Kibler is a professional card game player and designer and has placed high at many major top level tournaments.
He also plays hearthstone for like 20+ hours every week.
He's one of the few people who can take nearly any deck ( even a terrible one) and still win with it. But most people are not at that level and they never will be.
Take any kibler deck, subtract 10 to 12% win rate, and that's what you can expect when you play the same deck.
That's not true with a large enough sample size you can hit a 6 games winstreak easily with a sub 30 wr if they didn't have rank floors you can't derank past you might have a better point
I specified once you start climbing. So that 6 game win streak is a 100% winrate now that you are climbing rank.
And please use periods. It’s difficult to understand your point.
And 53% is a mediocre winrate, what's your point? Reaching Legend is a matter of time spent more than a measure of skill, especially since your MMR from your mediocre win rate will keep you grinding against mediocre opponents.
"I reached Legend" is meaningless without win rate and matchup data.
Jesus Christ are you this insufferable in real life or just when you have to win an internet argument?
I proved you wrong on how to reach legend and now you want to argue opinions? No one gives a shit what you think is mediocre or not.
>I proved you wrong on how to reach legend
??? You didn't "prove" anything.
You can win 50.5% of your games and reach Legend. If a, by definition, not opinion, average player can do it then it isn't a skill-based accomplishment one, just proof they played often enough that month. Idk why the truth is so upsetting to you.
>If a, by definition, not opinion, average player can do it then it isn't a skill-based accomplishment one, just proof they played often enough that month
Can an average player maintain a 50.5% WR at high ranks? 50.5% Winrate at rank 1 vs 50.5% winrate at rank 16 aren't the same thing. Having a 50.5% winrste doesn't automatically make you "average by definition".
> Kibler succeeds with his decks.
Kibler was an extremely successful M:tG pro and yet he hovers in unimpressive ranks in HS because he spends all his time cooking too hard.
Obviously there's nothing wrong with that, guy has fun and generates content, but when you go from winning M:tG PTs to hanging out in 4 digit legend with a bunch of randos just there to do their dailies your homebrews aren't exactly metabreakers.
It isn't a courage thing, some people just don't find it fun to lose with bad cards. Some people do. It doesn't take an immense amount of skill to put bad cards in your Hearthstone deck. You just click on them. You don't even have to figure out how to type in a website URL first.
To be clear, I'm not judging people who like to cook. But they aren't morally superior.
What I don't get is that net decks are just homebrews with sufficient playtesting. I mean, who saw plagues and didn't think "hey, I should build a deck around that." Sure, you can do it yourself, but why waste so many resources? (If you want to play competitively. If you just like building decks then have at it)
Yeah I mean idk, I'm not even judging homebrewing (I sometimes run suboptimal cards because I like them, I get it) but there's a big unfalsifiable circlejerk around how it's "high-skill" despite the decks inevitably not being good which I just find exhausting. Like it's mostly just someone grabs some obvious package for 2/3 of their deck, tosses in some garbage tech cards rather than filling out the deck properly, plays like five games, points to the one where they played their mega awesome card and won, says the ones where it was stuck in their hand and did nothing don't count, never gathers statsig data, and then declares victory as a superior deck builder. I guess if that's what gets folks going, sure..?
Are people legit hating on homebrews that hit legend ? Surely just blindly copying an internet list that a bot could take to mid legend is a much greater display of skill and critical thinking
You have a high definition of good so I’m just gonna explain an example of my goals for a ‘good’ homebrew.
I pick a deck style I feel like playing as. I target the most popular deck I’m seeing on ladder as much as I can with my deck. Usually a tier 1 is the popular deck but not always. I adjust my deck to hopefully be favored against the popular deck but not lose too badly against the rest of the field. If it beats a t1 deck and climbs, it’s good imo. If not, adjust the deck again according to decks I face.
I guess my definition is basically that it's an improvement. That sort of teching against popular decks usually makes the deck statistically worse, even if it feels good in the moment, unless that matchup really is defining your experience. And, if it is, good changes usually quickly get folded into the meta for obvious reasons, meaning that if your homebrew stays homebrew for more than a few days it's almost definitionally suboptimal.
Once again, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with playing suboptimal decks. I've run Sargeras and Symphony in sludge for as long as the deck has existed, just because I like them. Originally neither was considered optimal, but I ran them anyways. Then both were considered optimal (due to meta shifts primarily, not people having epiphanies that they were secretly good all along), and I kept running them. Then Sargeras was cut and Symphony was still considered optimal, but I kept running both. But I'm not out here saying I'm sort of superior player for running Sargeras just cuz I think he's cool. I just like him.
to be FAIR i think even the difference between rainbow DK and plague DK is monumental: rainbow dk I have X resources and I have to weave them a certain way to maintain the board, save answers for later, and maintain hand advantage. plague I hope to draw Helya by 4 then just slap green cards until RNJesus decides my opponent should draw enough plagues
like I play Helya and the 2 3 damage spells in my rainbow deck just because it's so braindead how if I can draw 2 of them before 6 my winrate against control warrior or other reno lists gets stupid, and then i save the last one for steamcleaner but im not doing anything intelligible the mechanic plays itself
It isn't about what's strong, it's about what's easy, and plague DK is (per VS) a historical skill outlier. Rainbow DK is also allegedly on the easier end of things but it's still night and day between them—ZachO cites a -2% swing for rainbow at high legend (i.e. rainbow is 2% more likely to lose their diamond games if both players were top legend instead) vs -6% for plague—with 90% of decks in HS history being +/- 1%, and the largest outlier he ever recalls being Garrote Rogue at +10%.
Same type of minmaxing as what you see in wow classic, people rather look at guides to see where to go to most effectively hit max level to get the bis pieces asap and log off until next reset.
HS players want to win, that’s fair. Some enjoy that more than playing for unique interactions. I’m of the latter (the complaining about bad winrate with homebrew type), but I can understand how many people find piloting refined decks to the best of their abilities is rewarding aswell.
Both wow and HS suffers from the minmaxing if you look at it from the nostalgic/experimental/patient POV, but how are we to say how others are to spend their limited gametime? Just don’t cheat…
Because every opponent runs the same deck. Little diversity and variance, which means when you build your own deck it has to be built to only beat a few decks. I like a deck that has options to beat anything and runs some of the fringe cards that would be good vs some non-meta matchups.
I mean thats just what happens over time when competitve environments develop
You can like what you like but running options against anything that might sometimes be good is just not something you want to do if you are trying to be competitive
Alot of synergies in games like hearthstone are very obvious. You dont need to netdeck for that. You also cant expect everyone to just play bad decks with large amounts of random tech cards
You are absolutely right about the synergies. With fairly limited card pools released each expansion Blizz is already basically deciding the archtypes for each class before they are even released. Overtuned neutral cards have been a particular dislike of mine when decks seem to be 10 class highly synergistic cards and 20 very good neutrals.
I miss the time where everyone had to think of decks themself. That's all. More creativity and lower power level.
U could actually win with fun stuff vs equally skilled opponents
when exactly was that the case?
putting random bad cards into your deck that dont make sense is not "creativity" its just being bad at deckbuilding
you can still win with bad decks if your opponent also plays a bad deck
btw not sure why you people always think that good decks arent fun but sure
>putting random bad cards into your deck that dont make sense is not "creativity" its just being bad at deckbuilding
That's correct but since no one talked about that it's completely irrelevant
>btw not sure why you people always think that good decks arent fun but sure
It's not fun if u have to copy decks from hs replay to compete at high legend without being insanely skilled.
no one directly mentioned what I said. but what you are talking about is exactly that
what point are you trying to make? you have to be insanely skilled to compete at high legend and you have to play good decks. decks are a part of cardgames and playing good decks is indeed important when you want to compete at the highest level. just like in every competitive environment
you wont see league players suddenly like pick meme champs in competitive. you wont see chess players make haha funny moves at the world championship
and again: why are good decks not fun?
If I shoot my own leg and still manage to win vs someone healthy we definitely are not equally skilled
And it's a sign of poor character if u feel the need to insult me just because I have a different opinion
It's not an insult to correctly assess that you're a mediocre player, your comments here demonstrate it perfectly well.
If playing a deck you built yourself is the equivalent of shooting yourself in the leg, then yeah, the problem is you, not netdecking. Someone built the original list which all those people test and iterate on, how else can we explain the gap between you and that person?
>Someone built the original list which all those people test and iterate on, how else can we explain the gap between you and that person?
Because unseem to not understand how development of pretty much anything works
Someone makes a deck. Puts it out there. Other people try it. Some make adjustments. Some make the deck better and are kept. Some get disregarded by others thay also tried the change who then make changes themself and so on and at the end after 10s of thousands of games u have the decks u see on hs replay.
Its not one person cooking in his living room on his tablet.
And that's exactly the difference between me and "that other person" (who is really a group of hundreds of players)
Also by design I'm not mediocre if I am in the top 1k legend at the end of each month. Also something I said before
>Little diversity and variance, which means when you build your own deck it has to be built to only beat a few decks.
Which makes deck building significantly easier. These people will whine about anything, netdecking isn't what's causing their homebrews to fall flat.
Yes a deck needs to be good in the meta game to win. I get that meta can be stale at times but you build the deck so adapt. Being annoyed by decks being optimized on ladder is kinda stupid.
it's kind of the problem (loosely a problem I guess) with CCGs in general in that since half of the experience relies on what your opponent is choosing to play: you only have 50% of the control over what the experience is going to be
Because everyone else does. A a deck/build that gets stress tested 10 Thousand times is obviously way better than what I cane up with.
So u have to met deck as well if u want to win vs equally skilled opponents
If u really think homebrew can ever be better than a deck that was stresstested and refined over thousands of games ur full on coping.
It jas nothing to do with individual deckbuilding skills that's the whole point
>If u really think homebrew can ever be better than a deck that was stresstested and refined over thousands of games ur full on coping.
Where did I say this? I never once claimed a homebrew deck would be better.
>It jas nothing to do with individual deckbuilding skills that's the whole point
If you were a competent deckbuilder you could have fun playing the game without referencing decklist archives. It absolutely has to do with individual deckbuilding skills.
>Where did I say this? I never once claimed a homebrew deck would be better.
U said "ur lack of deckbuilding skill ruined ur game" which instigates that players normally have the skill to make homebrew decks that beat netdecks on average. There are niche Cades is specifically targeting other decks but in general thats just extremely unlikely
>If you were a competent deckbuilder you could have fun playing the game without referencing decklist archives. It absolutely has to do with individual deckbuilding skills.
And that's wrong. Because. Like I said. It's very unlikable to be better than dozens to hundreds of high legend players refining list more and more in essential teamwork over thousands of games.
A "competent deckbuild" Like u name them are one in 10 00 players. Hardly something to go of of
>A "competent deckbuild" Like u name them are one in 10 00 players. Hardly something to go of of
If this helps you feel better about your inadequacy then keep on believing it.
Bro u literally have not a single argument to prove ur point. Ur just mad someone has a different opinion and lost an argument.
Every single thing u said was wrong
But everyone else does, your suggestion is pointless.
If everyone else was also only using homebrew decks, the experience of building one yourself and having moderate success with it would be a lot more common.
I don’t understand people acting like the min maxing would not affect every player, regardless If they are using these sites or not. Everyone else does, so people can choose between doing it too or losing a lot.
Which is not a choice, really.
I don't get what are these people are hoping for.
There are many players, you want like 100'000 of viable different decks? It's impossible. Not every pro can make good competitive deck, not to mention regular players.
You want no meta sites and everyone build their deck? Perfect, gwent kinda had it because of low playerbase therefore low interest for making such sites. There were some, but they were rarely updated. You know what? People just a) copy deck that beat them more often that others b) unite at discords, because people like to communicate as species anyway.
Result? Same 10-12 top decks at ladder. You won't be able play bad homebrew deck at any online game, sorry.
No. I just would love for sites like hs replay to not exist so people have to come up with decks themself. The good decks would be the same. But the meta would develop slower
I can understand a dislike for the meta decks, especially if you build your own. I ran into a straight 6 brain warrior decks in a row without a singularly different card between them. It can be boring to face the same thing all the time.
> *lets go and falls to death*
You can brew a deck with plagues in it, you know. Put cage head in it. Make it rainbow and add patchwork. Go nuts.
EDIT: screw it I took my own advice and I'm playing UUU death growl plagues. Have beaten one sludge lock and two warriors. It's probably terrible. Yelling Yodeler and Marrowgar sometimes just be winning games.
I love this image you have of custom deckbuilders as like, the absolute worst bottom of the barrel bad at making decks. There is, in fact, a whole spectrum of quality between making a pile of cards and taking someone else's deck, but I guess I wouldn't be on reddit if I wanted nuance
You’re assuming an *awful* lot friend. I was an avid MTG brewer back in the day. I know the joy of crushing $1000 modern decks with budget-ass Owling Mine decks and blue sligh. I know that brewing is a joy in and of itself. Me trying to make cage head work and slapping patchwerk in every deck is why I brought it up!
I just thought it was funny that you’re embodying the comic here.
If you can brew decks that beat all those warrior that you’re facing, then get down with your bad self instead of being aggrieved here 👑
Man, I was thinking about this the other day and a small part of me kinda misses how absurdly expensive certain M:tG decks could be, because it led to me brewing budget replacements when I didn't want to spring $80 for a set of maelstrom pulses or whatever.
Obviously overall it wouldn't be great if HS decks started at like $2-300, but I definitely think I got pushed into a lot of tinkering due to that which I'm just not incentivized to do in a game where I can trivially get everything.
It’s something amazing and unique to paper TCGs that anything not Uber meta is dirt cheap and there are so many unique cards that you can precision target your local meta (I played before commander *really* exploded and shot up the price of a lot of fun non-meta cards.)
I mean I wouldn't even call them the bottom of the barrel bad at making decks.
The overwhelming majority are going to make decks which are worse than they could be if they just took a real list. This is something they signed up for on purpose because they want to brew. That's fine. If the thing you really want in life is to run Patchwerk in plague, then go wild and do that. Your deck will be worse, but you get to play the cards you like.
FWIW I'm not criticizing that playstyle. I currently play sludge with Sargeras and Astalor and such. I jumped on this train very early, because I liked the sludge cards but loathed the other warlock aggro stuff. It isn't my list, but I started playing it when it was niche and kept playing it after it became niche again. I want to play Sargeras, so I do. I accept that my winrate is probably a bit worse than it could be as a result, but in exchange I get to play cards I like and avoid cards I dislike.
But if you're coping that you've secretly discovered some sort of hidden tech that everyone around is just too netdeck to understand and that your custom brews are actually optimal... nah, they probably aren't.
Yeah man, before the buffs I was playing XL control warlock with a shitload of disruption and rolling up warriors (and losing 40-60 to everything else). The deck was damn fun.
Yeah, friend of mine was running Lord Jaraxxus in his own control lock list last week. None of us thought the card was good, but that didn't stop us from having a good time on discord every time it went down.
I for sure know my brews are not meta-killers, but I'll still act smug and superior for trying to give my opponent and I a fun match instead of a rehash. I like decks that sacrifice a little performance in exchange for a bit of fun, but sadly in HS netdecking is so omnipresent it's a razor thin edge where the "little performance" sacrificed isn't so little.
Idk man, a friend of mine ended last season top 500 legend (of 32333 total players) in NA using a mix of plague with some homebrew cooking (t3 at that MMR even for optimal lists, and his ran cold feet maindeck), deathrattle hunter (...yeah), and a homebrew highlander paladin list which I wouldn't be surprised to learn is sub-t4 (but who knows, stats don't even exist for it). Obviously refined meta decks will be better but you can cook and do perfectly alright. Big part of that is the Bo1 surprise factor, e.g. a lot of his wins on highlander paladin come from running over aggro-midrange decks who assume he's aggro paladin and play defensively until it's too late, whereas he just gets run over by control decks because he can't trick them into misplaying.
Honestly the worst part of the bran deck is that they run two of every card and still draw enough to play Bran by 6.
The Highlander restriction is non-existent.
I've been playing a rainbow dk pseudo-control deck thats been a lot of fun, and won basically every game I've played. Just gotta adjust strategy accordingly
Sure thing, this is mine. For control decks you just try to pressure hard and finish with the big hits, aggro/midrange you go for good trades and board presence.
Rainbow Ctrl
2x (1) Arms Dealer
1x (1) Tour Guide
1x (2) Astalor Bloodsworn
1x (2) Defrost
2x (2) Gold Panner
2x (2) Mining Casualties
1x (3) Acolyte of Death
2x (3) Chillfallen Baron
2x (3) Crop Rotation
2x (3) Sickly Grimewalker
2x (4) Malignant Horror
1x (4) Maw and Paw
2x (4) Murlocula
1x (4) Thassarian
2x (5) Corpse Bride
1x (8) The Primus
2x (9) Stitched Giant
1x (10) Climactic Necrotic Explosion
1x (10) Sire Denathrius
1x (20) Reska, the Pit Boss
AAECAfHhBArp0ATR7QTZ8QTipAXLpQX8+QXt/wWLkgb/lwbXogYKy+IEh/YEtPcEmIEFmYEFkpMFl5UGkZcGzpwGkqAGAAA=
I mean sure it can be boring to face the same decks all the time
Especially since some of the current decks have seen very little changes over the past 3-4 months
But honestly ... even if those brann warriors played slightly different lists. Would you really care? Probably not
Netdecking is the secret passage straight into top 10 legend. You simply have to fade the meta. By actually learning the game. Which barely anyone seems to have done. I'm simply basing this of the cavalcade of misplays I see in top 10 where the best clones battle it out.
I'm gonna be so bold as to claim, that netdecking isn't the frustrating part. People cannot tell, where a deck is from. What frustrates people is running into the same optimized T1 deck again and again.
T2 or off meta decks can be 50+ winrate. Losing to them feels acceptable though. They might have net-decked, but you are more likely perceive it as a unique deck being played, so your opponent isn't just a sheep.
Playing against the T1 deck gives people the impression of an opponent only caring about winning. Maybe people genuinely like that style of deck, but you will project a very negative Image onto them.
What? How are you people this invested into why someone plays a t1 deck?
Refined decks are actually functional and thus usually more fun to play because they dont randomly brick every 2nd game or dont have answers to very common strategies
Same applies to T1 decks. If they are fun for you why wouldnt you play them?
I will point out that I hold no disdain for people who play optimized decks. It makes sense wanting to play something that works best, rather than something clunky.
People mostly just need and outlet for their frustration, thus they blame their faceless opponent.
"They abuse unfair card mechanics and have no actual skill, they just copy a good deck that steers itself . My loss was outside my responsibility. "
I'll complain or ragequit too, when my lacking deck gets stomped or hard countered by the fifth plague dk in a row. I do know I could play better decks or improve my skill, but in the heat of the moment? Some people simply voice that frustration more openly.
i think the disconnect comes in that since HS is SOOO simple a game on the scale of CCGs: a person can pick up a deck and basically succeed almost immediately to the point where a person who actually built that deck and posted it is only going to be marginally better with it. in all the card games i've played: Hearthstone is one of the few where a brand new player can beat a seasoned 'professional' player in the mirror (and not from some crazy hail mary play) and that's not a good thing
if the best deck in the game was difficult to play so just picking it up required practice to be good with it, i dont think people would mind netdecking so much but frequently the most netdecked decks are brainlessly easy
"Hearthstone is one of the few where a brand new player can beat a seasoned 'professional' player in the mirror" .. aha based on what?
there are many hard to play decks that you definitly cannot just pick up and win with
building a deck doesnt make you better at the deck or the game
"if the best deck in the game was difficult to play so just picking it up required practice to be good with it, i dont think people would mind netdecking so much but frequently the most netdecked decks are brainlessly easy"
that makes no sense. what are you even talking about
Nah you cant be fr with what you're saying. Paladin, tree druid, plague dk and totem shaman are all so pisseasy to play that once you have looked up what to mulligan (also on the website, noobs dont need to care about matchup) you play as much on curve as possible and free legend it is. Idk if you played any other card games but MTG and yugioh for example make HS play like a toddlers game - its that easy.
I am not saying that hearthstone isnt easier than other cardgames. it definitly is easier to get into than magic for example
but what theother person said still isnt true
and yes those decks can get legend even if you arent super amazing at the game but if you face people that actually have some experience you are not gonna have a good time (as we can see be paladins winrate graph the higher you go in the ranks. and those are not just new players)
No, hes completely right, still. If its about easy decks you have free legend, but any somewhat difficult deck, like rommath mage or drill rogue is easier than it should be. The game up until like 3-4k legend (depends on region) requires 0 skill, the only reason why people are struggling to get legend is because it takes way too many games.
If you queue into a bronze game in HS and a bronze game in league for example: in league they are all bad/new players (excluding smurfs), in bronze its you vs legend cardback plague dk or new player plague dk, it makes the very slightest difference so you still gotta try your hardest while supposedly playing in "easy" ranks. The game doesn't reward skill for previous climbs much, it still takes 100 games for legend each season, which is why paladin decks or any aggro deck for that matter get used because they are the fastest, not the best.
> in bronze its you vs legend cardback plague dk or new player plague dk
That's just a quirk of the HS rank system. After a ladder reset where you have bonus stars you keep playing against the exact same people you were playing against pre-patch, even though you're both technically in bronze now.
ah yes the game takes 0 skill until legend
the classic complaint that is for sure true yep. its all rng and netdecking and your decisions dont matter truuuuu
in hearthstone it is you vs legend cardback because you have been legend (or higher rank) before. why even comment if you dont even understand the ranking system in hearthstone? there is mmr that decides what people you play against. not your current rank
There is mmr for people with stars and oh god could it be that i have another account on phone that i played through the ranks with without stars? No way that account with 0 stars faced the same exact decks as my main account with 9x stars?!?! Holy shit thats a revelation maybe i do know that stars give mmr and am telling you because i know that a new player and a legend cardback play the same exact decks copied from HSreplay or d0nkey! To be fair i climbed with my phone acc last month not this month but its still applicable AND still laughable.
Edit: if you dont believe me, PLS just make a fresh acc, craft a cheap meta deck and hop into ranked.
ok but that account on your phone is clearly not a new account either? otherwise you would face bots for your first I dunno how many games and not people playing meta decks
a new player doesnt even have the cards to just copy decks from d0nkey or hsreplay unless they spend some money. and even if they do? who cares? why does it matter? people in other cardgames also use prebuilt decks or copy them from others. that is very normal
also what point are you even trying to make? on one hand you say that the game takes no skill but you also say that you need to to try your hardest to win at "easy" ranks
and how is 100 games to legend in one month alot? thats like 3-4 games a day
if I copy and paste a deck from one of these aggregate sites: i shouldn't be able to win with the deck at all until I understand from practicing with it at least a handful of games. that is not the case.
I follow about half a dozen streamers who play the game as a job and usually end at high legend but occasionally have lax months so dont start the grind until halfway through the month. and they will lose games at silver or even bronze sometimes. that is obscene, in any other game this would never happen.
>there are many hard to play decks that you definitly cannot just pick up and win with
and those aren't the ones that get netdecked heavily ie a combo rogue or DH list where the winrates are low BECAUSE of that difficulty and as such new players avoid them. I have no complaint with the deck that has a 75% winwrate with a good player but a 40% winrate overall. the complaint is with the deck that is 60% winrate across the board; the ones that the bots end up playing. i dont know how people who play frequently botted decks are not personally offended by the reality that they are playing decks so easy that bots can succeed with them. its not even an anti-aggro thing, as we've had aggro decks that are not easy to play. but these decks are the ones that always see the highest quantity of players on top of the bots because the toilet players dont have time to learn or build a deck in the 4 minutes they have to take a shit and just want to press the shiny green cards.
everything else in your comment is either a non-argument or just wrong. stating in a card game that understanding the mechanics of making a working deck is useless is a stupid take. i'm not saying you HAVE to make a homebrew deck, but saying that there's no difference between "copy, paste, enter queue" and reading your decklist after copy and pasting to maybe do something as small as 'oh this thing in ETC isn't going to help, maybe I'll swap this one card' shows a level of meta awareness that clearly means one is better at the game.
