Home | About | Tournament Winning Decklists | Forums

Competitive/casual lobby split on jinteki.net


I definitely disagree with the need for visible hands while live spectating. It would open the door for cheaters. Since we’re separated by our monitors (and not playing IRL), there’s no one to police those who would have their friend spectate and spy on the opposing hand. Netrunner seems to have generally respectable people, but not everyone falls under that blanket statement. If there was a post-game stream of the match with both players’ hands visible, that might be something.

To the OP’s questions, I do enjoy the split. I can’t say wait times are increased since it seems like there are more players on than when I first joined, so it works well enough for me.

A hidden ELO/Matchmaking system is a desired feature.


this much is obvious though - all streamed tournament games (such as SHL finals) would have to be on a delay - much like how it was done on OCTGN


I like the split, although getting a competitive opponent can be a bit of a wait.

I’m not sure about stats, as I sometimes want to make weird decks and play for a laugh, so it’d be a shame to have to make a separate account to not mess my stats up.


Yeah, I agree. The Stimhack league is enough stats at the moment (for me anyway). Showing hand to specific spectators would be nice. Helps with streaming as well as mentoring.

As for the questions…wait times seem fine. I do think more casual players still sometimes wander to the competitive side and there’s still definitely people who RQ because of stupid reasons (like “anarchs ruin everything, so boring” while playing an asset spam deck themselves…), but overall it seems pretty okay. I wouldn’t mind some way to discourage hostile behavior or RQing but I don’t really know how to do that.


ELO compromise might be to do what OCTGN did and anonymize the data (i.e. using an ID number instead of username) before releasing it. Maybe go a step further and also release ELO (or other ranking system) on the anonymized data. Anyone that cares about how they stack up, can figure out who they are if they keep track of their games. All the statistics-enthusiasts get to run their fancy scripts on shiny new data dumps. They can tell us what percentage of IG games have rage quits.


The obvious solution is to toggle whether you want a ranked or casual game.
In general, opening a game in competitive or casual would default to those options.

That way if you are testing out some new stuff, but don’t want it to count to your record, play on casual, or play on competitive as a non-ranked game.


That’s not really the same thing though. I want to be able to play Whizzard and NEH against other top tier decks without worrying that overly aggressive play (to see what happens and to learn from it) tanks my ELO.

Maybe I’m the only one who feels that way, I don’t know. But my strong preference would be to still have an area to play top meta decks against each other without incurring ladder anxiety.


That way if you are testing out some new stuff, but don’t want it to count to your record, play on casual, or play on competitive as a non-ranked game.


Oh, I see. Fair enough. Reading is hard.


I love it, I am very fine with waiting for an opponent and I even think that the Competitive room should be reserved for donors to the site, which would weed out even more of the not-actually-competitive people.

I would play significantly less if there was only 1 room.


The split is good, you don’t have to feel bad about playing IG , CI, or siphon spam on a newbie


[quote=“Terrificy, post:30, topic:7431”]
I even think that the Competitive room should be reserved for donors to the site, which would weed out even more of the not-actually-competitive people
[/quote]I thought being competitive is about skill and attitude towards the game, not about spending money. Do you want to move Netrunner towards pay-to-win model?


Don’t strawman me, come on.

I feel that a pay-to-play (which is not pay to win - let’s at least argue in a sober way) model would suit the competitive lobby, yes, as I feel that those who put enough time and energy into the game would see it as fair to pay $5 for the service that is Jinteki.net, and I simultaneously feel that it would weed out some of the horrible, horrible non-competitive decks I keep on encountering.

It’s like you didn’t even read my post and just decided to make a counter-argument because I mentioned money.


[quote=“Terrificy, post:33, topic:7431”]
I feel that those who put enough time and energy into the game would see it as fair to pay $5 for the service that is Jinteki.net[/quote]Last time I checked the game I played was called Android: Netrunner, not jinteki.net

I think I put quite a lot of time and energy into Netrunner. I play 1-2 times a week IRL. This year I have played in tournaments in 6 different cities. I spend a lot of time TOing.

I also think I’m quite a competitive player. I have two SC and one Regionals trophy. I play competitive decks most of the time. And when playing online, I play only competitive decks (I rarely play online, only when I want some extra games to prepare for a tournament).

But you want to ban me from competitive room at jinteki.net because in your book only those, who pay $5 (once? monthly? weekly?) are dedicated and competitive Netrunner players. I feel I am one despite not paying anything to jinteki.net (so far, I might pay one day, if I start playing online more than 1-2 games a week). If, because of this, you prefer to not play against me, fine. I’ll remember and avoid you. Luckily creators of jinteki.net don’t think this way and they’re happy to give me full access despite not getting donations from me. So I’ll keep playing from time to time, maybe even providing interesting games with non-horrible decks to some of my donating opponents.


I called Jinteki.net a service, which is what it is. What’s problematic about that? I play enough of the game called Android: Netrunner to want to pay $5 for the service called Jinteki.net - you’re making no sense.



I don’t want to ban you, but I do think that some kind of barrier of entry would make it easier for me to find the games that I want. If you get hit as well, I would still have plenty of opponents and I would vastly prefer that compared to some of the opponents that I have to face now, which are absolutely not what I am looking for.

You’re putting words into my mouth, and you’re not argumenting in a clear and fair way. It’s like you don’t read my posts and simply try to escalate the discussion to a point beyond what I am saying. I have liked playing with you the times we’ve had matches, but arguing like this doesn’t suit you and doesn’t match how smart you usually seem.


Which leads us into the dangerous territory of Jnet using FFG’s game and IP without permission and making money off it. There was a Cease and Desist period last year that eventually went away (thankfully), but as soon as someone starts to make money off the venture in order to play the game, they’re asking for lawyers to get involved.

Additionally, there’s no guarantee that I’ll get better or more competitive players just because I paid $5. All I’d get is the guarantee that I’m playing someone else who has paid $5 too. The actual service (Jnet platform) would be of equal quality regardless of which virtual room I was in.

If you want to donate, that’s fine. People wanting to monetise a site for someone else’s game is asking for trouble.

Why make cash a barrier to entry for a competitive room?


I agree with all of your points. It is not a fool-proof solution, and it is not something that I would recommend implementing, but in a utopia where it was possible, I think it would better suit my demands. I am absolutely certain that a $5 barrier would mean I would encounter significantly fewer non-Cache Noise decks with 1x Force of Nature as their sole Code Gate breaker, simply because these people would be less inclined to pay $5 for a service, while I (and I presume you as well) would drop down $5 in a heartbeat. I do think the lack of a barrier of entry on Jinteki.net compared to OCTGN can be a problem, and I would be happy if that was somehow fixed, even if a $5 barrier isn’t a 100% fool-proof solve-everything no-problem solution.


I think if money starts getting handled, lawyers will be knocking. In many countries, money being involved is the point where copyright infringement moves from civil to criminal matters. Be really careful here.


What was the topic question again? Should we take 5$ (is that 5 € or less? ;-)) or something else?


Back on topic, please. These side discussions lead to nothing and distract.

And it is oke to not reply :wink: