Why people here don’t play the damn deck instead of just complaining about it and see how much “unfair” it is.
Look at this
Whizz 57%, Maxx 55%, Noise 41% (Kate 44% everything else in the 40% range but some 3-6 games IDs)
IG 61%, NEH 65%…
==> These decks were not playing in the same league, you know. You’re asking here the nerf of the only runner decks who had a > 50% rate in this tournament, provided they all played Faust.
This is quite funny to me.
A Faust deck still gets uterly destroyed by any quick FA anytime. Play the deck and learn this…
Oh, whatever. Yeah you’re rigth, it should be better runners be kind and all get >40% w/l. Nerf those 55% impudents.
I don’t buy into the ‘autolose’ theory. The beauty of Netrunner is that deckbuilding is only part of the game. Knowing your own deck, playing smart, and good knowledge of the card pool means that a game is never decided before it is played.
Believing otherwise is succumbing to groupthink and self-defeat.
I think it’s silly to assume a loss just based on the matchup. I play a lot of Leela with Sec Testing / Bank Job, and matches against glaciers obviously aren’t ideal, but I still win a lot of them and always enjoy them.
Sorry if I didn’t clarify beforehand. I meant in my experience. As a novice player, you will lose most of the time. As an advanced player, you win most of the time. But I am straight middle of the road 50th percentile mediocre, and so my matchups are usually closer in skill level, thus leading to autoloss.
I honestly don’t think there’s such a thing as an autoloss in Netrunner.
As a runner if you can get 2-4 accesses in the game you can win (number depending on the corp deck’s agendas). The more accesses you get, the higher your chances are (generally speaking anyway). If you have a very bad matchup maybe you only usually get 10 accesses vs NBN FA or something…but it still wins you the game every now and then.
As a corp…I guess it’s a bit different since you could have a deck that just can’t win if the runner keeps running into your remotes, but this is usually a sign of bad deckbuilding (example: deck only has agendas as cards installable in a remote, no way to FA or pre-rez ice playing vs Valencia blackmail spam, or even just regular shaper bullshit since those guys always seem to find a way in…). But if you have a decent deck playing vs something non-extreme, it should come down to player skill more often than the matchup. Which is what you want in a competitive game, really.
I can think of a couple of matchups that are pretty damn close… But they tend to be non-tier one decks against other non-tier one decks who have conflicting gimmicks. That said by your strict definition I don’t know if any ccg/lcg deck has a real autoloss in even the most semi-competitive of environments. Even in that other game they could still draw (all the|none of) the resources such that they can’t actually attempt to play the game.
Wow that is the best description of non-asset spam Weyland that I have seen in a while, minus of course the pre-rez ice stuff.
[quote=“zagzagal, post:111, topic:7322”]
Wow that is the best description of non-asset spam Weyland that I have seen in a while, minus of course the pre-rez ice stuff
[/quote]I tried a Core Weyland deck that had 11 agendas that print money when they’re scored (Hostiles, Corp War, Oaktown and Sales Team), money ops, (+ I think Jacksons to recur the ops) and a bunch of gear check and taxing ice and the Sea+Scorch package. It did pretty well if it got the money (=agendas) rolling vs. someone who didn’t have their meat shield on, but I played vs Val blackmail spam and simply couldn’t function at all.
[quote=“zagzagal, post:111, topic:7322”]
That said by your strict definition I don’t know if any ccg/lcg deck has a real autoloss…
[/quote]Yeah, I think my problem is the word autoloss seems to mean that your win-% in an equally player skilled matchup is less than 20%. I’d just rather call that a bad matchup. I’m fine with the term autolose if win-% is around the 0-5% range (so you win at most one in twenty games).
To each their own, I guess. It just seems pretty pessimistic to call a matchup automatically lost when you look at the IDs when in reality you still have a real chance.
Thank you for abiding by your NDA. It was such a bitch-ass move by some select ANR playtesters to do rage spoilers because they didn’t like something about the company they signed an NDA for.
Drug Dealer/Faust is good but DD has a pretty clear drawback that you can spiral into money issues very quickly. Career Fair Whizzard still makes money hand over fist (and needs less due to his ability)
And that is the lamest, and most divergent part of that game, and the reason I play netrunner. Soooooo, when this happens in netrunner = bad times. Not picking on you or anything, but that statement just resonated with me.
Another thing, it’s not so much that it’s an autoloss, but it becomes a game where you hope the other player makes a mistake more than anything. I’ve won games against Whizzard with decks that only had 3 cost assets that were essential to the deck, and no way to recover them, I’ve rushed agendas out against Shaper, but in decks designed to not allow me to do that, it’s always the fault of the other player. In my experience anyway
Actually I’m in full agreement and it is one of if not the largest reason why I also don’t play that game. That said there is something to be said about high risk/high reward strategies where you are opening yourself up to a counter. An example in current netrunner might be a chameleon deck. It is great against a wide portion of the field, but you almost can’t win against most Sol decks.
I have long thought that the corporation will generally have an advantage in these types of match-ups when the decks are trying to play ‘out of type’. Runners in general have much less redundancy on effects in a deck versus a corp, especially when it comes to rushing out agendas. A ‘normal’ corp deck will have between 13 and 16 ice with over half having an end the run, a ‘normal’ runner deck will only have between 1 and 5 ways to break/ways to get a breaker of type. I don’t know if this is even hoping that the runner makes a mistake, its more hoping that you can draw your relatively more consistent questions to the runners more random answers.
I’m not sure I agree. D4v1d makes rezzing single-sub high-strength ice a terrible proposition. If D4v1d said “[Trash]: Break any number of subroutines on a piece of ice with strength 5 or greater,” it wouldn’t be so bad, but as it is, paying for something the Runner’s going to break 3 times for 3 credits is just awful. I think that’s helped push big, beefy ice out of contemporary strategies, which weakens Criminal (Shutdown/Crescentus, Siphon) and strengthens Faust. I mean, what commonly-used ice are D4v1d targets? Wraparound, Archangel, Turing…? I think Assassin and Tollbooth might be the only ice that are used these days that D4v1d hits, that also cost more than 4 to rez. D4v1d is the reason for that, IMO.
Space Ice becomes a lot more viable too if D4v1d isn’t in the pool. Why spend either 9 credits or 3 credits and 3 clicks to rez something that gets broken by a single D4 token? It’s just horribly inefficient.
David also single-handedly removed Ice Wall from competitive decks. (A few other pressures existed to be sure, but it kept appearing until David started getting play.) It’s also why Firewall is never played. (Other than the fact that the rez cost is just a little too steep, anyway.)
These are reasons Weyland struggles currently; its best ICE are poorly positioned for the meta.
