like when people start going on about "netdecking" and stuff. there are limited cards, some work better than others, people are naturally going to use the cards that work over the ones that don't.
also a lot of interactions were already thought of by the devs, so technically they created the decks anyway. ha ha.
I don't think this was really your point, but I do understand what you're saying.
what you playing anyway, smeg-head?
also I got some curry flavoured beer you might be interested in.
Aye, it's a point that I like to make. Some people just can't see that what they think is original and fresh just isn't.
I'm playing Summoner Mage and Big Paladin on Ladder at the moment. Because I like pain....
And I'm always up for Curry Flavoured Beer and a Triple Fried Egg Chilli Sauce Sandwich.
I’m sorry are you getting at the point that players should have the power to click a “Should this game count for your opponent” button?!?! That has to be the worst idea I’ve ever heard for any video game ever. Salty your opponent top decked lethal? Hit no after the game. He/She emoted you GG two turns early. Hit no after the game. A person first time crafted a new archetype and is sitting at high rank (subjective to their performance) and doesn’t want to hurt their rank? Meh it was a high tier deck... hit no after the game. Absolutely terrible, salty, inconsiderate, spoiled brat, of an idea. Good lord I don’t think I’ve ever been so mad reading an opinion before in my life, but it happened here just now with this comment. The day someone was dumb enough to put this system into place is the day I’d start campaigning on every site possible to get people to quit.
It depends on what you want from the game and if it's the general "beat your opponent no matter what fuck them" mentality (AKA competition) it clearly contradicts that. Instead such a system incentivices people to play the game more like both parties would like it. Maybe you're forgetting something: You are your opponent's opponent. And just to be clear: This only makes sense in casual, not ranked. I just didn't mentioned it because the topic of the thread is about casual and also I don't really give a fuck about ranked anyways.
Yes I realize that, and I’m here telling you that this supposed system would backfire harder than my ass after a Moe’s Monday deal... it gives you the power to do just as I said: abuse the system if you’re salty.
like when people start going on about "netdecking" and stuff. there are limited cards, some work better than others, people are naturally going to use the cards that work over the ones that don't.
also a lot of interactions were already thought of by the devs, so technically they created the decks anyway. ha ha.
I don't think this was really your point, but I do understand what you're saying.
what you playing anyway, smeg-head?
also I got some curry flavoured beer you might be interested in.
Aye, it's a point that I like to make. Some people just can't see that what they think is original and fresh just isn't.
I'm playing Summoner Mage and Big Paladin on Ladder at the moment. Because I like pain....
And I'm always up for Curry Flavoured Beer and a Triple Fried Egg Chilli Sauce Sandwich.
that sounds decent. I reckon you need to batter and then deep fry the sandwich though... and curry flavoured beer batter as well.
Personally I don't have a ton of time to play hearthstone, as much as I love the game. I like to play casual to try new strategies out, and don't feel a need to play Tier 1 decks there. I would like think that people who don't spend lots of money have a place where they can occasionally compete.
I don't get offended when I see golden hero Tier 1 net decks in casual, and typically just concede to find a more evenly matched opponent. I
You all play a free to enter, mobile optional, collectible card game, and you think that just because there is a ranked selection and a casual selection someone or something explicitly laid out the experience you will have/should expect in each mode? This is just pure ignorance if you are someone who curses, harasses, or puts down net-decking in casual. It is casual mode because it does not effect your current ranking...The fact it is called "Casual Mode" in no way insinuates that the experience you have is in fact the definition of "casual". It is gaming jargon for "You have nothing to gain or lose by coming here." WhY uSe CaSuAl As ThE nAmE tHeN?! Because its a 6 letter word that easily explains to virtually any age range that this zone is not tracked for any competitive purposes. Can you be competitive in this mode? YES. Does it matter if you are being competitive? NO. Do you have something to lose in ranked? YES. If you don't want to lose rank where do you go? CASUAL...WITH ANY DECK YOU PLEASE AT ANY TIME OF THE DAY BECAUSE THAT MODE IS DESIGNED TO NOT MATTER FOR TOURNAMENT, PROFESSIONAL, OR POINT/REWARD EARNING PURPOSES.
