Netdecking and Originality

Play Mode Discussion
05/01/2018 09:33 AMPosted by Rust
I have no problem with netdecking in Ranked. When it's all about winning at all costs and climbing as high as you can, there's no way around netdecking.

My problem is that it doesn't stop there. When 80% or more of the decks I see in Casual are meta netdecks, that's when I have a problem. It would be nice to have a place to get away from that.


You stole my thunder. In casual, against T1/T2 meta decks, I concede at the first inclination. If I’m losing anyway, in the most boring and predictable way, might as well speed it up...

But when it’s a crazy deck I will stay regardless of how far behind I am. At that point I want to know what you are going to come up with.
There's a very simple and easy solution to OP's problem. Blizzard should make lobby rooms/tournament mode (similar to that of PC FPS games like CounterStrike). People can set up their own rules/settings in their rooms/tourneys, and others can join their rooms to play. This way, it gives others more freedom instead of being restricted to the constructed matchmaking system.
If your creative deck doesen't win, it isn't a creative deck. It is just a stupid deck.
If you want straight up originality where everything is valid and competition isn't the focus become an artist.


Oh sweet summer child...
05/01/2018 09:24 AMPosted by Mand
Plenty of people are creative. Except most of the decks that get made don’t win much, which is why you don’t see them played in a mode dedicated to winning.
I have a good 30% win rate with my custom deck. He speaks the truth.
A hater of netdecks is like an incompetent engineer.

A competent engineer performs research and then, to the best of his abilities, develops a product. He investigates his options and chooses the best design. Often it will resemble other inherently efficient designs. Sometimes he will prove a better understanding by squeezing out additional performance with his own subtle innovations and methods.

The incompetent engineer doesn't perform research. He then misinterprets his inability to perform research with "being creative". He then confuses his inability to tell the difference between good and bad designs with "being open-minded". Finally, he confuses his ability to ignore reason and champion a terrible cause with "being a visionary". What the incompetent engineer doesn't know is that his design was probably conceived, evaluated, and rejected by the competent engineer; and that took very little time and effort due to his superior evaluation skills. Of course, the incompetent engineer never learns this because he will not perform research.

A lifetime of pursuing bad designs horribly stifles his ability to learn and improve, and his evaluation skills suffer so badly that he loses his ability to recognize good designs. This results in a mentality where creating superior designs without copying them is inconceivable, even if that is completely illogical due to designs needing to be created before they can be copied.

Finally, the incompetent engineer transitions away from valuing his own competence and sets trivial and asinine goals for himself that have nothing to do with showing, learning, or employing useful skills. He then confuses his ability to meet these goals with superiority over the competent engineer.
HeVi, you just described at least half of the people I’ve worked with.
Originality? There's no originality in making a deck from pre-made cards with pre-made interactions and synergies.

Originality is when you make the card yourself.
05/02/2018 02:46 AMPosted by HeVi
A hater of netdecks is like an incompetent engineer.

A competent engineer performs research and then, to the best of his abilities, develops a product. He investigates his options and chooses the best design. Often it will resemble other inherently efficient designs. Sometimes he will prove a better understanding by squeezing out additional performance with his own subtle innovations and methods.

The incompetent engineer doesn't perform research. He then misinterprets his inability to perform research with "being creative". He then confuses his inability to tell the difference between good and bad designs with "being open-minded". Finally, he confuses his ability to ignore reason and champion a terrible cause with "being a visionary". What the incompetent engineer doesn't know is that his design was probably conceived, evaluated, and rejected by the competent engineer; and that took very little time and effort due to his superior evaluation skills. Of course, the incompetent engineer never learns this because he will not perform research.

A lifetime of pursuing bad designs horribly stifles his ability to learn and improve, and his evaluation skills suffer so badly that he loses his ability to recognize good designs. This results in a mentality where creating superior designs without copying them is inconceivable, even if that is completely illogical due to designs needing to be created before they can be copied.

Finally, the incompetent engineer transitions away from valuing his own competence and sets trivial and asinine goals for himself that have nothing to do with showing, learning, or employing useful skills. He then confuses his ability to meet these goals with superiority over the competent engineer.


OR maybe some people enjoy experimenting and doing their own research.. part of the fun of deck building is learning for yourself what cards work and which ones don't. I am willing to learn the hard way a card sucks because I enjoy the tinkering process. I WANT to know for myself how a card performs not just take someone else's word for it based on their experience. Honestly the best way to learn how to evaluate cards is by doing your own research not just copying some "cliff-notes" off of the internet. That is the difference between knowing a card is bad and knowing WHY a card is bad.
^

Congratulations on missing the point to an extent that's outright comical.
05/02/2018 07:20 AMPosted by HeVi
^

Congratulations on missing the point to an extent that's outright comical.

Disliking netdecks =/= a bad engineer
That is where I disagree. That is a stereotypical response that I guarantee you did not research. :P

Sure I admit if you manage to come up with a decent deck on your own it is probably going to look pretty similar to something on the internet already. For some of us though, the process of deck building and tinkering is where we get satisfaction from the game and looking up a guide online would take away from the part of the game we enjoy the most.
Disliking netdecks =/= a bad engineer


He's not saying that "disliking" netdecks is like being a bad engineer. You can personally dislike good decks as much as you want. That doesn't make you a bad engineer. It makes you a lousy PLAYER and a scrub, but not like a bad engineer.

