The META is an anti-fun concept. The ability to know which decks are most effective is anti-fun. This is true for all games of course, not only Hearthstone.
All these games with so much crafting, deckbuilding involved and, in theory, so many ways to be played and enjoyed are ruined by the fact that some tryhards find and share the 3 most effective decks that you can’t beat unless you play them yourself.
This is terrible. The Internet should be shut down.
4 Likes
Oddly, none of the things you mentioned (fan websites, forums, the “meta”) can stop you from doing the things you claim are fun (crafting, deckbuilding, finding different ways to play the game).
The problem is that you want to be able to do that AND have a decent winrate. But that’s not how it works, is it? Developing a deck involves a lot of trial and error (emphasis on the “error” part), and for some reason you seem upset that your deck will fail against better developed decks. Or maybe you think that your skill at deckbuilding should insulate you from losing against people who didn’t build their own decks?
Either way, the problem isn’t fan sites, forums, or the internet. The problem is you.
Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
14 Likes
And these are anti-intelligent statements. This is why I have hard time to take the whole “anti-fun” argument seriously. Because you can call literally anything as “anti-fun”.
2 Likes
The problem is the existence of strong mana effective cards and synergies. If you didn’t look at the meta decks at all and tried really hard thru trial and error to build a good deck you would end up with a deck which is very similar to the meta.
1 Like
This, plus: when you could not use fansites, forums etc. you would look at your opponents deck.
Is the problem that the information exists, or is the problem that the output of the information is better than what you can come up with?
I don’t get why you talk about ME and MY deck specifically. This is a general statement, about games overall and how there would be much more diversity in the ways they’re played if everyone didn’t have instant access to the META builds and the ability to copy-paste them.
While the deck variety complaint holds some water because yes - greater variety is generally more fun - the upside to everyone having access to the information means that even newer players or folks with much lesser deckbuilding skills can have a decent shot at the game instead of getting roflstomped because they don’t really understand how to build a decent deck. The game is far more accessible to a far greater number of people from an at least relatively competitive standpoint this way.
Also, complaining that information exchange exist and saying things like:
Is a compete waste of the time it took you to type that out. Might as well complain that folks can learn a bajillion textbooks worth of info now instead of information being locked solely behind universities and such, so we no longer have as broad of a range of access to education across the average population.
4 Likes
even newer players or folks with much lesser deckbuilding skills can have a decent shot at the game instead of getting roflstomped because they don’t really understand how to build a decent deck.
It wouldn’t be an issue since there would be no official META, everyone would have homemade average decks. And they wouldn’t get “rolfstomped”, they would be stuck at rank 20 with a 50/50 win ratio and that would be it.
No they wouldn’t, plenty of people create “homebrew” decks that wind up being incredibly similar to meta decks. Additionally, People have been sharing deck info ever since competitive MtG decks were getting published in magazines. No fansites needed.
Why are you even trying to push this point? This is an internet-based game. Either accept that or find something that isn’t, but getting mad and complaining about this is doing nothing but raising your own blood pressure and increasing your personal negativity.
Is an unchangeable facet of a video game really worth that?
1 Like
Because, your statement of “anti-fun” specifically focused on deck building and homebrews, etc. You can still take matters into your own hands and do that to a decent degree. I’ve taken homebrews to legend and it is possible in HS especially as the meta settles because you can target decks.
With that said, part of the reason I preferMtG:A right now is that I feel there is a lot more room for deckbuilding to be effective as there are a lot more options.
Lets talk games.
First, a meta is a collection of the most effective tactics available (hence meta). People often complain about how “meta decks ruin fun!”. Bu they never stop to reflect on why that doesn’t make sense.
If all information about this game va ished overnight, there would still be a meta. If we all lost the ability to speak and werent allowed to type…there would still be a meta. Because some people, through random chance or understanding of game elements, would create decks that were better than others. Their opponents would see that and either adopt those strategies or make decks specifically to combat them.
Online lists dont create a meta. Streamers making decks dont either. There isnt such a thing as a “meta deck” in this sense. There are core gameplay elements and strategies that optimally work inside them. Time and opportunity create a meta, which is really just an environment. Think of it as a biome. If you are in the desert, the survival tactic of wearing thick warm clothes will kill you.
A good example of what this can mean happened in ungoro. Quest rogue was being played by a ton of players. It had an abysmal win rate against aggro, but players still just…did it. So despite NOT being the most effective tactic (which at that time would have been aggro) it was creating an environment. Its popularity turned a savannah into a desert. Control decks with their warm fur coats lost to it and to aggro sometimes. They couldnt survive.
What does this mean? It means, first, that a deck can be surviving in the environment and still not be the best. It means that to survive in that biome you must adapt to its challenges. It means that not every possible idea can ever be good in that snapshot, that moment.
It also means the environment changes. Had players flooded aggro decks into that desert even more…quest rogue players would have likely switched to something else. This would have given control the chance to focus on those new challenges, which they were better suited for, and risen to the top.
But this fluctuation and shift happens regardless of lists online. When you see a deck smash yours, you adapt naturally. We dont need to communicate for this to happen. And with millions of games being logged…even a silent observation of the game will resolve into 5-10 decks just being overall better. And we would all know within a month.
1 Like
So, in this magical fairytale land, people are unable to learn? Because even if you’re unable to look up other decks, there’s nothing to stop people from learning from decks that beat them.
EDIT: …or what Gishgeron said. Much better and in more detail.
1 Like
His suggestion actually makes it even harder to have diversity in the meta.
Sure, all the online stuff and streamers help find those best decks. But they also greatly speed up finding answers.
In magic…there were tournaments where 1 deck ruled them all. Rebels did that for a time. Except for one guy who brought a solid answer to it.
Now, everyone would know about that answer. And the answer to that. And the answer to that. Instead of half the expansion cycle being one or two decks (despite possible answers existing)
Because I’m pretty sure that if your innovative homebrews didn’t lose to those dirty yet actually effective netdecks, you wouldn’t be here.
People play good decks because they want to win. Your request is to make people stop wanting to win, so you have a chance to. Except you, still, want to win, or else you’d be off playing your decks and actually enjoying your subsequent losses.
Excelent sarcasm thread, i almost bought it. 9/10.
This is what gives out the sarcasm. Don’t look into it so seriously guys.
Yes and no.
Everyone can understand the frustration but the metagame is reference and not a obligation.
They are decks that people BELIEVE that are the best but that not always means that they are in fact the best.
I would even say that when there is nothing new to discover is when we normally get changes at the game.
Has it entered your mind once that maybe people like playing things that don’t suck?
Gold
.
.
.
.
20 char
Ooooh. Nobody tell the OP about magazines sharing Magic decklists back in the day.
I fear their head might explode.