Personally I like to try to make my own deck, I've made lots and I've only been playing for about 8 months. Although I do have to admit building off someone else's general idea is good too. I would never just copy someone else's deck though, I like the deck building process and using something I made. I'm not saying copying a deck is bad, it's just not what I'd do.
Personally I like to try to make my own deck, I've made lots and I've only been playing for about 8 months. Although I do have to admit building off someone else's general idea is good too. I would never just copy someone else's deck though, I like the deck building process and using something I made. I'm not saying copying a deck is bad, it's just not what I'd do.
I like doing that too, because it gives you an idea of the how to play the deck while also specializing it for your own style of play.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you don't wear your seatbelt, the police will shoot you in the head."
- To my youngest sister when she was 6.
Everyone knows that good luck and good game are such insincere terms that any man who does not connect his right hook with the offender's jaw on the very utterance of such a phrase is no man I would consider as such.
I don't mind when people netdeck, but it really depends on the format. In standard, most possible ideas have already been thought of and lists made, though I made a kind of original for me (Counter-Elves), so in T2 netdecking is hard to avoid. However, in an area like Legacy there is a huge card pool with hundreds of ideas possible, so I typically frown on it there.
I stop at nothing to build what I need to build to have the highest chance of winning. Winning is what I find fun.
Even when you get nothing for it? And winningstil has a ton of randomness to it?
And can we all agree to finally stop tossing about the "it's not the deck, it's how you pilot it that matters!" nonsense? It's completely silly, and you aren't fooling anyone.
Even when you get nothing for it? And winningstil has a ton of randomness to it?
And can we all agree to finally stop tossing about the "it's not the deck, it's how you pilot it that matters!" nonsense? It's completely silly, and you aren't fooling anyone.
You get nothing from creating your own deck and being "original", except self-satisfaction. I fail to see the point in that question. I'll just use the counter argument "I play for fun".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Anthony Lowry, Article Writer for Manashift.
Your #1 source for New York City Magic!
Twitter: @Aufam
Complaining about card prices accomplishes nothing. Read some Medina articles, learn to trade better, don’t act like the only way to do ANYTHING in this game is to price out decks and buy every single you ever need.
I don't like netdecking to totally copy an exact champion deck and then completely use it at a local tournament, when exactly you know that regulars that play certain decks make the sideboard kind of useless than what was found in the larger tournament. My other annoyance is also when you have a local metagame where everyone plays the same damn thing, because it "wins" when the format isn't degenerated.
"Rogue decks" have their time and place. Certain obscure decks that are refined to take advantage of specific weaknesses are smart tech, especially when you can take advantage of a very muddled metagame. Also, at the beginning of any cycle I would expect to see good rogue decks that are rough on the side.
I expect good rogue decks out of people that also have a low card pool, because of obvious limitations to construct a deck. However, that doesn't mean that the deck resides at the bottom of tier 3. A good tier 2 deck with some tricks to deal with some of the stronger decks in the format can do quite well locally.
A great player is equally agile playing a good deck but also modifying it to meet their environment.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
maybe it's because I'm new to the magic universe, but I think netdecking is great. A lot of people say new players should build there own deck and learn how to work it, or use somebody else's nicely built deck and go from there. I disagree-- I learned to play magic by looking at various decks online. heck, I wouldn't have known what a hada freeblade was if I hadn't. All I knew at the time is I hated not having enough mana, so I wanted to build a deck that needed very little mana.
Next thing I knew I was looking at white weenie decks, and I saw all these cool cards. I look at decks online and I see things I might change to fit my group of friends and I see strategies. I think it's a great place to start. Also, to be frank, card games aren't usually my thing. Netdecking has allowed me to enjoy magic without having to put as much time into it as all my hardcore friends. I have a solid deck, I adjust it whenever I see something I think might work better. I've built decks on my own since then, but "netdecking" or using the web to look at different decks and strategies, shows me cards I've never even seen before! Maybe I build a deck somebody else builds and try it out.. I like to create my own things, but I also enjoy building other peoples decks and testing them, seeing why they work, what makes them so effective. it helps me with all my decks.
I will add that I doubt people who netdeck win if they just copy the deck because by the time they get to play it the meta has adjusted to move their deck out of the top spot (generally).
