How, EXACTLY, would you define 'off-meta'? If Razakus is meta and you swapped out one card at a time with a basic card, at what point is it 'off meta'? If your Razakaus deck doesn't have DFP, is not Razakus? If you take 29 basic (different) cards and add Raza, is it Razakus? Furthermore, how do you account for tech cards? Different versions of basically the same deck?
Accordingly, it's when Raz is removed.
I've heard the theory before. The idea is that you don't judge the deck directly but instead judge indivdiual cards based on their usage and win rates plopped into some kind of formula to judge how 'meta' the card is. Decks simply then become an average of the cards chosen then compared with other decks.
Thus the more often the cards you use are used often and for high wins, the more 'meta' the cards cause your deck. This DOES mean you can simply swap, say, Raz and Kaz out of your priest deck, keep the rest of the deck then BOOM off-meta but..well...
then you're deck isn't a Raza deck. It's a very *VERY* poor quality singleton deck with a batch of low win rate cards. Same goes for if you play pirates without patches: suddenly you have a bad pirate deck people didn't care to use before Mean Streets.
The theory is that people really aren't bothered by netdecks. What they are really bothered by are repeat cards that are key to particular decks. Thus why we would have a ton of different variations and classes during mean streets but no one cared because every deck was either a "Patches" deck, a "Reno" deck, or a "Jade" deck. This is the lesson Blizzard found when their stats, which suggested a healthy, unoppressive, diverse meta was deemed the stalest meta ever and was killing the game.
The theory takes that to the full conclusion: If the problem isn't so much aggro as it is "OMG pirate into patches followed by Creeper AGAIN!", not so much priest as it is "Raza into Anduin.. again!" then if you remove Patches, Creeper, Raza, and Anduin you will end up with a much more interesting meta.
And the part that brings me to consider it: as a new mode.. as in not Ranked. I think it'll make an interesting mode, perhaps replacing (not)Casual that, say, puts your growth as MMR with a reduction based on 'metaness' (or whatever word you want to use). You're told, as you make the deck, how 'meta' the cards are and the deck is as a whole is so you can swap cards and not be surprised as to what you'll get. It would also be based on real time stats so it'll constantly be shifting as the players move from preferred cards to preferred cards. It's not meant to be "OMG always off-meta decks!" since you COULD just swap out of Raza when it's popular then swap in Raza when everyone moves out. But the idea is that you have to keep riding the 'wave' to keep up and keep growing.
You're told, as you make the deck, how 'meta' the cards are and the deck is as a whole is so you can swap cards and not be surprised as to what you'll get
Yep, simple green/red light for non-meta/meta will do the work. Of course no one stops you from playing a meta deck - this mode just allow those who love experimenting and deck building to do it on a larger scale stimulated by the mode itself, not demotivated by the same combos you see all day every day.
How, EXACTLY, would you define 'off-meta'? If Razakus is meta and you swapped out one card at a time with a basic card, at what point is it 'off meta'? If your Razakaus deck doesn't have DFP, is not Razakus? If you take 29 basic (different) cards and add Raza, is it Razakus? Furthermore, how do you account for tech cards? Different versions of basically the same deck?
Accordingly, it's when Raz is removed.
I've heard the theory before. The idea is that you don't judge the deck directly but instead judge indivdiual cards based on their usage and win rates plopped into some kind of formula to judge how 'meta' the card is. Decks simply then become an average of the cards chosen then compared with other decks.
Thus the more often the cards you use are used often and for high wins, the more 'meta' the cards cause your deck. This DOES mean you can simply swap, say, Raz and Kaz out of your priest deck, keep the rest of the deck then BOOM off-meta but..well...
then you're deck isn't a Raza deck. It's a very *VERY* poor quality singleton deck with a batch of low win rate cards. Same goes for if you play pirates without patches: suddenly you have a bad pirate deck people didn't care to use before Mean Streets.
The theory is that people really aren't bothered by netdecks. What they are really bothered by are repeat cards that are key to particular decks. Thus why we would have a ton of different variations and classes during mean streets but no one cared because every deck was either a "Patches" deck, a "Reno" deck, or a "Jade" deck. This is the lesson Blizzard found when their stats, which suggested a healthy, unoppressive, diverse meta was deemed the stalest meta ever and was killing the game.
The theory takes that to the full conclusion: If the problem isn't so much aggro as it is "OMG pirate into patches followed by Creeper AGAIN!", not so much priest as it is "Raza into Anduin.. again!" then if you remove Patches, Creeper, Raza, and Anduin you will end up with a much more interesting meta.
And the part that brings me to consider it: as a new mode.. as in not Ranked. I think it'll make an interesting mode, perhaps replacing (not)Casual that, say, puts your growth as MMR with a reduction based on 'metaness' (or whatever word you want to use). You're told, as you make the deck, how 'meta' the cards are and the deck is as a whole is so you can swap cards and not be surprised as to what you'll get. It would also be based on real time stats so it'll constantly be shifting as the players move from preferred cards to preferred cards. It's not meant to be "OMG always off-meta decks!" since you COULD just swap out of Raza when it's popular then swap in Raza when everyone moves out. But the idea is that you have to keep riding the 'wave' to keep up and keep growing.
I think it'll be interesting as a different mode.
So under your system, any deck that includes Raza is automatically labeled as "Razakus" and banned?
That seems like a stretch.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life before death. Strength before weakness. Journey before destination.
Depends whether Raza alone is a deal breaker. He explained it well. And the system is dynamic, so if a small number of people make Raza deck + 29 non-meta cards, your deck should NOT be marked as meta. I have no idea what is so hard to understand.
Their improved ladder system coming in March needs some spicy additions like the suggestion in this thread. Let's hope they implement something like this after 2-3 years (depending how their testing goes kappa).
Meta is anything that is the most efficient at winning, end of story. You could ban 1 or 100 cards and after the dust settled you would find someone patching together a clown deck of mismatched stuff that would be the most efficient with what we would have available.
Of course you can't. What you can do is match non-meta decks with other non-meta decks and give the players the freedom to choose whether they want to play a meta deck or not. Right now climbing with non-meta deck is extremely hard and not possible for the majority of players.
Of course you can't. What you can do is match non-meta decks with other non-meta decks and give the players the freedom to choose whether they want to play a meta deck or not. Right now climbing with non-meta deck is extremely hard and not possible for the majority of players.
I get that there should be a place where People with very incomplete collections are able to play bad/whacky decks and have a shot at winning the game. But I think this can only be a mode where you cannot earn any rewards to make winning as unnecessary as possible.
But why should someone be able to climb ladder with a competetively bad deck? That kind of completely contradicts the purpose of ladder.
Of course you can't. What you can do is match non-meta decks with other non-meta decks and give the players the freedom to choose whether they want to play a meta deck or not. Right now climbing with non-meta deck is extremely hard and not possible for the majority of players.
and how would you propose to make the algorithm detecting a deck as a meta deck ?
This has been explained in the OP dude, and twice more in the thread.
Of course you can't. What you can do is match non-meta decks with other non-meta decks and give the players the freedom to choose whether they want to play a meta deck or not. Right now climbing with non-meta deck is extremely hard and not possible for the majority of players.
But why should someone be able to climb ladder with a competetively bad deck?
Define bad deck, please. There are not bad and good decks in the game. There are just meta and off-meta decks.
I find it far more enjoyable to look for creative new solutions with cards that are strong, but maybe a little underappreciated like Lynessa. Check out my 8 minute video if your interested to see! :)
Of course you can't. What you can do is match non-meta decks with other non-meta decks and give the players the freedom to choose whether they want to play a meta deck or not. Right now climbing with non-meta deck is extremely hard and not possible for the majority of players.
But why should someone be able to climb ladder with a competetively bad deck?
Define bad deck, please. There are not bad and good decks in the game. There are just meta and off-meta decks.
