Do you know where any sports team would be if they just ignore the competition and tried to do "their own thing"? Yeah, exactly in back alley in a cardboard box because they would have no team anymore.
Same goes with magic, if you want to compete, you analyze what is in the meta, if there is a dominating deck, you go with what wins. Period. In casual, find do what you like but don't hate on netdecking when your plans for playing for fun in a competition didn't exactly pan out.
I'm not ashamed to say netdeck... to a point that is. I, being a college student who pays for an apartment and what not, do not have enough money to buy cards just to test deck ideas. I like being at least somewhat sure that the cards I buy are going to make a reasonably successful deck.
To solve this, I look around for different deck ideas then, here's the big point, MAKE THEM MY OWN. I never find a deck and use that exact build card for card because I generally have a different play style or have different card preferences.
For example: I currently play budget Goblins. I found what one would call a base deck idea and made it into something I can use and it works out great.
I do have to say that I HATE when I play against some kid who is running the "new hot deck" which he bought card for card without putting a drop of thought into it.
People can do what they want, but I just get tired of playing against whatever's hot in a FNM. Went to one last night, shock and awe, Blue/White control dominated, same as the last time, and the time before that. It's boring, and turns the game into nothing but a predictable mess. It also tends to be the kid with the most money who netdecks, and it's yet to have been otherwise. Not saying anything bad about rich people, lol. Just saying, if you have the money, and netdeck and aren't a complete idiot, you're likely to dominate and that's all there is to it.
If you can guarantee yourself a stable meta filled with a fairly uniform single deck type, doesn't take mean you can win nearly every time by playing a focused hate deck?
I completely agree Trapezoid, how hard is it to copy, paste, print and go down to your local card shop to get a winning deck? I spend several hours minimum running through practice runs with any new deck I'm designing. From trying to think of where it needs improvement, where it will run into problems and the deck types its likely to get its can handed to it, but it's totally worth the time I spent. I want to build my skill up toward the pro tour, but I'm not sure whether I would be flattered or depressed if someone used one of my d-lists
I guess my question is, why would you deny yourself the use of hundreds of other players' time and testing if you're trying to build up to high-level play? No high-level player is an island - they're constantly testing new ideas and strategies against one another. I got a glimpse of that at GP Toronto - the very best players in the room, the pros, were constantly playing and discussing the game and new ideas, building new sealed pools, running internal drafts, even throwing together new one-off Standard decks just to see how they played - all weekend, in between their registered events. "Netdecks" are the result of that - hundreds of people going through the same process you go through and winnowing out the best ideas for the final list.
I understand that you're trying to teach yourself the deck-building process, but a single man or woman is never going to be able to compete with the combined brainpower of hundreds of different pros and highly skilled amateurs world-wide.
Your edge is that you can know your meta better than anyone else who proposes a net-deck to you. That's a huge advantage and a necessary piece of knowledge that you have to know how to take advantage of. That's the most important skill for a player trying to get on the Pro Tour, I think. Inventing a new deck is a skill only a player already at a higher-level can really take advantage of, because they have the time, and most importantly a support network of other skilled players who have lots of time to build a new deck type from scratch. Every "Rogue" deck I've head of since the very first Rogue deck has been the result of an *already* great player honing a new deck after examining the meta *with* the help of his friends to test his idea and help him build the strategies the deck needs to handle the current crop of decks.
Now, I'm not saying you can't build a new deck type - for all I know, you're already the new Conley Woods - but did you read about his development of Soul Sisters? While he was designing it, he was simultaneously designing a half-dozen other decks, on top of testing variants of the current meta, and testing them all against each other. That takes a lot of time - more than just a few hours spent on one deck, certainly.
He played Soul Sisters only because it was the furthest along in the process before he got sick and ran out of time to test his other ideas, and he was the most familiar with its necessary strategies, its sideboard and how it matched up against other established deck types. That familiarity was more important than playing a more "powerful" deck that he was less familiar with, too. Sometimes it's not just about creating a new deck, but being intimately familiar with how to play your deck. That sort of familiarity doesn't come from shuffling up a net-deck you downloaded online and comes only through hours of experience.
If you can guarantee yourself a stable meta filled with a fairly uniform single deck type, doesn't take mean you can win nearly every time by playing a focused hate deck?
That's not a good thing. It's boring. Winning isn't fun if it's done the same way each time. I could make a hate deck, sure, but that doesn't solve the problem. To me it isn't enough to just "win" everytime. If I always win the same way, because I always face the same challenge, then it might as well be losing to me.
That's my issue with netdecking, it promotes dull, stable competitions with little in the ways of surprise or creativity. Sure, I get the main point is to compete and do well, I understand that. Still, I wish they made a competative format that actually relied on constantly building new decks from a STABLE card pull, not limited. The flaw in limited is that luck still plays a big factor.
I would like a format that intentionally banned the use of major, common deck types in standard, and instead literally forced you to use the underused cards, or to make decks that fit within randomely selected pre-determined skeletons that are outside of the norm. Something deliberately weird to build around, intentionally less than "perfect". Each competition would feature a different selection of "deck topics" that would be announced prior to the competition in order for people to build their own unique deck. The archetypes selected would have to be fairly varied (like maybe adding variables in these archetypes as well, like pushing a particular aspect of the archetype more one week than the other) each week in order to prevent people from always using the decks that they used the previous competitions (cause eventually, they'd have a deck for every archetype). In such situations, I think the better player would truly shine, as you'd have to think more with every decision. Much more so than using the best cards only, which tend to be fairly obvious in how they should be used. Though this is not the case for all the cards, it is for most I'd say. Keep in mind, I love great, clearly useful cards. But I also like some challenge every once in a while, and I think a format like I proposed would provide that.
That's not a good thing. It's boring. Winning isn't fun if it's done the same way each time. I could make a hate deck, sure, but that doesn't solve the problem. To me it isn't enough to just "win" everytime. If I always win the same way, because I always face the same challenge, then it might as well be losing to me.
That's my issue with netdecking, it promotes dull, stable competitions with little in the ways of surprise or creativity. Sure, I get the main point is to compete and do well, I understand that. Still, I wish they made a competative format that actually relied on constantly building new decks from a STABLE card pull, not limited. The flaw in limited is that luck still plays a big factor.
It's not netdecking that does that - it's the players who netdeck failing to see their netdecks losing constantly to your focused hate deck.
If they're not even trying to adapt to their meta, that's not the netdeck's fault - the problem is your opponents aren't good players, and they wouldn't be good players even if you were to eliminate the net deck factor.
I would like a format that intentionally banned the use of major, common archetypes in standard, and instead literally forced you to use the underused cards, or to make decks that fit within randomely selected pre-determined archetypes that are outside of the norm. Something deliberately weird to build around, intentionally less than "perfect". Each competition would feature a different selection of "deck topics" that would be announced prior to the competition in order for people to build their own unique deck. The archetypes selected would have to be fairly varied (like maybe adding variables in these archetypes as well, like pushing a particular aspect of the archetype more one week than the other) each week in order to prevent people from always using the decks that they used the previous competitions (cause eventually, they'd have a deck for every archetype). In such situations, I think the better player would truly shine, as you'd have to think more with every decision. Much more so than using the best cards only, which tend to be fairly obvious in how they should be used. Though this is not the case for all the cards, it is for most I'd say. Keep in mind, I love great, clearly useful cards. But I also like some challenge every once in a while, and I think a format like I proposed would provide that.
The problem is:
1) What's the threshold for a netdeck? They change from one pro-level tournament to another, often quite significantly. Jund had a lot of churn in its decklist -the only stable element was Bloodbraid Elf. So what do you do if you want to eliminate Jund netdecking? Or UW Control netdecking?
2) What's the threshold for an archetype? Two tournaments? Three? What if it's not constantly posting top-8s but is always present, like Vampires or Turboflare? Are they disallowed?
3) The archetypes are fairly small - Aggro, Control, Combo, Mid-Range. Are you suggesting the decks can't fall into any established archetype? What's left? 61-card singleton mill?
4) I just don't see, ultimately, how you could police this thing? Eliminate decks that placed last tournament? Run a similarity algorithm on all submitted deck types and ban those that come up as "too similar"? What if they don't have similar strategies, just running similar cards (Just because you're running Leak and Frost Titan doesn't mean you're doing the same thing as the other guys running the same). Decks of a single color often run a similar core of cards - Eldrazi Ramp vs. Summoning Trap Green vs. Genesis Green vs. ValaTitan all have a lot of similarity. Which ones are the ones you'd want to forbid?
It's not netdecking that does that - it's the players who netdeck failing to see their netdecks losing constantly to your focused hate deck.
If they're not even trying to adapt to their meta, that's not the netdeck's fault - the problem is your opponents aren't good players, and they wouldn't be good players even if you were to eliminate the net deck factor.
The problem is:
1) What's the threshold for a netdeck? They change from one pro-level tournament to another, often quite significantly. Jund had a lot of churn in its decklist -the only stable element was Bloodbraid Elf. So what do you do if you want to eliminate Jund netdecking? Or UW Control netdecking?
2) What's the threshold for an archetype? Two tournaments? Three? What if it's not constantly posting top-8s but is always present, like Vampires or Turboflare? Are they disallowed?
3) The archetypes are fairly small - Aggro, Control, Combo, Mid-Range. Are you suggesting the decks can't fall into any established archetype? What's left? 61-card singleton mill?
4) I just don't see, ultimately, how you could police this thing? Eliminate decks that placed last tournament? Run a similarity algorithm on all submitted deck types and ban those that come up as "too similar"? What if they don't have similar strategies, just running similar cards (Just because you're running Leak and Frost Titan doesn't mean you're doing the same thing as the other guys running the same).
Archetype was the wrong word for me to use, my bad. What I should has said were, deck "topics" or variants of each of the big archetypes. I should have claried on that. For example, Elf Aggro, Poison Aggro, Goblin Aggro, Zombie Aggro, etc. Here's an example tournament:
Prior to the tournament, give the location/reward info. etc. The participants (who would sign up in advance, a record of course being kept of the official tourney goers) would be given an list of deck types to build. An order would then be determined through dice rolls to determine the picking order. As a mock up, here's an example of the list;
1.Mono Blue Proliferate Poison (Limit: Contagion Engines to 2 max, Limit:2 Distortion Strikes at max)
2.Mono Black Posion (Restriction:Must have 2 Infiltration lenses in build, non- proliferate)
3.U/W Proliferate Levelers (Restriction: Only 1 playset of a non-level creature allowed, cannot be Baneslayer or Sun Titan, Limit:2 Field Sweepers at max, Ban:Jace the Mindsculptor)
4.Mono Green Elves (Restriction: Banned Eldrazi Monument, Limit Fauna Shaman to 2 Max)
etc.
Now, that's just an example. But you get a wild amount of variation with such lists, so much so that it's really hard to predict what will come about as a result. Past the afformentioned restrictions, it's up to the players to decide how to design the deck they've chosen.
First pick gets to select from the list and so on and so forth. Every time a deck type is picked, it becomes unavailable for the other players. The list would include very few deck types that place high in standard and the ones it did would have heavy restrictions placed on them as a result. It would do this deliberately, to encourage different, unique spins on a commonly accepted strategy/deck theme. Eventually, everyone will have a deck type with a list of restrictions. They must then build they're own deck and compete. The fact that the pick order is random prevents anyone from hitting a deck type they are famliar with with certainty, and promotes trying new things as a result.
Now, in order to keep from simply one type from dominating all the others the restrictions and bannings would have to be more carefully thought out, but that is merely an example list. The list would differ every tournament, and no 2 weeks would feature the same list or restrictions. Now, I realize that's quite an undertaking, so the tournaments would take some doing, but I think it would be worth it.
That's just a rough outline of a format I'd like to see. They would have to be well spaced out, as such an idea for something like this will be time consuming. Still, it would truly show who the best players are. You constantly have to adapt and try new things, and as such the best player will be the one who consistantly does well in this format.
Now, that's just an example. But you get a wild amount of variation with such lists, so much so that it's really hard to predict what will come about as a result. Past the afformentioned restrictions, it's up to the players to decide how to design the deck they've chosen.
But, that's exactly what happened with Jund - there was a wild amount of variation in its winning lists tournament to tournament. Same with UW(x) Planeswalker Control, Mythic Bant/Conscription... so on and so forth.
If this is the encouraged standard, "netdecks" are already meeting it.
But, that's exactly what happened with Jund - there was a wild amount of variation in its winning lists tournament to tournament. Same with UW(x) Planeswalker Control, Mythic Bant/Conscription... so on and so forth.
If this is the encouraged standard, "netdecks" are already meeting it.
No, that's where you're wrong. The list of variants isn't just for one deck type, the deck types will change each time and will have their own set of restrictions as well. While a Jundish deck might be allowed in one tournament, there won't be a deck even remotely similar in the next, because it won't be on the list.
So you won't just get variants of the same deck, you'll get totally new decks at each tournament because the format forces it. So no, standard doesn't meet my idea of what it should be. The same deck builds still dominate. Sure, they vary among the builds, but their soul is the same.
My format requires new decks each tournament, and each of those decks are given restrictions. Thus, mine ensures that the smarter, more adaptive player will win. Even moreso than the current standard, because the current standard is completely dominated by certain decks. My format removes them/restricts them, and creates a new meta every tournament. That's literally what it does, because it makes a new list each time, and slaps restrictions on decks to boot. Now, there's still planning involved, because every player sees the list before the tournament, so it isn't a total random shot. But since you don't know what their exact build will be going in, you'll have to use your head more when building. You'll have to make smarter decisions while you play. You'll have to be the better player to break ahead, and that is what standard should be.
So, the idea is to just prevent people from being able to perfect a deck?
Thus, mine ensures that the smarter, more adaptive player will win.
To be honest, I think it just ensures the player with the most time to test deck ideas in advance will win.
What I meant in my original post, though, was that if your idea is to encourage players to think outside the box and create strong decks, they're already doing that - the only problem is that with so many players testing so many different ideas, only the absolute strongest decks survive. What you're proposing is basically a glorified "house rules" format - if that's the kind of Magic you'd prefer to play, it already exists.
Sanctioned tournaments, even under your rules, would still be dominated by the pros with the time to build and test dozens of different decks in between tournaments. What would happen under your rules is that only those people would win, because in the next tournament, other skilled players with less time to test and build wouldn't be allowed to use decks that other pros and skilled amateurs have already developed, tweaked for their play preference and metagame. The "winners" would be the people with access to the most up-to-date testing for the upcoming tournament deck "format" - your rules just enforce a different, and harsher, kind of net-decking. At best, it would just encourage pros to never talk about their deck ideas, unlike today, where hundreds of thousands of players worldwide can benefit from their knowledge, experience, and testing. I think it would make the game poorer.
There's really no way to control for the instantaneous transmission of information worldwide for a game like this.
So, the idea is to just prevent people from being able to perfect a deck?
To be honest, I think it just ensures the player with the most time to test deck ideas in advance will win.
What I meant in my original post, though, was that if your idea is to encourage players to think outside the box and create strong decks, they're already doing that - the only problem is that with so many players testing so many different ideas, only the absolute strongest decks survive. What you're proposing is basically a glorified "house rules" format - if that's the kind of Magic you'd prefer to play, it already exists.
Sanctioned tournaments, even under your rules, would still be dominated by the pros with the time to build and test dozens of different decks in between tournaments. What would happen under your rules is that only those people would win, because in the next tournament, other skilled players with less time to test and build wouldn't be allowed to use decks that other pros and skilled amateurs have already developed, tweaked for their play preference and metagame. The "winners" would be the people with access to the most up-to-date testing for the upcoming tournament deck "format" - your rules just enforce a different, and harsher, kind of net-decking. At best, it would just encourage pros to never talk about their deck ideas, unlike today, where hundreds of thousands of players worldwide can benefit from their knowledge, experience, and testing. I think it would make the game poorer.
There's really no way to control for the instantaneous transmission of information worldwide for a game like this.
That would be the case if people actually determined the order. That's why it's random. Chance determines who goes first, you simply cannot anticipate what your order will be, and once you land on a deck you are stuck with it. I'm not sure how you can make one deck, that you cannot deviate from the skeleton/theme in a way that would change that skeleton/theme, that can deal with everything. It simply cannot be done. Sure, you can make the best possible version based of those restrictions, but again, I'm extremely skeptical that you can come up with a "I beat the 7 other totally unique decks in this tournament" type of deck. One or two of those decks will be your achilles hill. So what does that leave you with? You can't possibly answer everything right? So you have to make the most of what you have, and that's why my idea encourages skill. Specifically because it limits, because it forces random builds totally different from one another.
Sure, there are ways you can outfit it to deal with most threats, but it will always have one or two weaknesses, weaknesses that one of the other decks will probably exploit. Because of this, it really puts everyone on a fairly equal playing field, because you can't go outside of what you were given, and the best of the best cards are probably restricted or limited. Also remember, each time a deck is picked it is marked off, there can not be multiples of a deck, as each deck is unique to the player. So all the playtesting in the world won't matter, because you are limited to a single deck that must fall within the framework you are given, and the framework is big enough to allow creativity, but not big enough to allow complete domination, and the restriction/limit lists will help to ensure that no 1 deck is guaranteed to dominate all.
In fact, the best way to do the order/who gets what outline might simply be to assign each deck a number. Have people roll. No possible way to predict who will get what. That way, it levels out everything, and further ensures that you're going to be dealing with a new beast every tournament.
