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.
Gotta agree there. For the most part Casual is netdeckers taking their most recent copypasta for a few unranked games until they've figured out how they work. And/or griefers, hard to tell.
I made it from r17 to 5 in 2 days. Just play murlocdin, its strong against everything except warlock but i still win half of the games thks to spellbreaker.
"Apply for welfare? I've still some dignity left!" exclaims Bob as he grabs a rotten apple out of the dumpster, then takes a bite out of it.
Handouts are better than trash, you know. There's nothing wrong about netdecking through the low ranks and only getting creative with deckbuilding once you're much higher; indeed, we should expect the highest concentration of netdeck orthodoxy at low ranks and the most experimentation in Legend.
I've noticed changes. I've played against a couple decks already that included some interesting/different card choices. Before march 1st that NEVER happened.
"Apply for welfare? I've still some dignity left!" exclaims Bob as he grabs a rotten apple out of the dumpster, then takes a bite out of it.
Handouts are better than trash, you know. There's nothing wrong about netdecking through the low ranks and only getting creative with deckbuilding once you're much higher; indeed, we should expect the highest concentration of netdeck orthodoxy at low ranks and the most experimentation in Legend.
I know it's a stupid mindset but god damnit i'm going to play warrior and shaman until it works even though it turns me into an endless salt mill.
Changing the ladder won't do anything as long as there are only a handful of competitive decks. The game has a fundamental design problem. They probably need to add at least 3 keywords to find one that works, and they need to abandon failed mechanics like discard and race synergy (Beast Druid).
Shaman has arguably the best aggro deck in Wild; the deck is considered Tier 2 in that format, but very good for rapid ladder climbs due to shorter game lengths.
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.
Oh, is that so? I don't know where you take that from, but I can tell you are getting defensive and I think I have a better grasp of your position now. If this statement sums up your entire sentiment in this debate, I will only respond to this.
I assume you are into competitive playing and see Hearthstone as an e-sport. I am sure you are a great player, and from that direction I assume you come from, your opinion makes some sense. But in that case, limit your position to the point where you are actually concerned. Nobody wants to get rid of the competitive scene, and there is plenty of space for you in the game. I can assure you, you are save. This debate does not concern the competitive scene at all. It won't even aim to lower the skill-cap. And if you otherwise have no interest in seeing the overall state of the game improved for its largely heterogenous playerbase, maybe stay out of the discussion entirely.
You made your point that netdecking is for beginners. You say netdecking should actually be more prevalent at lower ranks, because you are speaking from a sports-perspective where amateurs should learn from pros, and they should limit themselves to reproducing what they are taught and master those techniques first. That makes perfect sense in your world. Any athlete, coach, teacher etc. would say the same. Your vocabulary is extremely out of place, and I detest your attitude, but aside from that, you actually have a point. I am not even disagreeing with you. But here, it does not apply.
It might sound confusing to you (and I'm sure it does), but netdecking at low ranks is nonetheless a problem for the game as a whole. Why do you think the OP even opened this thread? Why do you think plenty of players complain about the experience at lower ranks or in casual on this board almost every day? Trust me, it's not because "they just don't get it, it's a competitive format" or "they just suck". If something is perceived as problematic by a notable fraction of the playerbase, there is something to it. To say the least, if many people are dissatisfied with the current state of the game, it needs to be addressed.
Some people play bad decks because they have no real choice or just for fun. They don't expect to "succeed" in a competitive format, but they still want a fair challenge. They care little about "the meta", but still want to play the game. You may say that the ladder or the entire game isn't meant for that, or that those players need to lower their expectations or find custom solutions like private duelling clubs, but that is heavily at odds with the game's general philosphy and goal.
There are many issues playing into this, and they concern the game's structuring, pricing, balancing and much more. If you don't care about all that, that's perfectly fine, you don't have to. But if you fail to see an actual problem as a problem, don't pretend it's not a problem at all.
Why do you think the OP even opened this thread? Why do you think plenty of players complain about the experience at lower ranks or in casual on this board almost every day? Trust me, it's not because "they just don't get it, it's a competitive format" or "they just suck".
Well, for some of them it is. There's a reason that I linked the Peterson video.
However, the vocal psychographic in most games like these are Johnnies. As implied before, I disagree with Rosewater's original psychographics (https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/timmy-johnny-and-spike-2002-03-08) slightly: Timmy wants big stories, stuff for the highlight reel, not necessarily big numbers; Spike doesn't just want to win, he wants to perform well (even if perfect performance loses); and Johnny isn't necessarily a combo player (unless hitting every drop on your curve is a "combo"), he just wants his deck to win more than he wants to win himself (to include his deck winning without his piloting help and the belief that piloting skill is irrelevant vs draws), because he wants to be original and have his creation succeed.
