I read your OP and responses and it's funny how ignorant you are. You act like you don't understand why people don't like your arguement when your original post calls players cancers and the you proceed to insult people further. Icing on the cake is you brag about your humble efforts in creating your own successful decks you just "threw" together.
Most of what you claimed sir has no originality and your OP and and lure title just stink of a MEME thread.
You are why I believe and many others have stated the reason why HS has such a toxic community.
I do agree. As much as you want to win, sometimes it's worth playing something that won't always win just to have a good time, for me that's my secret mage. Trying something different makes your oponent's day a little brighter, even if it means you lose for it, which I'm fine with.
Kinda reminds me of the saying in my MTG group. "If you netdeck, you give us permission to punch you".
I think one of the issues at hand is that ranked mode incentivizes winning above all else. If the goal wasn't to essentially "win the most games in the least amount of time" then you'd see more variety. If the rewards for playing ranked weren't strictly tied to that goal you'd find people more willing to play whatever was most enjoyable for them. Sure, winning will always be tied to it in some regard since no one likes to lose all the time, but I think people would be less likely to just google up a deck and copy it to win as fast as they could in an alternate scenario. I don't claim to have an answer as to how to solve this dilemma, but I'm just pointing out that this is the root of the OP's issue.
There are two problems that work in parallel. Power and perception. Blizzard recently made a statement that Shaman decks were too popular, but that they weren't particularly overpowered. There are also three different types of Shaman deck that all seem similar because of their congruent early game. This leads to two different types of compounded perception problems that are unhealthy for the game, even though the decks in question are "fine".
This is obviously a flaw in the game design.
The other problem is power. In this case simply another annoying flavor of aggro which has cropped up under nearly every single expansion, because Hearthstone is designed to be an aggro game. The main problem is that in an aggro vs aggro matchup, the faster aggro deck wins. Which means that aggro decks are quickly solved to be as fast as possible UNLESS there is a metagame check on one element or another to that acceleration process.
For example, some aggro decks are good against heals, but others are good against taunts. It's difficult to handle both and still accelerate. So if you have a metagame that features decks with both taunts and heals, you get a diverse set of aggro decks that are very good against one or the other, or slow down into midrange decks. Having midrange decks in the meta changes the calculus of both aggro and control and you end up with a diverse and satisfying metagame. Obviously, right now this isn't happening.
I read your OP and responses and it's funny how ignorant you are. You act like you don't understand why people don't like your arguement when your original post calls players cancers and the you proceed to insult people further. Icing on the cake is you brag about your humble efforts in creating your own successful decks you just "threw" together.
Most of what you claimed sir has no originality and your OP and and lure title just stink of a MEME thread.
You are why I believe and many others have stated the reason why HS has such a toxic community.
I find it funny how offended you are when I don't recall specifying any people in particular or even any decks. I used Pirate warrior and aggro shaman because they are the current "cancer decks" but any deck that was popular was at one point called cancer. It isn't the deck itself that is cancerous it is the millions of players who play it constantly that make it cancer.
Maybe I should have worded it better but my homebrew decks are certainly not "thrown together" and the point is not to brag but to show people the tiny difference in a tier 1 deck and a tier 3 decks. IEatAnimals hits the nail directly on the head when they talk about the difference in actual deck power vs perceived deck power. People look at pirate warrior and think "oh I can never beat that I better play pirate warrior too" when the reality is pirate warrior only has like a 55-60% win rate. If more people played "garbage decks" with their measly 52% win rate the game would be more fun for everyone and it would only cost a few games a month.
every deck is the same. Only retard & brainless rich kid keep saying xxx deck cancer. They cannot play 30 legendary brainless deck or gimmick home brew deck (ie OTK priest, burglar rogue etc) or DW learn to play .They just keep spam salt threads here.
this games 90% RNG . Very low skill cap. You can be decent in 1 month. then All the deck are same.
don't tell me control vs control.= skill, or less cancer. the same thing happen. you can ask the experience reno player. what decide the games at the end. few example: One guy draw the perfect hand, end games in turn 6 with 3x 8-8 giant in board. Another guy get carry by Kazakus discover RNG(resurrect 3 high cost minion). Another guy dirty rat pull out Reno in 1 out of 5 chance. is that skill? maybe 10% for card playing order, trading, count for lethal etc.
and jade druid also hard counter control but less ppl complain here because they like to play greedy ramp druid. Anything change on druid may make the ramp druid become even worst.
F2P much? Make "30 legendary brainless deck" that can at least somehow survive against that "top kek tier 1" face crap the ladder is filled with before repeating it in every 2nd post.
As somebody already mentioned in this thread, some people prefer variety over SMOrcRate. At the beginning of the season at the some point i had a terrible hangover so i've pulled together some wild pee-rate warrior and went from rank 25 to 13 in one win streak, hardly paying any attention to the process. The deck was so fun and entertaining i haven't touched it since then. Much skeal, my ass.
Hearthstone seems to badly need some sort of balancing between different play styles/deck archetypes, like the runes in Elder Scrolls.
I read your OP and responses and it's funny how ignorant you are. You act like you don't understand why people don't like your arguement when your original post calls players cancers and the you proceed to insult people further. Icing on the cake is you brag about your humble efforts in creating your own successful decks you just "threw" together.
Most of what you claimed sir has no originality and your OP and and lure title just stink of a MEME thread.
You are why I believe and many others have stated the reason why HS has such a toxic community.
I find it funny how offended you are when I don't recall specifying any people in particular or even any decks. I used Pirate warrior and aggro shaman because they are the current "cancer decks" but any deck that was popular was at one point called cancer. It isn't the deck itself that is cancerous it is the millions of players who play it constantly that make it cancer.
Maybe I should have worded it better but my homebrew decks are certainly not "thrown together" and the point is not to brag but to show people the tiny difference in a tier 1 deck and a tier 3 decks. IEatAnimals hits the nail directly on the head when they talk about the difference in actual deck power vs perceived deck power. People look at pirate warrior and think "oh I can never beat that I better play pirate warrior too" when the reality is pirate warrior only has like a 55-60% win rate. If more people played "garbage decks" with their measly 52% win rate the game would be more fun for everyone and it would only cost a few games a month.
I'm personally not offended. I'm saying your arguement falls flat the second you lead with insulting others and placing yourself as the better.
You should try telling some pros they'd have more fun with subpar decks. Maybe everyone should start getting participation legendary card back for trying? Sounds like your entitled as they come.
I took highlander preist (without Reno) to rank 3 last month and had a blast. While you make some good points your still a dick in the way you present and reinforce your weak arguments. And thusly your part of the problem with the HS community, which was my point.
It would be a decent game without Reno. People would start playing mid range again. Because you could actually pull out a win knowing that your opponent isn't going to Ice Block then Reno Jackson anytime he wants basically.
As long as you are comfortable using the word "netdeck" as a pejorative, your ability to criticize the game, the meta, or the players in any serious, respectable way is compromised.
Any deck you care to dream up with your magical, unique creativity is already listed on this site with a variance of no more than five cards, unless you are specifically trying to build a deck that's terrible. (And there are many of those here, as well.)
I don't know about other people, but I only consider a deck "cancer" if it is bad for the game. It doesn't matter how popular the deck is or how powerful it is, just how healthy it is for the game.
Aggro wouldn't be so prevalent. You wouldn't need aggro so much because Turn 6 isn't as big a deal. You might even see more Hunter decks.
Complete bs, no offense. During patron era (well before reno even existed) face hunter was one of the most played deck of that time. During classic era murloc warlock was one of the most played deck of that time. Reno is completly irrilevant as far aggro is concerned, that's just an excuse.
You basically replaced Reno with Patron in your argument, hence the BS does not hold water.
I believe Brann + Kazakus is a very large cancer right now. Being able to sheep the whole board, maybe twice, and resummoning 3/2 friendly minions, which again embraces RNGesus ( praying not to rez doomsayer, mistress of mixtures, or ooze). If I a making a deck, I always think about 2 things:
- Will I be able to live against aggro decks ( which also depends on good draws)
- Will I be able to do anything against a kazakus - combo?
Many will disaggree, but I think N'Zoth decks are kind of dead right now, just because once you play a deathrattle minion, they will fish for their mass sheep. Warlock also has really strong boardclears, and mage can have up to 4 Kaza potions.
A few week before, I was the same as you, and I still am really disgusted with these pirates, but we always had control decks to possibly outlive them. Now we have jade decks, which is very likely to outvalue them, and Kazakus decks, to destroy their plans, and most likely swing tempo / value to their sides.
I agree with Kazakus being a bit too op they need to remove the polymorph option it limits so many decks
like anyfin, c'thun, and nzoth
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
@mr butts
I read your OP and responses and it's funny how ignorant you are. You act like you don't understand why people don't like your arguement when your original post calls players cancers and the you proceed to insult people further. Icing on the cake is you brag about your humble efforts in creating your own successful decks you just "threw" together.
Most of what you claimed sir has no originality and your OP and and lure title just stink of a MEME thread.
You are why I believe and many others have stated the reason why HS has such a toxic community.
I concur.!
Just Another Legend Player#Kappa
People are allowed to play whatever the fuck they want. We are all playing by the same rules.
I do agree. As much as you want to win, sometimes it's worth playing something that won't always win just to have a good time, for me that's my secret mage. Trying something different makes your oponent's day a little brighter, even if it means you lose for it, which I'm fine with.
Kinda reminds me of the saying in my MTG group. "If you netdeck, you give us permission to punch you".
The Nexus comes to the Inn with my set of Heroes of the Storm Legendaries!
I think one of the issues at hand is that ranked mode incentivizes winning above all else. If the goal wasn't to essentially "win the most games in the least amount of time" then you'd see more variety. If the rewards for playing ranked weren't strictly tied to that goal you'd find people more willing to play whatever was most enjoyable for them. Sure, winning will always be tied to it in some regard since no one likes to lose all the time, but I think people would be less likely to just google up a deck and copy it to win as fast as they could in an alternate scenario. I don't claim to have an answer as to how to solve this dilemma, but I'm just pointing out that this is the root of the OP's issue.
So is this forum just "Group therapy! Need to blow off steam? Mega salty? Here is the place!" with a different name?
There are two problems that work in parallel. Power and perception. Blizzard recently made a statement that Shaman decks were too popular, but that they weren't particularly overpowered. There are also three different types of Shaman deck that all seem similar because of their congruent early game. This leads to two different types of compounded perception problems that are unhealthy for the game, even though the decks in question are "fine".
This is obviously a flaw in the game design.
The other problem is power. In this case simply another annoying flavor of aggro which has cropped up under nearly every single expansion, because Hearthstone is designed to be an aggro game. The main problem is that in an aggro vs aggro matchup, the faster aggro deck wins. Which means that aggro decks are quickly solved to be as fast as possible UNLESS there is a metagame check on one element or another to that acceleration process.
For example, some aggro decks are good against heals, but others are good against taunts. It's difficult to handle both and still accelerate. So if you have a metagame that features decks with both taunts and heals, you get a diverse set of aggro decks that are very good against one or the other, or slow down into midrange decks. Having midrange decks in the meta changes the calculus of both aggro and control and you end up with a diverse and satisfying metagame. Obviously, right now this isn't happening.
Which is obviously a design flaw in the game.
Keep calm and use your hero power
I differentiate between different kinds of cancer decks:
1. Decks that are ridiculously strong compared to how hard it is to do well with them. Aggro shaman, jade shaman, pirate warrior, secret paladin etc.
2. Face decks. Aggro shaman, pirate warrior again
3. OTK decks: Freeze mage (although that's dead), anyfin paladin
Fuck cubelock
My Youtube Channel
https://www.youtube.com/c/philwasted
My Youtube Channel
https://www.youtube.com/c/philwasted
As long as you are comfortable using the word "netdeck" as a pejorative, your ability to criticize the game, the meta, or the players in any serious, respectable way is compromised.
Any deck you care to dream up with your magical, unique creativity is already listed on this site with a variance of no more than five cards, unless you are specifically trying to build a deck that's terrible. (And there are many of those here, as well.)
"Why, you never expected justice from a company, did you? They have neither a soul to lose nor a body to kick." -- Lady Saba Holland
I don't know about other people, but I only consider a deck "cancer" if it is bad for the game. It doesn't matter how popular the deck is or how powerful it is, just how healthy it is for the game.