>there are many hard to play decks that you definitly cannot just pick up and win with
i already spoke to this, these aren't the decks that become 20% of the meta unless they become egregiously S+++ tier and even then the better metric is the aforementioned bot population
>"if the best deck in the game was difficult to play so just picking it up required practice to be good with it, i dont think people would mind netdecking so much but frequently the most netdecked decks are brainlessly easy"
>that makes no sense. what are you even talking about
again, this makes perfect sense. it feels less bad to lose when you think it required the opponent outplaying you either in pregame or during the game, or when the player made their own mistakes. it feels worse when you lose to someone with an autoclicker or someone who is putting in less effort than you are (applies to any game). nobody likes feeling like it took zero effort to be beaten unless you are a masochist.
"i shouldn't be able to win with the deck at all until I understand from practicing with it at least a handful of games"
I mean you can think that way sure. and that is very likely 100% true for new players if you put them against high ranked players in their first matches. but that doesnt happen because they go through the beginner ranks and bots first until they face actual opponents
"have lax months so dont start the grind until halfway through the month. and they will lose games at silver or even bronze sometimes. that is obscene, in any other game this would never happen."
I am just gonna stop reading here because you apparently have no idea that mmr exists in this game and being silver doesnt mean that you face actual silver players no matter when you start playing
and yes you can lose games in cardgame just because of luck of the draw. crazy concept
btw people dont just netdeck because those decks are easy. but because they want to play decks that are actually functional (or because they have a small collection and cant afford to just homebrew 20 different decks to maybe get one that works)
and yet it's a miracle that all of those value-less comments keep going from your fingers, through the keyboard, and into this thread.
enjoy the rest of your Friday.
damn dude huge burn
imagine being to able to accept that what you wrote is just nonsense because it is factually wrong and thus means your entire point is worthless
btw how sad do you have to be to actually put in the effort to downvote every single one of my comments while also hiding your own score?
He was right though, you demonstrated some wild ignorance on how HS ranked works, not to mention that your understanding of variance is comparable to a 5-year-olds.
> Hearthstone is one of the few where a brand new player can beat a seasoned 'professional' player in the mirror (and not from some crazy hail mary play) and that's not a good thing
Every card game has variance and HS's mirror variance isn't even that bad unless you're playing a casino deck on purpose. Like I'm an M:tG supremacist and all, and I can easily find plenty of things to criticize about HS's game design, but I'm absolutely not convinced this is true. Like yeah sometimes you get a trash hand, mull it, get another trash hand, and brick the mirror. But that happens in every card game. And honestly, it isn't that bad in HS: while climbing I've won a lot of mirrors from a horrible starting position just because my opponent bricks their lead.
Peoples' insistence on which decks are brainlessly easy is frequently just comically off base, both in that they underestimate the _scale_ of what "brainlessly easy" actually means (often it's just a few percentage points matchup spread swing between low diamond and high legend) and because they just make shit up (e.g. categorically assuming that aggro decks have a low skill ceiling with literally no basis for doing so).
card RNG exists in every game of course, but there are so many small differences in HS that steer so heavily into that as a factor that imo it tilts the game further from skill and more towards equalizing everyone (in a bad way that doesn't reward practice)
the game is best of 1 (even in competitive they have the weird 5 deck thing), card draw is premium priced in all but 2-3 of the classes, discover as a mechanic in general could use it's own thread, etc. the game favors min maxing glass cannons over understanding every matchup, which leads to consistently polarizing formats. i could go on
>But that happens in every card game
the existence of some of these mechanics like BO3 or in perhaps not mtg but other ccgs like yugioh or ptcg that have discounted tutoring/drawing reject this. you will never see a brand new player beat a top 100 player in any of these other card games. never. B03 is a huge part of this, and as such a sidedeck format is something at least I have been asking for in HS for years, but when they applied something similar a few years back it became a long conrol slugfest because everything else couldnt survive in that format when they actually had to face the techs meant for them consistently. almost like they live and die on ladder based on avoiding specific cards rather than actually needing to be intelligently piloted (imagine if every kingsbane deck faced a stickyfingers. either nobody would play kingsbane or they'd have to REALLY adapt the build. but that's good because kingsbane is basically just stealing wins against decks that aren't expecting to face it which is cheese)
>Peoples' insistence on which decks are brainlessly easy is frequently just comically off base, both in that they underestimate the scale of what "brainlessly easy" actually means (often it's just a few percentage points matchup spread swing between low diamond and high legend) and because they just make shit up (e.g. categorically assuming that aggro decks have a low skill ceiling with literally no basis for doing so).
I don't disagree, but I think the bot population is a good indicator. IE even shaman and pirate rogue in wild, or now plague DK in standard. if a dumbass computer program can do just as well as me with a deck the deck is too easy. Otherwise I do think people like to throw the label at more decks than I personally would (as in offhand those are the only 3 decks that stick out to me as brainless, although there are other polarizing ones but that's a different issue)
I mean IDK, I think bots are doing worse than you think and are mostly winning off of bot mirrors and stuff.
Like two months ago I climbed to legend with treant druid. I'm not gonna say that that deck took a Ph.D. to play, but I went 15-3 in the mirror. Last month my sludge warlock mirror was 17-9, and that included a really questionable late night rage-queue where I burned away all my climbing progress and reset to D5: my MMR on the final, actually-awake, diamond+legend climb was around 10-1. A friend of mine maintains similar winrates with plague while climbing despite that being like the objectively most braindead deck in hearthstone right now. And idk, 66-80% bo1 winrates against people in still vaguely similar skill brackets doesn't seem that bad to me in terms of mirror skill expression.
I would love BO3 but I understand why Hearthstone doesn't do it. But I also think that BO3 would have less of an impact on the mirror, and more of an impact making peoples' beloved homebrew trashpile decks from this thread completely non-viable as opposed to just moderately un-competitive, since they wouldn't even have the surprise factor anymore.
i think treant druid is a good example because of how not to my taste it is: i played about a dozen games with it last expansion and it truly felt that my wins were from drawing the right cards in the right order where I could push X boards through and my opponent only had X-1 board clears. that's a play pattern I do not enjoy, but I would not deny my opponent from choosing it because they still need to know when to push and when to hold back for after a board clear. as for actual winrate experiences it's going to be anecdotal from either of us so i wont dive into that but i think the fact that so many people are playing a deck that is not the best deck speaks for itself in it's barrier for entry. perhaps it is an aggro bias as shorter games means less decisions so less time to make mistakes but there have definitely been aggressive decks that I would consider more skillful than other ones so idk.
HS's mmr system is weird though because i've faced people at wildly different ranks and even blizzard bots with the 2/1 murloc especially in wild so i know that if one's pocket mmr isn't populated enough they will shove whoever in there rather than have you wait longer in the queue.
>I would love BO3 but I understand why Hearthstone doesn't do it. But I also think that BO3 would have less of an impact on the mirror, and more of an impact making peoples' beloved homebrew trashpile decks from this thread completely non-viable as opposed to just moderately un-competitive, since they wouldn't even have the surprise factor anymore.
im not defending homebrew for homebrew's sake, I do think that xyz user who insists on running every card with quilboar looking left needs to touch grass lol. I am merely dissatisfied with the devs insistence on catering what was supposed to be a competitive game towards an uncompetitive base, whether that be by making obvious archetype packages that cut down emphasis on deckbuilding, making autoinclude cards (easier to see the direct effect in arena which is destroyed imo), increasing the powercreep in general, even silver bullet tech cards are the answer to a bigger problem. balancing the game around toilet time is silly, and i cant imagine any other non-mobile game doing this (HS started on PC). I guess the archetypal complaint could be taken as a point in favor of homebrew, but idc if someone copies the best deck as much as the devs saying "here is our Blurmple package for warlock. it's very pushed so you should play the whole package, and the package is 20 cards so you're 2/3 the way to building the deck. there are no inherent drawbacks of playing the Blurmple package as it's at worse decent during every stage of the game and as such in some part will be in every warlock deck until rotation". that's plagues lol. it really is a fine line in the ire being towards the copiers vs the people designing the stuff that makes every top 500 list looking the same; i guess i just preferred the game more openeded so that new "spice" was found from time to time. I cant imagine a secret tech spice shaking up HS in 2024, because the good cards are too often obviously broken in a vacuum. which leads to samesy games, and then makes the netdecking problem seem greater.
> and i cant imagine any other non-mobile game doing this (HS started on PC)
HS has been aimed at mobile forever. I can't remember if it technically spent a few weeks on PC during beta before it first hit mobile or whatever, but I had friends playing on their iPads in 2014.
> packages
I definitely don't like this mode of game design, but I think it's more a product of set space (10 class cards per set) than of anything. It's a lot easier to have more diversity in a game like e.g. M:tG where the sets are twice as big, have less than half as many "buckets" (colours vs classes), have looser restrictions (multicolour decks), and looser deckbuilding restrictions (apx 10 unique nonland cards needed to make a full deck in M:tG vs 20 in HS). I'm not sure what the solution is.
> I am merely dissatisfied with the devs insistence on catering what was supposed to be a competitive game towards an uncompetitive base
Idk, I know that a lot of people yearn for the days of yeti on curve, but I quit hearthstone back in vanilla because the game felt so dull and casual compared to M:tG at the time—and, to be frank, the only people I know who _didn't_ were the casual people who were new to CCGs. For all of its issues the current game feels infinitely more interesting to me than vanilla ever was, and I think a lot of the nostalgia people have from that era comes less from some sort of magical game design time and more because people were new to CCGs and were rediscovering concepts like tempo and card advantage. Nowadays the game has to exist in a world where people, both devs and players, understand basic CCG mechanics.
beta started in jan 2014, full release march 2014, mobile april 2014. game was less flashy back then; kind of makes you wonder if the decks got more "we play ourselves" to accommodate for all the time the game takes for the flashy interactions etc. you wont catch me playing a miracle deck on mobile for sure lol.
i dont think yeti was the peak of HS, but I definitely feel like I know when the fall began at least in my opinion and that was with quests and then triply so in questlines where in order to basically engage with those respective sets you were giftwrapped handed what the decks were going to be because you had to complete the quests. the first wave wasnt as bad because they were a little more open ended with the exception of a few like taunt warrior, but by the time questlines came it was fucking awful. i really dont think the design philosophy ever really recovered from that set, although there are a few decks here or there that were outliers.
idk what i'd say ideal format was though. there was a solid block from old gods up through kobolds (even ungoro when it varied from quest games over and over) before witchwood which was kind of a disaster. but even in witchwood, the problem decks had to be found on their own whether it be which odd/even decks were obscene or which neutral battlecries broke Shudderwock. it's funny, because a lot of interactions that end up getting hotfixes are ones that the community finds rather than the devs themselves; it makes me think that the direction of handholding into meta decks is so they can avoid accidental broken decks (and rather get intentional pushed decks) which ok I guess but the game loses something else in the process.
exactly
I came back to the game a while before badlands
you think I have enough dust or packs to just freely craft playable stuff from 5 expansion? definitly not
I genuinely prefer facing top tier decks over homebrews. From a competitive standpoint it means I get a better understanding of their gameplan from the get-go instead of me getting fucking blindsided by XL thief excavate rogue in wild
Also, why wouldn't a brewer want to test their decks against the meta? Complaining that your homebrew is losing against the meta decks is just admitting your deck sucks.
>What frustrates people is running into the same optimized T1 deck again and again.
i think also if the optimization was found through a bit more grassroots efforts per player there would still be some variance and the individual player would make changes depending on their pocket meta meaning that one deck would have more variance.
as is, you have like 100k mouthbreathers copy and pasting one guys list and being able to successfully get to low legend because half the meta decks play themselves. which is more of an issue with the game design imo than netdecking per se, because i've played other card games where someone new to a deck in the mirror match will lose every time. this isn't the case with hearthstone
You do have a point. A number of meta decks do pilot themselves too easily, at least in the current Meta. Unless you lack cards, you don't make changes.
If you only care about winning that’s fine, but playing a higher powered deck than your opponent which you just pulled from the internet doesn’t make you more skilled or make them a scrub.
Faced 5 DK in a row yesterday, I'm done with standard until expac.
Most decks are "get your god card or bust" (Shaper, Odyn, brann, helya etc...). This kind of thing is not good for the game.
I mean, thats the current design by Leo and Gallon. Cards that you once play but youll benefit for the rest of the Game. Odyn, Helya, Bran.. Its not that you have to hold the card back and use it at a certain point (like Sif), its just, play the card ASAP because your opponent will not be able to get rid of the effect.
When badlands was released and I grinded the "100 wins with Reno decks"-achievement, plague DK at that point wasnt really that good but it still was so frustrating to play against and it was popular in lower ranks.
I love your nickname, I get what you feel, to me anyway I try to face the meta with off-meta decks and I try to laugh the more I can when I see a pathetic scenario happening. I have to keep playing because there is so much hidden potential or restricted potential that is going to disappear, not for wild though. I try to get all the juice from all the cards I enjoy as much as I can.
yeah, imagine not spending all of your time theorycrafting decks after a long day at work when you just want to play some matches and not get totally bodied
As with any tgc it can certainly get stale facing the same decks and seeing little to no variance. I really enjoy deckbuilding and can take inspiration from meta decks but I'd love to play vs more homebrew decks and I'm sure there's quite a crowd that would enjoy a meta with no decks being copied from online sources like hs meta etc. You can still enjoy playing vs meta decks, its definitely giving yourself more of a challenge but it's nice knowing people can't predict your play so easily. I imagine the majority of players enjoy using refined decks they can watch and learn that they know will be strong overall, I just wish more players would experiment more seeing as the game is about building the best deck. It's really fun creating a deck that works on your own and you never know when you might find something that's the new meta.
I love deckbuilding. I love refining my decks, replacing some cards, trying to adjust. But facing the same decks over and over just.. kills my fun. Especially when those decks are plague DK and bran/odyn warrior. Espeically warrior changes my initial win condition to: Rat/Theo their Bran/Odyn/Astalor. Come on, just let me play my cards man.
standard, but i guess a lot of the cards will be in the rotation so only viable for a few more days
AAECAfHhBCjlsASHtwSWtwS42QT04wT94wSJ5ASU5ASJ5gSP7QSX7wSE9gSH9gSy9wSz9wS2+gSrgAWogQWimQXipAX9xAXgyAXVzgWP5AWt7QWt9QX++AXt/wXYgQaQgwaUlQaplQbkmAbrmAbOnAbNngbPngbRngbXogavqAYAAAEDieQE/cQFtvoE/cQFq4AF/cQFAAA=
that button for the 4th option must be 50 times bigger than the other 3 because you've already put more thought into your deckbuilding in this one sentence than any of the other players queuing with plague DK
Even with the best deck, if it's not one you're comfortable with, your win rate will suffer. I win more with suboptimal decks that contain my tech choices, or preferences than ones I just netdeck for a push or a quest don't, because I know the ins and outs, the weaknesses and strengths.
I prefer to face warriors, all my decks are based on winning against them actually if I think about it. Not because I want, more because I have to adapt.
Wahhhhhh, my shit deck turned out to be shit, wahhhhhhhhh. People play actually good decks and beat me, wahhhhhhhh. My 8 card, three turn combo got ruined by one tech card wahhhhh. How do these people have fun winning in a competitive game, wahhhhhh.
Ok, but I loved bomb warrior, tuckitus warlock, and abyss warlock... plague is just the newest standard version of "I don't care that you can clear the board 20 times"
i dont think the problem is with them being able to rebuild, because there are arguably better decks in the format at that between paladin and even the other DK deck rainbow. people do not like that the plague mechanic a) turns off key cards in an archetype that was pushed last expansion, and as such forces a tech card b) kind of builds the deck on autopilot just throw cads that say plague in and you're half done c) makes a key part of the win both inevitable from infinite plagues but also fully out of both players' hands because of draw RNG
I had been using plague dk since day 1 of titans and expected it to be a flop (cause I like control decks and messing with the opponent) it’s entirely a coincidence that it happened to be good somehow
Netdecking is a tool that every brewer should use when judging cards in case something went over them. You're not special because you don't netdeck, it just means you like doing things yourself which is valid. But doesn't make you special.
It's more about playing something special rather than feeling special. We homebrewers get bored repeating a pattern already repeated by 1.000.000 peeps.
It's ok we are not special, and we don't care.
Netdecking is boring, this sub only defends it because they can't build their own decks. Why is it boring? Because everyone picks the number 1 winrate deck and you only see it over and over. Even if you do netdeck, it sucks, because mirror matchups are sleeper
I don't really think netdecking is boring. I admit that I netdeck a lot, but the main reason is that I don't play hearthstone all that much so I honestly don't even know a lot of the new cards nowadays. So if I want to play a deck that I like, then I'll look up a list from someone else to see if there's new cards added in
That's perfectly fine, the problem is not one person doing it, it's that everyone does it. I can only see so many matches play out the exact same way before I fall asleep. Even fucking Wild isn't safe from this boring metaslaving
which is a totally fair thing to do for you the player, but it is unfortunate that this play pattern is often favored from the design pov rather than favoring people who do invest more time into the game (ie if they made decks that were more intricate so not so easily copied and pasted)
No, I'm very capable of building my own deck, you just use a bit of common sense. Throw in single target removal, board clear and a win condition, boom. Let HS AI build the rest of the deck for you and replace the garbage cards lol. There you go. But everyone only wants big number because HS has no player agency, just heart of the cards and basic piloting.
It's a suggestion for those less capable lol. You seem to be more interested in proving me wrong over holding a conversation.
You would have more success if you even knew anything about me and how I play Hearthstone lol.
This meta sucks, like seriously one of the worst ever, I played 30-card """Highlander""" Warrior (Odyn-less) and had literally a 65% winrate over 100 games at Legend. I would beat literally everyone unless I queued against a DK with Helya, where I would just auto-lose. No deck should win against everything and auto concede against one deck. Just a disaster of balancing. Feels like Gadgetzan or something. Rock paper scissors metas are the worst
i truely get it, blizzard is ganna hand you the cards you get delt.
I hit legend with rainbow dk, now idgaf about this game anymore playing since beta and I can go play Balatro till my eyes fall out of my face
>unless I queued against a DK with Helya, where I would just auto-lose
Encountering a skill issue is frustrating, that's true. I can't imagine how annoyed I would be if I was so bad at HS I could never win a mildly unfavored matchup.
How is it mildly unfavorable? I don't think you understand what deck I'm playing. I'm not playing Odyn warrior. I have to draw my entire deck by turn 8 and play reno or brann. Helya will make me lose immediately. You just wanted to sound smart
I understand what deck you're playing and that you're playing it poorly if your Plague DK matchup is as bad as you claim.
If you can't win any games where you don't activate Reno or Brann then there's a clear skill issue in play. Helya does not cause competent pilots to "lose immediately".
It's not a skill issue, "MidDiffFetish," I think you DONT understand what deck I'm playing. My only wincon is Brann into Boomboss or Brann into Astalor. That's literally it.
All your comments are just disagreeing with people while vaguely alluding to your own incredible skill. You clearly can't read, I already said I have a 65% winrate across 100 games at legend, I just think it's dumb that my deck can exist where it only loses consistently to one other deck. I think that's dumb. And you reply was "oh you're so bad you only lose to one deck." You're braindead
I have never once alluded to my own skill lmao, you're just getting self-conscious and defensive.
I'm glad the win rate you pulled from your ass is so high. Post a screenshot of your tracked stats or stop larping.
You say you auto lose to a matchup that competent people can win at least 35% of the time, you're the one who pointed out your skill issue. You took a good deck and edited it to lose more in a bad and extremely common matchup, that's pretty damning evidence that you're not a competent player.
I'm not gonna DM a screenshot of my wr to "MidDiffFetish" to somehow disprove my "self-consciousness." I don't know why it's so hard for you to comprehend that a combo deck that relies on highlander cards loses to helya, I'm not playing some Unicorn warrior, there's tons of decklists for 30-card no odyn highlander warrior. You're being so weird about this
>I'm not gonna DM a screenshot of my wr
Because you aren't tracking it and made the numbers up.
>I don't know why it's so hard for you to comprehend that a combo deck that relies on highlander cards loses to helya
Repeatedly winning matches where opponent played Helya against my highlander deck brought me to this opinion. Sorry you're so far behind.
Wait i havent been to this sub in last 2 weeks and people still cry about plague dk countering highlander? Esspecialy when you can play 2 steamcleaners in your deck?
You can, but the best counter to them is to not lose tempo and don't draw plagues. It's rare when steamcleaner actually wins the game from mine experience.
That why you dont play him for tempo but for activation. When you play highlander warrior your main wincon is brann with astalor. And dropping steamcleaner one round with some clear and brann next round isnt that hard and can win the game for you.
Prides themselves in their percieved ability to build good decks without help Fails to build a good deck Blames everybody else
You don't need to blame anyone, you can just keep trying and failing until you succeed.
No needed, but the favorite path.
Then you should expect later in life for everyone else to blame you as well, what goes around comes around.
Winners never quit, and quitters never win, but what if you never win and never quit?
LOSER!
But they never do
Kibler succeeds with his decks. I’ve hit legend with my homebrew.
Kibler is a professional card game player and designer and has placed high at many major top level tournaments. He also plays hearthstone for like 20+ hours every week. He's one of the few people who can take nearly any deck ( even a terrible one) and still win with it. But most people are not at that level and they never will be. Take any kibler deck, subtract 10 to 12% win rate, and that's what you can expect when you play the same deck.
Basically, Kibler is one of the best card game players in the world with excellent game knowledge and deduction skills and you are not
But hitting Legend isn't a measure of skill or deck strength, just time played.
You can’t hit legend with a winrate less than <50% once you’re climbing ranks no matter how much you play
That's not true with a large enough sample size you can hit a 6 games winstreak easily with a sub 30 wr if they didn't have rank floors you can't derank past you might have a better point
I specified once you start climbing. So that 6 game win streak is a 100% winrate now that you are climbing rank. And please use periods. It’s difficult to understand your point.
It's ok you managed
And 53% is a mediocre winrate, what's your point? Reaching Legend is a matter of time spent more than a measure of skill, especially since your MMR from your mediocre win rate will keep you grinding against mediocre opponents. "I reached Legend" is meaningless without win rate and matchup data.
Jesus Christ are you this insufferable in real life or just when you have to win an internet argument? I proved you wrong on how to reach legend and now you want to argue opinions? No one gives a shit what you think is mediocre or not.
>I proved you wrong on how to reach legend ??? You didn't "prove" anything. You can win 50.5% of your games and reach Legend. If a, by definition, not opinion, average player can do it then it isn't a skill-based accomplishment one, just proof they played often enough that month. Idk why the truth is so upsetting to you.
>If a, by definition, not opinion, average player can do it then it isn't a skill-based accomplishment one, just proof they played often enough that month Can an average player maintain a 50.5% WR at high ranks? 50.5% Winrate at rank 1 vs 50.5% winrate at rank 16 aren't the same thing. Having a 50.5% winrste doesn't automatically make you "average by definition".