Because the heart of Johnny is self-expression, 99% of game forumers are Johnnies; Spike might lurk and learn but feels little need to speak, while Timmy simply doesn't care. Also because of this, you'll notice Johnny was the psychographic Rosewater and others have been most wrong about, in part because Johnnies are virtually the entire audience of an article about psychographics and telling Johnnies to their face what they are doesn't usually go over well. I mean, the original psychographics basically made Timmy look stupid and Spike look evil, while Johnny looks cool.
But Johnnies aren't cool. Johnnies are angry. They're angry because being original is actually very difficult, much more difficult than gaining piloting skill as Spike wants. If someone desires originality, they pretty much need to either 1) create content in a truly competitive market of content creators, being the "fast and accurate" types I talked about earlier, or 2) live in a delusion wherein they think they're something they're not.
Now you might think I'm against Option 2 there. I'm not. A huge reason we (especially Johnnies) play games is escapism, and I think good games weave illusions for players to lose themselves in. That's why things like regular format rotations are a great thing, not just to change things up but hopefully to create the illusion that certain choices are more or less viable than they actually are, or that a stagnated meta might still have innovations to offer when it doesn't. Same thing with Tavern Brawl deckbuilding formats, where the meta often stagnates in 48 hours but it gives a new puzzle for Johnnies to hack at.
All these things are great distractions, but more than anything else Johnny needs expansions and resets because given enough time the illusion will break and Johnny will be inevitably miserable, assuming he's not actually original enough to author tomorrow's netdecks or get a hundred up votes on Reddit — or develops a bit of his Timmy and/or Spike side. You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake. That's just how it is.
None of this is to say Johnnies don't matter. Indeed, as I said earlier they're 99% of the posters on social media. From a Dev perspective, keeping them happy is absolutely critical.
If something is perceived as problematic by a notable fraction of the playerbase, there is something to it. To say the least, if many people are dissatisfied with the current state of the game, it needs to be addressed.
As explained above, there's nothing to be done, except string Johnny along with new content. Furthermore, I highly recommend the following 18-minute video for understanding on how customers are good for feedback but absolutely horrible for suggestions: https://youtu.be/iIiAAhUeR6Y
I think its still too early to talk about different solutions for this. This was the first 4 rank reset and it wont fix everything at once, it will take months before we notice a difference. Its unlikely that every player used the last month to get as high as they can.
When you were rank 5 or higher you would usually start at rank 16 and I can tell from experience (and im sure many people will agree) that despite seeing the same decks the caliber of players from rank 16 and higher is completely different than 17 or lower, eventually it will look similar but instead of rank 16 it will probably be rank 9 and higher with a more gradual increase in difficulty every 4 ranks. There is a good chance we will see beginner decks above rank 20 and there will probably an area with incomplete meta decks that get closer to completion before you end up with the high ranking players.
I would say we wait and see for a few months.
I was planning on a big long post about being patient and waiting for actual results. Thanks.
Anyway OP, it's likely you are seeing a number of incomplete meta seeming decks. Currently I'm at rank 9 and I'm still seeing mill rogues, evolve shamans, combo warriors, etc. While these decks aren't bad, they certainly aren't meta.
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.
This is how brodestone works now, rock-paper-scissors meta and who gets the better Ysaarj/Voidlord on turn 5/6. I guess the choice is to either accept it or don't play ranked/play other card games where your decisions really matter.
One possible solution would be to do like in combat sport...
Instead of having only one category of deck (super heavy category) due to net-decking, a possible option will be to set "weight" categories. For example deck worth less than 500 dusts, decks from 500 to 1000 dusts, deck worth 1001 to 2000, etc.
Ideally there might be 5 categories for example.... I do not know which could be a good split as I have a large collection and am playing HS since the end of Beta.
The system will automatically find a player having a same deck category than yours while laddering (plus the usual star system). So, this system is seamless to the player. There is nothing special to do. No option to click or not. It would be just an indication by the system stating in which category your deck is.
This way, you could reach legend in the super-light category or mid-category or the super-heavy category for exemple.
It is not a perfect system. Obviously there will be more aggro on lower category and more control on higher categories (although creative people will be able to create controlish deck with less than 500 dust). Also this might split a bit the ladder. However in combat sport, it is not a big issues... yes heavy-weight are generally less moving and stronger than light-weight and that heavy-weight is more popular then super-light (due to the power level) but then it allows everyone to compete and not only the 100 kgs+ muscle fighters... which is the situation where HS ladder is now... the only difference being some fight better than others but they all look very similar (4000+ dust).
However, this will generally put the net-decking into the last category (as decks are becoming really expensive nowadays) while creative deck could be seen in lower to mid categories. It will create several meta (one by category) and thus the player experience would be more various too as many "worthless" card will be useful again.
