Why are streamers venerated?

[Archpriest]

Is someone jealous?

Also, "venerated"? This is the first time I hear about it. Some of them are really good players, like superjj, and are widely respected for that. Not because they're streamers.

Edit.
As for netdecking, please. No need to be a hipster. There is not one really "original" deck after a certain point of mmr. If you want to win, you play optimised decks. Sure, a lot of people make their small changes to those but it's essentially the same decks.

 

[StrykerxS77x]

I've read all the posts here, including the extensive disection of my OP by the honourable gentleman.

Yet my opinion will not be swayed on the matter, i stand firm in the conviction that the very concept of veneration is wrong.

Which is to say picking someone out of a group and exalting him above others.

Especially when that exaltation does not have anything to do with charisma, skill or talent.

Veneration for superficial reasons is bad enough, let alone for some sub par video gamer who really dosen't possess the above qualites.

But like people have said, celebrity culture has gotten really bad, even the most obscure and oddball hobbies, soceities and fraternities have their celebrities.

It's a cult of personality thing, i get it, the thing is i find it hard to convince myself that your average streamer has a personality worth forming a cult or any sort of community over.

C'est la vie, i guess

:cheers:

Still don't get it. No one is exalting anyone. People watch streamers for a variety of reasons usually just because they enjoy the person's personality. Your opinion of these people is just that an opinion. I don't get why you are making a thread trying to convince others about them.

 

[licker]

I elaborate on my reasoning behind all of this in my large post on the 2nd page, refer to that for an in depth dissection of my point of view and counter the points accordingly if you wish.

:cheers:

Your reasoning is fine, but it's really irrelevant as well. You assume far too much about people who watch streamers and seem to be projecting some sort of personal issue with popularity generally onto them.

Can you point to examples of streamers who are 'venerated' to the degree where you think it's unhealthy? But unhealthy for whom exactly? From Gwents point of view, more eyeballs on their product is a good thing, for the community generally, more people interested in the game is a good thing. Now, the notion that some streamers have an outsized effect on the direction the developers are taking is not one without merit, but it's also one which has no objective evidence to suggest it's true either.

It's kind of strange to me, your complaints. On the one hand, sure, dislike the internet culture of celebrity. On the other hand, what specific harm does it cause you?

 

[twinkiegorilla]

As for netdecking, please. There is not one really "original" deck after a certain point of mmr. If you want to win, you play optimised decks. Sure, a lot of people make their small changes to those but it's essentially the same decks.

It really is a simple fact that you basically HAVE to start with a netdeck if you want to climb to the top of the ladders. From rank 18 onward, month after month, you'll see the same deck 7 out of 10 times. I've gotten TO rank 18 with my own "created from scratch" decks, but never beyond it.

 

[licker]

It really is a simple fact that you basically HAVE to start with a netdeck if you want to climb to the top of the ladders. From rank 18 onward, month after month, you'll see the same deck 7 out of 10 times. I've gotten TO rank 18 with my own "created from scratch" decks, but never beyond it.

That's a casual definition for net-deck. Anything which is strong in the meta is by default a net-deck?

Net-deck is such a worthless term at this point.

 

[StrykerxS77x]

Streamers streaming and ppl enjoying them does not affect anyone enjoyment of the game.
But the very moment the opinions of streamers count more than the opinions of anyone else, from that moment on it affects the game directly.
If the developers take into account streamers point of view this is a very narrow aproximation to the real state of the game, but they do that because players refer to streamers and their opinions... and thats is what probably bugs the OP.

You are making an assumption that the devs really do use the opinions of streamers over that of the general community.

 

[twinkiegorilla]

Anything which is strong in the meta is by default a net-deck?

That is not what I said at all. I basically just said "ranking in the upper tiers is near-impossible without net-decking".

 

[licker]

You are making an assumption that the devs really do use the opinions of streamers over that of the general community.

Indeed he is, but even if the assumption is correct...

So what? Where else are the devs to get these opinions? Does the fact that a group of people on twitch agree with something mean more or less than a group of people on reddit?

The facts are that some of the most popular streamers are also the most educated about the current state of the game. Because they play it for hours a day every day. They interact with a wide audience as well, they are challenged in their statements and they either defend them or lose them. Honestly, while I agree that venerating streamers is silly (but I don't see that myself anyway), they provide a lot of content as well as publicity for the community and the game.

Anyone is of course free to like or dislike various streamers as they see fit. But suggesting (as it seems) that they are somehow bad for the game is ridiculous.

 

[licker]

That is not what I said at all. I basically just said "ranking in the upper tiers is near-impossible without net-decking".

So it's exactly what you said? Seriously, net-decking is a stupid term which is nearly meaningless anymore.

Ranking in the upper tiers is near impossible without playing strong decks.

Then, you'll say, all strong decks are net-decked...

Point being, whether they are net-decked or not is irrelevant, at some point in any meta people will coalesce around what the best decks are and will build them or copy them or however they get to them regardless of how easy or hard places like GwentDB make it. If someone asks for advice on how to improve their deck did they just net-deck? If someone faces a deck which they really like and so they copy it did they just net-deck?

Nope, but you'll not see the difference when you face them now will you?

 

[twinkiegorilla]

So it's exactly what you said? Seriously, net-decking is a stupid term which is nearly meaningless anymore.

Ranking in the upper tiers is near impossible without playing strong decks.

Then, you'll say, all strong decks are net-decked...

Point being, whether they are net-decked or not is irrelevant, at some point in any meta people will coalesce around what the best decks are and will build them or copy them or however they get to them regardless of how easy or hard places like GwentDB make it. If someone asks for advice on how to improve their deck did they just net-deck? If someone faces a deck which they really like and so they copy it did they just net-deck?

