So, the new Ranked system hit the game. People were expecting changes.
Of course there are changes. But not in the player experience.
So, after not playing standard ranked for two season I am still only rank 18 after a handful games. There is practically no difference between rank 20 and legend. You see the same decks, rarely a newbie deck. Of course it is extremely unhealthy for this game. Even though those players are playing wose, because they are low rank because they suck or they just haven't played, like me.
I am able to adapt my tactics and beat those bad players. The experience for other players is destroying as I experienced from friends.
Do you have a solution in mind how to fix this?
This is something that accured since standard was put into the game. I celebrated it first but I think it is the worst that could happen to the game right now. But removing standard won't change a damn thing now.
Maybe it would be less frustrating to those if there were more safety steps while laddering, maybe for each rank? Would it make a big difference? No one really loses multiple ranks while ranking. I don't think something like this would be bad for the game, as the direction is clear as fuck the devs take -> Casual.
I think there are many possible solutions, and one less likely to happen than the other.
Netdecking by itself is not that big of a problem, but can be problematic in a few ways. If the difference in power between netdecks and others is too big, it will push players into playing netdecks, of course. This enforces a very competitive environment where many decks and cards are pushed out of the game. If netecks are also very expensive, it also forces many players, especially new players, out of the game as well. If only netdecks are playable because of their clear advantages over any other decks, there is even less room for "having fun" and it makes it a whole lot harder for players to get started or stay in the game. Also, if any alternative cards and decks are just as expensive and players have to go with limited resources, they can only have either a strong deck or a weak deck, any they have no incentive to go for the weak deck.
Most of this is true to Hearthstone, and there is the actual reason why netdecking is problematic. The powerlevel of the best decks has gone up massively over the last couple expansions, with big pushes in MSG, KFT and somewhat in KnC as well. The cost of most strong decks has gone up significantly as well, with many decks costing something well over 5k. The high cost and the rough start of the game has put new players in a position where they either drop out or adapt as fast as possible, and because of the first point, they are pretty much forced to craft a deck that can compete. And because this has been going on for quite a while now, even the lower ranks from 20-15 are seemingly full of veterans. You won't see many players playing odd cards or decks, because they either spend all their dust crafting that Murloc Paladin, or they just dropped out of the game.
Of course, I'm being a bit hyperbolic here. The reality is not THAT bad, but you get the idea. Decks are generally pretty expensive, the game itself is very expensive, there is not much wiggle room if you just want to try things out and have fun since you are likely to get run over if you do so, so a lot of players are pushed to play the same decks everyone else is playing. And even if you wanted to have fun, you'd still have to spend a lot of dust that you might as well put into a netdeck that gives you a chance. That's why you see the same decks again and again and grow tired of them.
For a solution, you could consider a number of different strategies. One option would be to go for a different approach in design philosophy. Make the "good" cards just slightly better than the "bad" cards, by giving them advantages with clear downsides; unlike what Hearthstone is doing with a large portion of each set, where the "bad" cards are oftentimes just outright unplayable. This would mean that even if you play something else, you still have a decent chance of winning. In the end, it is still very likely that one or two decks will have a higher winrate than any other deck, but if other decks are not much, much worse, they will still be interesting alternatives, if only for the sake of playing a different class or a different decktype to mix things up. And if small tech choices can shake this balance up even mid season, you have a metagame where the tierlists become a lot less meaningful and players are much more encouraged to try out different things. Another option would be to reduce the costs. There are two ways you can do this. Either give all players the resources to play all the decks, which would not help the lack of diversity nor encourage creativity; it would not eliminate netdecking, just make it less problematic. Or you just reduce the importance of higher rarity cards. If the best decks, be they control or aggro, cost, lets's say, 1.5-3k instead of 6-8k, it won't feel like such a heavy investment to build one deck that also has to be one of the strongest. Doing this, players will have the resources to build many different decks and try out different things instead of going all in on the best deck they can get. Whatever you go with, this would of course produce better results if the last point I made is considered as well. Ideally, I cannot just craft many different decks, I will also feel like playing all these different decks because they are not much worse and in return have unique properties I would like to make use of.
There are certainly other changes one could consider as well, but any of them are unlikely to happen. Of course, most are harder to do in practice than in theory. They might sound simple on paper but are no doubt complicated to execute, and I think, whatever solution you go with, you could not expect fast results. Either way, Blizzard has shown little interest so far in addressing this anyway. They are more concerned that Standard stays "fresh" instead of improving the playing experience overall, for which netdecking is a serious problem. From what I can recall, they have not even once addressed netdecking as an issue, or any of the problems related to it that I just listed.
Of course, the competitive scene will always be just that. What makes it so frustrating in Hearthstone to me at least, is that it emcompasses even the parts of the game that are not really supposed to be on that level. If it feels like there is little to no difference between rank 20-15 and rank 5-legend aside from player competence, something is a bit wrong.
