Like most Vs. players coming from Magic or Yu-Gi-Oh, I have grown accustomed to metagame shifts when new sets are released or new combos are discovered. Most TCGs release new cards that strengthen current strategies while promoting new and powerful strategies in an effort to change the game's environment. With the fifth set's release upon us, many players are skeptical about the set's potential impact on the game. Who could blame them? All of the tier one decks come from Marvel and DC Origins. Does this mean that the first sets were given cards that were too powerful, or that the sets have been watered down since.... definitely not! Of course, that is the easy answer though, and I accepted that for a while too. As I watch this game progress, I think I am beginning to understand the complexities behind the Vs. System.

Vs. was initially talked about as a game of balance. When Marvel Origins was the only set around, there wasn't a lot of opposition towards the game being considered 'balanced' (with the exception of some Brotherhood hate). Now, that might be a controversial stand to take - you know...Bastion is too good, Roy Harper is broken and Doom just won’t die. Even those who think there is a balance among the tier one decks probably wonders what’s going on with the other 80% of the cards in the game. Make some popcorn, grab a seat, and leave the 'netdeckers' alone because I am going to tell you what I think about the Vs. metagame.

Like I said before, most games will see a metagame shift when a set is released. This means that the cards determine a game's environment. With the Vs. System, it is truly the players controlling the metagame. It appears that every possibly strategy has potentially successful counter-strategy. In Yu-GI-Oh, Yata Garasu was the bird to beat when it was introduced to the game. Then, Chaos monsters took over the game upon their release. With every set, more powerful cards were produced to replace the old cards. I haven't played Magic in a while, and I know that nothing will compare to the old powerhouses, but for arguments sake we can talk about the type II environment. How powerful was blue/green 'madness' when it was around (I told you it's been a while)? Many of the tier one Magic decks would have stayed strong no matter what its competition was at the time (within its potential type II playing environment). In the Vs. System, a tier one deck is only as strong as its competition.

Curve Sentinels appears to be the most dominant force in the game right now. Every major tournament sees at least one in the top 8 (some are seeing up to four in the top 8!). The deck has offensive power, defensive power, board control, and it almost never misses a drop. It looks like Curve Sentinels may be a top contender for a while. As its popularity rises, other decks will follow. The entire Superman expansion was written off for months. Right now, it could Team Superman's time to shine, though. The deck has some trouble against Titans, it can't do too much against CE, and it has no chance against Cosmic Cops - but it can ravage a Sentinel deck as long as you hit Gangbuster. Phantom Zone is pretty powerful in the game's current environment too, hurting reconstruction program while it also tries to put Garth Tempest in his place and slaps Phoenix Force in the face. I can only imagine how useful the card will be if the Underworld team becomes popular. As the game shifts into an environment that favors Sentinels, it also shifts into an environment that will favor Team Superman. There is no guarantee that Team Superman will add its name to the list of tier one decks, but it will probably give Sentinels enough trouble to bump them out of the number one spot. I am sorry if this sounds like an article on Curve Sentinels now, I just thought they would be the best current example. Lets take a look at something else that may give Curve Sentinels a problem. Does everyone remember Rigged Elections? Well, Sentinels have almost no chance against this deck (as long as you are running Utility Belts to stop Mark II's of course). Rigged Elections can stop Cosmic Cops or X-Stall from even getting started...while also giving Titans a good fight. Now that CE has fallen in popularity, it is the most opportune time to run Rigged Elections. Now, If players started playing Rigged Elections and the metagame shifted, CE would start to see more play again as fewer people played Curve Sentinels. A new competitor might hit the field to combat Rigged Elections as well. In an environment where something like Rigged Elections dominated and Common Enemy was on the rise...The Source might become more than an idle threat. What can you do when you lose every copy of Rigged Elections to the Source? Plus, New Gods offers options against other popular decks as well. The Source can take out copies of Common Enemy, Teen Titans Go, and Cover Fire (but of course, we have all thought about this before). With John Rich's Sentinel build becoming the popular way to run Sentinels, Himon would have some use in shutting down Nasty Surprise and Overloads. New Gods could easily become a popular deck, it just needs the right competition. Speaking of Himon, did you see how many 1 cost plot twists are coming out of Marvel Knights? If any of the teams from this set prove themselves, you better start dusting off your Himons, along with your Not So Fasts and Detective Works.

