Think of the Vs. metagame like a kingdom. Now in this kingdom the king has grown corrupt, his strengths are those of legends but as his dominion grows his weakness become glaringly obvious as well.

Now from across the realm heroes of the age arise to rid the land of this despotic ruler. Ofcourse loyalist to the king will always remain, even long after the battle is over. These will always mount insurrections and seek to restore the previous dynasty to it's former glory.

Now the king has been defeated his popularity wains, and the hero that becomes king gains wide acceptance. His reign is benevolent, however as time pass the realm falls to his progeny who become increasingly corrupt. The cycle repeats.


Now in Vs. as in all card games thier is a tendacy toward netdecking.

People win high level competitions by building powerful or at least unexpected decks. As these players gain fame within the game people copy thier decks. For a while all is well until people say creativity is dead. People begin to despise the netdecks and create stick decks to combat them.

Now a few will stick to thier netdecks despite the increasingly hostile envioment toward them. In time a new deck type will win a major nationla competition and a new type of netdeck becomes the king, and it too will fall and eventually be replaced.

How does this benefit the game?

Netdecks can help newby players with any confidence issues they may have. Coming into a game mid stream can be duanting and without confidence in your deck building skills, and a firm grasp of the game you might decide not to play at all. But if you net deck your first deck you may have the confidence you need to jump in, like the new recruit fighting alongside the seasoned veteran. In time you gain confidence in your own ideas and move on to your own deck style.

Can netdecking encourage creativity? A deck type I might not have considered may become the deck du kour if I copy it and play it, I might find a type of deck I love and otherwise would have never tried. I will mprove on it and even after it falls from glory I may stick with it seeking to restore it's former glory, through all manner oftweaks and persistance.

Also net decking may bring to light previously unthought of combos to light combos others could use to enhance thier deck types.

Also net decking gives power to some cards that might otherwise have seen little play. Some of these "lesser" cards may be particularly good only against the current net deck and as people build stick decks to attack the current net deck these cards will see use they otherwise may not have. Plus as these lesser cards see play new combos that would never have been discovered otherwise become clear and work thier way into new decks and types.

In short netdecking may not be all bad after all.

Well written, disease deity, I enjoyed the read. The analogy was good, but you should really refer to it as a Goblin kingdom, such that the corruption is inherent and implied, and that the hero who slays the corrupt king will OBVIOUSLY become the successor, via law. Then again, you would have to start off the example with David Bowie as king if that were the case.

On the subject of netdecking, I have never cared either way. I started playing Arsenal Abuse because I read about it on the forums, and I've loved the deck to death. I started playing Doom because, well, I just wanted to yell out DOOM! and possibly sing a little doomy song. Which deck do I love more?

Honestly, both decks are equally awesome in my eyes. Doom has the control aspect that I love in a game, as well as the flavor aspect that I love in an eccentric megalomaniac (I think that's the right term). Arsenal Abuse let's me reference Nirvana's "He's the One" as well as distressed teens (Columbine Go is my renamed Teen Titans Go), and the deck is also very tricksy and lets me play a deck that has proven competitive.

I've specifically chosen not to play decks because they are netdecks, though, like the Rigged Elections combo. I was thinking of making a Corrupt Cops deck, but I was curious if it would work and really never got around to it. When I heard that a Rigged Elections deck had won a PCQ w/ use of Cosmic Radiation, I decided that I didn't really want to play that deck. If the "best" (I'm assuming heavy playtesting) deck choice is three teams, with Fantastic Four helping the police force of Gotham get Penguin elected in a complex plot to NOT MAKE ANY SENSE AT ALL, then I'll put that dream away...for now.

I have always chosen concept over deck design itself (except when I made the Cosmic Cops + Dark Knight Equipment deck...that one was for my side that knows the power of card advantage). I like to try net decks if I think that the concept is one I like, but, then again, I also consider myself "netdecking" when I build a deck that includes Arsenal, with a curve that stops at 5 (except a couple of Starfires for bad draws), and uses lots of tricks that I had no idea existed until I read about them (tricksy little Tim Drakeses and Red Starses).

This would be a good thread to ask, so, what do you guys define as netdecking? Using ideas from online? Or copying the winning deck card for card? How many cards have to differ? When does a deck move from "uzi" to "stick"?

I define net decking as card for card carbon copying.
This may be a spring board to new creative skills in the future once you begin to feel your way around.

A deck moves from an uzi to a stick when it is no longer and favor and just happens to be the power capable of destroying
the current net deck in favor.

I also agree that starting with a concept is essential.

To qoute my old computer graphics teacher:
"Form follows function."

