We should call Constructed the "Netdeck" game

Multiplayer Discussion
41

To be fair, it’s not a good comparison. Or if it is, then we just have to agree that Hearthstone, like chess, has two versions of the game: competitive and casual.

Casual chess is all about creativity and outplaying your opponent. Ideally, none of you knows a lot of theory and openings because it shuts down creativity and set of possible games. Similarily, casual hearthstone deckbuilding works the same - you don’t even want to know the meta-netdecks, because they’ll just limit your ideas and creativity.

Competitive chess is all about memorizing NOT JUST OPENINGS, but complete games, move per move + their transpositions (when the order of the moves changes, but the game ends the same) + all the possible check mates in each position, and THEN trying to outplay an opponent who knows almost all that you know, maybe slightly less or slightly more. Similarily, meta-netdecks are what chess players have to memorize and play around - complete, perfect and at least thus far, proven to be optimal.

If you can’t agree about which way to go, you should just agree you’re not playing the same game, at all. One is about memory and strategizing, the other is about creativity and execution.

Either way, it’s still not a great comparison, since chess doesn’t have a random aspect to it, unlike Hearthstone. Unless you play chess 360, but that’s another topic.

42

So true xD Even the play station 1 era games were punishing, and have cost me actual money from throwing things out of rage

The newer we go, less punishing the games are, which, unfortunately, comes with a toned-down feeling of accomplishment, which means we just go to the next game immediately for a new, but weaker high.

It’s like the evolution of drugs from strong to weak, where people combine more of them in larger doses to compensate

I just don’t see the connection to HS, but oh well, I guess it’s because I just randomly jumped in the conversation xD

There’s an actual science of why people play video games xD It’s called the “4-E”, and it says you can group all the motivations for playing into 4 categories, all starting with E:

a) Entertainment - this one is self-explainable,
b) Education - because in most of the games, you can learn something new,
c) Escapism - to escape life difficulties, this one is the most similar to what you grouped most people in, but it’s just one aspect which everyone seeks for, albeit in different quantities, and
d) Esthetic - being myself focused more on functioning, rather than esthetic, I cannot describe this one as good as the previous ones xD I guess it’s all flashy and looking nice in video games, ain’t it?

Esthetic and entertainment are the more passive motivations, you satisfy them as soon as you double-click to open the game, basically, while Education and Escapism are much more active and immersive, and these are the ones that differentiate between a gamer and a hardcore gamer.

You can read more about it here (not much more, though, I’m afraid, except for a nice little figure with 4 quadrants to visualize it better):

https://srdc.msstate.edu/ecommerce/curricula/exp_economy/module1_4.htm

I could go on and on about the theory of video games, I do have a scientific article or two published on that topic :slight_smile:

43

Wrong, the goal of the game is to enjoy one;s self while playing it, to occupy the most amount of time for the players so they arent spending that time elsewhere. (IE: spending their money elsewhere)

If the only way to enjoy yourself while playing the game is to win it… thats a big yikes and time for some self reflection. Big Crimson Red flag there.

1 Like
44

The difference is that doctors goal isnt to just have fun and enjoy themselves while they are doing surgery. A game is. Hence why your example falls apart. The goal of a surgery is to solve a problem, prevent a problem from getting worse, and many times to rescue a life(s). None of these things are on the line for a casual thing such as a game. Winning isnt even on the line because its a game. The only time it is on the line is in competitive mindset version of games. Think the difference between playing basketball at the park and playing for the NBA. None of us here think we are NBA players… even if some aspire to be, there is no point in time any of us should be considering the game we play at the park to be on the same level or treated as the same level as the NBA games. None of us are paid to play the game, therefore the mindset of being competitive shouldnt be a part of it. If you are being paid for it, then yes, competition is built into the job description. But to do a job without being paid is to volunteer or intern. Its a sad state of affairs if you are an unpaid intern for Blizzard at this point in 2024.

45

True

False.

Nothing bad with winning being the main source of fun, it’s just a different personality with different pros and cons

We should not judge anybody for being different. I suggest thinking about what good comes out from their difference, both to them individually, and to the society in general

Can’t you think of any pros of winning mentality? xD
Or any cons of casual mentality?

1 Like
46

Win or lose. it doesnt change my next game. I will continue to try to enjoy myself. Enjoy seeing what others bring out to their matches with me.

I’m not one of those that think like the Borg or that they are a Saiyan. With every loss I will Adapt or Die. With every loss I will recover and become twice as strong than before.

Makes for good cartoons and campy scifi, sure, but it isnt a way to live ones life.

47

I mean, this is good up to a point, but if your winrate drops to like 40%, it’s time to make it better, because that way you’ll have more fun playing it

There has to be a balance you can strike to optimize your fun, but I guarantee you that noone finds losing and winning equally satisfying all the time, it’s just not natural, it’s actually dangerous for human beings to be like that.

That’s an opposite extreme xD Ofc that’s also not recommended, as changing things too quickly makes you vulnerable to variance/rng, so you can make a good deck worse

So yeah, as with anything, you just gotta find your balance. That balance is different for all of us, but it exists

48

On average before the whizbang deck, I would win maybe 1 in 10 matches. and that was on good months. Its why it was difficult to get the card backs most months. I was frustrated at times, sure. who wouldnt be? but I persevered. and spent the majority of my dust on an all or nothing expense of 1 legendary. i picked whizbang because it gave the most value for the dust spent. if I can only afford one card to craft to make my decks better, I think I chose wisely. I doubt there is any other singular card that could benefit me better than one that comes with its own decks, some with all legendaries within it. and nearly every card in all the decks it comes with not in my collection either.

49

On paper, when you put it that way, it’s 100% true

But in reality, I’m not so sure. I think crafting Zilliax or your preferred class legendary which seems to be too strong to not be a part of every future deck of that class, would have been better.

Either way, it doesn’t matter at all. You did what you did, now you use that to gain more resources to craft more cards. Choose your next investment even more wisely.

50

Player agency is important. People can choose to play bad cards put into poorly constructed decks if they want to. Their rationale for doing so is entirely none of my concern, and I’m merely exercising my player agency by not caring about how unfair it is when I beat them with powerful cards from well constructed decks.

“It’s a netdeck” means literally nothing to me.

EDIT: I’m hoping it was obvious I’m talking about ranked formats, but in case it wasn’t: obviously I’m talking about ranked formats. I wouldn’t bring a Power-9 tourney deck to my friend’s house for casual magic, and I wouldn’t do it here in Hearthstone either.

1 Like
51

I just reach Legend with my tier-4 deck (according to latest vS report #301).

Of course, my deck is one of the archtype, but I have twisted and tuned it myself to make it unique too.

52

Then please tell me, concretely, how would you implement ingame a “no netdecking” algorithm?

How would you banned players from standard unless that change their deck to a non netdecked one?

Bette yet, how would the game detect the game the players are using on ladder are netdecked?

For that, you would need a precise definition of what is a netdeck, one that can be later coded in game and tested if current deck meets the criteria?

How and third question, would such drastic practive hurt your game? hurt your playerbase and hurt your bottom line.

53

I wouldn’t. Why would I??

But I mean, from the technical side, it’s not that hard, you just cross-check the decks against the list of all the netdecks available at that time

Of course it would.

54

you know, three or four years ago I used to be one of those “homebrew only guys”

but 1) I’m stupid and not capable of true cooking (my deckbuilding amounts to microwave oven proficiency)
and 2) other people are far smarter than I.

2 Likes
55

So, we should have balance patches every other week. And maybe add some new stuff in the meanwhile.

56

It’s not even about being smarter, it’s about having some weird, conceptual thinking skills, probably honed by years of deckbuilding

I suppose it’s the right side of the brain, rather than left, in question

In any case, it was clear to me from the first time I tried to build a deck that it requires skills I’m not willing to hone

You build a deck, notice your winrate is 25-30%, you compare your deck to netdecks from the same class and you don’t understand why most of the cards are in it, and that’s when you have to realize two things:

a) I’m not a talent for deckbuilding. If I want to become good at it, I have to practice it for years, and
b) I suck at this game, as I don’t even understand why best decks contain most of the cards they contain.

And that’s when you need to get humble, appreciate the deckbuilders and never, ever say in public:

“Homebrew decks are the only decks I count, and if you just netdeck someone else’s deck, your rank doesn’t count”.

Because it’s embarassing to say that in front of anyone who’s ever tried to build a working deck and understands why it’s hard.

2 Likes
57

VS are often full of crap or at least they are often way off. E.g. when Perils dropped they were advertising that druid and warrior would dominate everyone; it was just better to use a flood paladin back then; most others didn’t know what they were doing with their new decks so a simple refined aggro was owning them for a couple of weeks.

If you changed your deck then it might be better than “tier 4” even when those putting their labels are right; though those labels are completely subjective; e.g. “tier 4 has X archetypes above it or/and Y factor of win rate differences considered in Z way and it depends on its region or not”(subjective how they are rated).

58

There’s a surprising amount of math involved. Most people Dunning-Kruger their math skills something fierce.

59

I know this will be difficult for you to understand, so I’ll say it simply:

Different people play games for different reasons.

But also, if winning were truly not on the line, they wouldn’t come here making threads whining about netdecks. They’re only here because they lost, so obviously winning matters, even to them.

2 Likes
60

Actually I know of only 1 person that has got to legendary without netdecking and it took him a few years…Netdecking is lazy and really piloting isn’t that hard of a skill compared to making a deck…Netdeckers don’t understand this because they think that making a deck is as easy as copying one when it isn’t at all. I see this a lot on a lot of games how netdeckers have a trumped up level of thinking they are just as good as someone who home brews. If you made them make decks without using any card they currently netdeck they would almost always make a deck similar to one they have copied. That is the bottom line.