That would be the case if people actually determined the order. That's why it's random. Chance determines who goes first, you simply cannot anticipate what your order will be, and once you land on a deck you are stuck with it. I'm not sure how you can make one deck, that you cannot deviate from the skeleton/theme in a way that would change that skeleton/theme, that can deal with everything. It simply cannot be done. Sure, you can make the best possible version based of those restrictions, but again, I'm extremely skeptical that you can come up with a "I beat the 7 other totally unique decks in this tournament" type of deck. One or two of those decks will be your achilles hill. So what does that leave you with? You can't possibly answer everything right? So you have to make the most of what you have, and that's why my idea encourages skill. Specifically because it limits, because it forces random builds totally different from one another.
But does it actually?
Notwithstanding the fact that the restrictions are fairly arbitrary and not really specifying a "deck type", how can the tournament organizer guarantee that the tournament is going to play out as you've described unless they've already built and playtested every possible deck that can be built with the restrictions?
I mean, you've indicated that Limited is bad for the luck factor, but you're now using the luck factor to balance out your own tournament environment (deck assignment). Woe betide the man who rolls up Skeletons and he hasn't got a single one!
Really, I think the problem is you're just not seeing how the current tournaments do encourage creativity and innovation because you're focusing on the back-end; after the decks have been built, examined thoroughly, playtested extensively and put through their paces, players worldwide use those lists as inspiration and a guide.
You're trying to force an environment where everyone has to build a deck from scratch, but I can already tell you how it will go: People will identify the best cards in each color, and then say "Oh, you rolled up blue-black shades? 4 doom blade, 4 mana leak... add X shades to meet your requirements and go."
I say this because that is exactly how EDH has turned out - a format intended to stimulate creativity and diversity has been reverse-engineered into colored "top 50" lists of the most powerful effects in each color, and deck builders in EDH build around established cores or proven cards (Skullclamp, Jitte, etc).
Basically, you're not going to be able to defeat net-decking with ever more arbitrary and restrictive deck building rules. You're just going to turn players off the format; the harder you squeeze, the more they'll slip through your fingers. Rules of the sort you want to enforce are welcomed, even encouraged, in casual magic, but the instant you put prizes on the line - even recognition - people are going to game your rules, and in Magic, that means getting an edge with the internet.
Notwithstanding the fact that the restrictions are fairly arbitrary and not really specifying a "deck type", how can the tournament organizer guarantee that the tournament is going to play out as you've described unless they've already built and playtested every possible deck that can be built with the restrictions?
I mean, you've indicated that Limited is bad for the luck factor, but you're now using the luck factor to balance out your own tournament environment (deck assignment). Woe betide the man who rolls up Skeletons and he hasn't got a single one!
Really, I think the problem is you're just not seeing how the current tournaments do encourage creativity and innovation because you're focusing on the back-end; after the decks have been built, examined thoroughly, playtested extensively and put through their paces, players worldwide use those lists as inspiration and a guide.
You're trying to force an environment where everyone has to build a deck from scratch, but I can already tell you how it will go: People will identify the best cards in each color, and then say "Oh, you rolled up blue-black shades? 4 doom blade, 4 mana leak... add X shades to meet your requirements and go."
I say this because that is exactly how EDH has turned out - a format intended to stimulate creativity and diversity has been reverse-engineered into colored "top 50" lists of the most powerful effects in each color, and deck builders in EDH build around established cores or proven cards (Skullclamp, Jitte, etc).
Basically, you're not going to be able to defeat net-decking with ever more arbitrary and restrictive deck building rules. You're just going to turn players off the format; the harder you squeeze, the more they'll slip through your fingers. Rules of the sort you want to enforce are welcomed, even encouraged, in casual magic, but the instant you put prizes on the line - even recognition - people are going to game your rules, and in Magic, that means getting an edge with the internet.
The luck factor is merely for the deck type, the cards selected are not determined by luck however, so that is how it is less luck based. They still build the deck from their own cards, so it's far less luck based than limit.
Again, the restrictions will prevent what you just suggested, I don't know why I have to keep pointing that out. I've said it over and over again, the restrictions are likely to going to ban or limit the obvious choices for a deck, that is why they are there in the first place. So no, they can't just load up on the best cards. That's why the restrictions are there in the first place, so they're far from arbitrary. I'm not sure if you've fully read how it works, because I keep having to address the same issues that I already addressed in earlier posts. I fail to see how people can "netdeck" and literally determine the new meta every single tournament with enough certainity to make it anywhere near as predictable as standard.
In what way is netdecking bad? Don't get me wrong, I've never taken someone else's deck and sleeved it up, but I take a lot of ideas from online. The whole point of sharing information is improving the level of play for everyone. Realistically speaking a bad player taking a good deck will not win a tournament. He might beat other bad players, but ultimately it won't get him anywhere, anyway. Most good players will just take good ideas from online and implement them into their own decks, or make a similar deck with tech that they prefer. The problem with decks is that they're tailored to be for the person that made them, so there will always be preference tweaks.
Anyway, there's nothing wrong with netdecking.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Banner by perv90210
I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul.
It is good to learn from your failures, but I prefer to learn from the failures of others.
I fail to see how people can "netdeck" and literally determine the new meta every single tournament with enough certainity to make it anywhere near as predictable as standard.
As I said, take a look at EDH - even without a set meta, card choices have become largely standardized among deck colors. The same thing would happen in your invented format - in short order, "goodstuff" lists would be widely known and circulated, and whatever colors you required, the decklists would be drawn primarily from the "goodstuff" lists with whatever minimum number of cards is needed to satisfy the theme of the deck.
Do you know where any sports team would be if they just ignore the competition and tried to do "their own thing"? Yeah, exactly in back alley in a cardboard box because they would have no team anymore.
Same goes with magic, if you want to compete, you analyze what is in the meta, if there is a dominating deck, you go with what wins. Period. In casual, find do what you like but don't hate on netdecking when your plans for playing for fun in a competition didn't exactly pan out.
I find that this approach to the game reduces the cards to a collection of abilities and numbers, bleaching them of their narrative content. What is the point of making the cards represent certain creatures or objects if, when building decks, players simply look at what abilities it has regardless of its context? If Wizards did not want players to take Flavor into account, why spend so much money on thematic design and flavor text?
There are different psychographics to take into account. Some players like dragons, some players like 6/6 fliers for 4. The more people you can please (by making cards that appeal to multiple demos) the better, so why not make "flavorful" cards and "good" cards and "good, flavorful" cards?
In what way is netdecking bad? Don't get me wrong, I've never taken someone else's deck and sleeved it up, but I take a lot of ideas from online. The whole point of sharing information is improving the level of play for everyone. Realistically speaking a bad player taking a good deck will not win a tournament. He might beat other bad players, but ultimately it won't get him anywhere, anyway. Most good players will just take good ideas from online and implement them into their own decks, or make a similar deck with tech that they prefer. The problem with decks is that they're tailored to be for the person that made them, so there will always be preference tweaks.
Anyway, there's nothing wrong with netdecking.
Didn't read thread. Can't believe this has to be a sticky. Saw this post and thought, exactly.
Almost everyone net decks, and really if you don't you still play some variant of a competitive deck. The real question is do you try to home brew? Hell yeah I do! Nothing is more fun than throwing together a few cards that you think are going to interact well and fail! Yeah I said fail. Seriously! It's a ton of fun. Then I go to box tourneys with a version of something currently competitive in the meta.
If all you do is net deck shame on you, that's not what magic is about. But when you play in a competitive environment and you are wanting to win boxes or store credit you should play with the best deck possible you feel comfortable playing. And if it is a net deck then go for it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The king of Yavimaya's waters pays constant attention to his subjects . . . and thrives on their adulation.
Deckbuilding and playing are not requisites of eachother...if someone wants to play a deck that is good but that they had no part in designing, let them do it. And if you wanna take the time to design a deck that is good and be able to say this is all my own work, then the more power to you. *ooof*
The luck factor is merely for the deck type, the cards selected are not determined by luck however, so that is how it is less luck based. They still build the deck from their own cards, so it's far less luck based than limit.
Again, the restrictions will prevent what you just suggested, I don't know why I have to keep pointing that out. I've said it over and over again, the restrictions are likely to going to ban or limit the obvious choices for a deck, that is why they are there in the first place. So no, they can't just load up on the best cards. That's why the restrictions are there in the first place, so they're far from arbitrary. I'm not sure if you've fully read how it works, because I keep having to address the same issues that I already addressed in earlier posts. I fail to see how people can "netdeck" and literally determine the new meta every single tournament with enough certainity to make it anywhere near as predictable as standard.
So, won't every player just use the next best cards? Which is exactly what will happen; the Hive Mind will simply figure out the next best cards, and once that is determined decks will be built using them. This is the same line of thinking that gets people to say "omg why don't they make every card good?" Power level is relative to the format in question.
If you ban Mana Leak, then people will use Cancel. If you ban Cancel and Mana Leak, people will use Stoic Rebuttal. If you ban all of those, then people will use Negate, etc.
If anything, your idea stifles creativity. Instead of letting the metagame evolve as it naturally would, you force it to by restricting card choices. Thus, people with little time to test before a tournament simply take the "best list" and substitute whatever is banned for the next best cards.
Not only this, but the logistics of running a tournament using these rules are ridiculous. Every judge checking your decklist would have to learn the new rules every time that the format was forced to change. This would get old as hell for the judges.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
T2:
UR Ascension
Mono-U Birthing Pod
This is great news. First the McRib now Time Spiral!
Now, the world don't move to the beat of just one drum,
What might be right for you, may not be right for some.
A man is born, he's a man of means.
Then along come two, they got nothing but their jeans.
But they got, Different Strokes.
It takes, Different Strokes.
It takes, Different Strokes to move the world.
Everybody's got a special kind of story
Everybody finds a way to shine,
It don't matter that you got not alot
So what,
They'll have theirs, and you'll have yours, and I'll have mine.
And together we'll be fine....
Because it takes, Different Strokes to move the world.
Yes it does.
It takes, Different Strokes to move the world.
Now, the world don't move to the beat of just one drum,
What might be right for you, may not be right for some.
A man is born, he's a man of means.
Then along come two, they got nothing but their jeans.
But they got, Different Strokes.
It takes, Different Strokes.
It takes, Different Strokes to move the world.
Everybody's got a special kind of story
Everybody finds a way to shine,
It don't matter that you got not alot
So what,
They'll have theirs, and you'll have yours, and I'll have mine.
And together we'll be fine....
Because it takes, Different Strokes to move the world.
Yes it does.
It takes, Different Strokes to move the world.
Both have their place in Magic.
I wish I could upboat you. I feel that this could quite possibly be the best argument concerning this discussion.
As a budgetary thing, I choose not to netdeck and instead come up with cheap creative answers to common decks. Obviously, it's more of a challenge and I get blown out more often than not, but it's very satisfying to get past some top tier decks w/ a homebrew.
As the greatest human ability is (imho) to learn by watching others and not having to do everything by themselves and learning from own mistakes as almost all animals do, netdecking is okay with me. I just trust the hivemind and am willing to try to understand why certain people picked certain solutions for their specialized problems. Still, I think I am able to alter these decisions for my purposes.
On the other hand, I really enjoy seeing my very own ideas work, since creativity is the fundament every solution has to be based on. After all, even the decks on the net origined somewhere.
Briefly, this is the conclusion I reached. I don't get the netdeck hate that is going on in some areas in germany, though. I have an idea why they might be so angry, but I won't tell you. It would just sound too arrogant, I think.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Same goes with magic, if you want to compete, you analyze what is in the meta, if there is a dominating deck, you go with what wins. Period. In casual, find do what you like but don't hate on netdecking when your plans for playing for fun in a competition didn't exactly pan out.
To solve this, I look around for different deck ideas then, here's the big point, MAKE THEM MY OWN. I never find a deck and use that exact build card for card because I generally have a different play style or have different card preferences.
For example: I currently play budget Goblins. I found what one would call a base deck idea and made it into something I can use and it works out great.
I do have to say that I HATE when I play against some kid who is running the "new hot deck" which he bought card for card without putting a drop of thought into it.
There is my 2 cents.
Pauper - 450
EDH
B Shirei, Shizo's Caretaker
If you can guarantee yourself a stable meta filled with a fairly uniform single deck type, doesn't take mean you can win nearly every time by playing a focused hate deck?
I guess my question is, why would you deny yourself the use of hundreds of other players' time and testing if you're trying to build up to high-level play? No high-level player is an island - they're constantly testing new ideas and strategies against one another. I got a glimpse of that at GP Toronto - the very best players in the room, the pros, were constantly playing and discussing the game and new ideas, building new sealed pools, running internal drafts, even throwing together new one-off Standard decks just to see how they played - all weekend, in between their registered events. "Netdecks" are the result of that - hundreds of people going through the same process you go through and winnowing out the best ideas for the final list.
I understand that you're trying to teach yourself the deck-building process, but a single man or woman is never going to be able to compete with the combined brainpower of hundreds of different pros and highly skilled amateurs world-wide.
Your edge is that you can know your meta better than anyone else who proposes a net-deck to you. That's a huge advantage and a necessary piece of knowledge that you have to know how to take advantage of. That's the most important skill for a player trying to get on the Pro Tour, I think. Inventing a new deck is a skill only a player already at a higher-level can really take advantage of, because they have the time, and most importantly a support network of other skilled players who have lots of time to build a new deck type from scratch. Every "Rogue" deck I've head of since the very first Rogue deck has been the result of an *already* great player honing a new deck after examining the meta *with* the help of his friends to test his idea and help him build the strategies the deck needs to handle the current crop of decks.
Now, I'm not saying you can't build a new deck type - for all I know, you're already the new Conley Woods - but did you read about his development of Soul Sisters? While he was designing it, he was simultaneously designing a half-dozen other decks, on top of testing variants of the current meta, and testing them all against each other. That takes a lot of time - more than just a few hours spent on one deck, certainly.
He played Soul Sisters only because it was the furthest along in the process before he got sick and ran out of time to test his other ideas, and he was the most familiar with its necessary strategies, its sideboard and how it matched up against other established deck types. That familiarity was more important than playing a more "powerful" deck that he was less familiar with, too. Sometimes it's not just about creating a new deck, but being intimately familiar with how to play your deck. That sort of familiarity doesn't come from shuffling up a net-deck you downloaded online and comes only through hours of experience.
That's not a good thing. It's boring. Winning isn't fun if it's done the same way each time. I could make a hate deck, sure, but that doesn't solve the problem. To me it isn't enough to just "win" everytime. If I always win the same way, because I always face the same challenge, then it might as well be losing to me.
That's my issue with netdecking, it promotes dull, stable competitions with little in the ways of surprise or creativity. Sure, I get the main point is to compete and do well, I understand that. Still, I wish they made a competative format that actually relied on constantly building new decks from a STABLE card pull, not limited. The flaw in limited is that luck still plays a big factor.
I would like a format that intentionally banned the use of major, common deck types in standard, and instead literally forced you to use the underused cards, or to make decks that fit within randomely selected pre-determined skeletons that are outside of the norm. Something deliberately weird to build around, intentionally less than "perfect". Each competition would feature a different selection of "deck topics" that would be announced prior to the competition in order for people to build their own unique deck. The archetypes selected would have to be fairly varied (like maybe adding variables in these archetypes as well, like pushing a particular aspect of the archetype more one week than the other) each week in order to prevent people from always using the decks that they used the previous competitions (cause eventually, they'd have a deck for every archetype). In such situations, I think the better player would truly shine, as you'd have to think more with every decision. Much more so than using the best cards only, which tend to be fairly obvious in how they should be used. Though this is not the case for all the cards, it is for most I'd say. Keep in mind, I love great, clearly useful cards. But I also like some challenge every once in a while, and I think a format like I proposed would provide that.
It's not netdecking that does that - it's the players who netdeck failing to see their netdecks losing constantly to your focused hate deck.
If they're not even trying to adapt to their meta, that's not the netdeck's fault - the problem is your opponents aren't good players, and they wouldn't be good players even if you were to eliminate the net deck factor.
The problem is:
1) What's the threshold for a netdeck? They change from one pro-level tournament to another, often quite significantly. Jund had a lot of churn in its decklist -the only stable element was Bloodbraid Elf. So what do you do if you want to eliminate Jund netdecking? Or UW Control netdecking?
2) What's the threshold for an archetype? Two tournaments? Three? What if it's not constantly posting top-8s but is always present, like Vampires or Turboflare? Are they disallowed?
3) The archetypes are fairly small - Aggro, Control, Combo, Mid-Range. Are you suggesting the decks can't fall into any established archetype? What's left? 61-card singleton mill?
4) I just don't see, ultimately, how you could police this thing? Eliminate decks that placed last tournament? Run a similarity algorithm on all submitted deck types and ban those that come up as "too similar"? What if they don't have similar strategies, just running similar cards (Just because you're running Leak and Frost Titan doesn't mean you're doing the same thing as the other guys running the same). Decks of a single color often run a similar core of cards - Eldrazi Ramp vs. Summoning Trap Green vs. Genesis Green vs. ValaTitan all have a lot of similarity. Which ones are the ones you'd want to forbid?
Archetype was the wrong word for me to use, my bad. What I should has said were, deck "topics" or variants of each of the big archetypes. I should have claried on that. For example, Elf Aggro, Poison Aggro, Goblin Aggro, Zombie Aggro, etc. Here's an example tournament:
Prior to the tournament, give the location/reward info. etc. The participants (who would sign up in advance, a record of course being kept of the official tourney goers) would be given an list of deck types to build. An order would then be determined through dice rolls to determine the picking order. As a mock up, here's an example of the list;
1.Mono Blue Proliferate Poison (Limit: Contagion Engines to 2 max, Limit:2 Distortion Strikes at max)
2.Mono Black Posion (Restriction:Must have 2 Infiltration lenses in build, non- proliferate)
3.U/W Proliferate Levelers (Restriction: Only 1 playset of a non-level creature allowed, cannot be Baneslayer or Sun Titan, Limit:2 Field Sweepers at max, Ban:Jace the Mindsculptor)
4.Mono Green Elves (Restriction: Banned Eldrazi Monument, Limit Fauna Shaman to 2 Max)
etc.