If I'm getting your general idea why would you be against someone harassing trolling or flaming someone for netdecking or playing a t1 deck in casual? There are no rules against it and some people have fun making other people feel bad.
My argument is any deck can and should be played in casual. Even if it is the number one deck.
I get your point but I think that only applies when there is diversity. Casual is like 90% t1 net decks for me and I'm sure the frustration for others stems from that as well. It is silly to dismiss someone's experience because you don't have the same. I also see those same t1 decks BMing at a much higher rate. I think if someone wants to tell someone off for that it's fine in my book and it should be fine in yours too.
Woah woah woah are you assuming I don't deal with the same problems every other player has? I have played this game for 3 years pretty consistently and in no way am I saying I don't still see the same trends you do. In casual every day I get "Greetings" right before the turn I get executed. In casual every day I fight 5-10 bomb warriors while I'm trying to see if a heal/token druid hybrid would be good/fun. In casual every day I get Emote spammed when I'm playing something fun and my opponent is playing the top win-rate deck, crushing me mercilessly when I have to summon 20 minions of cost 0-2. Don't EVER assume I don't experience the things you are discouraged exist. I have lived in them for years, and yet I still defend their right to do it... For everyone absolutely destroying casual because they are mad/trolling/win-farming there is someone trying a deck for the first time trying to push past rank 11 and is afraid to hit the ladder for that great feeling of watching 10 pop up and they have EVERY RIGHT to play in casual first. I have hit legend and play to rank 5 basically every month. At this point I don't play in casual nearly as often. However, damn right I've been playing casual this past week because the meta is unrefined and I'd like to meme a little with fun decks before jumping back in and try-harding with the others. It is a card game, and it is online with virtually no communication. The only time you know for a fact a player is being rude is if they spam emotes left and right AND they are absolutely digging into you/roping you. Otherwise, you could very well be here complaining about someone building their confidence up with a deck to hit a record rank that makes them feel good. I stand by my previous comment.
That's fine, but you should also be fine with the guy who gets tired of it and adds someone to flame them afterwards. If you take an all or nothing stance, you have to be that about everything.
This debate pretty much comes down to one batch of the playerbase wanting to dictate what the others can play in 'their mode'.
Games should not be about allowing one group of people forcing another group of people how to play.
You may not be able to force others not to use certain decks, but that in nowise disallows you from playing what you want.
It's like if you played rec level sports, and you and some buddies got together for a drop in game at the local venue where other players could drop in and play, and then a full team of professionals showed up and completely dominated everyone, and said, "Why are you complaining? It's just for fun, who cares?" Technically there's no rule they'd be violating....but it's a dick move.
This isn't an argument about what is or isn't in the current set of rules. Clearly there are people who play Hearthstone that don't like queueing into high level competitive decks in a non competitive format. Personally I like to play casual just so I can try out my far fetched ideas and play cards that don't otherwise see play. To suggest that I just concede until I stop queueing into netdecks or just accept my loss and move on because "it's Casual, your losses don't matter" is to ask me to take zero enjoyment from playing and winning. I'm not playing Casual to grind out 100 gold. I'm playing it for the enjoyment. There is no fun to be had from losing/conceding in 80 to 95% of my games. No, my opinion isn't the only one that matters...but neither is my opinion completely meaningless. Clearly there are players that want to have a mode that is free from high level competitive decks.
If they're not going to be working on a new mode (spoiler: they're not), they should at least be working on improving their existing modes. Or....not, and leaving a section of their playerbase completely ignored.
The whole concept of "netdecking" is 100 percent in your head.
Two people who set out to make a Mech Warrior are going to end up choosing 25 cards out of 30 exactly the same. You don't know if they copied each other or just made the best choices.
Stop worrying about what other people are playing and focus on improving your own skills and decks. You'll get much better results.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"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 give a flying F. People have always done this. You get used to it. Or reach a point ehere you consider casual the same as ranked and always play ranked lol.
This debate pretty much comes down to one batch of the playerbase wanting to dictate what the others can play in 'their mode'.
Games should not be about allowing one group of people forcing another group of people how to play.
You may not be able to force others not to use certain decks, but that in nowise disallows you from playing what you want.
It's like if you played rec level sports, and you and some buddies got together for a drop in game at the local venue where other players could drop in and play, and then a full team of professionals showed up and completely dominated everyone, and said, "Why are you complaining? It's just for fun, who cares?" Technically there's no rule they'd be violating....but it's a dick move.
This isn't an argument about what is or isn't in the current set of rules. Clearly there are people who play Hearthstone that don't like queueing into high level competitive decks in a non competitive format. Personally I like to play casual just so I can try out my far fetched ideas and play cards that don't otherwise see play. To suggest that I just concede until I stop queueing into netdecks or just accept my loss and move on because "it's Casual, your losses don't matter" is to ask me to take zero enjoyment from playing and winning. I'm not playing Casual to grind out 100 gold. I'm playing it for the enjoyment. There is no fun to be had from losing/conceding in 80 to 95% of my games. No, my opinion isn't the only one that matters...but neither is my opinion completely meaningless. Clearly there are players that want to have a mode that is free from high level competitive decks.
If they're not going to be working on a new mode (spoiler: they're not), they should at least be working on improving their existing modes. Or....not, and leaving a section of their playerbase completely ignored.
The whole concept of "netdecking" is 100 percent in your head.
Two people who set out to make a Mech Warrior are going to end up choosing 25 cards out of 30 exactly the same. You don't know if they copied each other or just made the best choices.
Stop worrying about what other people are playing and focus on improving your own skills and decks. You'll get much better results.
You're absolutely correct in what you're saying there - though I believe that for the most part, the most common reason that people cry "Netdecker!" at the opponent is because they lost and are salty and accusing the opponent of netdecking (which is basically akin to accusations of cheating without actually saying cheating) is to make themselves feel better by providing something of an excuse as to why they lost: EG: "You only beat me because you cheated and looked up a good deck online rather than trying to come up with your own deck which would have been much worse and would have let me win..."
Yes I realize that, and I’m here telling you that this supposed system would backfire harder than my ass after a Moe’s Monday deal... it gives you the power to do just as I said: abuse the system if you’re salty.
Abuse? Not really. It's intended to make the game better for everyone. This salty person doesn't enjoy the game that much. The proposed system is intended to incentivise behavior from players to avoid such outcomes. As I said it would be pretty weird in ranked, but it would be amazing in casual.
The whole concept of "netdecking" is 100 percent in your head.
Two people who set out to make a Mech Warrior are going to end up choosing 25 cards out of 30 exactly the same. You don't know if they copied each other or just made the best choices.
Stop worrying about what other people are playing and focus on improving your own skills and decks. You'll get much better results.
You're absolutely correct in what you're saying there - though I believe that for the most part, the most common reason that people cry "Netdecker!" at the opponent is because they lost and are salty and accusing the opponent of netdecking (which is basically akin to accusations of cheating without actually saying cheating) is to make themselves feel better by providing something of an excuse as to why they lost: EG: "You only beat me because you cheated and looked up a good deck online rather than trying to come up with your own deck which would have been much worse and would have let me win..."
100% incorrect. How can you be so off base yet so confident in your answer? I'm not sure where to even begin because almost every word of this is wrong.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life before death. Strength before weakness. Journey before destination.
The whole concept of "netdecking" is 100 percent in your head.
Two people who set out to make a Mech Warrior are going to end up choosing 25 cards out of 30 exactly the same. You don't know if they copied each other or just made the best choices.
Stop worrying about what other people are playing and focus on improving your own skills and decks. You'll get much better results.
You're absolutely correct in what you're saying there - though I believe that for the most part, the most common reason that people cry "Netdecker!" at the opponent is because they lost and are salty and accusing the opponent of netdecking (which is basically akin to accusations of cheating without actually saying cheating) is to make themselves feel better by providing something of an excuse as to why they lost: EG: "You only beat me because you cheated and looked up a good deck online rather than trying to come up with your own deck which would have been much worse and would have let me win..."
100% incorrect. How can you be so off base yet so confident in your answer? I'm not sure where to even begin because almost every word of this is wrong.
You have some evidence for that assertion? Or are you simply going on "You're wrong because I say you are.."?
Let me try your logic here, because this is apparently how you think a rebuttal works: Your reply is 100% wrong and I can't understand how you can possibly think that what you said is correct. It's simply that wrong! I can't even begin to prove this because you're just so wrong in what you just said! Oh my, how wrong you are! I'd provide evidence to why you are so wrong, but I don't even know where to start! So I guess I won't because that way I don't have to back up my own statement! Ye Gods! It's incredible! Did I mention you were wrong?
The whole concept of "netdecking" is 100 percent in your head.
Two people who set out to make a Mech Warrior are going to end up choosing 25 cards out of 30 exactly the same. You don't know if they copied each other or just made the best choices.
Stop worrying about what other people are playing and focus on improving your own skills and decks. You'll get much better results.
You're absolutely correct in what you're saying there - though I believe that for the most part, the most common reason that people cry "Netdecker!" at the opponent is because they lost and are salty and accusing the opponent of netdecking (which is basically akin to accusations of cheating without actually saying cheating) is to make themselves feel better by providing something of an excuse as to why they lost: EG: "You only beat me because you cheated and looked up a good deck online rather than trying to come up with your own deck which would have been much worse and would have let me win..."
100% incorrect. How can you be so off base yet so confident in your answer? I'm not sure where to even begin because almost every word of this is wrong.
How is it 100% incorrect? You can't just throw phrases like that around with some sort of rebuff.
Come on, let's hear from you why that post is '100% Incorrect'.
"You're absolutely correct in what you're saying there" ('The whole concept of "netdecking" is 100 percent in your head.') - This is just....actually wrong. You're agreeing with a claim that netdecks are imagined....on a site that posts netdecks. Ok let's assume you're not that ignorant and maybe you're saying that just because a Druid in Casual drops T1 Acornbearer and T2 Dreamway Guardians that doesn't mean they're playing netdeck Token Druid or even Token Druid at all....sure you won't know if they're playing the exact VS list unless they play their entire deck, but at a certain point, you're merely arguing to argue. Just because they only one 1x of a card where the netdeck runs 2x doesn't mean they're not running a netdeck, and this is especially true in the beginning of an expansion when optimized lists haven't been figured out.
"for the most part, the most common reason that people cry "Netdecker!" at the opponent is because they lost and are salty and accusing the opponent of netdecking" - I can't speak for other people, but I don't cry "netdecker!" just because I lost. I get salty if it's clear they're running a netdeck in casual (which in my experience is almost 100% of the time), but I don't just throw that word out there because I'm mad. It's usually really obvious they're netdecking.
"which is basically akin to accusations of cheating without actually saying cheating" - I have never accused anyone of cheating. I don't know how you can just make this claim that calling someone out for netdecking is the equivalent of a baseless claim of cheating.
"is to make themselves feel better by providing something of an excuse as to why they lost" - wrong again. I'm fine with losing in Casual, believe it or not.
There.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life before death. Strength before weakness. Journey before destination.
"You're absolutely correct in what you're saying there" ('The whole concept of "netdecking" is 100 percent in your head.') - This is just....actually wrong. You're agreeing with a claim that netdecks are imagined....on a site that posts netdecks.
This is my slight error - I didn't specify which part I was inferring was correct from the previous user's post and it was ambiguous enought to be misunderstood. I was actually referring to the idea that 2 people could create decks with 25 identical cards based on an archetype and that has nothing to do with netdecking per se. That all said, the concept of netdecking as a negative action is still something that is completely made up. And hence my point would be correct. Maybe that makes it a little clearer for you.
Ok let's assume you're not that ignorant and maybe you're saying that just because a Druid in Casual drops T1 Acornbearer and T2 Dreamway Guardians that doesn't mean they're playing netdeck Token Druid or even Token Druid at all....sure you won't know if they're playing the exact VS list unless they play their entire deck, but at a certain point, you're merely arguing to argue. Just because they only one 1x of a card where the netdeck runs 2x doesn't mean they're not running a netdeck, and this is especially true in the beginning of an expansion when optimized lists haven't been figured out.
None of this has anything to do with the point that I made. I was talking about when people accuse others of "netdecking", rather than worrying about what Tom, Dick or Harry thinks the definition of netdecking is or should be. That, and the obvious fact that you will never be able to determine if somone actually netdeck any deck regardless of the cards in it. To do so, actually 100% IS in your head.
"for the most part, the most common reason that people cry "Netdecker!" at the opponent is because they lost and are salty and accusing the opponent of netdecking" - I can't speak for other people,
We can both make assumptions about what people do or don't think / feel. The difference is the part you seem to have intentionally missed out from this sentence where I said "I believe that..." (an opinion-based statement) whereas you have made a factual claim that I am 100% incorrect. So unless you have evidence that supports this that isn't simply your subjective opinion dressed up as fact then that's where the argument should end.
"which is basically akin to accusations of cheating without actually saying cheating" - I have never accused anyone of cheating. I don't know how you can just make this claim that calling someone out for netdecking is the equivalent of a baseless claim of cheating.
Again. Subjective remark based on personal anecdote doesn't equate to factual evidence about the actions of the player base at large. State your opinion as opion (like I did), or back it up with some evidence.
"is to make themselves feel better by providing something of an excuse as to why they lost" - wrong again. I'm fine with losing in Casual, believe it or not.
There.
I'm not even sure what you're arguing here, but I'm going to go ahead and assume it's the same problem as above...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Aye, it's a point that I like to make. Some people just can't see that what they think is original and fresh just isn't.
I'm playing Summoner Mage and Big Paladin on Ladder at the moment. Because I like pain....
And I'm always up for Curry Flavoured Beer and a Triple Fried Egg Chilli Sauce Sandwich.
4/3/19 RIP Keith Flint. 😔
We all passed that way, annoying but fact. Sorry :/
40+ Trades in Challenge a Friend! quest.
Yes I realize that, and I’m here telling you that this supposed system would backfire harder than my ass after a Moe’s Monday deal... it gives you the power to do just as I said: abuse the system if you’re salty.
This debate pretty much comes down to one batch of the playerbase wanting to dictate what the others can play in 'their mode'.
Games should not be about allowing one group of people forcing another group of people how to play.
You may not be able to force others not to use certain decks, but that in nowise disallows you from playing what you want.
that sounds decent. I reckon you need to batter and then deep fry the sandwich though... and curry flavoured beer batter as well.
Personally I don't have a ton of time to play hearthstone, as much as I love the game. I like to play casual to try new strategies out, and don't feel a need to play Tier 1 decks there. I would like think that people who don't spend lots of money have a place where they can occasionally compete.
I don't get offended when I see golden hero Tier 1 net decks in casual, and typically just concede to find a more evenly matched opponent. I
That's fine, but you should also be fine with the guy who gets tired of it and adds someone to flame them afterwards. If you take an all or nothing stance, you have to be that about everything.
It's like if you played rec level sports, and you and some buddies got together for a drop in game at the local venue where other players could drop in and play, and then a full team of professionals showed up and completely dominated everyone, and said, "Why are you complaining? It's just for fun, who cares?" Technically there's no rule they'd be violating....but it's a dick move.
This isn't an argument about what is or isn't in the current set of rules. Clearly there are people who play Hearthstone that don't like queueing into high level competitive decks in a non competitive format. Personally I like to play casual just so I can try out my far fetched ideas and play cards that don't otherwise see play. To suggest that I just concede until I stop queueing into netdecks or just accept my loss and move on because "it's Casual, your losses don't matter" is to ask me to take zero enjoyment from playing and winning. I'm not playing Casual to grind out 100 gold. I'm playing it for the enjoyment. There is no fun to be had from losing/conceding in 80 to 95% of my games. No, my opinion isn't the only one that matters...but neither is my opinion completely meaningless. Clearly there are players that want to have a mode that is free from high level competitive decks.
