Any want to share an unpopular opinion? I realize this could easily get out of hand, but I don’t care, we are all (should be) adults.
Ill start
My most out spoken opinion that is unpopular is that, players who net deck, even if they win, are less skilled (aka worse) than a player who wins with a deck they made themselves. Even if the home brew is a slight variation of another deck, what matters is that player put a part of themselves into deck building. If you can’t build a deck, I personally dont think you deserve to win in a deck building game. In that same token, i think meta breakdowns are the most detrimental thing to happen to the health of TCG and CCG ever. No one is entitled to play the “Best deck”. If you can’t come up with it yourself, at least for the most part, You are just being spoon fed wins like a baby. It is even worse when the top deck is one like current beast hunter, that a baby could play. No one is entitled to play the best decks, and the game is more fun if somehow net decking could be eliminated. (I known its not possible)
I know it seems harsh, but it is a major part of the game that too many people bypass. Its the equivalent of cheating in some aspects, and you know what they used to say about that in school. You are only cheating yourself by not allowing yourself to build those skills. I could go on all day about this lol. Also, im not demanding, just venting.
Well, if the devs actually cared about the game and didn’t make so many busted cards, there might be some more leeway to make homebrew decks. As it stands right now, if you don’t use the current meta OP cards, you basically have no chance of winning
Unpopular opinion. This game is controlled by an algorithm to manipulate the player. No matter how many cards I have in my hand more times than not my opponent finds my Denathrius with their Theotar. Ya small sample size, confirmed bias. Over a hundred games as Zoolock in classic not one warrior. Switch to freeze mage first opponent Warror.
If you play aggro druid and you concede by turn 5 because I removed your board, you are probably not having fun, but you are trying to climb as fast as possible.
Hence, aggro druid isn’t played because it’s fun, but because it can climb fast on a lucky match up streak. Saying it’s healthy for the game because it has 50% winrate isn’t really enough.
It doesn’t deserve nerfs based on how hs works, but decks like this make the game uninteresting and I think it would be better if they didn’t exist: you queue in a game just to play a coin flip that lasts 5 turns, basically. All of that just to pursuit a bigger number instead of having fun.
Midrange decks, like beast hunter or raza priest, are the most fun decks to play, because the game is decided by many choices you made in many turns; there isn’t a linear path to follow, but only good plays to do on curve which doesn’t happen every time; so the game isn’t repetitive
Well, I can tell you’re not a good player based on your OP.
When everyone net deck, the better and more skilled players are those who rise to the top.
Also learning how to play specific matchups is one of the most skill incentive part of the game. It becomes a lot less skill based if you never know what to expect from the opponent, AKA arena 2.0
Nice! You managed to showcase your utter arrogance and insult me, while also completely missing the point. I will assume (as you have) that you are a net decking player who got extremely defensive. Your opinions on what makes a player skilled are, to say the least, flawed. I would argue the less information you have, the more important skill becomes. When everyone net decks, the “best players” as you described them, are not net decking. If you can’t build a deck, you are not the best. Getting the highest number is also a hollow achievement based on how little of a life you have mixed with luck and mind numbing levels of grinding. Being able to put together a deck that can win in a meta that is not favorable to homebrew is far more skillful than piloting a copy of the top deck. If you can’t see that, you obviously lack some of that skill.
The idea that netdecking means you’re less skilled or worthy of respect as a player is about as dumb as saying that a surgeon must make their tools at home instead of relying on the crafted ones provided by the hospital, or that the guy running a marathon in clown shoes is somehow doing themselves a favor as an athlete instead of picking footwear that was designed (not by them, the horror!!) to support that kind of activity.
And I say that as someone who really loves climbing with off-meta and janky things of my own.
Netdeckers are just grinders. Its the same as people who play chess at a pretty high level but only got there because they did memmorize a ton of openings and not because they have any talent. (i can know, i used to be one of these people).
Its just because for the vast majority of people effort is far more important then talent,that effort yields better results in practice.
Best would be high effort with a lot of talent. So there will definitely be talented netdeckers. But the vast majority of netdeckers is playing on a level that is above their natural capabilities.
And for pineapple on pizza (which this post initially was about but i got sidetracked)
The trick is to apply the pineapple after cooking the piza.
That analogy does not hold up. You make nothing but false equivalencies. It is not the same as asking a surgeon to make their tools, it would be more equivalent to making a surgeon CHOOSE their tools before a procedure. Also, hospitals do NOT make surgical tools. A surgeon who knows what tools to use as opposed to one who needs to have the correct tools laid out for them is more skilled in that aspect. A runner wearing clown shoes is equally a false comparison. A better one is runner can choose from a list of shoes. In this instance lets say one pair is objectively better for the course. The runner who can determine the best shoe for the course is more skilled than one who can’t. See? Your argument falls apart when actual logic is applied.
I think Wardrum’s analogy serves the purpose. You are splitting hairs to find fault.
And I would be interested to know what you think is a solution?
There is no way to prevent netdecking that I am aware of.
I grew up playing MTG with a friend before net decking got out of hand. The best decks still got around, but you could go to a FNM without facing meta decks every round. Anyway, my friend really hates that net decking is a thing for similar reasons. While I don’t entirely disagree, I still quite enjoy MTG and Hearthstone because they have Meta’s.
If net decking was somehow impossible, I don’t think the most skilled players would automatically be the ones with the most wins. If all a player had was the knowledge of what cards are available, they could certainly build a great deck. They could then face off against awful matchups (also homebrews of course) and consistently lose, despite being a better player overall.
IMO, Meta’s allow the more skilled players to shine and you can’t have a Meta without first having net decking. So to say that people who don’t net deck are the skilled ones, because they can homebrew a list to beat Meta decks (that you have exact lists for!) is a little silly to me.
My opinion was not that net deckers are unskilled. Only that it takes more skill to build a deck. It is others who imply I said all net deckers are less skilled, most likely because they are defensive. There are different aspects to measuring total skill. I merely am pointing out deck building is a part of that, and IMO a significant one. A good player who net decks is more skilled than a bad player who home brews. Im saying a good player who homebrews is more skilled than a good player who net decks. Im not saying they are unskilled or bad. Others have used that to detract from
My argument but I take that as bad faith.
I do think there is no solution to this problem I perceive. Thats why in my original post, I said i was just venting.
Also wardrum’s analogy is garbage and only serves to point out that more people than I thought don’t understand analogies.
Childish sarcasm does not make you right. Unfortunately for you, in this instance the analogy is objectively bad. I already quantified how its bad, and those are not opinions. HOW bad his analogy is, is a matter of opinion. I said garbage, but THAT is just my opinion. Not everything in life is up to interpretation. Some things are just wrong.
Over a hundred games as Zoolock in classic not one warrior. Switch to freeze mage first opponent Warror. 