So if you get the idea for an archetype online, I highly recommend that you adjust it to fit the meta changes or else you are unlikely to be number one at much above an FNM.
2 cents:
netdecking in constructed - okay I suppose as long as you understand you'll benefit from making tweaks to meet your needs. Playing a popular list to see how it works is a good learning tool, but it doesn't mean much because that decklist may be different your next tournament. If you're content with the risks playing a list that might have worked a month ago in standard, be my guest. Learning to play a netdeck improves skill, but creating your own answers to the meta improves skill in more ways than netdecking ever would. Change is a synonym for standard, so in short netdecking overlooks that minor yet crucial detail.
Netdecking in casual - I will frown on this 99% of the time. "Really? Netdecking 5-color-control/jund/hulk-flash for casual? Meh on you, good sir."
@ Ixius: The shallowness of the statement was the point, as it was answered in the same way as Emkorial's question toward me =P
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Anthony Lowry, Article Writer for Manashift.
Your #1 source for New York City Magic!
Twitter: @Aufam
Complaining about card prices accomplishes nothing. Read some Medina articles, learn to trade better, don’t act like the only way to do ANYTHING in this game is to price out decks and buy every single you ever need.
I said that being creative is not an excuse to being ignorant. Being creative means knowing what works and what doesn't, then applying that knowledge to something new. Somehow you've managed to convolute that into me saying "being creative=being ignorant"
I love deck building, so I do not want to net deck. I don't mind playing against net decks per se, but I find it the height of hubris when I see someone act mighty and innovative when they run a copy/paste deck and brag or talk smack like they accomplished something amazing. If they are fun to play then I like seeing how my rogue deck stacks up to the "pro level" deck they downloaded.
I've only been playing the game for about nine months now. My first real experiences with the game was when some of the guys in my dorm room (I was a freshman in college at the time) were playing it and I wanted to have an excuse to hang out with them more. At first, I was just playing to hang out with some friends and have fun. I didn't have many cards and I didn't really grasp the deeper intricacies of the game. I slowly learned how to build a pretty good deck (my first good design was a G/W allies deck after Zendikar first came out). I took it to an FNM, and did okay, but I lost to people running "net decks" off of tournament lists. At first, I just chalked it up to their being more experienced players than I was. This first FNM was in my hometown. I came back to College the next week, and played in the local FNM there. EVERYONE was running some sort of net deck. I got destroyed.
I got upset about this for a few reasons:
1. It seemed like everyone was playing pretty much the same two or three decks. I wondered what the point was if you knew exactly what everyone else was playing.
2. These "netdeckers" were playing with some of the most expensive cards at the time. I had neither the time or money to acquire these cards, and I resented these other players for the money that they had invested in the game.
3. I was still playing for fun, and it wasn't very fun to get thoroughly trounced every single game I played.
I had a pretty decent deck. I just wasn't at the level I was playing against. So I decided to learn more about what these guys were playing so that I could stand a better chance of winning a few of my games.
Now, I still am slightly annoyed when I go to my FNM and I see three Jund builds, a Mythic Conscription, Superfriends, and other decks every single week. But, I win more of my games simply because I've learned to build decks for the meta. Right now I'm running a mono-blue Merfolk deck that has better than even odds against Jund and can completely destroy most current control decks. I built for the meta.
And one more anecdote. The only time I really got mad at someone netdecking was when I played some little kid that proudly boasted that he was running some list that he copied off of the internet. He ran it poorly, and I only lost because I made some play mistakes of my own.
Why is it that people say that they "play for fun" with the implication that there is no other way to have fun in the game?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Anthony Lowry, Article Writer for Manashift.
Your #1 source for New York City Magic!
Twitter: @Aufam
Complaining about card prices accomplishes nothing. Read some Medina articles, learn to trade better, don’t act like the only way to do ANYTHING in this game is to price out decks and buy every single you ever need.
ewjones, what college did you go to? there was a freshman on my floor who made GW allies and started in zendikar.
i'm surprised there's as much support for netdecking as there is though, most people i meet in real life and about half of the people on this forum tend to actively hate it.
I agree.
I can understand if there's a casual player with not much money, but I play to win because winning is fun.
Hence, netdecks.
I think people say they only 'play for fun' because 'playing to win' takes effort, and they'd rather not spend that effort (practicing, acquiring cards, etc). So they just play and have whatever fun comes with that, instead of actively trying to improve. I guess 'playing for fun' does have kind of a misleading name, since playing to win is fun too.
'Playing for fun' is something I am okay with, until they start believing that everyone should be that way.
Quote from jokulmorder »
i'm surprised there's as much support for netdecking as there is though, most people i meet in real life and about half of the people on this forum tend to actively hate it.
Can't say I agree with you on the numbers for this forum. I would imagine that people who don't like 'netdecking' tend to stay away from the internet to discuss Magic.
Also I am not surprised there is support for netdecking, since all the best players seem to do it.
I think people say they only 'play for fun' because 'playing to win' takes effort, and they'd rather not spend that effort (practicing, acquiring cards, etc). So they just play and have whatever fun comes with that, instead of actively trying to improve. I guess 'playing for fun' does have kind of a misleading name, since playing to win is fun too.
'Playing for fun' is something I am okay with, until they start believing that everyone should be that way.
Thanks for giving me your permission to play for fun! It's good to know that you're okay with me having fun. Now I can sleep at night!
Saying that people who play for fun are cheap/lazy/stupid is pretty much wrong. Everyone who can find fun in losing a good game is simple too lazy to put together a top tier deck and pilot it to a stunning, flawless victory at their local FNM? There are some people who enjoy playing the game and interacting with people more than winning.
I can go to FNM and do very poorly but still enjoy myself (assuming that I don't get manascrewed/flooded because that is just straight unenjoyable). Am I lazy and/or cheap because I don't want to practice for hours, scouring the internet for the most polished tier 1 deck, then just truck on over to eBay/magiccards.info/allmagiccards.com/card_buying_site_of_choice and slap it together? I don't need to win to enjoy the game. Just playing a game I enjoy and hanging out with other people who enjoy the same game is a good experience.
Playing to win is fine, as long as they don't get pissy if they lose. It doesn't really matter to me why people play, as long as they are exhibiting good sportsmanship the entire time. If they can't derive any enjoyment just from playing, that's their loss.
On topic: I don't netdeck because I am lazy and cheap bluhh because it's more satisfying to play with something I made. Is it as competitive? No. I won't get to brag about my 80% win rate vs. Jund and my 92% win rate vs. Polymorph and my 98% win rate vs. UW Control and my 106% win rate vs. [Deck], but it's more fun to pilot something that I made. I read about decks that are sort of in my archtype, but never really substantially change a deck based on what I read online.
On playing against netdecks: I don't have a problem with it. Yeah, it's a bit disheartening seeing Jace/Gideon/Elspeth all staring me down (that's a good week's pay), but I don't pitch a fit about it. I don't mind playing Jund v.2.3c, but I do mind playing Jund and Jund and Jund and Jund. Variety is the spice of life, and netdecking is pouring salt on everything. I mean yeah, I like salt, but I don't want every single thing I eat to be salty. I just mangled the hell out of that metaphor, do not call me out on it.
edit: taking this quote from Xover as a guy who thinks similarly
I usually like to build my own decks but I use net decks to get a basis on what can be done and built. I do not win my FNM's often, yet at the same time I do not care. I have fun with the competition and the comraderie of it all.
tl;dr: I play for fun, but enjoy winning. I play for fun because I enjoy playing a game with other guys who enjoy playing the same game. I don't care why the other guy is playing, but it's more fun if he's having fun too.
I don't use netdecks because it isn't very enjoyable for me to run something someone else designed, but don't mind playing against them as long as it isn't a constant stream of the same deck.
edit: vv The way he phrased it sounded like he was granting permission and the fact that he said that people who play for fun "[would] rather not spend that effort (practicing, acquiring cards, etc)" which pretty blatantly calls them lazy, apathetic, and/or cheap makes it sound like he doesn't actually like people who play for fun but will tolerate their presence as long as they don't ***** about him playing to win. The fact that he said that anyone who plays for fun just kind of ☺☺☺☺s around "instead of actively trying to improve" isn't exactly flattering to people who happen to enjoy the game. (also it was kind of sarcastic/a joke so whatever, that was seriously the least important part of my entire post)
Thanks for giving me your permission to play for fun! It's good to know that you're okay with me having fun. Now I can sleep at night!