If they're not going to be working on a new mode (spoiler: they're not), they should at least be working on improving their existing modes. Or....not, and leaving a section of their playerbase completely ignored.
Kaladin's RoS Set Review
Join me at Out of Cards!
The whole concept of "netdecking" is 100 percent in your head.
Two people who set out to make a Mech Warrior are going to end up choosing 25 cards out of 30 exactly the same. You don't know if they copied each other or just made the best choices.
Stop worrying about what other people are playing and focus on improving your own skills and decks. You'll get much better results.
"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 give a flying F. People have always done this. You get used to it. Or reach a point ehere you consider casual the same as ranked and always play ranked lol.
This is 100% spot on. Thank you.
40% of the people live in Card board box under a bridge cause they are the very stupid people that natural selection should get rid of .
You're absolutely correct in what you're saying there - though I believe that for the most part, the most common reason that people cry "Netdecker!" at the opponent is because they lost and are salty and accusing the opponent of netdecking (which is basically akin to accusations of cheating without actually saying cheating) is to make themselves feel better by providing something of an excuse as to why they lost:
EG: "You only beat me because you cheated and looked up a good deck online rather than trying to come up with your own deck which would have been much worse and would have let me win..."
Abuse? Not really. It's intended to make the game better for everyone. This salty person doesn't enjoy the game that much. The proposed system is intended to incentivise behavior from players to avoid such outcomes. As I said it would be pretty weird in ranked, but it would be amazing in casual.
I would like for casual to be filled with meme decks but people just play meta decks. Nothing you can do about it tbh.
Also your opponent is not responsible for your fun
100% incorrect. How can you be so off base yet so confident in your answer? I'm not sure where to even begin because almost every word of this is wrong.
Kaladin's RoS Set Review
Join me at Out of Cards!
You have some evidence for that assertion? Or are you simply going on "You're wrong because I say you are.."?
Let me try your logic here, because this is apparently how you think a rebuttal works:
Your reply is 100% wrong and I can't understand how you can possibly think that what you said is correct. It's simply that wrong! I can't even begin to prove this because you're just so wrong in what you just said! Oh my, how wrong you are! I'd provide evidence to why you are so wrong, but I don't even know where to start! So I guess I won't because that way I don't have to back up my own statement!
Ye Gods! It's incredible!
Did I mention you were wrong?
How is it 100% incorrect? You can't just throw phrases like that around with some sort of rebuff.
Come on, let's hear from you why that post is '100% Incorrect'.
4/3/19 RIP Keith Flint. 😔
I'll give it my best shot.
There.
Kaladin's RoS Set Review
Join me at Out of Cards!
This is my slight error - I didn't specify which part I was inferring was correct from the previous user's post and it was ambiguous enought to be misunderstood. I was actually referring to the idea that 2 people could create decks with 25 identical cards based on an archetype and that has nothing to do with netdecking per se. That all said, the concept of netdecking as a negative action is still something that is completely made up. And hence my point would be correct. Maybe that makes it a little clearer for you.
None of this has anything to do with the point that I made.
I was talking about when people accuse others of "netdecking", rather than worrying about what Tom, Dick or Harry thinks the definition of netdecking is or should be.
That, and the obvious fact that you will never be able to determine if somone actually netdeck any deck regardless of the cards in it. To do so, actually 100% IS in your head.
We can both make assumptions about what people do or don't think / feel. The difference is the part you seem to have intentionally missed out from this sentence where I said "I believe that..." (an opinion-based statement) whereas you have made a factual claim that I am 100% incorrect. So unless you have evidence that supports this that isn't simply your subjective opinion dressed up as fact then that's where the argument should end.
Again. Subjective remark based on personal anecdote doesn't equate to factual evidence about the actions of the player base at large. State your opinion as opion (like I did), or back it up with some evidence.
I'm not even sure what you're arguing here, but I'm going to go ahead and assume it's the same problem as above...