Now, that's just an example. But you get a wild amount of variation with such lists, so much so that it's really hard to predict what will come about as a result. Past the afformentioned restrictions, it's up to the players to decide how to design the deck they've chosen.
First pick gets to select from the list and so on and so forth. Every time a deck type is picked, it becomes unavailable for the other players. The list would include very few deck types that place high in standard and the ones it did would have heavy restrictions placed on them as a result. It would do this deliberately, to encourage different, unique spins on a commonly accepted strategy/deck theme. Eventually, everyone will have a deck type with a list of restrictions. They must then build they're own deck and compete. The fact that the pick order is random prevents anyone from hitting a deck type they are famliar with with certainty, and promotes trying new things as a result.
Now, in order to keep from simply one type from dominating all the others the restrictions and bannings would have to be more carefully thought out, but that is merely an example list. The list would differ every tournament, and no 2 weeks would feature the same list or restrictions. Now, I realize that's quite an undertaking, so the tournaments would take some doing, but I think it would be worth it.
That's just a rough outline of a format I'd like to see. They would have to be well spaced out, as such an idea for something like this will be time consuming. Still, it would truly show who the best players are. You constantly have to adapt and try new things, and as such the best player will be the one who consistantly does well in this format.
But, that's exactly what happened with Jund - there was a wild amount of variation in its winning lists tournament to tournament. Same with UW(x) Planeswalker Control, Mythic Bant/Conscription... so on and so forth.
If this is the encouraged standard, "netdecks" are already meeting it.
No, that's where you're wrong. The list of variants isn't just for one deck type, the deck types will change each time and will have their own set of restrictions as well. While a Jundish deck might be allowed in one tournament, there won't be a deck even remotely similar in the next, because it won't be on the list.
So you won't just get variants of the same deck, you'll get totally new decks at each tournament because the format forces it. So no, standard doesn't meet my idea of what it should be. The same deck builds still dominate. Sure, they vary among the builds, but their soul is the same.
My format requires new decks each tournament, and each of those decks are given restrictions. Thus, mine ensures that the smarter, more adaptive player will win. Even moreso than the current standard, because the current standard is completely dominated by certain decks. My format removes them/restricts them, and creates a new meta every tournament. That's literally what it does, because it makes a new list each time, and slaps restrictions on decks to boot. Now, there's still planning involved, because every player sees the list before the tournament, so it isn't a total random shot. But since you don't know what their exact build will be going in, you'll have to use your head more when building. You'll have to make smarter decisions while you play. You'll have to be the better player to break ahead, and that is what standard should be.
To be honest, I think it just ensures the player with the most time to test deck ideas in advance will win.
What I meant in my original post, though, was that if your idea is to encourage players to think outside the box and create strong decks, they're already doing that - the only problem is that with so many players testing so many different ideas, only the absolute strongest decks survive. What you're proposing is basically a glorified "house rules" format - if that's the kind of Magic you'd prefer to play, it already exists.
Sanctioned tournaments, even under your rules, would still be dominated by the pros with the time to build and test dozens of different decks in between tournaments. What would happen under your rules is that only those people would win, because in the next tournament, other skilled players with less time to test and build wouldn't be allowed to use decks that other pros and skilled amateurs have already developed, tweaked for their play preference and metagame. The "winners" would be the people with access to the most up-to-date testing for the upcoming tournament deck "format" - your rules just enforce a different, and harsher, kind of net-decking. At best, it would just encourage pros to never talk about their deck ideas, unlike today, where hundreds of thousands of players worldwide can benefit from their knowledge, experience, and testing. I think it would make the game poorer.
There's really no way to control for the instantaneous transmission of information worldwide for a game like this.
That would be the case if people actually determined the order. That's why it's random. Chance determines who goes first, you simply cannot anticipate what your order will be, and once you land on a deck you are stuck with it. I'm not sure how you can make one deck, that you cannot deviate from the skeleton/theme in a way that would change that skeleton/theme, that can deal with everything. It simply cannot be done. Sure, you can make the best possible version based of those restrictions, but again, I'm extremely skeptical that you can come up with a "I beat the 7 other totally unique decks in this tournament" type of deck. One or two of those decks will be your achilles hill. So what does that leave you with? You can't possibly answer everything right? So you have to make the most of what you have, and that's why my idea encourages skill. Specifically because it limits, because it forces random builds totally different from one another.
Sure, there are ways you can outfit it to deal with most threats, but it will always have one or two weaknesses, weaknesses that one of the other decks will probably exploit. Because of this, it really puts everyone on a fairly equal playing field, because you can't go outside of what you were given, and the best of the best cards are probably restricted or limited. Also remember, each time a deck is picked it is marked off, there can not be multiples of a deck, as each deck is unique to the player. So all the playtesting in the world won't matter, because you are limited to a single deck that must fall within the framework you are given, and the framework is big enough to allow creativity, but not big enough to allow complete domination, and the restriction/limit lists will help to ensure that no 1 deck is guaranteed to dominate all.
In fact, the best way to do the order/who gets what outline might simply be to assign each deck a number. Have people roll. No possible way to predict who will get what. That way, it levels out everything, and further ensures that you're going to be dealing with a new beast every tournament.
But does it actually?
Notwithstanding the fact that the restrictions are fairly arbitrary and not really specifying a "deck type", how can the tournament organizer guarantee that the tournament is going to play out as you've described unless they've already built and playtested every possible deck that can be built with the restrictions?
I mean, you've indicated that Limited is bad for the luck factor, but you're now using the luck factor to balance out your own tournament environment (deck assignment). Woe betide the man who rolls up Skeletons and he hasn't got a single one!