I feel like I could ramble on about card potential for hours (I could probably write five pages on Gotham Knights and League of Assassins), so I will stop myself now and get to the point. Basically, there is no 'best team'. There is just good teams when compared to other teams. Tier one decks will rise and fall like empires. As new decks become popular, other decks will follow and create an entirely different environment. So, it is not fair to say any team is 'broken' or too good.

Another thing that I am starting to find a little unfair is all of the netdecking hate everywhere. I like to build my own decks, and I hope one day to have an innovative deck that wins me a pro circuit tournament and gets copied by everyone else. I understand that without originality, the game would remain at a standstill. With that said, I would like to add that netdecking is not hurting the game at all. In fact, it is what is creating the metagame. The metagame shifts when someone makes changes to a good deck or builds a new deck to combat the current metagame. If no one followed the current trends, the game would also remain at a standstill, or even worse, there wouldn't be a metagame and we wouldn't have very much to talk about then.

Great post. I think you put into words what a lot of people already know in an easy to read and understand format. However, there are a lot of people who don't understand how the metagame works and would do well to read this. I agree that with the onset of MMK, many things are changing and lots of people are crying foul. Also, with the new tournament formats, this post becomes very appropriate for the "metagame" of the thoughts of the community.

-Bob

If this is ranting: I'd hate to see you calm.
Clear, well thought out, good post.

Wrote very well. Great description of the metagame in its current state.

good article.

Even though I come across as a netdeck hater, and to an extent I am, but I think it stagnates the game.

the fact is I believe that the 'netdeck metagame' stagnates the game.

the problem is, and you can definitely tell by the amount of naysayers on this site alone, is that decks that aren't viable and good unless they are of the current tier 1 decks. this in itself inhibits forward thought from people who wish to make cards work.

People who continue to say that "syndicate sucks, they've got no search!!!", yet continue to praise brotherhood decks who also have no search. tend to make people shy away from the creative, and move towards the obvious.

As has been discussed in other threads, as the tournament scene progresses, the local casual scene is diminishing in some places. The casual scene is where strangely enough most of the different decks find themselves possible, and where they make surprises in the tournament format. The tournament scene tends to take only the best decks at the time, because no one is willing to take a chance at a new deck with money on the line.

fact is, netdecking is all well and good for those who have no clue to make a deck tailored to themselves, because you can have the same build as Walls or Leander, and not play like them and wonder how you lost to Inmates. If your deckplaying skills are great, then it doesn't matter what deck you have, and netdecking shoudl be the way to go with a tier 1 (and I say this lightly) deck.

Remember that War machine won a PCQ with x-men even before Bamf was legal, and X-men have been showing up as of late, even though everyone thinks of them as a bad card. the current metagame, especially in this game always tries to downplay any other deck and make people see them as unviable.

but that's just my two cents

Its hard to make a new deck that will win a PC, PCQ or 10k, but not imposible.

For Example,
Sinister sindicate / Doom ( did u get the IDEA ? ) Well if not.
Since doom have lot of army, and Sinister lot of rush ( if u want ) U just need to control the field.
Get Him My pest ( u can re-use this with doom if u want, same as Death in the family, Finishing Move, Sadistic Choice )

Looks like a good idea.. but right now i dont have Spare Doom(DG) to try it... Well i dont have spares..

and another deck that looks good is arkam/tt
Penguin and USS Argus / Tamaran / TT Tower
Redstar and Harley Q.
Charaxer, Fear and C. TTgo!
Posion Ivy /or/ Mr. Frezze and TTgo!
Kipnaping...

This deck looks interesting too.. But I dont have enough USS to make it.. Well i dont have any..

But.. Well.. Isnt imposible is u wanna make something new.. just think in the weird combination that u can make..

I'd also like to emphasise, that metagame is not some over-arching juggernaut, that rolls over every local scene equally. In my local place, one can still happily avoid Ka-booms, HAB!'s, and Savage Beatdowns, simply because most people are not going to spend inordenate amoutns of time or money collecting them.

So while my local scene is very varied, it bears little to no resemblance to the general metagame. In fact, Underworld and MK proxydecks are currently mashing their way through competition as the two teams that have really grabbed my local deckfolks by the ears.

So while it's a good idea in general terms to be aware of the metagame, one must adapt it to the local scene as well.

Every playing environment has a different feel to it...but there are many aspects that the local and the pro environments share.

1st..the pro environment will likely have an impact on the local tournaments. Half of the players at my local store do not care what decks are winning PC's and 10Ks....the other half are up on the info and use that information to help them build their decks (even if they are not netdecking, they see card potential that they did not see before). So, the pro metagame will have an influence on the local metagame-even if it is not an overpowering influence.

2nd...both the pro metagame and your local metagame work in the same way....decks are only as strong as what they are playing against. I remember building a spidey-evasion deck to play around with and I used it one week at a local tournament. I only lost one match...to a syndicate combo deck. I dont think the Syndicate deck won any more matches that day...but I also dont see how the spidey-evasion deck had any chance of beating it. So, if spidey-evasion would have become the popular deck at my local store, syndicate would have soon followed. The Syndicate deck wont see professional tournaments anytime soon because it loses to many of the popular decks right now. That doesnt mean that wont change in the future. The only two exceptions I have seen to this trend is that people try new decks constantly at local tournaments. I think I have played a different deck almost every time I went to my store...but even in a casual environment where this exploration is possible-there still is the desire to win. I dont go to many local tournaments (otherwise I would have run out of new decks to play by now), but the guys that go every week eventually get settled into decks that perform well for them. Even the very casual atmosphere promotes a metagame that must be adapted too. The other exception is that some local players dont want to waste money on keeping up with cards. This creates limited potential for a metagame shift towards the pro level. If you do not plan on winning money, you may not be able to afford keeping up with the popular decks.

Also, every local metagame is going to be influenced in different ways. Local stores with many pro players (or those atleast aspiring to be pros) will be closer to the professional environment than stores with six or seven players that just play the game for fun.

Also, KrazyKilroy (is it Jon or John?) I both agree and disagree with you. Netdecking does stagnate the game a little...a deck that becomes powerful will stay strong for a period of time. But would you want a game that showed extreme environment changes every couple of tournaments? I honestly think things would become chaotic and unstable if this wasnt the case. Do you think pro players would be interested in a game where you couldn't build a deck that could constantly win? If good players can't win, then they leave. If you built an amazing deck, went to a pro tour and lost half of your games because you played too many decks that happen to be bad matches for you? In a game without a stable environment, everything comes down to pure luck. Atleast in the current game...you can build a deck around certain expectations...something that gives you a chance of winning if you have skill to back it up with. Because of this, I think that netdecking promotes change. When an environment becomes oversaturated with particular decks, new decks arise to wash them out. Trust me, I hated going to the first PCQ after PC Indy (commen enemy EVERYWHERE) and I do not think that everyone should be running the same deck...but the game should be moving at the pace that it is, shifting periodically.

almost every CCG has a basic strategem.

this one is based on the loss of life/endurance. so your basic strategy is to use your characters to do more endurance loss than your opponent. what isn't clear is how they're supposed to go about it. some characters have decent abilities but are overlooked because they aren't 'big' enough.

(see the fact or fiction thread)

one of the reasons I don't mind a constantly changing VS game is the fact that there is no sideboard. if there were, I would be all too supportive of a frantically changing game. the better players are the more prepared players. therefore they would be on top of their game regardless of the game.

just like in other games where you had a few hosers for other decks, you would do the same here. I'd pack a few Kryptonites in my side if I had a choice, as opposed to I hate magic. depending upon what will happen with the cosmic mechanic, and how many people will use it.


however, this game is evolving. I also like the way that they're making the PC's according to a 'block' format. it promotes forward thinking. I GUARANTEE not every deck will be the same here. the variations will definitely be rampant. Here the best will be the ones who can build AND play a deck.

I am all for the Modern Age format at certain events (I cant wait until Amsterdam). This is a good change of pace, because it allows players to design new decks. If the game went to a sold block format, the metagame would develope just has it has now-but with less options. You also have to remember that there are only six possible mono teams in the format, with a little mixing here and there. It would not be so easy to have every player design a new deck with dozens of team potential. After the PC, there will be a metagame for the modern age format too..and it will be very limited like the game was after the Marvel Origins release (everyone played Brotherhood because it was oviously good and the game needed exploring). As the game gets bigger with more card options, it wouldnt make sense to have every single deck played at every tournament. Good players have an advantage...but the games would still come down to luck. Right now, it still has a fair amount to do with luck (what you draw and who you play--but you can prepare for who might play). If you couldn't be prepared for your possible matchups because of a chaotic playing environment, many people would lose interest in the game. Every game needs stability. Plus, you think that this environment stay the same...? It just isnt possible. If people do not know what to expect, you will see lots of Doom and a fair amount of Gotham because of the control and search options ....eventually the game would shift and we would be where we are now.

one thing to remember is that netdecking, increases a rogue's deck chance at succeeding, a rogue deck's builder and player can prepare for the known arch-types in a field, and can build is deck accordingly, a player with an established deck, will most likely only test against other established decks, there is no way he can test every off-beat deck possible.

this gives the rouge's deck a much better chance at catching people off-guard.

look at RE, it was a surpirse when it first showed up and blew everyone out of the water, but once everyone saw it and knew what to look for and how to counter it, it has not shown up again. x-stall was a behemoth at the 2nd PC, and it still is a good deck, just not as powerful as it was, simply becuase people know how to fight it.

the reason for this? Cards were printed for more reasons than just lining my cat's litterbox. what doesn't make sense is the fact that players feel that the only thing they need to prepare for is the very limited cardbase that is being played.

That I totally disagree with. that sounds like the argument of the player who could not adapt. I've heard too much of this from ex-yugioh players who can do no more than play chaos and be TOTALLY LOST after they started banning cards. I allude this banning to a nuclear holocaust. those who didn't prepare it, and were too reliant on the current technology, stare aimlesssly at a TV that will probably never work for years after the Nuke went off. However, those that did prepare for it are of course at a loss and are setback, but they recuperate at a much quicker pace that the rest. Many would truly lose interest in the game, but this is unfortunately a reflection of the mentality of the players who don't have the resolve to adapt or die.

yes, but how stable? I almost truly took offense to en-kur's article on the bad cards in the deck. I really don't see what makes people think that R&D doesn't have plans for cards, and would make things worthwhile to play. even gothcorp has a use (somewhere). life in itself is chaos. we adapt to all around us and still survive. this environment is just too stagnant. So many sets out already, and still only a few select teams. Only a few players will dare to test enough to make a totally new deck. Eugene Harvey and TOGIT making X-stall, Realmworx and the curve sentinels and x-men decks. problem is, even with wins under their belt, people will still call them bad because they are too stuck on the 'metagame', like it were big brother.

I was a former yu gi oh player....do you know why I quit...because of the chaos monsters (and with card banning, I was actually thinking about playing again--so I am quite the opposite of what you are talking about). As a pro player (if there is such a thing in yu gi oh) I was disappointed with the chaos release because it made the environment too similar and it gave everyone an equal chance at winning-no matter what your skill level. There is a difference between yu gi oh and Vs. though....in yu gi oh, the cards were so powerful that certain decks were almost impossible to beat unless you are playing the same thing. In Vs, the game does not have such overpowered cards where a top deck cannot be easily taken down by another deck. So, please do not think that I want everyone running the same deck...because that is FAR from what I want.

As for the cards not being used...like I said in my original article...almost everything has potential in this game. Just because I do not believe every deck should be making an appearance at every tournament does not mean that I want to see teams die off. The metagame moves in cycles, certain cards are not useful in the current metagame-but they will probably get their time in the spotlight too.

In your second section, you talk about needing to adapt to your environment...how can you adapt to an environment that has never been established? I feel like you missed the whole point of my article. Without decks rising to power and becoming popular, there is nothing to adapt to...and a good deck then does not consist of how creative you can become to take down the big decks...instead it relies totally on blind luck.

As far as people stuck in the teir 1 metagame mentality goes--I agree with you on that. Some people look down upon everything except the popular decks. Those people may never create an original deck-and they most likely wont advance very far either. Haven't you noticed that creative decks make their way to the top? Look at 'Going Rogue' when it was first played....look at how Cosmic Cops quickly rose up to the top ranks, and can you remember when CE took everyone by surprise? I never said that the netdeckers were winning all of the tournaments...I just said that they are an important part of the playing environment. The good players appear to adapt and create new and innovative decks. So, I agree with you about a flawed mentality in the game...but I do not see where it combats my arguement at all, because it just puts those players at a disadvantage.

In all things, there is a balance.

As we've all said, VS is a very balanced game. I'd be willing to venture that it's perhaps the most balanced CCG ever made. I've only ever seen such a tuned play out of games that are non-collectible (e.g., Illuminati and Munchkin). What this means to the game is that, fundamentally, there's no true 'deck to beat' in the same way that you find in most games. The current top decks are where they are because they abuse the standard reliance on certain methods of working towards victory. The Sentinels bounce attacks, for example, and the Teen Titans steal the initiative with their time-unrestrained stunning abilities and team attacking tech. What this means is that decks which aren't able to cope with these roadblocks will have a hard time overcoming them, while decks that have tools to prevent or override these abilities will force these decks to change gears, as it were.

This leads to a 'cyclical archetype' game where certain forms of decks will beat others in a pattern that gives us essentially a paper-scissors-rock form. For example, pure beatdown is beaten by defensive tech decks which can be overcome by tech-denial, which is then typically defeatable by pure beatdown. The ways to break out of these cycles come from the cards that don't always see a lot of use. Pinned and Friendly Fire, for example, can both hose a Titans TTG-heavy strategy, but they tend not to be nearly as useful otherwise. They are universal, however, whereas there are team-stamped options that can do more, or work in a different way that can be more useful. Insignificant Threat and Tower of Babel are two examples of this. The former stops upswings as well as team attacks, and the latter stops Teen Titans Go along with a variety of other team-based strategies. It's the trick of finding cards that can provide an optimal use in power and range that creates a winning deck. All the Savage Beatdowns don't matter if you never get to attack.

As far as new decks versus netdecks go, it's not a big deal. If people plan heavily against a small subset of decks, and optimize accordingly, there's a lot of room for other decks to move in and ravage the competition. Conversely, a field that builds with an optimization scheme that works more broadly will give some highly specialized decks a statistical edge. Therefore, no matter what the case of the current metagame is, the fluidity is still there. Stagnation is only in the mind of the player.

In conclusion, this game really rewards the player's skill more than the quality of the deck. Many decks can be built which work nearly as well, overall, despite the many rants of teams without searching cards being greatly inferior. The key is to build with that in mind, and to make a deck that can play well with sub-optimal options. I see a lot of decks online that lack a real sense of redundancy or robustness, and it seems like many people want to play where a sub-optimal draw all but necessitates a loss. I think that this is a mindset that will take a good amount of ingenuity to fix, as the primary deck I see that offers this in the Tier 1 field, the Titans, is viewed primarily for its uppper echelons of power over its breadth of resources by many players out there.

One final thought: my favorite attack pump in the game is not Savage Beatdown, but rather Combat Reflexes.

Going into PC Indy people were saying that DC Origins didn't have any viable decks to impact the meta. That all changed. Team Superman although very vunerable to Curve Sents w/Search and Destroy, are a very solid team. It like everything else will always take time to see what is strong and what isn't.