Nah, that will just create horribly stale Metas within each dust bracket... plus you'll be playing TONS of mirror matches (which usually is the most boring and choiceless matchup since its 99% about who draws and plays the power cards first). That would be horrible.
I mean people won't suddenly get super creative and start making their own decks, they will still netdeck according to how much dust they have and make slight tweaks according to their dust funds (which is basically the same thing we have right now lol).
Imho everything is fine as it is, the new system will take care of high skill players dropping too low over the time and i hardly believe you see net decks in every R17 game, especially 100% copied ones. Fully copied net decks which are T1 or T2 almost autopilot themselves to R5 pretty quick and easy (as you can see at DisguisedToasts GFs stream lol).
The problem is not high-skills players at level 15-20.... the problem is that new players (or players coming back after a year break) have naturally poor (or poorer) card collection. As you rightly said... top tier netdecks are fairly autopilot for most of them... so the barrier at lower level is not the player skill level (unfortunately) but mostly the collection level. The new Blizzard ladder system - which I like as I start close to rank 5 - does not address this.
New or returning player probably feel that - unless they pay - they will hardly be able to compete versus well tested net decks they can not afford. If a returning player did not play in 2017 and would like to re-start now... it will have a tough time to net deck as even an aggro dude pally cost about 4800 dusts, about 6500 for a Murloc pally, 6000 for secret hunter, about 4000 for secret mage or spiteful priest !!! In 2015, a top tiers aggro deck was around 1500 dusts.... the inflation is out of control at the moment.
I also agree that people will not become super creative with a "weight-based" system and will most likely keep on net decking. You are right there. However, netdecking will be more adapted to their collection ability (of newish or returning players). I do not see the reasons why all weighty meta(s) would be automatically stale and why is this is not anyway a more desirable outcome than one unique meta (stale or not) which is dominated by netdecking. It will be just a multiplication of netdecked meta but more adapted to collection access to new and returning players.
In a couple months the middle ranks will empty out, because having a 20 win surplus actually takes time, only players involved in the game will manage to climb those 4 ranks required to stay where you were a the start of the season.
Theoretically rank 20+ will fill up over time with people that play a little, and ranks 5-legend will fill up with people that manage to make more than a 20 win margin.
Complaining about netdecking doesn't change anything. If you got a problem with enemies "all playing the same decks", know what? Play against friends! If you have some...
Blizzard should make a special stream lessons or youtube videos in which they explain the the only way hs should be played is with supa dupa 1000 IQ control/combo homebrewed decks and 30 minutes long match is a minimum time period that proves you're not braindead blah blah something etc.
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.
Even that wold be problematic. you'd have 2-3 decks which have strong basic set only. Mage, Priest (with combo), Hunter maybe. The meta in that would be even more stale than standard, which least evolves and changes regularly.
What we need is a system like overwatch's. You play placements at the start of each season and based on your winrate, your rank last season and the quality of your deck you are dropped at a certain rank. That way all the cubelocks and secret mages at rank 20 will be placed up high unless they throw all their placements which isnt worth it because youll get a shit rank and then your end of season rewards will most likely turn out bad. This would require rank floors to be removed though.
Changing the ladder won't do anything as long as there are only a handful of competitive decks. The game has a fundamental design problem. They probably need to add at least 3 keywords to find one that works, and they need to abandon failed mechanics like discard and race synergy (Beast Druid).
This guy gets It. One of the many problems of HS is the small card pool, and the small amount of good cards between the card pool. Give each class at least 2 good archetypes and you would see ssee some variety.
Yes, but another problem is the very high powerlevel of the best decks of each playstyle.
-If you can't match a smooth curve into Call to Arms, you can't play aggro or tempo (yes, secret mage is smashed by agressive paladins, but can beat other decks.)
-If you can't match the multiple 8-10 drops summoned by warlocks and priest by turn 8, you can't play midrange.
-If you can't match the infinite value of Jade Idol, you can't play control unless you play a cheat-out-something-huge deck or tech Skulking Geist, lowering your winrate vs. everything else.
Is there a solution? The big nerf to most tempo decks simply opened the door to the chat-out decks, and made paladin is even stronger than before. To be viable, a deck meeds to do something BEST, be the king of a playstyle or farming a popular deck.
But Johnnies aren't cool. Johnnies are angry. [...] All these things are great distractions, but more than anything else Johnny needs expansions and resets because given enough time the illusion will break and Johnny will be inevitably miserable [...] None of this is to say Johnnies don't matter. Indeed, as I said earlier they're 99% of the posters on social media. From a Dev perspective, keeping them happy is absolutely critical. [...] As explained above, there's nothing to be done, except string Johnny along with new content.