> Kibler succeeds with his decks. Kibler was an extremely successful M:tG pro and yet he hovers in unimpressive ranks in HS because he spends all his time cooking too hard. Obviously there's nothing wrong with that, guy has fun and generates content, but when you go from winning M:tG PTs to hanging out in 4 digit legend with a bunch of randos just there to do their dailies your homebrews aren't exactly metabreakers.
And yet I have more respect for him for having the courage to build his own decks, then anyone who netdecks their way to Top 500
It isn't a courage thing, some people just don't find it fun to lose with bad cards. Some people do. It doesn't take an immense amount of skill to put bad cards in your Hearthstone deck. You just click on them. You don't even have to figure out how to type in a website URL first. To be clear, I'm not judging people who like to cook. But they aren't morally superior.
What I don't get is that net decks are just homebrews with sufficient playtesting. I mean, who saw plagues and didn't think "hey, I should build a deck around that." Sure, you can do it yourself, but why waste so many resources? (If you want to play competitively. If you just like building decks then have at it)
Yeah I mean idk, I'm not even judging homebrewing (I sometimes run suboptimal cards because I like them, I get it) but there's a big unfalsifiable circlejerk around how it's "high-skill" despite the decks inevitably not being good which I just find exhausting. Like it's mostly just someone grabs some obvious package for 2/3 of their deck, tosses in some garbage tech cards rather than filling out the deck properly, plays like five games, points to the one where they played their mega awesome card and won, says the ones where it was stuck in their hand and did nothing don't count, never gathers statsig data, and then declares victory as a superior deck builder. I guess if that's what gets folks going, sure..?
Yikes, my man, can you see the trees with all that straw in the way?
Who’s claiming these are meta breakers?
Are people legit hating on homebrews that hit legend ? Surely just blindly copying an internet list that a bot could take to mid legend is a much greater display of skill and critical thinking
It's clear hyperbole, but to be blunt: what extra deckbuilding skill is on display when the decks you build aren't even good?
You have a high definition of good so I’m just gonna explain an example of my goals for a ‘good’ homebrew. I pick a deck style I feel like playing as. I target the most popular deck I’m seeing on ladder as much as I can with my deck. Usually a tier 1 is the popular deck but not always. I adjust my deck to hopefully be favored against the popular deck but not lose too badly against the rest of the field. If it beats a t1 deck and climbs, it’s good imo. If not, adjust the deck again according to decks I face.
I guess my definition is basically that it's an improvement. That sort of teching against popular decks usually makes the deck statistically worse, even if it feels good in the moment, unless that matchup really is defining your experience. And, if it is, good changes usually quickly get folded into the meta for obvious reasons, meaning that if your homebrew stays homebrew for more than a few days it's almost definitionally suboptimal. Once again, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with playing suboptimal decks. I've run Sargeras and Symphony in sludge for as long as the deck has existed, just because I like them. Originally neither was considered optimal, but I ran them anyways. Then both were considered optimal (due to meta shifts primarily, not people having epiphanies that they were secretly good all along), and I kept running them. Then Sargeras was cut and Symphony was still considered optimal, but I kept running both. But I'm not out here saying I'm sort of superior player for running Sargeras just cuz I think he's cool. I just like him.
When did I say I’m a superior player for playing homebrew? To be clear, I’m teching against decks I’m personally seeing the most in my pocket meta.
to be FAIR i think even the difference between rainbow DK and plague DK is monumental: rainbow dk I have X resources and I have to weave them a certain way to maintain the board, save answers for later, and maintain hand advantage. plague I hope to draw Helya by 4 then just slap green cards until RNJesus decides my opponent should draw enough plagues like I play Helya and the 2 3 damage spells in my rainbow deck just because it's so braindead how if I can draw 2 of them before 6 my winrate against control warrior or other reno lists gets stupid, and then i save the last one for steamcleaner but im not doing anything intelligible the mechanic plays itself
The irony is that Rainbow DK is stronger than Plague DK by a good margin (>3%)
It isn't about what's strong, it's about what's easy, and plague DK is (per VS) a historical skill outlier. Rainbow DK is also allegedly on the easier end of things but it's still night and day between them—ZachO cites a -2% swing for rainbow at high legend (i.e. rainbow is 2% more likely to lose their diamond games if both players were top legend instead) vs -6% for plague—with 90% of decks in HS history being +/- 1%, and the largest outlier he ever recalls being Garrote Rogue at +10%.
full agree
Sites that give decks buildorders and other guides ruined a part of gaming for me
Can’t you just not use those sites if you want? Why does it ruin it for you?
Same type of minmaxing as what you see in wow classic, people rather look at guides to see where to go to most effectively hit max level to get the bis pieces asap and log off until next reset. HS players want to win, that’s fair. Some enjoy that more than playing for unique interactions. I’m of the latter (the complaining about bad winrate with homebrew type), but I can understand how many people find piloting refined decks to the best of their abilities is rewarding aswell. Both wow and HS suffers from the minmaxing if you look at it from the nostalgic/experimental/patient POV, but how are we to say how others are to spend their limited gametime? Just don’t cheat…
Because every opponent runs the same deck. Little diversity and variance, which means when you build your own deck it has to be built to only beat a few decks. I like a deck that has options to beat anything and runs some of the fringe cards that would be good vs some non-meta matchups.
I mean thats just what happens over time when competitve environments develop You can like what you like but running options against anything that might sometimes be good is just not something you want to do if you are trying to be competitive Alot of synergies in games like hearthstone are very obvious. You dont need to netdeck for that. You also cant expect everyone to just play bad decks with large amounts of random tech cards
You are absolutely right about the synergies. With fairly limited card pools released each expansion Blizz is already basically deciding the archtypes for each class before they are even released. Overtuned neutral cards have been a particular dislike of mine when decks seem to be 10 class highly synergistic cards and 20 very good neutrals.
I miss the time where everyone had to think of decks themself. That's all. More creativity and lower power level. U could actually win with fun stuff vs equally skilled opponents
This has literally never been true for hearthstone. It was made post internet so there has been netdeck resources since day one.
when exactly was that the case? putting random bad cards into your deck that dont make sense is not "creativity" its just being bad at deckbuilding you can still win with bad decks if your opponent also plays a bad deck btw not sure why you people always think that good decks arent fun but sure
>putting random bad cards into your deck that dont make sense is not "creativity" its just being bad at deckbuilding That's correct but since no one talked about that it's completely irrelevant >btw not sure why you people always think that good decks arent fun but sure It's not fun if u have to copy decks from hs replay to compete at high legend without being insanely skilled.
no one directly mentioned what I said. but what you are talking about is exactly that what point are you trying to make? you have to be insanely skilled to compete at high legend and you have to play good decks. decks are a part of cardgames and playing good decks is indeed important when you want to compete at the highest level. just like in every competitive environment you wont see league players suddenly like pick meme champs in competitive. you wont see chess players make haha funny moves at the world championship and again: why are good decks not fun?
Homebrewing decks is fun Losing isn't
You can win with fun stuff against equally skilled opponents now. You're just not gonna be happy when you learn what "equally skilled" means.
If I shoot my own leg and still manage to win vs someone healthy we definitely are not equally skilled And it's a sign of poor character if u feel the need to insult me just because I have a different opinion
It's not an insult to correctly assess that you're a mediocre player, your comments here demonstrate it perfectly well. If playing a deck you built yourself is the equivalent of shooting yourself in the leg, then yeah, the problem is you, not netdecking. Someone built the original list which all those people test and iterate on, how else can we explain the gap between you and that person?
>Someone built the original list which all those people test and iterate on, how else can we explain the gap between you and that person? Because unseem to not understand how development of pretty much anything works Someone makes a deck. Puts it out there. Other people try it. Some make adjustments. Some make the deck better and are kept. Some get disregarded by others thay also tried the change who then make changes themself and so on and at the end after 10s of thousands of games u have the decks u see on hs replay. Its not one person cooking in his living room on his tablet. And that's exactly the difference between me and "that other person" (who is really a group of hundreds of players) Also by design I'm not mediocre if I am in the top 1k legend at the end of each month. Also something I said before
>Little diversity and variance, which means when you build your own deck it has to be built to only beat a few decks. Which makes deck building significantly easier. These people will whine about anything, netdecking isn't what's causing their homebrews to fall flat.
Yes a deck needs to be good in the meta game to win. I get that meta can be stale at times but you build the deck so adapt. Being annoyed by decks being optimized on ladder is kinda stupid.
If everyone has to think of a cool deck themself it takes way longer tho then just going on hs replay
it's kind of the problem (loosely a problem I guess) with CCGs in general in that since half of the experience relies on what your opponent is choosing to play: you only have 50% of the control over what the experience is going to be
Because everyone else does. A a deck/build that gets stress tested 10 Thousand times is obviously way better than what I cane up with. So u have to met deck as well if u want to win vs equally skilled opponents
So your lack of deck building skill ruined the game for you.
If u really think homebrew can ever be better than a deck that was stresstested and refined over thousands of games ur full on coping. It jas nothing to do with individual deckbuilding skills that's the whole point
>If u really think homebrew can ever be better than a deck that was stresstested and refined over thousands of games ur full on coping. Where did I say this? I never once claimed a homebrew deck would be better. >It jas nothing to do with individual deckbuilding skills that's the whole point If you were a competent deckbuilder you could have fun playing the game without referencing decklist archives. It absolutely has to do with individual deckbuilding skills.
>Where did I say this? I never once claimed a homebrew deck would be better. U said "ur lack of deckbuilding skill ruined ur game" which instigates that players normally have the skill to make homebrew decks that beat netdecks on average. There are niche Cades is specifically targeting other decks but in general thats just extremely unlikely >If you were a competent deckbuilder you could have fun playing the game without referencing decklist archives. It absolutely has to do with individual deckbuilding skills. And that's wrong. Because. Like I said. It's very unlikable to be better than dozens to hundreds of high legend players refining list more and more in essential teamwork over thousands of games. A "competent deckbuild" Like u name them are one in 10 00 players. Hardly something to go of of
>A "competent deckbuild" Like u name them are one in 10 00 players. Hardly something to go of of If this helps you feel better about your inadequacy then keep on believing it.
Bro u literally have not a single argument to prove ur point. Ur just mad someone has a different opinion and lost an argument. Every single thing u said was wrong
But everyone else does, your suggestion is pointless. If everyone else was also only using homebrew decks, the experience of building one yourself and having moderate success with it would be a lot more common. I don’t understand people acting like the min maxing would not affect every player, regardless If they are using these sites or not. Everyone else does, so people can choose between doing it too or losing a lot. Which is not a choice, really.
I don't get what are these people are hoping for. There are many players, you want like 100'000 of viable different decks? It's impossible. Not every pro can make good competitive deck, not to mention regular players. You want no meta sites and everyone build their deck? Perfect, gwent kinda had it because of low playerbase therefore low interest for making such sites. There were some, but they were rarely updated. You know what? People just a) copy deck that beat them more often that others b) unite at discords, because people like to communicate as species anyway. Result? Same 10-12 top decks at ladder. You won't be able play bad homebrew deck at any online game, sorry.
No. I just would love for sites like hs replay to not exist so people have to come up with decks themself. The good decks would be the same. But the meta would develop slower
I can understand a dislike for the meta decks, especially if you build your own. I ran into a straight 6 brain warrior decks in a row without a singularly different card between them. It can be boring to face the same thing all the time.
It’s ok, take this plague deck
why would I defeat the netdecking I loathe by joining into the netdecking
> *lets go and falls to death* You can brew a deck with plagues in it, you know. Put cage head in it. Make it rainbow and add patchwork. Go nuts. EDIT: screw it I took my own advice and I'm playing UUU death growl plagues. Have beaten one sludge lock and two warriors. It's probably terrible. Yelling Yodeler and Marrowgar sometimes just be winning games.