So, yes, I think there are ways to solve this problem. I just don't think it's gonna happen.
What many don't want to accept is that netdecking is beginner-level and actually constructing your own deck is expert-level, not the other way around. For each and every netdeck, there was a time before it was a netdeck where someone made the list themselves. The people who made those decks were fast and accurate, and you are not. Their choices beat your choices and the number of choices that beat their choices are quickly exposed by deck tweakers who, again, are faster and more accurate than you.
This is only a problem if you are trying to be something you're unqualified to be. You are allowed to simply copy their work, and if you're not an expert you should do precisely that. So basically, if your rank isn't Legend, you should probably be netdecking.
I don't get where people get the arrogance to believe that, despite clear indications that their piloting ability is a tier or more below ideal, that they have some kind of entitlement to design decks that get good results. Wrong. Proving your mettle as a pilot is what indicates that you have what it takes to design decks that perform well. For those who make it to the top, tweaking decks to metagame shifts can be the winning play. But not at Rank 20, or even at Rank 5.
This is a game where choices (usually) matter. You want to be able to have your incorrect choices yield positive results. This isn't going to happen, ever. The closest you could hope for is a metagame where a surprisingly large number of decks constitute Tier 1 such that the variety among netdecks provides you with a variety of decks to compete against; however, the end result of even a healthy but stagnated meta is, at best, a population-skewed version of paper-rock-scissors with perhaps some internal complexity (for instance, a five deck metagame where there are three different "Paper" decks, one "Rock" and one "Scissors," and the Paper decks have a PRS relationship within themselves), and thus there is only the reasonable expectation of all nine classes being viable with 3 viable archetypes per class if the devs somehow are brilliant enough to create a PRS meta where each of the three broader categories "inception" into PRS which then each "inception" into PRS again, which is not one or two but three full layers deep. Frankly, Blizzard isn't that good and probably never will be — and I can't blame them, because I certainly am not either.
Only solution for real new players to have somewhat a chance is an Basic set only mode in my opinion.
So at least you can do your quests and win some games as long as you build up your collection as a new player.
Also OP should give new ladder mode some time after 1-2 month most netdeck players that play at least a bit will be rank 9 start of season and new players can be around 25-10.
What many don't want to accept is that netdecking is beginner-level and actually constructing your own deck is expert-level, not the other way around. [...] This is only a problem if you are trying to be something you're unqualified to be. You are allowed to simply copy their work, and if you're not an expert you should do precisely that. So basically, if your rank isn't Legend, you should probably be netdecking.
I don't get where people get the arrogance to believe that, despite clear indications that their piloting ability is a tier or more below ideal, that they have some kind of entitlement to design decks that get good results.
Wow!... I am really struggling to not get insulting here.
I mean, your first sentence kind of makes sense. Naturally, an inexperienced player is better off going by what more experienced players recommend them. If you want good results, you might as well try out what other people had success with. Coming up with a working formula on your own is certainly more difficult. You got that right, though I don't think anybody really claimed otherwise. So, I think most people will actually "accept" that. I mean, that's just common sense or at least a lesson players will usually learn within their first few weeks.
Apparently you think, I don't know why, that somebody is expecting or even demanding that their shitty deck works out. Maybe you think, only the "professional" decks work, and nothing would ever change that, so declaring netdecking as problematic goes against that one decent point you made in your first sentence. Meaning, if I oppose netdecking, I would "demand" that my own deck should do just as well, and that is unrealistic because I lack the proper "qualification".
But that completely misses the point here. Nobody "demands" that their bad decks work. People usually know their decks are bad. But they are sick of seeing the same handful of decks everywhere in the game, even on ranks where they should not be as prevalent as they are, thus having no other option but playing "good" decks. Why that is a problem and what it stems from, I have outlined in my last posting, along with possible solutions to it. I still aknowledge that some decks will always end up having a better winrate than all the others, but ideally, they only do so in a given environment, without being so overly strong they can be considered as universally better, instead of contextually. Those who are good at deckbuilding will of course be those who know how to find a near optimal mix between strengths and weaknesses, and also know how to play them to maximum effect. Those who are not good at deckbuilding, will of course do better by copying those decks, and learn how to play them. Though my idea for "balance" is, that nobody is outright forced to go by the designs of others as they mostly are right now. And a good ranked system, that consists of 25 ranks, should have more levels to it than "netdeck" and "trash-tier". It's like having all football teams play in the Premier League, regardless of whether they have the quality and funds for it or not.
But you think the consequence would be that "deckbuilding" is or should be some sort of profession, that needs to be reserved only to those of superior experience and intelligence who, at least, reached legend rank? I mean, are you real?