You seem to like that Rosewater terminology a lot. But I would strongly disadvise to make any further assumptions, or practice pseudo-psychology, based on that. And if you truly believe that anybody who states an opinion does so purely for the sake of self-expression and emphasizing individuality, you are a madman.
Anyone who likes to operate with models must be aware of their limits. If you take that very simple and debatable formula to identify player types, and want to use it to rationalize away the entire topic, which it certainly is not suited for, you probably have no actual interest in discourse.
I strongly disagree with your conclusion that "there's nothing to be done", but I'm sure I will not be able to convice you otherwise.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I've noticed changes. I've played against a couple decks already that included some interesting/different card choices. Before march 1st that NEVER happened.
Changing the ladder won't do anything as long as there are only a handful of competitive decks. The game has a fundamental design problem. They probably need to add at least 3 keywords to find one that works, and they need to abandon failed mechanics like discard and race synergy (Beast Druid).
Free to try and find a game, dealing cards for sorrow, cards for pain.
Shaman has arguably the best aggro deck in Wild; the deck is considered Tier 2 in that format, but very good for rapid ladder climbs due to shorter game lengths.
Just Saiyan.
One possible solution would be to do like in combat sport...
Instead of having only one category of deck (super heavy category) due to net-decking, a possible option will be to set "weight" categories. For example deck worth less than 500 dusts, decks from 500 to 1000 dusts, deck worth 1001 to 2000, etc.
Ideally there might be 5 categories for example.... I do not know which could be a good split as I have a large collection and am playing HS since the end of Beta.
The system will automatically find a player having a same deck category than yours while laddering (plus the usual star system). So, this system is seamless to the player. There is nothing special to do. No option to click or not. It would be just an indication by the system stating in which category your deck is.
This way, you could reach legend in the super-light category or mid-category or the super-heavy category for exemple.
It is not a perfect system. Obviously there will be more aggro on lower category and more control on higher categories (although creative people will be able to create controlish deck with less than 500 dust). Also this might split a bit the ladder. However in combat sport, it is not a big issues... yes heavy-weight are generally less moving and stronger than light-weight and that heavy-weight is more popular then super-light (due to the power level) but then it allows everyone to compete and not only the 100 kgs+ muscle fighters... which is the situation where HS ladder is now... the only difference being some fight better than others but they all look very similar (4000+ dust).
However, this will generally put the net-decking into the last category (as decks are becoming really expensive nowadays) while creative deck could be seen in lower to mid categories. It will create several meta (one by category) and thus the player experience would be more various too as many "worthless" card will be useful again.
The problem is not high-skills players at level 15-20.... the problem is that new players (or players coming back after a year break) have naturally poor (or poorer) card collection. As you rightly said... top tier netdecks are fairly autopilot for most of them... so the barrier at lower level is not the player skill level (unfortunately) but mostly the collection level. The new Blizzard ladder system - which I like as I start close to rank 5 - does not address this.
New or returning player probably feel that - unless they pay - they will hardly be able to compete versus well tested net decks they can not afford. If a returning player did not play in 2017 and would like to re-start now... it will have a tough time to net deck as even an aggro dude pally cost about 4800 dusts, about 6500 for a Murloc pally, 6000 for secret hunter, about 4000 for secret mage or spiteful priest !!! In 2015, a top tiers aggro deck was around 1500 dusts.... the inflation is out of control at the moment.
I also agree that people will not become super creative with a "weight-based" system and will most likely keep on net decking. You are right there. However, netdecking will be more adapted to their collection ability (of newish or returning players). I do not see the reasons why all weighty meta(s) would be automatically stale and why is this is not anyway a more desirable outcome than one unique meta (stale or not) which is dominated by netdecking. It will be just a multiplication of netdecked meta but more adapted to collection access to new and returning players.
In a couple months the middle ranks will empty out, because having a 20 win surplus actually takes time, only players involved in the game will manage to climb those 4 ranks required to stay where you were a the start of the season.
Theoretically rank 20+ will fill up over time with people that play a little, and ranks 5-legend will fill up with people that manage to make more than a 20 win margin.
So just wait a couple months i guess
Complaining about netdecking doesn't change anything. If you got a problem with enemies "all playing the same decks", know what? Play against friends! If you have some...
What we need is a system like overwatch's. You play placements at the start of each season and based on your winrate, your rank last season and the quality of your deck you are dropped at a certain rank. That way all the cubelocks and secret mages at rank 20 will be placed up high unless they throw all their placements which isnt worth it because youll get a shit rank and then your end of season rewards will most likely turn out bad. This would require rank floors to be removed though.
That's Incredible!
Editor of the Heartpwn Legendary Crafting Guide:
https://www.hearthpwn.com/forums/hearthstone-general/card-discussion/205920-legendary-tier-list-crafting-guide