Saying that people who play for fun are cheap/lazy/stupid is pretty much wrong. Everyone who can find fun in losing a good game is simple too lazy to put together a top tier deck and pilot it to a stunning, flawless victory at their local FNM? There are some people who enjoy playing the game and interacting with people more than winning.
Wow. Relax. He wasn't "giving you permission," he was simply stating that he doesn't care how other people play as long as they don't bother him about the way he plays.
And I agree, I think everyone should play magic they way they want to (aside from cheating) and invest the amount of time/energy/resources that they feel is right.
new players as they show up maybe twice with some budget deck they've spent the week designing and testing only to be beaten into oblivion by expensive decks they cannot hope to obtain and I think this is a tragedy.
Thanks for giving me your permission to play for fun! It's good to know that you're okay with me having fun. Now I can sleep at night!
You're welcome.
Edit:
edit: vv The way he phrased it sounded like he was granting permission and the fact that he said that people who play for fun "[would] rather not spend that effort (practicing, acquiring cards, etc)" which pretty blatantly calls them lazy, apathetic, and/or cheap makes it sound like he doesn't actually like people who play for fun but will tolerate their presence as long as they don't ***** about him playing to win. The fact that he said that anyone who plays for fun just kind of ☺☺☺☺s around "instead of actively trying to improve" isn't exactly flattering to people who happen to enjoy the game. (also it was kind of sarcastic/a joke so whatever, that was seriously the least important part of my entire post)
Yeah I intentionally didn't call people lazy, and I intentionally didn't say that they ☺☺☺☺ around, but I am sorry it was taken that way. People only have so much time or interest in an activity, so they will just play because it is fun for them at whatever level they are at. I do this. Everyone does this. That is what I mean when I say 'instead of actively trying to improve'.
Wow. Relax. He wasn't "giving you permission," he was simply stating that he doesn't care how other people play as long as they don't bother him about the way he plays.
And I agree, I think everyone should play magic they way they want to (aside from cheating) and invest the amount of time/energy/resources that they feel is right.
Exactly. Thank you.
I think a big problem with this debate is defining the terms we use. I just went and talked about 'playing for fun,' but someone took the term the wrong way (or just decided he wanted to be sarcastic) and boom, disagreement.
In all fairness, saying that "playing to win takes effort" then comparing that to people who "play for fun" is very implicative.
Why did I bother posting that affirmation, you ask? Because last week I lost every game I played in our casual group and I admit it's directly related to my complacency with the game. Playing normally should be fun 95% of the time (aka your friend can play his opposition lock or combo netdeck once every 20 games), but even opponents of netdecking will agree occasionally winning will be more fun and exciting. No one should be forced to play and expect to have fun losing - so appreciate those who still have fun playing against lock, ponza, combo, or permission.
I think winning 25-33% of the time in casual group is a good number to aim for and doesn't require netdecking. In constructed, you're aiming to win 90-100% of the time, so any reasonable player should accept the idea of the internet as a deckbuilding resource.
1: I know what colours I want to play' at the moment red/white or red/black or mono black, but I don't have a good enough understanding of the cards/game to make my own from those decks. I've made my own before but they had rubbish synergy, and they were all basically weenie types with burn looking back at them :/
2: I'm poor. and i have no idea how to convert the deck i wanna play to budget... Looking at MBC or Vamps they use quite a lot of expensive cards imo.. But Yakusoko's budget guide has allowed me to make these decks and enjoy them without shelling out half my bank account I've messed around with them a bit too, for instancthe only place I could find that had Goblin Guide had them for like £5 each, so i bought 2 and replaced them with 2 other cards of my choice. I see them as a blueprint to give me an idea on how to build a good deck. Once I have a better understanding of the cards (prob when scars comes in as then i'll have actively played with the 3 sets) I'm def gonna be looking into building my own.
My 2p...
Replacing goblin guide in a red agro deck is is going to hurt you big time. He is the only reason the deck is viable.
Deriding someone for using a netdeck is no different than a netdeck player boasting about his/her win. The issue isn't the deck, it's the bad sportsmanship on either side. Accept your loss with dignity and embrace your win with humility.
I semi-netdeck each of my decks. see what is it supposed to do and what cards it includes.
that is good because you learn how that deck work and you know how play against.
net-decking isnt bad, when you learn tactics and techs but when you only play a full net deck with your kitchentable friends, some one is starting in the game or dont have the same cash for build his deck only is sad because in the bottom of all fights this is a game and is supposed to be fun.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
see this vid ">vintage metagame playing:vintage:BDARK' timesB legacy:WWdeath n' taxisWW
-------------------------------
Originally Posted by sephirothx
Trust me, if your choice is between Jace in the mail or a girl in your bed, take the girl and wait for Jace to rotate. Even when you lose in bed, you still win...kinda.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
GGGOmnath, Locus of ManaGGG
Standard
RMyrboltR
I like doing that too, because it gives you an idea of the how to play the deck while also specializing it for your own style of play.
- To my youngest sister when she was 6.
- whhhhhaaat?
Standard Decks:
UBRGrixis ControlRBU
Even when you get nothing for it? And winningstil has a ton of randomness to it?
And can we all agree to finally stop tossing about the "it's not the deck, it's how you pilot it that matters!" nonsense? It's completely silly, and you aren't fooling anyone.
You get nothing from creating your own deck and being "original", except self-satisfaction. I fail to see the point in that question. I'll just use the counter argument "I play for fun".
Anthony Lowry, Article Writer for Manashift.
Your #1 source for New York City Magic!
Twitter: @Aufam
"Rogue decks" have their time and place. Certain obscure decks that are refined to take advantage of specific weaknesses are smart tech, especially when you can take advantage of a very muddled metagame. Also, at the beginning of any cycle I would expect to see good rogue decks that are rough on the side.
I expect good rogue decks out of people that also have a low card pool, because of obvious limitations to construct a deck. However, that doesn't mean that the deck resides at the bottom of tier 3. A good tier 2 deck with some tricks to deal with some of the stronger decks in the format can do quite well locally.
A great player is equally agile playing a good deck but also modifying it to meet their environment.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
2) Those who don't play for prizes play for fun. Winning is fun. A netdeck is a deck that has proven itself capable of winning.
3) Being creative is not an excuse for being ignorant
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
Next thing I knew I was looking at white weenie decks, and I saw all these cool cards. I look at decks online and I see things I might change to fit my group of friends and I see strategies. I think it's a great place to start. Also, to be frank, card games aren't usually my thing. Netdecking has allowed me to enjoy magic without having to put as much time into it as all my hardcore friends. I have a solid deck, I adjust it whenever I see something I think might work better. I've built decks on my own since then, but "netdecking" or using the web to look at different decks and strategies, shows me cards I've never even seen before! Maybe I build a deck somebody else builds and try it out.. I like to create my own things, but I also enjoy building other peoples decks and testing them, seeing why they work, what makes them so effective. it helps me with all my decks.
I will add that I doubt people who netdeck win if they just copy the deck because by the time they get to play it the meta has adjusted to move their deck out of the top spot (generally).
So if you get the idea for an archetype online, I highly recommend that you adjust it to fit the meta changes or else you are unlikely to be number one at much above an FNM.
Legacy:WUBG Jace Rock
Trade thread
Sig by: heroes of the plane studios
netdecking in constructed - okay I suppose as long as you understand you'll benefit from making tweaks to meet your needs. Playing a popular list to see how it works is a good learning tool, but it doesn't mean much because that decklist may be different your next tournament. If you're content with the risks playing a list that might have worked a month ago in standard, be my guest. Learning to play a netdeck improves skill, but creating your own answers to the meta improves skill in more ways than netdecking ever would. Change is a synonym for standard, so in short netdecking overlooks that minor yet crucial detail.
Netdecking in casual - I will frown on this 99% of the time. "Really? Netdecking 5-color-control/jund/hulk-flash for casual? Meh on you, good sir."
Anthony Lowry, Article Writer for Manashift.