Really, I think the problem is you're just not seeing how the current tournaments do encourage creativity and innovation because you're focusing on the back-end; after the decks have been built, examined thoroughly, playtested extensively and put through their paces, players worldwide use those lists as inspiration and a guide.
You're trying to force an environment where everyone has to build a deck from scratch, but I can already tell you how it will go: People will identify the best cards in each color, and then say "Oh, you rolled up blue-black shades? 4 doom blade, 4 mana leak... add X shades to meet your requirements and go."
I say this because that is exactly how EDH has turned out - a format intended to stimulate creativity and diversity has been reverse-engineered into colored "top 50" lists of the most powerful effects in each color, and deck builders in EDH build around established cores or proven cards (Skullclamp, Jitte, etc).
Basically, you're not going to be able to defeat net-decking with ever more arbitrary and restrictive deck building rules. You're just going to turn players off the format; the harder you squeeze, the more they'll slip through your fingers. Rules of the sort you want to enforce are welcomed, even encouraged, in casual magic, but the instant you put prizes on the line - even recognition - people are going to game your rules, and in Magic, that means getting an edge with the internet.
The luck factor is merely for the deck type, the cards selected are not determined by luck however, so that is how it is less luck based. They still build the deck from their own cards, so it's far less luck based than limit.
Again, the restrictions will prevent what you just suggested, I don't know why I have to keep pointing that out. I've said it over and over again, the restrictions are likely to going to ban or limit the obvious choices for a deck, that is why they are there in the first place. So no, they can't just load up on the best cards. That's why the restrictions are there in the first place, so they're far from arbitrary. I'm not sure if you've fully read how it works, because I keep having to address the same issues that I already addressed in earlier posts. I fail to see how people can "netdeck" and literally determine the new meta every single tournament with enough certainity to make it anywhere near as predictable as standard.
Anyway, there's nothing wrong with netdecking.
It is good to learn from your failures, but I prefer to learn from the failures of others.
As I said, take a look at EDH - even without a set meta, card choices have become largely standardized among deck colors. The same thing would happen in your invented format - in short order, "goodstuff" lists would be widely known and circulated, and whatever colors you required, the decklists would be drawn primarily from the "goodstuff" lists with whatever minimum number of cards is needed to satisfy the theme of the deck.
I find that this approach to the game reduces the cards to a collection of abilities and numbers, bleaching them of their narrative content. What is the point of making the cards represent certain creatures or objects if, when building decks, players simply look at what abilities it has regardless of its context? If Wizards did not want players to take Flavor into account, why spend so much money on thematic design and flavor text?
[Clan Flamingo]
---
BRG Prossh, Skyraider of Kher
WUB Sharuum, the Hegemon
UGEdric, Spymaster of Trest
Didn't read thread. Can't believe this has to be a sticky. Saw this post and thought, exactly.
Almost everyone net decks, and really if you don't you still play some variant of a competitive deck. The real question is do you try to home brew? Hell yeah I do! Nothing is more fun than throwing together a few cards that you think are going to interact well and fail! Yeah I said fail. Seriously! It's a ton of fun. Then I go to box tourneys with a version of something currently competitive in the meta.
If all you do is net deck shame on you, that's not what magic is about. But when you play in a competitive environment and you are wanting to win boxes or store credit you should play with the best deck possible you feel comfortable playing. And if it is a net deck then go for it.
Couldn't Have Said It Better If I Tried.
EDH
WB Teysa, Orzhov Scion
So, won't every player just use the next best cards? Which is exactly what will happen; the Hive Mind will simply figure out the next best cards, and once that is determined decks will be built using them. This is the same line of thinking that gets people to say "omg why don't they make every card good?" Power level is relative to the format in question.
If you ban Mana Leak, then people will use Cancel. If you ban Cancel and Mana Leak, people will use Stoic Rebuttal. If you ban all of those, then people will use Negate, etc.
If anything, your idea stifles creativity. Instead of letting the metagame evolve as it naturally would, you force it to by restricting card choices. Thus, people with little time to test before a tournament simply take the "best list" and substitute whatever is banned for the next best cards.
Not only this, but the logistics of running a tournament using these rules are ridiculous. Every judge checking your decklist would have to learn the new rules every time that the format was forced to change. This would get old as hell for the judges.
UR Ascension
Mono-U Birthing Pod
What might be right for you, may not be right for some.
A man is born, he's a man of means.
Then along come two, they got nothing but their jeans.
But they got, Different Strokes.
It takes, Different Strokes.
It takes, Different Strokes to move the world.
Everybody's got a special kind of story
Everybody finds a way to shine,
It don't matter that you got not alot
So what,
They'll have theirs, and you'll have yours, and I'll have mine.
And together we'll be fine....
Because it takes, Different Strokes to move the world.
Yes it does.
It takes, Different Strokes to move the world.
*snip*
Both have their place in Magic.
Please refrain from image leeching.
-Memnarch
Fully-powered 600-Card "Dream Cube" https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/dreamcube
450-Card "Artificer's Cube" https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/artificer
Cubing in Indianapolis...send me a PM!!
I wish I could upboat you. I feel that this could quite possibly be the best argument concerning this discussion.
Lantern Control
(with videos)
Uc Tron
Netdecking explained
Netdecking explained, Part 2
On speculators and counterfeits
On Interaction
Every single competitive deck in existence is designed to limit the opponent's ability to interact in a meaningful way.
Record number of exclamation points on SCG homepage: 71 (6 January, 2018)
"I don't want to believe, I want to know."
-Carl Sagan
@MarkBGH on Twitter | Bloody Good Horror
Top eight finish for best post ever on subject
On the other hand, I really enjoy seeing my very own ideas work, since creativity is the fundament every solution has to be based on. After all, even the decks on the net origined somewhere.
Briefly, this is the conclusion I reached. I don't get the netdeck hate that is going on in some areas in germany, though. I have an idea why they might be so angry, but I won't tell you. It would just sound too arrogant, I think.