You can call them what you want, but I think it is pretty clear what I mean with "competetively bad deck". Good decks are meta decks and bad decks are what you call off meta decks. Compared to meta decks, your off-meta decks are performing poorly. Otherwise you wouldn't be complaining about meeting "meta-decks" with them.
If you have a suboptimally working deck, you shouldn't be able to climb. Period. What you should be able to Play it possibly successfully in a non-competetive envirenment (which is also only rarely possible at present and which is a problem).
Edit: And there is another issue with your idea: A good player will study the meta and then try to counter the most common decks by building something new or newish. Such a counter could then not meet ist Prey, because it would likely be an "off-meta" deck making it impossible to target meta decks with something new.
Of course you can't. What you can do is match non-meta decks with other non-meta decks and give the players the freedom to choose whether they want to play a meta deck or not. Right now climbing with non-meta deck is extremely hard and not possible for the majority of players.
But why should someone be able to climb ladder with a competetively bad deck?
Define bad deck, please. There are not bad and good decks in the game. There are just meta and off-meta decks.
You can call them what you want, but I think it is pretty clear what I mean with "competetively bad deck". Good decks are meta decks and bad decks are what you call off meta decks. Compared to meta decks, your off-meta decks are performing poorly. Otherwise you wouldn't be complaining about meeting "meta-decks" with them.
Ok, so your question becomes: "But why should someone be able to climb ladder with an off-meta deck?"
There are numerous reasons for this:
- Deck building/experimenting is valued a lot more
- Games will be a lot more fun since you won't see the same boring decks 24/7
- Most HS cards become used instead of the 150-200 used in meta decks
In the end please note that this thread does NOT have the intention to devalue META play, it simply has the intention to stimulate NON-META play.
They are all not reasons for enabling People to climb ladder with competetively bad decks. Bad decks shouldn't be able to climb, since then you do not have a copmpetetive environment and devalue getting to the top of the ladder. Plus the issue I emntioned in my edit of generating difficulties to counter the meta with (at that time) off meta decks.
In casual, that could work, in ranked, it is a stupid idea,
All you really need is the card ban option. Give me that in a true casual mode and I can ban my least favourite meta decks by selecting about 5 cards (Shadowreaper, Jade Idol, Explosive Runes, Patches & Doomguard).
Oh and this post is a fine idea. Those arguing otherwise are the ones whining, stfu and stop telling every slightly negative post to go to the salt thread you sound like children.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
Kaladin's RoS Set Review
Join me at Out of Cards!
Depends whether Raza alone is a deal breaker. He explained it well. And the system is dynamic, so if a small number of people make Raza deck + 29 non-meta cards, your deck should NOT be marked as meta. I have no idea what is so hard to understand.
Their improved ladder system coming in March needs some spicy additions like the suggestion in this thread. Let's hope they implement something like this after 2-3 years (depending how their testing goes kappa).
Meta is anything that is the most efficient at winning, end of story. You could ban 1 or 100 cards and after the dust settled you would find someone patching together a clown deck of mismatched stuff that would be the most efficient with what we would have available.
You can't prevent metas from forming.
I find it far more enjoyable to look for creative new solutions with cards that are strong, but maybe a little underappreciated like Lynessa. Check out my 8 minute video if your interested to see! :)
They are all not reasons for enabling People to climb ladder with competetively bad decks. Bad decks shouldn't be able to climb, since then you do not have a copmpetetive environment and devalue getting to the top of the ladder. Plus the issue I emntioned in my edit of generating difficulties to counter the meta with (at that time) off meta decks.
In casual, that could work, in ranked, it is a stupid idea,
I disagree, they are.
Then you have no clue what the ladder is for.
Which ladder? The good decks ladder?
All you really need is the card ban option. Give me that in a true casual mode and I can ban my least favourite meta decks by selecting about 5 cards (Shadowreaper, Jade Idol, Explosive Runes, Patches & Doomguard).
Oh and this post is a fine idea. Those arguing otherwise are the ones whining, stfu and stop telling every slightly negative post to go to the salt thread you sound like children.