What he's saying that people who think "creativity and originality" should be more important in a PVP game than effectiveness and efficiency are like bad engineers. And he's absolutely right. Any person who goes around thinking that the point of any competitive game is how "original" you are when playing it is an idiot.
05/02/2018 07:51 AMPosted by TheRiddler
Disliking netdecks =/= a bad engineer


He's not saying that "disliking" netdecks is like being a bad engineer. You can personally dislike good decks as much as you want. That doesn't make you a bad engineer. It makes you a lousy PLAYER and a scrub, but not like a bad engineer.

Lol now you are the one putting in personal opinions as if the two things are mutually dependant. You can't just say people are lousy players or scrubs just because they approach building a deck differently than you do! Disliking looking up decks because you would rather build one yourself doesn't mean you are just gonna throw in a bunch of bad cards just to be different.
05/02/2018 08:00 AMPosted by HegemoNey
Disliking looking up decks because you would rather build one yourself doesn't mean you are just gonna throw in a bunch of bad cards just to be different.


That is exactly what some people mean when they say "be original." If everyone is running Pompous Thespian these people will run Frostwolf grunt to be cool and then yell at everyone who doesn't how they should jump of a building for playing the objectively better card.

There is being a brewer of decks and being good (after all meta decks come to exist thanks to some people they do not just appear out of nowhere) and there is people who are just bad and excuse it with everyone else running good cards being unoriginal.
You can't just say people are lousy players or scrubs just because they approach building a deck differently than you do! Disliking looking up decks because you would rather build one yourself doesn't mean you are just gonna throw in a bunch of bad cards just to be different.


I'm happy to educate you, since you seem to not understand what a scrub is. Here's the link to the guy who literally wrote the book on it.

http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/introducingthe-scrub

"A scrub is a player who is handicapped by self-imposed rules that the game knows nothing about. A scrub does not play to win."

A person who handicaps their own performance at Hearthstone by prioritizing "originality" as opposed to being effective is - by definition - a scrub. Such persons are using made-up, imaginary standards or "originality" as an excuse to deliberately justify inferior performance. That's a scrub. That's like being a bad engineer who prioritizes form over function.
05/02/2018 07:02 AMPosted by HegemoNey
05/02/2018 02:46 AMPosted by HeVi
A hater of netdecks is like an incompetent engineer.

A competent engineer performs research and then, to the best of his abilities, develops a product. He investigates his options and chooses the best design. Often it will resemble other inherently efficient designs. Sometimes he will prove a better understanding by squeezing out additional performance with his own subtle innovations and methods.

The incompetent engineer doesn't perform research. He then misinterprets his inability to perform research with "being creative". He then confuses his inability to tell the difference between good and bad designs with "being open-minded". Finally, he confuses his ability to ignore reason and champion a terrible cause with "being a visionary". What the incompetent engineer doesn't know is that his design was probably conceived, evaluated, and rejected by the competent engineer; and that took very little time and effort due to his superior evaluation skills. Of course, the incompetent engineer never learns this because he will not perform research.

A lifetime of pursuing bad designs horribly stifles his ability to learn and improve, and his evaluation skills suffer so badly that he loses his ability to recognize good designs. This results in a mentality where creating superior designs without copying them is inconceivable, even if that is completely illogical due to designs needing to be created before they can be copied.

Finally, the incompetent engineer transitions away from valuing his own competence and sets trivial and asinine goals for himself that have nothing to do with showing, learning, or employing useful skills. He then confuses his ability to meet these goals with superiority over the competent engineer.


OR maybe some people enjoy experimenting and doing their own research.. part of the fun of deck building is learning for yourself what cards work and which ones don't. I am willing to learn the hard way a card sucks because I enjoy the tinkering process. I WANT to know for myself how a card performs not just take someone else's word for it based on their experience. Honestly the best way to learn how to evaluate cards is by doing your own research not just copying some "cliff-notes" off of the internet. That is the difference between knowing a card is bad and knowing WHY a card is bad.


If you did your own performance evaluation then you would drop your "original" deck pretty soon. Because as the other guy said, it is an illusion that people are not creative in HS. Every single combination of cards you can think of was tried by somebody else already, and 99% of them are failed design and never saw play after the trial period.

Creative is not bury your head in the sand and keep using a deck despite of its flaws, it's the exact definition of stupidity (keep doing the same thing and expecting different results).

Edit: and just wondering, if Blizzard helped your home-made decks to punch above his weight, how will you get an accurate result about its performance? Nobody stopping you to use your homemade deck, but don't complain if it was trashed around by other netdecks. Netdeckers are actually doing you a favor by helping testing it.
OP is correct but encourage creative decks is not encourage people to do crap.

I'm can see something in that regard being a thing but i'm not sure if it would be good or bad for the game in general since the creative deck of today is the netdeck of tomorrow.
The point I am making is that building decks by yourself and testing them over time allows you to be better at evaluating cards in the long term. Sure if you are objective, the finished product will probably look very similar to a "netdeck". Not every player who builds decks without help from the internet is a "scrub". You can still build quality decks if you put time and effort into finding the synergies and cards that work best together for yourself.

For example, let's say two players want to make a Rogue deck.

Player 1 looks up a miracle deck online. He has more initial success because he is using a deck that has already been optimized.

Player 2 builds the deck from scratch. He realizes he needs a lot of cycle so he adds Auctioneer. After playing with auctioneer for some time he realizes the value of a card like Tomb Pillager and adds it to his deck. A good body that generates a cheap spell to set up his Auctioneer play.

So then Tomb Pillager rotates. Player 1 is at a disadvantage when adjusting his deck. He probably adds cards like Xaril Poisinmind to his deck thinking he just needs to replace Tomb Pillager's spell generation on a body. Either that or he just waits until someone updates their list online to update his own deck.
Player 2 has been working on the deck for some time so he understands the value of adding a card like counterfeit coin right away. Knowing that while Pillager comes with a nice body, the coin is the piece that is more essential to having a strong Auctioneer turn.

When you do your own research it allows you to have a better understanding of WHY cards are good or bad for a deck. Not just that they are bad because someone else said so.
Not everyone who builds decks independently without help from the internet make just meme decks or hipster decks that are original but bad. Making your own decks doesn't inherently make you a "scrub" or a "bad engineer". I would argue it has potential to actually make you a better player. Not only for evaluating new cards but also in the way you pilot a deck and make decisions during a game. It takes more time and doesn't have the same initial success as looking up a deck, but it can give you an overall better understanding of game mechanics and in the long term make you a more successful player.

There are exceptions to everything. You have to stay objective if you want a deck you make on your own to be any good. There are plenty of people who think they are clever adding bad cards like wolfrider sure. I am just saying not everyone who prefers building their own decks is a bad player. So you guys shouldn't lump them all into the dumpster tier of Hearthstone players... a lot of them are probably much better at the game than you and I will ever be.
You can still build quality decks if you put time and effort into finding the synergies and cards that work best together for yourself.


In a CCG this is not a particularly difficult thing to do. The vast majority of synergies are obvious in design on the level of "here's a big red button - push it." The use of the vast majority of decks, combos, and cards is self-evident. Putting time and effort into 'finding' those synergies is like putting time and effort into stacking bricks or sweeping a floor. They're simple, obvious tasks by design. Spending a lot of time and effort on performing simple, obvious tasks can make a person MARGINALLY better at performing them ... but not to a degree that is meaningful.

Any schmuck can pick up a broom and do a good job sweeping a floor. Maybe some other guy who has been sweeping floors for 30 years is SLIGHTLY better at it ... but who cares? Joe Schmuck with 5 minutes training can get the job done just fine. So it is with "Deck Building Skillz" in Hearthstone.

Blizzard: "Here's a yellow block!"
Original Player: "A yellow block! Wow! Maybe - just MAYBE - putting this yellow block with these OTHER yellow blocks would be good..."
Blizzard: "NOW that's smart thinking!"
Original Player: "Boy - if I keep doing this then I bet I'll get really good at recognizing these patterns some day! I'll be so much better at deck building..."
Brand New Player: "I'm having fun with this Yellow Block deck I saw online that everyone says is pretty good..."
Original Player: "Pht! Stand back, n00b, and leave this to someone who has spent time and effort at it! So unoriginal..."

Making your own decks doesn't inherently make you a "scrub" or a "bad engineer".


You aren't picking up what's being put down. A scrub is a person who PRIORITIZES their inferior homebrew deck over an obviously superior one. Players of all types make their own decks all the time and there's nothing bad about that. Taking an inferior deck into a competition, knowing that it is inferior, is a scrub choice.

And there's nothing inherently wrong with being a scrub. Don't take it personally. We all make choices that are scrubby. I've got a scrub Gunspire deck I play sometimes just because I like it. I know it is a 'bad deck', but I play it anyway. Your error is that you are wrongly assuming that someone who chooses a bad deck automatically means they're a bad player. Being a scrub doesn't mean a person is a bad player. Some scrubs are exceptionally good players. That doesn't mean they aren't making scrub choices though.

The problem comes in when a player (such as the OP) goes around thinking that Blizzard ought to DESIGN THE GAME so as to prioritize and/or reward scrubbiness. That's a bad engineer.
@The Riddler
I see where you are coming from and I assure you I am not offended. I agree with you that players shouldn't be rewarded just because their deck list has cards that see a low percentage of play. It would be better just to rebalance cards so more are competitive if you really wanted to see more variety.
You may find the deck building process dull, but keep in mind there are players that consider that to be the part of the game they like the most.
It's like playing an rpg. Some players want to start with a guide so they feel informed going in. Make an optimal build and beat the game quick and easy. Others get the satisfaction of building their characters on the fly and figuring out the puzzles and questlines as they go. Maybe even starting over from scratch to get to that optimal build. Neither person is playing the game wrong, they just differ in what makes the game enjoyable to them.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum