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.
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.
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.
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.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
⚙
Learn More
Cosmetics
Related Cards
Card Pools
✕
×
PopCard Settings
Click on the buttons to change the PopCard background.
Elements settings
Click on the button to hide or unhide popcard elements.
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 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.