"Deckbuilding" is the process of building a deck; period. And a deck is a composition of 30 cards, nothing more. Anybody can do that. And guess what, that's exactly what this game is about - anybody can do it. The game even expects you to come up with something on your own. It encourages you to make your own experiences, to try out new things. It is supposed to be, gosh, FUN!
What you got mixed up is the difference between "building a deck" and "building a deck that is capable of succeeding in competition". But even if you think only the latter deserves to be called "deckbuilding", you are giving it way too much credit. It does require some experience, some imagination and it is usually taking a little while before you have cooked something up that is actually working. You have to test out what is working and what isn't, you have to find out what the strenghts and weaknesses are, how specific matchups are going for you, and so on. However, it is not a science that requires a year-long education, and it certainly isn't achieved by reaching legend either, as if it would be the ultimate test of skill, rather than endurance. No matter where you are on the ladder, you can simply learn to make your decks better, and how to tech cards to improve your chances in your given environment. What it requires first and foremost is patience and, sadly, a collection that allows you to replace one card for any other in the game at will, which only a very small percentage of all players has access to. What it also requires, is a state of balance, where creativity and patience is rewarded. The game is far away from that.
But most importantly, "deckbuilding" is not a privilege. It is not a degree you have to earn, it is not a qualification, you... person. I don't know what on earth gave you the impression that only an imaginary superior class of players is "entitled" of doing that, but it is not the case, and thank goodness nobody is so out their mind to try to enforce this. What YOU wrote, is arrogant. What YOU wrote, is "entitlement" in the negative sense you are using it. That word alone makes me want to vomit for how twisted so many people are using it lately. EVERY player is "allowed", more accurately has the option and thereby the very blessing of the developers to play any kind of deck they want, no matter how good or bad it is. And coming back to what I said earlier, they should have an environment where they can do that without feeling like playing with a backyard hobby team against Manchester City. But they don't. THAT is the issue discussed here.
What many don't want to accept is that netdecking is beginner-level and actually constructing your own deck is expert-level, not the other way around. For each and every netdeck, there was a time before it was a netdeck where someone made the list themselves. The people who made those decks were fast and accurate, and you are not. Their choices beat your choices and the number of choices that beat their choices are quickly exposed by deck tweakers who, again, are faster and more accurate than you.
This is only a problem if you are trying to be something you're unqualified to be. You are allowed to simply copy their work, and if you're not an expert you should do precisely that. So basically, if your rank isn't Legend, you should probably be netdecking.
I don't get where people get the arrogance to believe that, despite clear indications that their piloting ability is a tier or more below ideal, that they have some kind of entitlement to design decks that get good results. Wrong. Proving your mettle as a pilot is what indicates that you have what it takes to design decks that perform well. For those who make it to the top, tweaking decks to metagame shifts can be the winning play. But not at Rank 20, or even at Rank 5.
This is a game where choices (usually) matter. You want to be able to have your incorrect choices yield positive results. This isn't going to happen, ever. The closest you could hope for is a metagame where a surprisingly large number of decks constitute Tier 1 such that the variety among netdecks provides you with a variety of decks to compete against; however, the end result of even a healthy but stagnated meta is, at best, a population-skewed version of paper-rock-scissors with perhaps some internal complexity (for instance, a five deck metagame where there are three different "Paper" decks, one "Rock" and one "Scissors," and the Paper decks have a PRS relationship within themselves), and thus there is only the reasonable expectation of all nine classes being viable with 3 viable archetypes per class if the devs somehow are brilliant enough to create a PRS meta where each of the three broader categories "inception" into PRS which then each "inception" into PRS again, which is not one or two but three full layers deep. Frankly, Blizzard isn't that good and probably never will be — and I can't blame them, because I certainly am not either.
I think the root of the problem is that there are so many guides and learning material readily available to everyone. You could spend hours watching pro-level gameplay with decks and read all sorts of guides and have a huge leg up on people who just try to learn through experience. It all comes down to money - if these people weren't getting ad revenue and youtube partnerships there would be no motivation for the pros to share their knowledge - after all, they're just making the game harder for themselves by training people to be like them.
I liked it a lot better in the 90s where guides for things like say, AOE 2, were much harder to find and not nearly as comprehensive as they are now. Now you can just google a step-by-step build order and play style in seconds. Plus back then things seemed far less competitive. It was very easy to find a game where people were actually casual (unlike our current casual gamemode) and you could just have a gentleman's agreement not to attack each other for an hour or something and you could just play the game instead of rushing to end it within 5-10 minutes so you can grind your rank up like RTS games are now.
Unfortunately that's just the way things are now. Everything has to be an "esport" more than a game because that's what makes people, both the players and the creators, the most money. Fun is not important anymore and that is never going to change.