As long as the form will appeal to at least 1.2 million people it's fine by him errr. wait we're not advertising we're building decks...

...Although I have booked Doom And Thing to model Men's Briefs across the greater Nc area.

Concept is important but at times difficult to grasp when starting out. Sometimes copying someone else's concept then seeing why it works might help you to become a master deck builder yourself.

ok, prof: 10 points for the labrynth reference! (you remind of the babe.... laughed my back pocket off :) )

now for the other side of things:

i personally get so tired of seeing people run the same deck at events, and it really does detract from the fun of the event.

' so carl cardflopper has won another major event using a new deck and almost half of the players at the next event are going to show up playing the same deck.'

this is to be expected, but should neccessarily be the way.

i personally have hated brother hood from the first day the game was on the shelves, and i said ' wow. this looks to be about as much fun as burning ants with a magnifying glass'.

then i realized that ' oh my god. this is what everyone will be playing. it just does so much damage so fast.'

so i decided then and there that i would not play brother hood.

sentinels bored me silly with their seeming lack of options.

and i have hated the ff in comics for years. i just don't get why they can't seem to resolve any of these dr. doom issues in a timely manner, since they are both backed by super intelligences. :)

so i went where my heart was, and played the x-men.

so for months, i faced down brotherhood decks, some that beat me and some that didn't until the metagame shifted to ff.

great!

so for a while it seemed that every deck was either ff or doom or a combination of the 2.

and this is where things get ugly for our story.

you see, it is hard to try to be nice when you are getting more and more irritated every time you sit down at an event and you know your opponents deck list either as well as they do or better.

so sure it gave me an edge in playing against them all, but that is far and a way not the point at the moment.

winning is a great possible outcome of playing a fun game.

it is not the only reason to play, and it should be about more than just trying to win, at any cost.

that is the kind of thinking that leads to cheating.

and when you want to win so bad that you are willing to play with a deck that somebody else has made and played before, that is the path that has begun.

part of the basis of a Collectible Card Game or trading card game and it's ilk is that each game should be different ( remember back to when it all started and the idea was that no 2 games would be the same ? )

if you just want to play with the same stuff that everybody else is, why not just play poker?

or spades or black jack?

you can save a lot of money on all of those hard to get rares, and your money making potential is pretty good there too, especially when you compare it to your start up cost :).

and for the players with confidence issues that want to compete on a larger scale, maybe if they don't have the confidence, maybe they are not ready for that kind of competition...?

some time ago i had one of my kids at a local event break down and cry because he just couldn't take the pressure of the event ( it was his turn and he couldn't decide what to do. poor little guy, but he is only 8 and i don't think he is ready for that kind of event.)

and i love the idea of learning to play at the feet of a master, or at least some body better than yourself.

i had a good deal of success in SWCCG by playing against people that were far and a way better than i was.

but i wanted to play the game, and did not give up just because i lost. instead i took the time to make my own decks, and then ask the people that beat me why did they think that i lost to them.

most players are happy to discuss that with you after a game is over.

eventually i learned the importance of knowing what all of the options are at any given moment, and then of knowing what the rules allow and do not allow.

these 2 simple concepts give a new player as much influence over any game as an adavnced player.

without copying some one else's deck.

if you need to know more about the game, please, feel free to ask me any question you want to.

i'll discuss strategy and tactics for hours if you need to, just to make sure that you know what a card does and why, and if after we are done, you honestly don't understand more than you would from playing some one elses deck, then i will gladly post a retraction on here!

just be patient with the game.

it takes a bit to learn the ins and outs of most games, and that is where the best rewards are :)

ok i will read the rest of this thread later i just gotta remark on the laberynth refernce, cuz it's creepy, i just made a laberynth reference in psyche_nov's journal, ealier today... is was about how hot jennifer connely looked at the time, even though she was like 15... creepy, huh?

ok i will now go and read this very long thread and if possible post something meaniful.

I don't know how coincidental it is, Cyke...I did read your post in psych's journal (why do you guys have homonyms as names? Hehe, homos...). It was probably something subconscious (or maybe a whee bit conscious) that made me reference the Labyrinth. And the first part of the Goblin Kingdom reference is actually to the Magic card, "Goblin King".

oh ok, so it's not coincidence, you just stole it!

lol.

and as for the homo... whatever sounding names, i think his is that he a crazy november or what ever zodiac sign it is, and mine is the one-eyed shooter.

not that one! cyclops, from the x-men.

and now that i have read this thead, allow me to impart what wisdom i think i have, which is not alot at all.

net decking means people playing what they think the best deck is, now many people may have different ideas on what the best deck is, but regardless, you want to go to a tounry with whatever deck you think will do the best for you. and just becuase alot of people think that a certain deck is best does not makle it true, and most of them playing this "best deck" most likely don't even know how to play it right.

so it is not right to accuse people of wanting to win, since most people that play want to win, if you are not playing the best deck, and you know it, and you get beat, you have only yourselve to blame, but if you think your deck is the best, and still lose then learn from your mistake and make it better, and maybe it will be the best deck.

