Oh I’m sure it is. I’m just sick to death of reading about it. The post was entirely selfish, and I’m fully aware of that.
13 Likes
Maybe we should coin the term “Jimeta” for when people want to talk specifically about who they played on that website and avoid confusion with the rest of Netrunner!
1 Like
What would you do to me if I come to your Regionals and bring IG? 
4 Likes
Pray to LLDS that IG isn’t as frustrating in one years time 
1 Like
I was going to go to Regionals this year. Then I thought about it. I’d have to do a whole ton of practice. I’d played maybe 10 games with IG and won every game. I played against it a few times and lost every time. I was pretty sure it was one of the best corp decks if not the best and so I’d have to be familiar with the matchup.
Every game was unpleasant, both online and IRL. Shuffling every turn IRL was just stupid. A real shuffle would take too long so you would either go to time or present an insufficiently randomized deck, which actually matters because of the Heritage Committee interaction. The IG opponent’s best strategy in a tournament setting was clearly to score a point then stall. Every time I gave an IRL opponent a choice to play against IG or any other deck (I pretty much always have decks for every faction made) they would choose the other. Gagarin was exactly the same deal FWIW, again because of MoH.
So I didn’t go to Regionals. I guess it’s possible I’m the only one who voted with my feet but I seriously doubt it. As it happens, I think Noah was the only IG player (and he made top 8 despite a wall of Whizzard).
So here’s my question. Just how much of a NPE would a card have to be to merit a ban? Something with the ability (click), poke your opponent in the face? The game is patently worse off for the existence of the card and it should be banned on that basis regardless of power levels.
Magic faced this same problem early on in the shape of Sharahazad (NPE ban, not power level) and they rightly banned it. MoH is just a mistake. That’s ok, if the designers never push limits the game will become stagnant. But recognize the mistake, fix it and move on.
21 Likes
According to the vast majority of players, the level of “NPE” that merits a ban is the middlepoint between Caprice Nisei and Account Siphon.
Specially the latter. Massive NPE, should we ban it?
1 Like
If minimum 9 ABT per deck all factions, all ABTs must be fired when scored would increase tournament attendance by 25%, I would want that rule to happen for netrunner.
I’m not sure the data you say you have about Account Siphon is all there, but if it really is, absolutely.
The comparison to Account Siphon is garbage, as has already been explained dozens of times by many other more eloquent people. I don’t know why people keep coming to that.
Caprice is closer but still not equivalent by a long shot.
16 Likes
And Political Operative gives a strong counter play to Caprice on the remote (as does Councilman for Batty), so hopefully that hate has subsided somewhat.
Slums has not had much impact on the vitriol, for whatever that’s worth.
1 Like
It’s a shame rotation happens at a glacial pace because I think it’s the recursion double dip of Jackson and museum that is over the top.
Personally I’m fine with nearly every card in the pool at the moment except levy AR lab access and Jackson plus museum. I think each side should be on the clock and have to run the risk of running out of resources.
2 Likes
Because slums has an easy counter in E. Mills. I would bet that without Mills as an answer Slums would have made a bigger impact.
2 Likes
No, you should not be required to bring a counter card to avoid a NPE, because making a bad meta call should be punished with losses, not NPEs, and because you can run all the counter cards in the world and not draw them and that doesn’t deserve you an NPE either.
If Caprice is a grave NPE, plop isn’t the reason that’s ok. Fortunately Caprice isn’t really a grave NPE.
2 Likes
It keeps coming back because according to many, many players these cards are enough of an NPE to justify a ban. Last time someone ran a poll they were the two most hated cards in the game and there have been countless threads at BGG and Reddit complaining about that fact?
Who decides they are not “enough of an NPE to be banned” and that Museum of History is?
Account siphon has been in the game since the core set. Anybody who tried out the core set, didn’t like account siphon, and quit the game, is not going to come back to the game 4 years later because Account Siphon gets banned. On the other hand, the huge number of people who didn’t go to Regionals this year because of new cards like Museum of History and Mumbad City Hall will absolutely come back to the game if those cards get banned.
10 Likes
That doesn’t answer the question: Who decides what should be banned and what isn’t? Who decides it must be Museum of History and not Bio-Ethics? Who decides it’s Faust and not Adjusted Chronotype?
The important part to me is who not what.
1 Like
The people sitting in chairs at actual meatspace tournaments. Which has really poor overlap with BGG and Reddit, those are largely the people playing chess Reina against Because We Built It at a kitchen table, getting siphoned at a GNK, then sticking to the kitchen table from then on and whining about Account Siphon on BGG, although they probably aren’t resilient to endure Lamprey or Enhanced Login Protocol in tournament play anyway. So in a way StephenE was answering your question.
1 Like
Right now Damon Stone manages the MWL and would most likely be the one managing a banned list. Most companies do not have the designers managing the banned/restricted lists, so this is an experiment. If Damon can make appropriate changes that bring people back to the competitive scene, then great! If not, FFG should copy successful companies like Wizards of the Coast and have the Organized Play people manage these lists.
At the end of the day, I don’t care precisely which cards get banned and who decides it, as long as the desired effect - the decks that are keeping people out of tournaments stop being played - is achieved.
10 Likes
So, tournaments should choose their own set of rules? That way lies madness, man 
Yeah. What I really oppose is players taking balance into their own hands. If FFG decides that a card is should get put into the MWL or banned, I might not like that, but it does not worry me like community rules do.
This seems simplistic and overly dismissive of the online community. You have no real basis to judge how competitive or casual a player is unless you get to know them. However, you have a point in that the decision for what should be banned needs to include those who are attending tournaments/leagues.
As much as we talk Netrunner here, the focus is ultimately on playing Netrunner and the community to do that comes primarily from face-to-face gaming. Preferably public gaming where interest can be nurtured and grown. The health of those things is paramount, and what impacts it effects us all. If I’m not going to leagues or tournaments anyway, my opinion matters less than those who are potentially turned off attending by a poisonous meta.
If an agreement locally entices people to play that otherwise wouldn’t, what’s the harm? In microcosm, our gaming group introduces house rules all the time to make games enjoyable for us so they get played when they otherwise wouldn’t. I don’t expect others to necessarily play the game the way I do, but when all the players agree to try it, we have no compunction against altering things. I respect game designers a great deal, especially with a massive monster like an LCG, but they are human and nothing is perfect.
If it keeps the community alive and growing, it’s probably well worth it.
1 Like
Making personal attacks because someone disagreed with you over a card game is sad.
An agreement may entince people to play that otherwise wouldn’t. But ten different agreements will do exactly the opposite. And if people take matters on their own hands, there will be ten different agreements.