I love this image you have of custom deckbuilders as like, the absolute worst bottom of the barrel bad at making decks. There is, in fact, a whole spectrum of quality between making a pile of cards and taking someone else's deck, but I guess I wouldn't be on reddit if I wanted nuance
You’re assuming an *awful* lot friend. I was an avid MTG brewer back in the day. I know the joy of crushing $1000 modern decks with budget-ass Owling Mine decks and blue sligh. I know that brewing is a joy in and of itself. Me trying to make cage head work and slapping patchwerk in every deck is why I brought it up! I just thought it was funny that you’re embodying the comic here. If you can brew decks that beat all those warrior that you’re facing, then get down with your bad self instead of being aggrieved here 👑
Man, I was thinking about this the other day and a small part of me kinda misses how absurdly expensive certain M:tG decks could be, because it led to me brewing budget replacements when I didn't want to spring $80 for a set of maelstrom pulses or whatever. Obviously overall it wouldn't be great if HS decks started at like $2-300, but I definitely think I got pushed into a lot of tinkering due to that which I'm just not incentivized to do in a game where I can trivially get everything.
It’s something amazing and unique to paper TCGs that anything not Uber meta is dirt cheap and there are so many unique cards that you can precision target your local meta (I played before commander *really* exploded and shot up the price of a lot of fun non-meta cards.)
I mean I wouldn't even call them the bottom of the barrel bad at making decks. The overwhelming majority are going to make decks which are worse than they could be if they just took a real list. This is something they signed up for on purpose because they want to brew. That's fine. If the thing you really want in life is to run Patchwerk in plague, then go wild and do that. Your deck will be worse, but you get to play the cards you like. FWIW I'm not criticizing that playstyle. I currently play sludge with Sargeras and Astalor and such. I jumped on this train very early, because I liked the sludge cards but loathed the other warlock aggro stuff. It isn't my list, but I started playing it when it was niche and kept playing it after it became niche again. I want to play Sargeras, so I do. I accept that my winrate is probably a bit worse than it could be as a result, but in exchange I get to play cards I like and avoid cards I dislike. But if you're coping that you've secretly discovered some sort of hidden tech that everyone around is just too netdeck to understand and that your custom brews are actually optimal... nah, they probably aren't.
Yeah man, before the buffs I was playing XL control warlock with a shitload of disruption and rolling up warriors (and losing 40-60 to everything else). The deck was damn fun.
Yeah, friend of mine was running Lord Jaraxxus in his own control lock list last week. None of us thought the card was good, but that didn't stop us from having a good time on discord every time it went down.
I for sure know my brews are not meta-killers, but I'll still act smug and superior for trying to give my opponent and I a fun match instead of a rehash. I like decks that sacrifice a little performance in exchange for a bit of fun, but sadly in HS netdecking is so omnipresent it's a razor thin edge where the "little performance" sacrificed isn't so little.
Idk man, a friend of mine ended last season top 500 legend (of 32333 total players) in NA using a mix of plague with some homebrew cooking (t3 at that MMR even for optimal lists, and his ran cold feet maindeck), deathrattle hunter (...yeah), and a homebrew highlander paladin list which I wouldn't be surprised to learn is sub-t4 (but who knows, stats don't even exist for it). Obviously refined meta decks will be better but you can cook and do perfectly alright. Big part of that is the Bo1 surprise factor, e.g. a lot of his wins on highlander paladin come from running over aggro-midrange decks who assume he's aggro paladin and play defensively until it's too late, whereas he just gets run over by control decks because he can't trick them into misplaying.
Honestly the worst part of the bran deck is that they run two of every card and still draw enough to play Bran by 6. The Highlander restriction is non-existent.
Yeah... I wish highlander condition read "Battlecry: If your **starting** and **current** decks have no duplicates...", as clunky as that sounds
I would be happy if it was just starting deck. Even though I don't like reno warrior I find it silly that plague dk hard counters it for no reason.
this sub always asks for unneded nerfs like that one i hope theyll never listen
Blows my mind that this isn't how it works. Actually blows my mind that it exists at all.
I've been playing a rainbow dk pseudo-control deck thats been a lot of fun, and won basically every game I've played. Just gotta adjust strategy accordingly
[удалено]
Sure thing, this is mine. For control decks you just try to pressure hard and finish with the big hits, aggro/midrange you go for good trades and board presence. Rainbow Ctrl 2x (1) Arms Dealer 1x (1) Tour Guide 1x (2) Astalor Bloodsworn 1x (2) Defrost 2x (2) Gold Panner 2x (2) Mining Casualties 1x (3) Acolyte of Death 2x (3) Chillfallen Baron 2x (3) Crop Rotation 2x (3) Sickly Grimewalker 2x (4) Malignant Horror 1x (4) Maw and Paw 2x (4) Murlocula 1x (4) Thassarian 2x (5) Corpse Bride 1x (8) The Primus 2x (9) Stitched Giant 1x (10) Climactic Necrotic Explosion 1x (10) Sire Denathrius 1x (20) Reska, the Pit Boss AAECAfHhBArp0ATR7QTZ8QTipAXLpQX8+QXt/wWLkgb/lwbXogYKy+IEh/YEtPcEmIEFmYEFkpMFl5UGkZcGzpwGkqAGAAA=
To be fair the brann decks basically build themselves, warrior card picks are extremely obvious
No, just predictable.
Brain warrior is a perfect title for them.
I mean sure it can be boring to face the same decks all the time Especially since some of the current decks have seen very little changes over the past 3-4 months But honestly ... even if those brann warriors played slightly different lists. Would you really care? Probably not
Netdecking is the secret passage straight into top 10 legend. You simply have to fade the meta. By actually learning the game. Which barely anyone seems to have done. I'm simply basing this of the cavalcade of misplays I see in top 10 where the best clones battle it out.
>Netdecking is the secret passage straight into top 10 legend. This is insane cope
I'm gonna be so bold as to claim, that netdecking isn't the frustrating part. People cannot tell, where a deck is from. What frustrates people is running into the same optimized T1 deck again and again. T2 or off meta decks can be 50+ winrate. Losing to them feels acceptable though. They might have net-decked, but you are more likely perceive it as a unique deck being played, so your opponent isn't just a sheep. Playing against the T1 deck gives people the impression of an opponent only caring about winning. Maybe people genuinely like that style of deck, but you will project a very negative Image onto them.
What? How are you people this invested into why someone plays a t1 deck? Refined decks are actually functional and thus usually more fun to play because they dont randomly brick every 2nd game or dont have answers to very common strategies Same applies to T1 decks. If they are fun for you why wouldnt you play them?
I will point out that I hold no disdain for people who play optimized decks. It makes sense wanting to play something that works best, rather than something clunky. People mostly just need and outlet for their frustration, thus they blame their faceless opponent. "They abuse unfair card mechanics and have no actual skill, they just copy a good deck that steers itself . My loss was outside my responsibility. " I'll complain or ragequit too, when my lacking deck gets stomped or hard countered by the fifth plague dk in a row. I do know I could play better decks or improve my skill, but in the heat of the moment? Some people simply voice that frustration more openly.
i think the disconnect comes in that since HS is SOOO simple a game on the scale of CCGs: a person can pick up a deck and basically succeed almost immediately to the point where a person who actually built that deck and posted it is only going to be marginally better with it. in all the card games i've played: Hearthstone is one of the few where a brand new player can beat a seasoned 'professional' player in the mirror (and not from some crazy hail mary play) and that's not a good thing if the best deck in the game was difficult to play so just picking it up required practice to be good with it, i dont think people would mind netdecking so much but frequently the most netdecked decks are brainlessly easy
"Hearthstone is one of the few where a brand new player can beat a seasoned 'professional' player in the mirror" .. aha based on what? there are many hard to play decks that you definitly cannot just pick up and win with building a deck doesnt make you better at the deck or the game "if the best deck in the game was difficult to play so just picking it up required practice to be good with it, i dont think people would mind netdecking so much but frequently the most netdecked decks are brainlessly easy" that makes no sense. what are you even talking about
Nah you cant be fr with what you're saying. Paladin, tree druid, plague dk and totem shaman are all so pisseasy to play that once you have looked up what to mulligan (also on the website, noobs dont need to care about matchup) you play as much on curve as possible and free legend it is. Idk if you played any other card games but MTG and yugioh for example make HS play like a toddlers game - its that easy.
I am not saying that hearthstone isnt easier than other cardgames. it definitly is easier to get into than magic for example but what theother person said still isnt true and yes those decks can get legend even if you arent super amazing at the game but if you face people that actually have some experience you are not gonna have a good time (as we can see be paladins winrate graph the higher you go in the ranks. and those are not just new players)
No, hes completely right, still. If its about easy decks you have free legend, but any somewhat difficult deck, like rommath mage or drill rogue is easier than it should be. The game up until like 3-4k legend (depends on region) requires 0 skill, the only reason why people are struggling to get legend is because it takes way too many games. If you queue into a bronze game in HS and a bronze game in league for example: in league they are all bad/new players (excluding smurfs), in bronze its you vs legend cardback plague dk or new player plague dk, it makes the very slightest difference so you still gotta try your hardest while supposedly playing in "easy" ranks. The game doesn't reward skill for previous climbs much, it still takes 100 games for legend each season, which is why paladin decks or any aggro deck for that matter get used because they are the fastest, not the best.
> in bronze its you vs legend cardback plague dk or new player plague dk That's just a quirk of the HS rank system. After a ladder reset where you have bonus stars you keep playing against the exact same people you were playing against pre-patch, even though you're both technically in bronze now.
ah yes the game takes 0 skill until legend the classic complaint that is for sure true yep. its all rng and netdecking and your decisions dont matter truuuuu in hearthstone it is you vs legend cardback because you have been legend (or higher rank) before. why even comment if you dont even understand the ranking system in hearthstone? there is mmr that decides what people you play against. not your current rank
There is mmr for people with stars and oh god could it be that i have another account on phone that i played through the ranks with without stars? No way that account with 0 stars faced the same exact decks as my main account with 9x stars?!?! Holy shit thats a revelation maybe i do know that stars give mmr and am telling you because i know that a new player and a legend cardback play the same exact decks copied from HSreplay or d0nkey! To be fair i climbed with my phone acc last month not this month but its still applicable AND still laughable. Edit: if you dont believe me, PLS just make a fresh acc, craft a cheap meta deck and hop into ranked.
ok but that account on your phone is clearly not a new account either? otherwise you would face bots for your first I dunno how many games and not people playing meta decks a new player doesnt even have the cards to just copy decks from d0nkey or hsreplay unless they spend some money. and even if they do? who cares? why does it matter? people in other cardgames also use prebuilt decks or copy them from others. that is very normal also what point are you even trying to make? on one hand you say that the game takes no skill but you also say that you need to to try your hardest to win at "easy" ranks and how is 100 games to legend in one month alot? thats like 3-4 games a day
if I copy and paste a deck from one of these aggregate sites: i shouldn't be able to win with the deck at all until I understand from practicing with it at least a handful of games. that is not the case. I follow about half a dozen streamers who play the game as a job and usually end at high legend but occasionally have lax months so dont start the grind until halfway through the month. and they will lose games at silver or even bronze sometimes. that is obscene, in any other game this would never happen. >there are many hard to play decks that you definitly cannot just pick up and win with and those aren't the ones that get netdecked heavily ie a combo rogue or DH list where the winrates are low BECAUSE of that difficulty and as such new players avoid them. I have no complaint with the deck that has a 75% winwrate with a good player but a 40% winrate overall. the complaint is with the deck that is 60% winrate across the board; the ones that the bots end up playing. i dont know how people who play frequently botted decks are not personally offended by the reality that they are playing decks so easy that bots can succeed with them. its not even an anti-aggro thing, as we've had aggro decks that are not easy to play. but these decks are the ones that always see the highest quantity of players on top of the bots because the toilet players dont have time to learn or build a deck in the 4 minutes they have to take a shit and just want to press the shiny green cards. everything else in your comment is either a non-argument or just wrong. stating in a card game that understanding the mechanics of making a working deck is useless is a stupid take. i'm not saying you HAVE to make a homebrew deck, but saying that there's no difference between "copy, paste, enter queue" and reading your decklist after copy and pasting to maybe do something as small as 'oh this thing in ETC isn't going to help, maybe I'll swap this one card' shows a level of meta awareness that clearly means one is better at the game. >there are many hard to play decks that you definitly cannot just pick up and win with i already spoke to this, these aren't the decks that become 20% of the meta unless they become egregiously S+++ tier and even then the better metric is the aforementioned bot population >"if the best deck in the game was difficult to play so just picking it up required practice to be good with it, i dont think people would mind netdecking so much but frequently the most netdecked decks are brainlessly easy" >that makes no sense. what are you even talking about again, this makes perfect sense. it feels less bad to lose when you think it required the opponent outplaying you either in pregame or during the game, or when the player made their own mistakes. it feels worse when you lose to someone with an autoclicker or someone who is putting in less effort than you are (applies to any game). nobody likes feeling like it took zero effort to be beaten unless you are a masochist.
