck to see if it really could get someone to legend or not.
The game is too saturated, and decks too small for it to be. Whose deck are you really using, when there are 30 "netdeck" lists with 1-3 card variations, and so many games being played that it's extremely rare for someone to get their "name" onto a deck? In old school CCGs you'd have 60 card decks, a larger card pool, and games only occurred at tournaments, in person, on weekends. Then it was more of a thing, since you actually could point to [well-known player] who played the deck that nobody had ever thought of before and did well at [major tournament], yet local meta could be so drastically different that the effectiveness could vary.
Netdecking is an easy way to have good chances of being competitive in this game, there is nothing wrong with that, even if some people considere it dishonorable or another silly thing like that. But yeah, the fact that a lot of people use decks like Secret Paladin on ladder is annoying, but it is mostly Blizzard's fault in the end, you can not really blame players for wanting to win...
How is it even possible to netdeck secret paladin? The deck builds itself, ~33% of the deck is just secrets and challengers, and there are at least 10 auto-includes that pretty much anyone would not even hesitate to include in the deck. That leaves a handful of slots left, and its not like you need Google to know that boom is better than war golem.
Same goes for druid. These decks are endemic because there are no other viable choices. Anyone who can read and plays more than 15 games with a decent collection size is going to arrive at more or less the same deck.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Netdecking is a proof that you aren't experienced enough to create your own decks or/and to adapt to the metagame.
According to this statement, on one hand, not being experienced enough is not shameful.
For instance, my experience with some classes or even decks may be really bad. Thus I don't feel legitimate and I often just try others lists, only modifying often one or two cards.
Netdecking becomes a problem when experienced players do it.
I mean, being a good player doesn't only rely on your ability to do efficient plays.
It also relies on your understanding of the game.
And I would, by extent, say that your ability to play efficiently relies on your understanding of the game.
And the way you understand the game comes from different things:
1° The time you spend playing seriously.
2° What you read, watch and listen to.
3° Your ability to see the flaws in your deck-list and to remedy these flaws.
This is not a mystery that good to excellent players are also good to excellent deck-builders.
Actually deck-builders (I mean, the one creating serious stuff that matter in the metagame) are really few, and I can't consider myself as a deck-builder, but I'm more like a deck "dimmer".
And I would feel really bad if I had to netdeck for Priest, Mage, Druid or Paladin, for instance, because it would mean that my understanding of these classes isn't broad enough to reshape what others have done.
IS NETDECKING DISHONORABLE?
IS IRONBEAK OWL OVERPOWERED?
FIND OUT THIS WEEK ON HEARTHPWN.COM!
On one hand I think that a deck on the internet is way more refined than anything I would make the person who posted it probably played the deck countless times.. but on the other hand copying a deck isn't like knowing how to play it.. I saw so many people playing combo renolock and failing so hard.. they just copied it..didn't even understand how it goes..
I just made a rombolock too.. didn't look at any list but made it from what I saw.. TBH the refining process is fun and also makes you understand the deck better(why do I even use this card?)
Anyway most archtype decks have the same core so like 25/30 of the cards are just part of the deck and you add those 5 tech cards.. that's how I see most decks published today..
For me it's been a while since I copied a full deck.. I started to tinker with the deck myself and the win rates are actually better than with copied decks..
That's what this is.
If you have a solid deck and think you 'designed' your deck, put it into the deck builder and you will find that you just arrived at the same conclusion others did before. Good decks are similar regardless of where they came from. 'Netdecking' is just a term used by novice players as an explanation for their losses. Deck doesn't matter a fraction as much as experience and skill.
Free to try and find a game, dealing cards for sorrow, cards for pain.
No it's not dishonourable, it's boring and unimaginative, to me, but I know other people play games for different reasons, so I can't criticise them.
But, using a top tier netdeck then bm-ing like you're some sort of great player, that's really d***ish (kinda like people who use the term 'white knight').
Its fangs are in your flesh before its hiss leaves your ears.
Golden Heroes: Druid -> Rogue -> Shaman -> Hunter -> Warlock
No.
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
I'd add that, for me, there's all the difference in the world between picking a top tier deck on the one hand, and trying out an interesting, lower tier deck (say, Wailing Soul Druid, a Hobgoblin deck or a Dreadsteed deck) on the other. There's nothing wrong with trying other people's decks, it's copy and pasting the same easy-to-play, low skill s*** that winds me up - Secret Pally, Combo Druid, Tempo and Mech Mage (I play in Asia) every game I play. If you're playing Rogue or Priest I don't mind so much either.
Netdecking is an easy way to have good chances of being competitive in this game, there is nothing wrong with that, even if some people considere it dishonorable or another silly thing like that. But yeah, the fact that a lot of people use decks like Secret Paladin on ladder is annoying, but it is mostly Blizzard's fault in the end, you can not really blame players for wanting to win...
I honorable Japanese samurai. Net deck dishonor family. Arigato gozimasu.
Netdecking is pointless if you aren't actually good at the deck, so no. Deckbuilding is a different aspect of the game, one which will be pushed to the forefront with "Standard" but regardless netdecking is a part of any card game.
Wouldn't a world without net decking be a world with one person playing each deck? Honestly, most higher tier decks don't have many flex slots and for the most part decks build themselves. For insurance, you aren't going to find someone playing yeti instead of shredder, that would just be using a worse card in the four slot. And faulting sometime for playing the best cards of every class is foolish, druids will run combo, hunters run kill command and highmane, everyone runs boom. Playing decks that are 'original' usually means tossing the rules of deck building out the window, which can be fun and novel bit you certainly can't fault someone for wanting to be competitive and Pau decks with high success rates.
The game is too saturated, and decks too small for it to be. Whose deck are you really using, when there are 30 "netdeck" lists with 1-3 card variations, and so many games being played that it's extremely rare for someone to get their "name" onto a deck? In old school CCGs you'd have 60 card decks, a larger card pool, and games only occurred at tournaments, in person, on weekends. Then it was more of a thing, since you actually could point to [well-known player] who played the deck that nobody had ever thought of before and did well at [major tournament], yet local meta could be so drastically different that the effectiveness could vary.
CCGing since '98.
You... You wanna buy a funnel cake?
How is it even possible to netdeck secret paladin? The deck builds itself, ~33% of the deck is just secrets and challengers, and there are at least 10 auto-includes that pretty much anyone would not even hesitate to include in the deck. That leaves a handful of slots left, and its not like you need Google to know that boom is better than war golem.
Same goes for druid. These decks are endemic because there are no other viable choices. Anyone who can read and plays more than 15 games with a decent collection size is going to arrive at more or less the same deck.