So, the new Ranked system hit the game. People were expecting changes.
Of course there are changes. But not in the player experience.
So, after not playing standard ranked for two season I am still only rank 18 after a handful games. There is practically no difference between rank 20 and legend. You see the same decks, rarely a newbie deck. Of course it is extremely unhealthy for this game. Even though those players are playing wose, because they are low rank because they suck or they just haven't played, like me.
I am able to adapt my tactics and beat those bad players. The experience for other players is destroying as I experienced from friends.
Do you have a solution in mind how to fix this?
This is something that accured since standard was put into the game. I celebrated it first but I think it is the worst that could happen to the game right now. But removing standard won't change a damn thing now.
Maybe it would be less frustrating to those if there were more safety steps while laddering, maybe for each rank? Would it make a big difference? No one really loses multiple ranks while ranking. I don't think something like this would be bad for the game, as the direction is clear as fuck the devs take -> Casual.
Possible solutions from the community?
Let's give this new system a month or two to play out. There are people who didn't care to try to get past certain rank floors anymore. So, they are starting lower this first season of the new system than they may start in future seasons.
It may end up that the changes weren't enough. But I think it's too soon to say that definitively.
I'm posting from my phone so formatting is a little bad, sorry.
"Nobody 'demands' that their bad decks work. People usually know their decks are bad."
If you know it's bad and you don't demand that it works, why be upset about losing? You claim to have both known and accepted the outcome prior to pressing the button.
"But they are sick of seeing the same handful of decks everywhere in the game,"
I addressed this; unfortunately, the number of truly viable archetypes in a stagnated meta is naturally very small unless designed with unusual genius.
"even on ranks where they should not be as prevalent as they are"
I told you that you weren't accepting that netdeck is beginner and deck design is expert, and this is the proof. Netdecks should be MORE prevalent at low ranks than at high ranks, but you are clearly assuming otherwise.
"thus having no other option but playing 'good' decks."
Pretty much. You're supposed to rank up by building your piloting skill, not your deck building skill, because piloting skill is a prerequisite to deck building skill. If you are truly good enough to build/tweak your own decks at low ranks, you're massively underranked.
"Deckbuilding is the process of building a deck; period. And a deck is a composition of 30 cards, nothing more. Anybody can do that. And guess what, that's exactly what this game is about - anybody can do it. "
Anybody can pilot a netdeck (if they have the cards). But only those who pilot WELL get to rank up. The privilege of piloting does not equate to an entitlement to victory.
Anybody can speak; in the US and to a lesser extent in the UK, we have a right to free speech. But only those who speak WELL develop an audience of loyal fans. The right to free speech does not equate to a right to fame.
You're absolutely correct that there is nothing, save your own lack of skill and timing, stopping you from discovering the next hot netdeck many will copy. But those two things are barriers, even if it is the community and not the devs that are the arbiters.
"The game even expects you to come up with something on your own. It encourages you to make your own experiences, to try out new things. It is supposed to be, gosh, FUN!"
Timmy, Johnny and Spike have different win conditions. Watch any Trollden videos on YouTube? There's this "still lost" meme where one player does something awesome to watch and still loses the game. By Timmy standards, each of those "losses" is an amazing victory, because something awesome enough to make it into a Trollden video happened. There's nothing at all wrong with that.
Johnny is all about authoring; he wins when he makes an original deck that gains popularity because it wins, or some other beloved contribution to the Hearthstone community. Because of this, Johnny has two (three?) choices: he can make decks that get Spike victories, or he can make decks that get Timmy victories (or both/either?). However, to do so he must first either master Spike (as I've been talking about) or master Timmy; a "pure Johnny" is in practice just a salty HearthPwn forum dweller with no prospect of widespread recognition, except perhaps in his skill at communicating his saltiness to others, in which he takes great pride. (I'm aware I'm a little bit this currently; if I wasn't heavily Johnny, I wouldn't be posting.)
But still, you're "correct" that going the Timmy route of making the funniest decks instead of the winningest is a viable path for Johnnies. Nevertheless I'm going to go back to focusing on the Spike path to Johnny victory.
"No matter where you are on the ladder, you can simply learn to make your decks better, and how to tech cards to improve your chances in your given environment. "
If you mean you haven't played much and that is why you haven't climbed the ladder as much as you could have based on piloting skill and netdecking alone, then yes. If you mean someone legitimately stuck at Rank 11 due to poor piloting skill, then you're deluding yourself.
"What it requires first and foremost is patience and, sadly, a collection that allows you to replace one card for any other in the game at will, which only a very small percentage of all players has access to. "
I don't think it's sad that this game isn't in fact free to play (unless you're a god at Arena). Blizzard should make money somehow.
"they should have an environment where they can do that without feeling like playing with a backyard hobby team against Manchester City. But they don't."