Your #1 source for New York City Magic!
Twitter: @Aufam
I never said or implied anything of the sort.
I said that being creative is not an excuse to being ignorant. Being creative means knowing what works and what doesn't, then applying that knowledge to something new. Somehow you've managed to convolute that into me saying "being creative=being ignorant"
See above.
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
I've only been playing the game for about nine months now. My first real experiences with the game was when some of the guys in my dorm room (I was a freshman in college at the time) were playing it and I wanted to have an excuse to hang out with them more. At first, I was just playing to hang out with some friends and have fun. I didn't have many cards and I didn't really grasp the deeper intricacies of the game. I slowly learned how to build a pretty good deck (my first good design was a G/W allies deck after Zendikar first came out). I took it to an FNM, and did okay, but I lost to people running "net decks" off of tournament lists. At first, I just chalked it up to their being more experienced players than I was. This first FNM was in my hometown. I came back to College the next week, and played in the local FNM there. EVERYONE was running some sort of net deck. I got destroyed.
I got upset about this for a few reasons:
1. It seemed like everyone was playing pretty much the same two or three decks. I wondered what the point was if you knew exactly what everyone else was playing.
2. These "netdeckers" were playing with some of the most expensive cards at the time. I had neither the time or money to acquire these cards, and I resented these other players for the money that they had invested in the game.
3. I was still playing for fun, and it wasn't very fun to get thoroughly trounced every single game I played.
I had a pretty decent deck. I just wasn't at the level I was playing against. So I decided to learn more about what these guys were playing so that I could stand a better chance of winning a few of my games.
Now, I still am slightly annoyed when I go to my FNM and I see three Jund builds, a Mythic Conscription, Superfriends, and other decks every single week. But, I win more of my games simply because I've learned to build decks for the meta. Right now I'm running a mono-blue Merfolk deck that has better than even odds against Jund and can completely destroy most current control decks. I built for the meta.
And one more anecdote. The only time I really got mad at someone netdecking was when I played some little kid that proudly boasted that he was running some list that he copied off of the internet. He ran it poorly, and I only lost because I made some play mistakes of my own.
Wow, that was long.
Anthony Lowry, Article Writer for Manashift.
Your #1 source for New York City Magic!
Twitter: @Aufam
I agree.
I can understand if there's a casual player with not much money, but I play to win because winning is fun.
Hence, netdecks.
Teneb Reanimator EDH
Sunforge Mystic toolbox Casual
I'm banned from posting until next Monday. If you want to trade with me or if you want me to make you a sig, you must PM me.
i'm surprised there's as much support for netdecking as there is though, most people i meet in real life and about half of the people on this forum tend to actively hate it.
I think people say they only 'play for fun' because 'playing to win' takes effort, and they'd rather not spend that effort (practicing, acquiring cards, etc). So they just play and have whatever fun comes with that, instead of actively trying to improve. I guess 'playing for fun' does have kind of a misleading name, since playing to win is fun too.
'Playing for fun' is something I am okay with, until they start believing that everyone should be that way.
Can't say I agree with you on the numbers for this forum. I would imagine that people who don't like 'netdecking' tend to stay away from the internet to discuss Magic.
Also I am not surprised there is support for netdecking, since all the best players seem to do it.
Rasputin Dreamweaver EDH
Thanks for giving me your permission to play for fun! It's good to know that you're okay with me having fun. Now I can sleep at night!
Saying that people who play for fun are cheap/lazy/stupid is pretty much wrong. Everyone who can find fun in losing a good game is simple too lazy to put together a top tier deck and pilot it to a stunning, flawless victory at their local FNM? There are some people who enjoy playing the game and interacting with people more than winning.
I can go to FNM and do very poorly but still enjoy myself (assuming that I don't get manascrewed/flooded because that is just straight unenjoyable). Am I lazy and/or cheap because I don't want to practice for hours, scouring the internet for the most polished tier 1 deck, then just truck on over to eBay/magiccards.info/allmagiccards.com/card_buying_site_of_choice and slap it together? I don't need to win to enjoy the game. Just playing a game I enjoy and hanging out with other people who enjoy the same game is a good experience.
