You've sort of gone mask off here and essentially proved my original response was appropriate. Here I was, worried I had interpreted what you'd said in "bad faith", slightly reaffirmed by others seeing it the same way, and now fully vindicated.
Everybody was responding to you OP, where you came off as aggressive and imposed that your preferences were the objectively best and most fun way to play.
Your clear inability to empathize with other people's positions is made extremely obvious now, as this weird food analogy you've concocted (or cooked up, if you'd prefer) demonstrates that you have clear disdain for people who live their lives differently from you without any attempt at trying to understand why they live that way. You created a hypothetical person who acts a certain way to prove this.
If, hypothetically, I was attending the same food joint for years, here's a few reasons that could be the case:
It's the only local place in my small town/area proximal to my work.
That particular dish is cheap and I'm on an extremely restrictive budget.
I work long hours/awkward hours and don't have the time to cook properly.
The place is sentimental/otherwise meaningful to me in some way (met my hypothetical wife here/it used to be my Dad's restaurant/etc.)
I have to order a particular dish because I have specific food allergies and don't want to bother the weight staff/cooks with alterations to my order.
I order a particular dish because it makes me feel nostalgic/good (Ratatouille).
etc.
Also, it's proven to be beneficial to one's health to eat the same food everyday, it apparently helps in losing weight. One Google search solved that one. I myself have gone on multiple month-long kicks of eating the same dinners (chicken + broccoli/baked tofu + brown rice) for a wealth of reasons I don't care to go into. If a hypothetical person were to try my cooking and tell me it was really bad, and to take lessons, I'd sure feel lousy but that wouldn't make them wrong. Maybe I did cook poorly, and of course I could stand to learn how to cook better, but whatever, I'd take their criticisms to heart and move on. I wouldn't call them any mean names or anything. Maybe overly blunt or insensitive, but some people are just like that.
Hearthstone is not a TCG. It's a CCG. You can't trade Hearthstone cards with your peers. You can collect Hearthstone cards and pretend you own them. Perhaps in a TCG deckbuilding is more meaningful because your ownership of the cards and need to purchase them necessitates building a good deck - as to maximize the productivity of the money you spent on it - but you can also netdeck in TCGs. Every TCG community (I'm a spectator of like 3 of them, with 2 CCGs on top of that) has people who believe that "netdecking is bad" for various reasons that they're entitled to. You're entitled to believe the same, though when you impose that people who netdeck are morally inferior to you or are otherwise bad, that's when you get threads like this. You can backpedal all you want, but everybody who read your OP and didn't immediately agree understood that you were projecting those things, even if you didn't say them.
Cooking and learning how to cook requires a time investment, as well as a financial one because you have to spend money to acquire ingredients and tools. Likewise, deckbuilding in the way you describe requires time investment, as well as a financial one. There are 10 classes in Hearthstone, each of which having 100's of cards by now that they can play. Packs are random and anti-consumer, making getting the things you want/need to experiment with a total crapshoot and financial sinkhole.
Ultimately your analogy falls flat because nobody is really saying that they're a better deckbuilder than you. Some are inferring from your post that you're not good at it, because salty threads like this are typically spawned when people lose to meta decks with their homebrews - which is a totally reasonable conclusion to draw. Plenty of people have been saying the reasons they netdeck, each as valid as the last. You deciding to cling to the few people saying that you're "bad" is a tell that you don't have anything to say that can actually validate your original position against all these people with rock solid reasoning to do what you said was bad.
And finally, you saying that "The funniest part is that they think that the deck builders are the snobby and rude ones, when actually it's the opposite" is ridiculous, hypocritical, and flagrant self-victimization after you literally made a post antagonizing the people you're talking about. You proposed that people who disagree with you are morons, and you said that some people who argue against your point are so dumb they couldn't deck build in the first place (unlike you, a galaxy brain king). Your OP was snobby and rude and people responded in kind, don't pretend that you're some victim just because people are reciprocating the same energy as you.
1
Man, I wish this thread had come a couple days ago (or that I had thought of Mercs). I got both arcane and frost within a couple days of each other. Both were brutal to complete in traditional HS.
1
He's a Johnny One-Note: all he talks about is "rigged" and tries to steer every conversation back to that. The fact that I have not seen a single person deny that there are bots makes no difference to him.
3nnui, that effort was so transparent, it was sad.
Getting back to OP, yeah, bots are around, but not nearly as bad as it was a few months back. I don't see them very often. I do wish Blizzard would create an easier way to report these things, because it's pretty tedious trying to do so now.
15
Nice, nasty response. Very mature. Maybe, just maybe, OP doesn't like playing the questline and wants to, you know, try a less boring deck to play. I'll pretend to be shocked that your name is Aggro.
I'm disappointed to hear that the card has not yet been particularly good. Since I don't have it (but liked playing mage before it became "spells and nothing else"), I had high hopes that we could see a more interesting archetype this expac. That said, we're still very early in the expansion: perhaps someone will come up with a deck that isn't mindless to play and painful to play against.
3
Dude. It's been less than 24 hours, so we have absolutely no idea what the new meta will be like. Also, I don't know about you, but I've seen multiple new decks on ladder.
6
I hate to be an English stickler, but the sentence "It effects cards like Moonfang in a new way!" is incorrect. It should say "affect," not "effect." To "effect" is to cause or create: to "affect" is to influence.
But the TITLE of the story IS correct!
1
Well played....
2
"Partially live"? Is that anything like "mostly dead"? (Sorry, but any reference to The Princess Bride is a good one.)
2
Let's set aside the fact that, once again, you rely on your impressions and memories, rather than actual statistics. As others have pointed out, that's inherently flawed. Speaking as someone who has been playing this game for years, I've NEVER seen the pattern you describe. Sure, sometimes you create a new deck and your first few matches are hard counters, but that's to be expected if you have any understanding of statistics. (Especially if one of the most popular decks is heavily favored against yours.) In my experience, over time the trends revert back to the existing deck distribution.
What made me laugh was that you insist that DESPITE BEING MATCHED WITH COUNTER DECKS, you're not losing. Wow! You must be, like, the best HS player on the planet!! You're being matched (by the evil lizard people running Blizzard) with decks that hard counter yours and STILL you come out on top.
You, sir, are the greatest. Can I have your autograph?
3
This post is all the proof you need to show that these dudes know exactly nothing about probability. Seriously, this might be the most laughably asinine idea for data collection I've ever seen on this forum. "Play a few games and see if you go on a winning streak." Don't look at the vast data collected by numerous sites: go with your hunch.
1
Not to put words in his mouth, but that's exactly what OP is saying. He's criticizing those who complain that "Blizzard is, like, you know, like selling stuff again. SCAM! GREED!" Complaining about something that is entirely optional and has no impact on gameplay is, well, nuts.