It's called the friends list. If you want to ban netdecks or come up with your own competition with special rules, nothing is stopping you. Kripparian literally did this with ChallengeStone; go make your own. You could probably promote it on this very website.
But what you seem to really want isn't some place where casual players can design decks in a naturally netdeck-free environment. What you seem to want is community ideas for dragging Manchester City down to your level. Ranked is for the highly competitive Spikes, not for insecure Johnnies. Leave Spike alone.
I don't honestly know what else to say, except that I think it would be a good idea for Blizzard to stop making preconstructed Tavern Brawls and always incorporate some form of deck building into that format. Johnnies like me love that s--t, and going more than three days without feels bad, man.
So, the new Ranked system hit the game. People were expecting changes.
Of course there are changes. But not in the player experience.
So, after not playing standard ranked for two season I am still only rank 18 after a handful games. There is practically no difference between rank 20 and legend. You see the same decks, rarely a newbie deck. Of course it is extremely unhealthy for this game. Even though those players are playing wose, because they are low rank because they suck or they just haven't played, like me.
I am able to adapt my tactics and beat those bad players. The experience for other players is destroying as I experienced from friends.
Do you have a solution in mind how to fix this?
This is something that accured since standard was put into the game. I celebrated it first but I think it is the worst that could happen to the game right now. But removing standard won't change a damn thing now.
Maybe it would be less frustrating to those if there were more safety steps while laddering, maybe for each rank? Would it make a big difference? No one really loses multiple ranks while ranking. I don't think something like this would be bad for the game, as the direction is clear as fuck the devs take -> Casual.
Possible solutions from the community?
Don’t take this the wrong way but this was my mentality a few months ago. Realize you must be making misplays. Think about what you could do differently after each game. And then you will climb ranks.
It should be no surprise that a competitive format features competitive decks. I like this new system because you can make progress month to month (assuming you climb more than 4 ranks) instead of feeling that pressure to play as many games as possible, and legend only being accessible if you can afford to play a few hundred games in a month.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life before death. Strength before weakness. Journey before destination.
I'm posting from my phone so formatting is a little bad, sorry.
I don't have much to add to this and agree with most of your points, but man I have to give you props for having the patience to type all of that on a phone.
Don't take this the wrong way but this was my mentality a few months ago. Realize you must be making misplays. Think about what you could do differently after each game. And then you will climb ranks.
Even though those players are playing wose, because they are low rank because they suck or they just haven't played, like me.
There is a difference and you stated it in your op. Why would anybody play a newbie or bad deck. It's like playing sports with bad equipment, you want the best equipment always, but the ability or talent on the players makes the difference in ranks (categories). You expecting players in low ranks to play bad decks it's like you expecting your tennis oponent to play with an old small wooden tennis raquet on a friendly tennis match.
So, the new Ranked system hit the game. People were expecting changes.
Of course there are changes. But not in the player experience.
So, after not playing standard ranked for two season I am still only rank 18 after a handful games. There is practically no difference between rank 20 and legend. You see the same decks, rarely a newbie deck. Of course it is extremely unhealthy for this game. Even though those players are playing wose, because they are low rank because they suck or they just haven't played, like me.
I am able to adapt my tactics and beat those bad players. The experience for other players is destroying as I experienced from friends.
Do you have a solution in mind how to fix this?
This is something that accured since standard was put into the game. I celebrated it first but I think it is the worst that could happen to the game right now. But removing standard won't change a damn thing now.
Maybe it would be less frustrating to those if there were more safety steps while laddering, maybe for each rank? Would it make a big difference? No one really loses multiple ranks while ranking. I don't think something like this would be bad for the game, as the direction is clear as fuck the devs take -> Casual.
Possible solutions from the community?
Don’t take this the wrong way but this was my mentality a few months ago. Realize you must be making misplays. Think about what you could do differently after each game. And then you will climb ranks.
When you lose blame yourself, not your opponent
Are you relying that to me? I just noticed this because I don't play ranked anymore. I just did some games so far again and of course are still low rank, but see my avatar screenshot, I am more than experienced I would say :P
But still, I just lost another game, a mirror match, against someone who clearly had no clue. But he still had the better RNG and went first (it's exactly this point that decided the game). But as you see, even heavy experienced players like me can lose this games. This is something that never happened some expansions ago, I remember plowing through rank 18 until up to rank 7 when I had my first loss after I haven't played a season and dropped pretty low.
Once you step into Ranked, you step into an environment, where everyone is competitive and trying to win. And to increase their chances of winning, they'll usually try to do everything, which increases their win rate. Net-decking good decks is one of those options. In Casual players care less. They might try new decks, or wonky decks in order to complete decks, or or or.
Spoken like someone who hasn't actually tried playing in casual.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So, the new Ranked system hit the game. People were expecting changes.
Of course there are changes. But not in the player experience.
So, after not playing standard ranked for two season I am still only rank 18 after a handful games. There is practically no difference between rank 20 and legend. You see the same decks, rarely a newbie deck. Of course it is extremely unhealthy for this game. Even though those players are playing wose, because they are low rank because they suck or they just haven't played, like me.
I am able to adapt my tactics and beat those bad players. The experience for other players is destroying as I experienced from friends.
Do you have a solution in mind how to fix this?
This is something that accured since standard was put into the game. I celebrated it first but I think it is the worst that could happen to the game right now. But removing standard won't change a damn thing now.
Maybe it would be less frustrating to those if there were more safety steps while laddering, maybe for each rank? Would it make a big difference? No one really loses multiple ranks while ranking. I don't think something like this would be bad for the game, as the direction is clear as fuck the devs take -> Casual.
Possible solutions from the community?
I think there are many possible solutions, and one less likely to happen than the other.
Netdecking by itself is not that big of a problem, but can be problematic in a few ways. If the difference in power between netdecks and others is too big, it will push players into playing netdecks, of course. This enforces a very competitive environment where many decks and cards are pushed out of the game. If netecks are also very expensive, it also forces many players, especially new players, out of the game as well. If only netdecks are playable because of their clear advantages over any other decks, there is even less room for "having fun" and it makes it a whole lot harder for players to get started or stay in the game. Also, if any alternative cards and decks are just as expensive and players have to go with limited resources, they can only have either a strong deck or a weak deck, any they have no incentive to go for the weak deck.
Most of this is true to Hearthstone, and there is the actual reason why netdecking is problematic. The powerlevel of the best decks has gone up massively over the last couple expansions, with big pushes in MSG, KFT and somewhat in KnC as well. The cost of most strong decks has gone up significantly as well, with many decks costing something well over 5k. The high cost and the rough start of the game has put new players in a position where they either drop out or adapt as fast as possible, and because of the first point, they are pretty much forced to craft a deck that can compete. And because this has been going on for quite a while now, even the lower ranks from 20-15 are seemingly full of veterans. You won't see many players playing odd cards or decks, because they either spend all their dust crafting that Murloc Paladin, or they just dropped out of the game.
Of course, I'm being a bit hyperbolic here. The reality is not THAT bad, but you get the idea. Decks are generally pretty expensive, the game itself is very expensive, there is not much wiggle room if you just want to try things out and have fun since you are likely to get run over if you do so, so a lot of players are pushed to play the same decks everyone else is playing. And even if you wanted to have fun, you'd still have to spend a lot of dust that you might as well put into a netdeck that gives you a chance. That's why you see the same decks again and again and grow tired of them.
For a solution, you could consider a number of different strategies.
One option would be to go for a different approach in design philosophy. Make the "good" cards just slightly better than the "bad" cards, by giving them advantages with clear downsides; unlike what Hearthstone is doing with a large portion of each set, where the "bad" cards are oftentimes just outright unplayable. This would mean that even if you play something else, you still have a decent chance of winning. In the end, it is still very likely that one or two decks will have a higher winrate than any other deck, but if other decks are not much, much worse, they will still be interesting alternatives, if only for the sake of playing a different class or a different decktype to mix things up. And if small tech choices can shake this balance up even mid season, you have a metagame where the tierlists become a lot less meaningful and players are much more encouraged to try out different things.
Another option would be to reduce the costs. There are two ways you can do this. Either give all players the resources to play all the decks, which would not help the lack of diversity nor encourage creativity; it would not eliminate netdecking, just make it less problematic. Or you just reduce the importance of higher rarity cards. If the best decks, be they control or aggro, cost, lets's say, 1.5-3k instead of 6-8k, it won't feel like such a heavy investment to build one deck that also has to be one of the strongest. Doing this, players will have the resources to build many different decks and try out different things instead of going all in on the best deck they can get. Whatever you go with, this would of course produce better results if the last point I made is considered as well. Ideally, I cannot just craft many different decks, I will also feel like playing all these different decks because they are not much worse and in return have unique properties I would like to make use of.
There are certainly other changes one could consider as well, but any of them are unlikely to happen. Of course, most are harder to do in practice than in theory. They might sound simple on paper but are no doubt complicated to execute, and I think, whatever solution you go with, you could not expect fast results. Either way, Blizzard has shown little interest so far in addressing this anyway. They are more concerned that Standard stays "fresh" instead of improving the playing experience overall, for which netdecking is a serious problem. From what I can recall, they have not even once addressed netdecking as an issue, or any of the problems related to it that I just listed.
Of course, the competitive scene will always be just that. What makes it so frustrating in Hearthstone to me at least, is that it emcompasses even the parts of the game that are not really supposed to be on that level. If it feels like there is little to no difference between rank 20-15 and rank 5-legend aside from player competence, something is a bit wrong.
So, yes, I think there are ways to solve this problem. I just don't think it's gonna happen.
What many don't want to accept is that netdecking is beginner-level and actually constructing your own deck is expert-level, not the other way around. For each and every netdeck, there was a time before it was a netdeck where someone made the list themselves. The people who made those decks were fast and accurate, and you are not. Their choices beat your choices and the number of choices that beat their choices are quickly exposed by deck tweakers who, again, are faster and more accurate than you.
This is only a problem if you are trying to be something you're unqualified to be. You are allowed to simply copy their work, and if you're not an expert you should do precisely that. So basically, if your rank isn't Legend, you should probably be netdecking.
I don't get where people get the arrogance to believe that, despite clear indications that their piloting ability is a tier or more below ideal, that they have some kind of entitlement to design decks that get good results. Wrong. Proving your mettle as a pilot is what indicates that you have what it takes to design decks that perform well. For those who make it to the top, tweaking decks to metagame shifts can be the winning play. But not at Rank 20, or even at Rank 5.
This is a game where choices (usually) matter. You want to be able to have your incorrect choices yield positive results. This isn't going to happen, ever. The closest you could hope for is a metagame where a surprisingly large number of decks constitute Tier 1 such that the variety among netdecks provides you with a variety of decks to compete against; however, the end result of even a healthy but stagnated meta is, at best, a population-skewed version of paper-rock-scissors with perhaps some internal complexity (for instance, a five deck metagame where there are three different "Paper" decks, one "Rock" and one "Scissors," and the Paper decks have a PRS relationship within themselves), and thus there is only the reasonable expectation of all nine classes being viable with 3 viable archetypes per class if the devs somehow are brilliant enough to create a PRS meta where each of the three broader categories "inception" into PRS which then each "inception" into PRS again, which is not one or two but three full layers deep. Frankly, Blizzard isn't that good and probably never will be — and I can't blame them, because I certainly am not either.
Only solution for real new players to have somewhat a chance is an Basic set only mode in my opinion.
So at least you can do your quests and win some games as long as you build up your collection as a new player.
Also OP should give new ladder mode some time after 1-2 month most netdeck players that play at least a bit will be rank 9 start of season and new players can be around 25-10.
The problem is the grind.
Good players still need to put hours in so won't go sub ten every month more ranks less stars would be the way to go
It does require some experience, some imagination and it is usually taking a little while before you have cooked something up that is actually working. You have to test out what is working and what isn't, you have to find out what the strenghts and weaknesses are, how specific matchups are going for you, and so on. However, it is not a science that requires a year-long education, and it certainly isn't achieved by reaching legend either, as if it would be the ultimate test of skill, rather than endurance. No matter where you are on the ladder, you can simply learn to make your decks better, and how to tech cards to improve your chances in your given environment. What it requires first and foremost is patience and, sadly, a collection that allows you to replace one card for any other in the game at will, which only a very small percentage of all players has access to. What it also requires, is a state of balance, where creativity and patience is rewarded. The game is far away from that.
I think the root of the problem is that there are so many guides and learning material readily available to everyone. You could spend hours watching pro-level gameplay with decks and read all sorts of guides and have a huge leg up on people who just try to learn through experience. It all comes down to money - if these people weren't getting ad revenue and youtube partnerships there would be no motivation for the pros to share their knowledge - after all, they're just making the game harder for themselves by training people to be like them.
I liked it a lot better in the 90s where guides for things like say, AOE 2, were much harder to find and not nearly as comprehensive as they are now. Now you can just google a step-by-step build order and play style in seconds. Plus back then things seemed far less competitive. It was very easy to find a game where people were actually casual (unlike our current casual gamemode) and you could just have a gentleman's agreement not to attack each other for an hour or something and you could just play the game instead of rushing to end it within 5-10 minutes so you can grind your rank up like RTS games are now.
Unfortunately that's just the way things are now. Everything has to be an "esport" more than a game because that's what makes people, both the players and the creators, the most money. Fun is not important anymore and that is never going to change.
There are people who didn't care to try to get past certain rank floors anymore.
So, they are starting lower this first season of the new system than they may start in future seasons.
But I think it's too soon to say that definitively.
I'm posting from my phone so formatting is a little bad, sorry.
"Nobody 'demands' that their bad decks work. People usually know their decks are bad."
If you know it's bad and you don't demand that it works, why be upset about losing? You claim to have both known and accepted the outcome prior to pressing the button.
"But they are sick of seeing the same handful of decks everywhere in the game,"
I addressed this; unfortunately, the number of truly viable archetypes in a stagnated meta is naturally very small unless designed with unusual genius.