It's better to go to an event with a slightly inferior deck that you know how to play...than to go with a better deck that you just don't understand.

It's obvious, but if we're talking about netdecking, somebody should say it. =)

To complement WileECoyote's post (and maybe counter it), here's a tip for ANYONE planning on netdecking: that does NOT mean you do not need to playtest. Playtest the hell out of the deck. Choose your deck at least a week in advance, and have a backup deck, in case you don't like the way the deck feels. If you're going to go to a PCQ with a better deck that you don't understand, than STUDY the deck until you DO understand it. In fact, if you're planning on netdecking, why are you reading this post? Go practice. Scoot. Now!

Cyke I love that episode of Family Guy. Such Random fun!

Anyway Netdecking may actually encourage diversity as one type of netdeck may indeed form many types of stick decks to beat it.

Could net decking also help the game financialy perhaps, but no so much UDE unless your buying boxes, But it willl certainly help those who retail the game and sell singles, as people struggleto get the cards they need, and read my run on sentences, with it's improper use of commas and all.

Actually this column is interesting for me as this is not generally the side of the issue I side on. I'm not asking for retractions or trying to change minds, all I want is a good reasonable discussion.

All well founded opinions are welcome.

[Warning: Flaming in Process]
Sometimes, you just have to play the devil's advocate, inflicting us all with your netdecking filth, God of Plagues. You should really just get a soul or something, and stop paying the devil his due.
[Warning: Returning to Normal (other) Bad Jokes]

I do have a tendency to go the other way on the netdecking issue, too. I don't think that people really should netdeck, as it just gets boring to play against those decks. Then again, I usually play casually, and so I don't really know the whole "Common Enemy" experience (although I did know the "Big Brotherhood" thing, but just one deck's worth). When somebody around the store that I play stops trying to have fun...well, that actually hasn't come up yet. But if it did, then, I guess I'd just have to live with it, nay, accept it. ::shudders:: Accepting different things, how could it ever work?

??? I've been told to get a life but... alright seeinghow it's basically the same thing and all okay!???

Oh and johnny storm flame on! err flame Off!

Okay, that was equivalent to my point made prevoiusly.

After a deck gains popularity people begin to copy it. For a while all is good then people like you and me get sick of playing in a stale enviroment. So we go into the woods to find our sticks to beat some since into the meta game.

You might think a nice piece of oak will do the trick, I'll go for the nice birch limb, and someoe else might go for the cedar, smell nice while kicking tail. We all pick up different sticks to beat down the same threat, just like many hereos attempt to depose the corrut king. Therefore netdecking has just spurred us to creativity, and introduced many types of new decks to the game. Without this common cause namely to create variety in a stale enviroment we too might have become stagnant.

Net deckers will now resort to different types of decks as well since their favorite decks no longer work any more, some will try to stick to the type they love, others will make an original deck until the next major tournament. Balance is restored and a new era is ushered in.

In time our creative forces will be spurred once more by a stale netdeck and the cycle continues.

I have no massive problem with netdecking for the following reasons.


1 - it feels churlish to start persecuting people for playing the deck that gives them the best chance at winning and/or having the most fun. Playing different decks just for the sake of them being different is all well and good, but if your goal is to be a winning player, and taking the path less travelled has less potential to achieve that goal, then doing anything but netdecking is shooting yourself in the foot.

2 - netdecking can be one of the best ways to learn about how best to play the game. If one assumes that netdecks have been built by some of the best players in the game, playing these decks, learning the nuances, interactions and so on can only serve to improve the level of one's game, and the game as a whole.

3 - in any TCG there will be some element of 'deck drift'. This is where, when building a deck, one finds it slowly moving towards being some version of an established netdeck. Sooner or later, if you play the best cards, you will have a netdeck whether you have looked at the internet or not.

All the best

TimsWheelbarrow

Our Common Enemy in this debate is The New Brotherhood of netdeckers. They will not be the Doom of this game. Netdeckers will encourage The Brave and the Bold to acheive new tech against them. This will create a Mutant Nation of decks in the Metagame, because they will always be changing. The metagame will get Wild, Vomit will ensue. The Heroic Sacrifice of inferior decks will let the World's Finest shine. The Greater of Two Evils in this case is the Netdecker, for he will make the Ultimate Sacrifice to become the 2nd best.