Playing to win is fine, as long as they don't get pissy if they lose. It doesn't really matter to me why people play, as long as they are exhibiting good sportsmanship the entire time. If they can't derive any enjoyment just from playing, that's their loss.
On topic: I don't netdeck
because I am lazy and cheap bluhhbecause it's more satisfying to play with something I made. Is it as competitive? No. I won't get to brag about my 80% win rate vs. Jund and my 92% win rate vs. Polymorph and my 98% win rate vs. UW Control and my 106% win rate vs. [Deck], but it's more fun to pilot something that I made. I read about decks that are sort of in my archtype, but never really substantially change a deck based on what I read online.On playing against netdecks: I don't have a problem with it. Yeah, it's a bit disheartening seeing Jace/Gideon/Elspeth all staring me down (that's a good week's pay), but I don't pitch a fit about it. I don't mind playing Jund v.2.3c, but I do mind playing Jund and Jund and Jund and Jund. Variety is the spice of life, and netdecking is pouring salt on everything. I mean yeah, I like salt, but I don't want every single thing I eat to be salty. I just mangled the hell out of that metaphor, do not call me out on it.
edit: taking this quote from Xover as a guy who thinks similarly
tl;dr: I play for fun, but enjoy winning. I play for fun because I enjoy playing a game with other guys who enjoy playing the same game. I don't care why the other guy is playing, but it's more fun if he's having fun too.
I don't use netdecks because it isn't very enjoyable for me to run something someone else designed, but don't mind playing against them as long as it isn't a constant stream of the same deck.
edit: vv The way he phrased it sounded like he was granting permission and the fact that he said that people who play for fun "[would] rather not spend that effort (practicing, acquiring cards, etc)" which pretty blatantly calls them lazy, apathetic, and/or cheap makes it sound like he doesn't actually like people who play for fun but will tolerate their presence as long as they don't ***** about him playing to win. The fact that he said that anyone who plays for fun just kind of ☺☺☺☺s around "instead of actively trying to improve" isn't exactly flattering to people who happen to enjoy the game. (also it was kind of sarcastic/a joke so whatever, that was seriously the least important part of my entire post)
Wow. Relax. He wasn't "giving you permission," he was simply stating that he doesn't care how other people play as long as they don't bother him about the way he plays.
And I agree, I think everyone should play magic they way they want to (aside from cheating) and invest the amount of time/energy/resources that they feel is right.
:symu::symw: Control
:symr::symb: Aggro
Life Gain
You're welcome.
Edit:
Yeah I intentionally didn't call people lazy, and I intentionally didn't say that they ☺☺☺☺ around, but I am sorry it was taken that way. People only have so much time or interest in an activity, so they will just play because it is fun for them at whatever level they are at. I do this. Everyone does this. That is what I mean when I say 'instead of actively trying to improve'.
Exactly. Thank you.
I think a big problem with this debate is defining the terms we use. I just went and talked about 'playing for fun,' but someone took the term the wrong way (or just decided he wanted to be sarcastic) and boom, disagreement.
Rasputin Dreamweaver EDH
Why did I bother posting that affirmation, you ask? Because last week I lost every game I played in our casual group and I admit it's directly related to my complacency with the game. Playing normally should be fun 95% of the time (aka your friend can play his opposition lock or combo netdeck once every 20 games), but even opponents of netdecking will agree occasionally winning will be more fun and exciting. No one should be forced to play and expect to have fun losing - so appreciate those who still have fun playing against lock, ponza, combo, or permission.
I think winning 25-33% of the time in casual group is a good number to aim for and doesn't require netdecking. In constructed, you're aiming to win 90-100% of the time, so any reasonable player should accept the idea of the internet as a deckbuilding resource.
Replacing goblin guide in a red agro deck is is going to hurt you big time. He is the only reason the deck is viable.
that is good because you learn how that deck work and you know how play against.
net-decking isnt bad, when you learn tactics and techs but when you only play a full net deck with your kitchentable friends, some one is starting in the game or dont have the same cash for build his deck only is sad because in the bottom of all fights this is a game and is supposed to be fun.
playing:vintage: BDARK' timesB
legacy: WWdeath n' taxisWW
-------------------------------