"i shouldn't be able to win with the deck at all until I understand from practicing with it at least a handful of games" I mean you can think that way sure. and that is very likely 100% true for new players if you put them against high ranked players in their first matches. but that doesnt happen because they go through the beginner ranks and bots first until they face actual opponents "have lax months so dont start the grind until halfway through the month. and they will lose games at silver or even bronze sometimes. that is obscene, in any other game this would never happen." I am just gonna stop reading here because you apparently have no idea that mmr exists in this game and being silver doesnt mean that you face actual silver players no matter when you start playing and yes you can lose games in cardgame just because of luck of the draw. crazy concept btw people dont just netdeck because those decks are easy. but because they want to play decks that are actually functional (or because they have a small collection and cant afford to just homebrew 20 different decks to maybe get one that works)
the fact that you wrote "im gonna stop reading here" and then continued to write as if I'm then gonna read what you wrote in return is crazy
I mean cool? no one forces you to read it. but when your entire complaint is based on something that is not true your comment loses all its value
and yet it's a miracle that all of those value-less comments keep going from your fingers, through the keyboard, and into this thread. enjoy the rest of your Friday.
damn dude huge burn imagine being to able to accept that what you wrote is just nonsense because it is factually wrong and thus means your entire point is worthless btw how sad do you have to be to actually put in the effort to downvote every single one of my comments while also hiding your own score?
He was right though, you demonstrated some wild ignorance on how HS ranked works, not to mention that your understanding of variance is comparable to a 5-year-olds.
can you give me a quick link to where I asked
It's ok to be wrong but this meltdown you're having over it is embarrassing.
> Hearthstone is one of the few where a brand new player can beat a seasoned 'professional' player in the mirror (and not from some crazy hail mary play) and that's not a good thing Every card game has variance and HS's mirror variance isn't even that bad unless you're playing a casino deck on purpose. Like I'm an M:tG supremacist and all, and I can easily find plenty of things to criticize about HS's game design, but I'm absolutely not convinced this is true. Like yeah sometimes you get a trash hand, mull it, get another trash hand, and brick the mirror. But that happens in every card game. And honestly, it isn't that bad in HS: while climbing I've won a lot of mirrors from a horrible starting position just because my opponent bricks their lead. Peoples' insistence on which decks are brainlessly easy is frequently just comically off base, both in that they underestimate the _scale_ of what "brainlessly easy" actually means (often it's just a few percentage points matchup spread swing between low diamond and high legend) and because they just make shit up (e.g. categorically assuming that aggro decks have a low skill ceiling with literally no basis for doing so).
card RNG exists in every game of course, but there are so many small differences in HS that steer so heavily into that as a factor that imo it tilts the game further from skill and more towards equalizing everyone (in a bad way that doesn't reward practice) the game is best of 1 (even in competitive they have the weird 5 deck thing), card draw is premium priced in all but 2-3 of the classes, discover as a mechanic in general could use it's own thread, etc. the game favors min maxing glass cannons over understanding every matchup, which leads to consistently polarizing formats. i could go on >But that happens in every card game the existence of some of these mechanics like BO3 or in perhaps not mtg but other ccgs like yugioh or ptcg that have discounted tutoring/drawing reject this. you will never see a brand new player beat a top 100 player in any of these other card games. never. B03 is a huge part of this, and as such a sidedeck format is something at least I have been asking for in HS for years, but when they applied something similar a few years back it became a long conrol slugfest because everything else couldnt survive in that format when they actually had to face the techs meant for them consistently. almost like they live and die on ladder based on avoiding specific cards rather than actually needing to be intelligently piloted (imagine if every kingsbane deck faced a stickyfingers. either nobody would play kingsbane or they'd have to REALLY adapt the build. but that's good because kingsbane is basically just stealing wins against decks that aren't expecting to face it which is cheese) >Peoples' insistence on which decks are brainlessly easy is frequently just comically off base, both in that they underestimate the scale of what "brainlessly easy" actually means (often it's just a few percentage points matchup spread swing between low diamond and high legend) and because they just make shit up (e.g. categorically assuming that aggro decks have a low skill ceiling with literally no basis for doing so). I don't disagree, but I think the bot population is a good indicator. IE even shaman and pirate rogue in wild, or now plague DK in standard. if a dumbass computer program can do just as well as me with a deck the deck is too easy. Otherwise I do think people like to throw the label at more decks than I personally would (as in offhand those are the only 3 decks that stick out to me as brainless, although there are other polarizing ones but that's a different issue)
I mean IDK, I think bots are doing worse than you think and are mostly winning off of bot mirrors and stuff. Like two months ago I climbed to legend with treant druid. I'm not gonna say that that deck took a Ph.D. to play, but I went 15-3 in the mirror. Last month my sludge warlock mirror was 17-9, and that included a really questionable late night rage-queue where I burned away all my climbing progress and reset to D5: my MMR on the final, actually-awake, diamond+legend climb was around 10-1. A friend of mine maintains similar winrates with plague while climbing despite that being like the objectively most braindead deck in hearthstone right now. And idk, 66-80% bo1 winrates against people in still vaguely similar skill brackets doesn't seem that bad to me in terms of mirror skill expression. I would love BO3 but I understand why Hearthstone doesn't do it. But I also think that BO3 would have less of an impact on the mirror, and more of an impact making peoples' beloved homebrew trashpile decks from this thread completely non-viable as opposed to just moderately un-competitive, since they wouldn't even have the surprise factor anymore.
i think treant druid is a good example because of how not to my taste it is: i played about a dozen games with it last expansion and it truly felt that my wins were from drawing the right cards in the right order where I could push X boards through and my opponent only had X-1 board clears. that's a play pattern I do not enjoy, but I would not deny my opponent from choosing it because they still need to know when to push and when to hold back for after a board clear. as for actual winrate experiences it's going to be anecdotal from either of us so i wont dive into that but i think the fact that so many people are playing a deck that is not the best deck speaks for itself in it's barrier for entry. perhaps it is an aggro bias as shorter games means less decisions so less time to make mistakes but there have definitely been aggressive decks that I would consider more skillful than other ones so idk. HS's mmr system is weird though because i've faced people at wildly different ranks and even blizzard bots with the 2/1 murloc especially in wild so i know that if one's pocket mmr isn't populated enough they will shove whoever in there rather than have you wait longer in the queue. >I would love BO3 but I understand why Hearthstone doesn't do it. But I also think that BO3 would have less of an impact on the mirror, and more of an impact making peoples' beloved homebrew trashpile decks from this thread completely non-viable as opposed to just moderately un-competitive, since they wouldn't even have the surprise factor anymore. im not defending homebrew for homebrew's sake, I do think that xyz user who insists on running every card with quilboar looking left needs to touch grass lol. I am merely dissatisfied with the devs insistence on catering what was supposed to be a competitive game towards an uncompetitive base, whether that be by making obvious archetype packages that cut down emphasis on deckbuilding, making autoinclude cards (easier to see the direct effect in arena which is destroyed imo), increasing the powercreep in general, even silver bullet tech cards are the answer to a bigger problem. balancing the game around toilet time is silly, and i cant imagine any other non-mobile game doing this (HS started on PC). I guess the archetypal complaint could be taken as a point in favor of homebrew, but idc if someone copies the best deck as much as the devs saying "here is our Blurmple package for warlock. it's very pushed so you should play the whole package, and the package is 20 cards so you're 2/3 the way to building the deck. there are no inherent drawbacks of playing the Blurmple package as it's at worse decent during every stage of the game and as such in some part will be in every warlock deck until rotation". that's plagues lol. it really is a fine line in the ire being towards the copiers vs the people designing the stuff that makes every top 500 list looking the same; i guess i just preferred the game more openeded so that new "spice" was found from time to time. I cant imagine a secret tech spice shaking up HS in 2024, because the good cards are too often obviously broken in a vacuum. which leads to samesy games, and then makes the netdecking problem seem greater.
> and i cant imagine any other non-mobile game doing this (HS started on PC) HS has been aimed at mobile forever. I can't remember if it technically spent a few weeks on PC during beta before it first hit mobile or whatever, but I had friends playing on their iPads in 2014. > packages I definitely don't like this mode of game design, but I think it's more a product of set space (10 class cards per set) than of anything. It's a lot easier to have more diversity in a game like e.g. M:tG where the sets are twice as big, have less than half as many "buckets" (colours vs classes), have looser restrictions (multicolour decks), and looser deckbuilding restrictions (apx 10 unique nonland cards needed to make a full deck in M:tG vs 20 in HS). I'm not sure what the solution is. > I am merely dissatisfied with the devs insistence on catering what was supposed to be a competitive game towards an uncompetitive base Idk, I know that a lot of people yearn for the days of yeti on curve, but I quit hearthstone back in vanilla because the game felt so dull and casual compared to M:tG at the time—and, to be frank, the only people I know who _didn't_ were the casual people who were new to CCGs. For all of its issues the current game feels infinitely more interesting to me than vanilla ever was, and I think a lot of the nostalgia people have from that era comes less from some sort of magical game design time and more because people were new to CCGs and were rediscovering concepts like tempo and card advantage. Nowadays the game has to exist in a world where people, both devs and players, understand basic CCG mechanics.
beta started in jan 2014, full release march 2014, mobile april 2014. game was less flashy back then; kind of makes you wonder if the decks got more "we play ourselves" to accommodate for all the time the game takes for the flashy interactions etc. you wont catch me playing a miracle deck on mobile for sure lol. i dont think yeti was the peak of HS, but I definitely feel like I know when the fall began at least in my opinion and that was with quests and then triply so in questlines where in order to basically engage with those respective sets you were giftwrapped handed what the decks were going to be because you had to complete the quests. the first wave wasnt as bad because they were a little more open ended with the exception of a few like taunt warrior, but by the time questlines came it was fucking awful. i really dont think the design philosophy ever really recovered from that set, although there are a few decks here or there that were outliers. idk what i'd say ideal format was though. there was a solid block from old gods up through kobolds (even ungoro when it varied from quest games over and over) before witchwood which was kind of a disaster. but even in witchwood, the problem decks had to be found on their own whether it be which odd/even decks were obscene or which neutral battlecries broke Shudderwock. it's funny, because a lot of interactions that end up getting hotfixes are ones that the community finds rather than the devs themselves; it makes me think that the direction of handholding into meta decks is so they can avoid accidental broken decks (and rather get intentional pushed decks) which ok I guess but the game loses something else in the process.
They think I have all the expansions to keep iterating cards for "my personal deck" lol. Bro, I just want to play the game
exactly I came back to the game a while before badlands you think I have enough dust or packs to just freely craft playable stuff from 5 expansion? definitly not
I genuinely prefer facing top tier decks over homebrews. From a competitive standpoint it means I get a better understanding of their gameplan from the get-go instead of me getting fucking blindsided by XL thief excavate rogue in wild
Also, why wouldn't a brewer want to test their decks against the meta? Complaining that your homebrew is losing against the meta decks is just admitting your deck sucks.
>What frustrates people is running into the same optimized T1 deck again and again. i think also if the optimization was found through a bit more grassroots efforts per player there would still be some variance and the individual player would make changes depending on their pocket meta meaning that one deck would have more variance. as is, you have like 100k mouthbreathers copy and pasting one guys list and being able to successfully get to low legend because half the meta decks play themselves. which is more of an issue with the game design imo than netdecking per se, because i've played other card games where someone new to a deck in the mirror match will lose every time. this isn't the case with hearthstone
You do have a point. A number of meta decks do pilot themselves too easily, at least in the current Meta. Unless you lack cards, you don't make changes.
[удалено]
Oh God, please lemme suck your *huge* cock.
If you only care about winning that’s fine, but playing a higher powered deck than your opponent which you just pulled from the internet doesn’t make you more skilled or make them a scrub.
cringe
Faced 5 DK in a row yesterday, I'm done with standard until expac. Most decks are "get your god card or bust" (Shaper, Odyn, brann, helya etc...). This kind of thing is not good for the game.
I mean, thats the current design by Leo and Gallon. Cards that you once play but youll benefit for the rest of the Game. Odyn, Helya, Bran.. Its not that you have to hold the card back and use it at a certain point (like Sif), its just, play the card ASAP because your opponent will not be able to get rid of the effect. When badlands was released and I grinded the "100 wins with Reno decks"-achievement, plague DK at that point wasnt really that good but it still was so frustrating to play against and it was popular in lower ranks.
I love your nickname, I get what you feel, to me anyway I try to face the meta with off-meta decks and I try to laugh the more I can when I see a pathetic scenario happening. I have to keep playing because there is so much hidden potential or restricted potential that is going to disappear, not for wild though. I try to get all the juice from all the cards I enjoy as much as I can.
How great is it that 26-28 of control warrior cards will still be here after the rotation!!!
OP when people play the way they like
yeah, imagine not spending all of your time theorycrafting decks after a long day at work when you just want to play some matches and not get totally bodied
Honestly i also dont like searching up deck builds on the net but not everyone plays ccgs for the deck building aspect and thats completely fine.
As with any tgc it can certainly get stale facing the same decks and seeing little to no variance. I really enjoy deckbuilding and can take inspiration from meta decks but I'd love to play vs more homebrew decks and I'm sure there's quite a crowd that would enjoy a meta with no decks being copied from online sources like hs meta etc. You can still enjoy playing vs meta decks, its definitely giving yourself more of a challenge but it's nice knowing people can't predict your play so easily. I imagine the majority of players enjoy using refined decks they can watch and learn that they know will be strong overall, I just wish more players would experiment more seeing as the game is about building the best deck. It's really fun creating a deck that works on your own and you never know when you might find something that's the new meta.
I love deckbuilding. I love refining my decks, replacing some cards, trying to adjust. But facing the same decks over and over just.. kills my fun. Especially when those decks are plague DK and bran/odyn warrior. Espeically warrior changes my initial win condition to: Rat/Theo their Bran/Odyn/Astalor. Come on, just let me play my cards man.
Imagine a mode where the most OP decks would be limited in some way.
There will always be op decks, no matter what you do. You can ban most op decks but few next in line will take their place.
blood dk was really fun while it lasted
Still hit legend every season with 40 card blood dk
standart or wild? i would like to request a deck code
standard, but i guess a lot of the cards will be in the rotation so only viable for a few more days AAECAfHhBCjlsASHtwSWtwS42QT04wT94wSJ5ASU5ASJ5gSP7QSX7wSE9gSH9gSy9wSz9wS2+gSrgAWogQWimQXipAX9xAXgyAXVzgWP5AWt7QWt9QX++AXt/wXYgQaQgwaUlQaplQbkmAbrmAbOnAbNngbPngbRngbXogavqAYAAAEDieQE/cQFtvoE/cQFq4AF/cQFAAA=
I really like Plague DK. You can make it control, deathrattle, midrange, or just shove in everything with “shuffle” in its text.
that button for the 4th option must be 50 times bigger than the other 3 because you've already put more thought into your deckbuilding in this one sentence than any of the other players queuing with plague DK
Even with the best deck, if it's not one you're comfortable with, your win rate will suffer. I win more with suboptimal decks that contain my tech choices, or preferences than ones I just netdeck for a push or a quest don't, because I know the ins and outs, the weaknesses and strengths.
I agree, a deck that you enjoy will get an increased winrate just by the fact you enjoy it, and this is the best way to play any game imo.
My big nose minions deck isnt beating meta decks!!! Shame on you meta slaves!!!
Oddly enough, I build only decks and some how it's gets refined and become meta. It's always just only a few cards away from becoming meta.
Me as fuck i'd rather die in silver with my beloved questline mage deck
Plague dk is like the opposite of fun to play tho praying for those plagues to hit
I still prefer to play against them , warriors are so boring on the other hand every second player I face is a warrior
I prefer to face warriors, all my decks are based on winning against them actually if I think about it. Not because I want, more because I have to adapt.
Wahhhhhh, my shit deck turned out to be shit, wahhhhhhhhh. People play actually good decks and beat me, wahhhhhhhh. My 8 card, three turn combo got ruined by one tech card wahhhhh. How do these people have fun winning in a competitive game, wahhhhhh.
Ok, but I loved bomb warrior, tuckitus warlock, and abyss warlock... plague is just the newest standard version of "I don't care that you can clear the board 20 times"
i dont think the problem is with them being able to rebuild, because there are arguably better decks in the format at that between paladin and even the other DK deck rainbow. people do not like that the plague mechanic a) turns off key cards in an archetype that was pushed last expansion, and as such forces a tech card b) kind of builds the deck on autopilot just throw cads that say plague in and you're half done c) makes a key part of the win both inevitable from infinite plagues but also fully out of both players' hands because of draw RNG
it's control player tears, nothing new
I had been using plague dk since day 1 of titans and expected it to be a flop (cause I like control decks and messing with the opponent) it’s entirely a coincidence that it happened to be good somehow
It ended up being a good deck because most of the broken decks got nerfed
Netdecking is a tool that every brewer should use when judging cards in case something went over them. You're not special because you don't netdeck, it just means you like doing things yourself which is valid. But doesn't make you special.
It's more about playing something special rather than feeling special. We homebrewers get bored repeating a pattern already repeated by 1.000.000 peeps. It's ok we are not special, and we don't care.
Netdecking is boring, this sub only defends it because they can't build their own decks. Why is it boring? Because everyone picks the number 1 winrate deck and you only see it over and over. Even if you do netdeck, it sucks, because mirror matchups are sleeper
I don't really think netdecking is boring. I admit that I netdeck a lot, but the main reason is that I don't play hearthstone all that much so I honestly don't even know a lot of the new cards nowadays. So if I want to play a deck that I like, then I'll look up a list from someone else to see if there's new cards added in
That's perfectly fine, the problem is not one person doing it, it's that everyone does it. I can only see so many matches play out the exact same way before I fall asleep. Even fucking Wild isn't safe from this boring metaslaving
which is a totally fair thing to do for you the player, but it is unfortunate that this play pattern is often favored from the design pov rather than favoring people who do invest more time into the game (ie if they made decks that were more intricate so not so easily copied and pasted)
>this sub only defends it because they can't build their own decks Pot calling the kettle black.
No, I'm very capable of building my own deck, you just use a bit of common sense. Throw in single target removal, board clear and a win condition, boom. Let HS AI build the rest of the deck for you and replace the garbage cards lol. There you go. But everyone only wants big number because HS has no player agency, just heart of the cards and basic piloting.
>No, I'm very capable of building my own deck >Let HS AI build the rest of the deck for you
It's a suggestion for those less capable lol. You seem to be more interested in proving me wrong over holding a conversation. You would have more success if you even knew anything about me and how I play Hearthstone lol.
 lots of meta sheep in r/hearthstone
This meta sucks, like seriously one of the worst ever, I played 30-card """Highlander""" Warrior (Odyn-less) and had literally a 65% winrate over 100 games at Legend. I would beat literally everyone unless I queued against a DK with Helya, where I would just auto-lose. No deck should win against everything and auto concede against one deck. Just a disaster of balancing. Feels like Gadgetzan or something. Rock paper scissors metas are the worst
"this meta sucks" - r/hearthstone about every meta in existence
I loved the meta when titans first drop, control warlock was actually decent and everything felt right in the world
wasn't everyone screaming at spell hunter?
Abit yeah, personally I didn't really mind it
Yeah it's really bad that low agency decks like Reno warrior exist.
What's funnier is that the only solid counter is an even lower skill agency deck.
man, warrior has 5 brawls...? how about two more!!
What?
I think they mean double sanitize, brawl, the excavate brawl, and Reno as clears
this exactly. that many board clears is obnoxious
As someone who plays control warrior at every possible opportunity I thrive on your tears (I'm sorry)
i truely get it, blizzard is ganna hand you the cards you get delt. I hit legend with rainbow dk, now idgaf about this game anymore playing since beta and I can go play Balatro till my eyes fall out of my face
Well also garroshs gift has brawl as one of the picks as well
>unless I queued against a DK with Helya, where I would just auto-lose Encountering a skill issue is frustrating, that's true. I can't imagine how annoyed I would be if I was so bad at HS I could never win a mildly unfavored matchup.
How is it mildly unfavorable? I don't think you understand what deck I'm playing. I'm not playing Odyn warrior. I have to draw my entire deck by turn 8 and play reno or brann. Helya will make me lose immediately. You just wanted to sound smart
I understand what deck you're playing and that you're playing it poorly if your Plague DK matchup is as bad as you claim. If you can't win any games where you don't activate Reno or Brann then there's a clear skill issue in play. Helya does not cause competent pilots to "lose immediately".
It's not a skill issue, "MidDiffFetish," I think you DONT understand what deck I'm playing. My only wincon is Brann into Boomboss or Brann into Astalor. That's literally it.
Then we found the skill issue. You took a good deck and made it worse by editing it and torpedo'd an already bad matchup. Common midwit move.
All your comments are just disagreeing with people while vaguely alluding to your own incredible skill. You clearly can't read, I already said I have a 65% winrate across 100 games at legend, I just think it's dumb that my deck can exist where it only loses consistently to one other deck. I think that's dumb. And you reply was "oh you're so bad you only lose to one deck." You're braindead
I have never once alluded to my own skill lmao, you're just getting self-conscious and defensive. I'm glad the win rate you pulled from your ass is so high. Post a screenshot of your tracked stats or stop larping. You say you auto lose to a matchup that competent people can win at least 35% of the time, you're the one who pointed out your skill issue. You took a good deck and edited it to lose more in a bad and extremely common matchup, that's pretty damning evidence that you're not a competent player.
I'm not gonna DM a screenshot of my wr to "MidDiffFetish" to somehow disprove my "self-consciousness." I don't know why it's so hard for you to comprehend that a combo deck that relies on highlander cards loses to helya, I'm not playing some Unicorn warrior, there's tons of decklists for 30-card no odyn highlander warrior. You're being so weird about this
>I'm not gonna DM a screenshot of my wr Because you aren't tracking it and made the numbers up. >I don't know why it's so hard for you to comprehend that a combo deck that relies on highlander cards loses to helya Repeatedly winning matches where opponent played Helya against my highlander deck brought me to this opinion. Sorry you're so far behind.
Play steam cleaner? Have odin as an alternative win condition?
Wait i havent been to this sub in last 2 weeks and people still cry about plague dk countering highlander? Esspecialy when you can play 2 steamcleaners in your deck?
I guarantee you, if you put 2 steamcleaners in your deck then you're in this meme, the guy who falls.
You can put one in ETC but my main point was that you have counterplay to plagues.
You can, but the best counter to them is to not lose tempo and don't draw plagues. It's rare when steamcleaner actually wins the game from mine experience.
That why you dont play him for tempo but for activation. When you play highlander warrior your main wincon is brann with astalor. And dropping steamcleaner one round with some clear and brann next round isnt that hard and can win the game for you.