Nope, but you'll not see the difference when you face them now will you?

Did you create it with help from the internet or not. Pretty simple, homer.

 

[licker]

Did you create it with help from the internet or not. Pretty fucking simple, homer.

And how do YOU know if it was created with help or not? I can pretty much guarantee that every top deck is net-decked by your asinine definition. Which is the point.

Net-deck is a completely meaningless term. People who throw it around are mostly idiots who haven't actually thought anything through.

I mean pick your favorite faction, then look at the cards available to that faction, pick an arch type within that set of cards you want to play, and build a deck. Oh, you did all by yourself? Even though it turns out to be identical to other decks of that type because people with decent analytical skills (or even just enough game experience) know what cards are better than others and how their set of cards synergizes?

Any strong deck is the same as a net-deck. Your fixation about how whomever came up with it doesn't matter.

 

[StrykerxS77x]

So it's exactly what you said? Seriously, net-decking is a stupid term which is nearly meaningless anymore.

Ranking in the upper tiers is near impossible without playing strong decks.

Then, you'll say, all strong decks are net-decked...

Point being, whether they are net-decked or not is irrelevant, at some point in any meta people will coalesce around what the best decks are and will build them or copy them or however they get to them regardless of how easy or hard places like GwentDB make it. If someone asks for advice on how to improve their deck did they just net-deck? If someone faces a deck which they really like and so they copy it did they just net-deck?

Nope, but you'll not see the difference when you face them now will you?

Net deck is a silly term because the basic idea will happen whether you look for decks on the net or not. If you are climbing ranks with a sub optimal deck you will eventually face much better decks and it's only logical that you will take the concept of the deck and make it yourself if you want to progress. I don't know why people are so angry about this.

 

[Archpriest]

Net deck is a silly term because the basic idea will happen whether you look for decks on the net or not. If you are climbing ranks with a sub optimal deck you will eventually face much better decks and it's only logical that you will take the concept of the deck and make it yourself if you want to progress. I don't know why people are so angry about this.

Mostly because they can't make those work, if you're asking me. If they could, there would've been much more GM every season. And they have to make an excuse why they don't make it, so here comes "I never netdeck", etc. nonsense. I mean, if you want to win you always better off playing optimised decks, i.e. the best decks around. One of the things that sets better players apart from the rest is that they adjust those to their style of play without really hurting them.

Also, people often mistake the auto-climbing to a certain rank, I'd say it was 19 before (maybe 20 now), with their "original" decks being any good.

I honestly don't have much time to watch TV or a movie
let alone watch someone else play a video game
so when I get me time I play video games
not knocking anyone else for enjoying their time
but I'm just limited and don't see the appeal

the only reason I would ever watch someone play gwent is lIke someone said earlier about understanding a specific archtype ...but that still hasn't enticed me to want to watch them

I support a few of them (but barely watch because of the lack of time) for a simple reason: I like their personalities. I like to come to the chat and have a good laugh from time to time. And I like streamers who don't take themselves too seriously and can take a joke. But that has not very much to do with Gwent, to be honest

And good players' advice is worth listening to. They're good for a reason.

 

[SHALLAHJUSTICE]

Someone show me a decent streamer then

 

[iamthedave]

Someone show me a decent streamer then

Swim, Megamogwai and Merchant are all pretty good. They approach the game analytically - though in subtly different ways - and that gives you a better insight on why certain cards are under or overpowered. Swim especially is very mathematically focused and he's very good at breaking down from a pure maths point of view what cards actually do in the game and why certain things people THINK are broken actually aren't. All three have very different personalities as well so you might like one out of them. I like Mogwai and Swim myself. Merchant I can take or leave. He's pretty negative on GWENT overall, but he's hopeful. He does love the world and thinks the game has potential.

Swim especially likes to experiment and sometimes creates some fun ideas that actually work. I think we can thank him for the spate of Ocvist buff decks that were around for a while, as he became obsessed with trying to make him work, as he's one of the only non-spy card advantage cards in the game, and so fundamentally very powerful if he actually triggers his ability.

He even gave a college try at making Ulfhedinn work.

 

[Archpriest]

Megamogwai and Merchant are all pretty good.

Ok, let's calm down here...

 

[iamthedave]

Ok, let's calm down here...

I think Swim's the best for analysis, but I quite enjoy Mogwai and Merchant. Mogwai's enthusiasm is infectious

 

[Barracuda88]

I stopped watching Merchant after he lost his sh*t about Francesca's "game-breaking" new ability, like it was the Armageddon. Clearly not biased at all, that guy (or me ).

 

[SHALLAHJUSTICE]

Hmm I was hoping for a link, alas...
​​​​​​
In summary, the OP was really a bigger question, one obviously much larger then Gwent. The game or the county.

It's was more of a reflection on celebrity culture in general I guess.

The exaltation of the few over the many and the subsequent adoration and veneration of those chosen few.

I'm sure there are hidden politics in this kind of relationship that make it work and have done since the beginning of time but I'm certainly not privy to those hidden workings.

I seem to be the only one kicking up a stink about it to be honest, the majority seem to be content with the way the system works so why bother.

Anyway it's not really the most appropriate place to build on these kind of topics.

The admins should add another sub section on the forums, one for idle chatter and non gwent related stuff, I know there's a thread for that but it's not the same.

:sleepy:

 

[iamthedave]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcNwx-587Ck

There's Swim, on an analysis of the ten new cards that are coming.