"even on ranks where they should not be as prevalent as they are"
I told you that you weren't accepting that netdeck is beginner and deck design is expert, and this is the proof. Netdecks should be MORE prevalent at low ranks than at high ranks, but you are clearly assuming otherwise.
"thus having no other option but playing 'good' decks."
Pretty much. You're supposed to rank up by building your piloting skill, not your deck building skill, because piloting skill is a prerequisite to deck building skill. If you are truly good enough to build/tweak your own decks at low ranks, you're massively underranked.
"Deckbuilding is the process of building a deck; period. And a deck is a composition of 30 cards, nothing more. Anybody can do that. And guess what, that's exactly what this game is about - anybody can do it. "
Anybody can pilot a netdeck (if they have the cards). But only those who pilot WELL get to rank up. The privilege of piloting does not equate to an entitlement to victory.
Anybody can speak; in the US and to a lesser extent in the UK, we have a right to free speech. But only those who speak WELL develop an audience of loyal fans. The right to free speech does not equate to a right to fame.
You're absolutely correct that there is nothing, save your own lack of skill and timing, stopping you from discovering the next hot netdeck many will copy. But those two things are barriers, even if it is the community and not the devs that are the arbiters.
"The game even expects you to come up with something on your own. It encourages you to make your own experiences, to try out new things. It is supposed to be, gosh, FUN!"
Timmy, Johnny and Spike have different win conditions. Watch any Trollden videos on YouTube? There's this "still lost" meme where one player does something awesome to watch and still loses the game. By Timmy standards, each of those "losses" is an amazing victory, because something awesome enough to make it into a Trollden video happened. There's nothing at all wrong with that.
Johnny is all about authoring; he wins when he makes an original deck that gains popularity because it wins, or some other beloved contribution to the Hearthstone community. Because of this, Johnny has two (three?) choices: he can make decks that get Spike victories, or he can make decks that get Timmy victories (or both/either?). However, to do so he must first either master Spike (as I've been talking about) or master Timmy; a "pure Johnny" is in practice just a salty HearthPwn forum dweller with no prospect of widespread recognition, except perhaps in his skill at communicating his saltiness to others, in which he takes great pride. (I'm aware I'm a little bit this currently; if I wasn't heavily Johnny, I wouldn't be posting.)
But still, you're "correct" that going the Timmy route of making the funniest decks instead of the winningest is a viable path for Johnnies. Nevertheless I'm going to go back to focusing on the Spike path to Johnny victory.
"No matter where you are on the ladder, you can simply learn to make your decks better, and how to tech cards to improve your chances in your given environment. "
If you mean you haven't played much and that is why you haven't climbed the ladder as much as you could have based on piloting skill and netdecking alone, then yes. If you mean someone legitimately stuck at Rank 11 due to poor piloting skill, then you're deluding yourself.
"What it requires first and foremost is patience and, sadly, a collection that allows you to replace one card for any other in the game at will, which only a very small percentage of all players has access to. "
I don't think it's sad that this game isn't in fact free to play (unless you're a god at Arena). Blizzard should make money somehow.
"they should have an environment where they can do that without feeling like playing with a backyard hobby team against Manchester City. But they don't."
It's called the friends list. If you want to ban netdecks or come up with your own competition with special rules, nothing is stopping you. Kripparian literally did this with ChallengeStone; go make your own. You could probably promote it on this very website.
But what you seem to really want isn't some place where casual players can design decks in a naturally netdeck-free environment. What you seem to want is community ideas for dragging Manchester City down to your level. Ranked is for the highly competitive Spikes, not for insecure Johnnies. Leave Spike alone.
I don't honestly know what else to say, except that I think it would be a good idea for Blizzard to stop making preconstructed Tavern Brawls and always incorporate some form of deck building into that format. Johnnies like me love that s--t, and going more than three days without feels bad, man.
It should be no surprise that a competitive format features competitive decks. I like this new system because you can make progress month to month (assuming you climb more than 4 ranks) instead of feeling that pressure to play as many games as possible, and legend only being accessible if you can afford to play a few hundred games in a month.
Kaladin's RoS Set Review
Join me at Out of Cards!
Woeden#1173 - NA
But still, I just lost another game, a mirror match, against someone who clearly had no clue. But he still had the better RNG and went first (it's exactly this point that decided the game). But as you see, even heavy experienced players like me can lose this games. This is something that never happened some expansions ago, I remember plowing through rank 18 until up to rank 7 when I had my first loss after I haven't played a season and dropped pretty low.
Meta on rank 15 and in legend is pretty much same.
There are only 2 that can decide about your rank - Your "skill" / " decisions" and your RNG :)
Blizzard can sue any site or person using HS material, without there approval. Limiting the number of sites for netdecking.....lol.