Lol, after 30 (possibly even 60) years without any noticeable change, is it fair to still call it a meta? If so, spot on. Maybe chess needs a MWL and move ban list to shake it up a bit XD
@Badeesh You’re right, chess players since Fischer saw a change…
*not (guess where)
1 Like
I for one am glad the main queens side lines have maintaned relevance over this period of time.
I do get your point but I think you may have overlooked move #2 ?
Kramnik is only using 1.d4 sidelines because he’s lazy and is still better than everybody who isn’t in the top 10.
On another note some opening lines are used because they just have a surplus of in their preparations waiting to see the light of day.
I was telling somebody not long that chess is board game debate without a teammate.
2 Likes
Hello. It’s me again. This is what I am thinking right now, I could be wrong. I also thought it’d be interesting to trigger everyone again, and see what people are thinking now.
I’ve become a better player at both chess and Netrunner. Both have “changed”, with Magnus going even more “mainstream” and with NISEI looking after the community now.
I’ve become good enough that I can now see how the game is going to play out, in the first 3 turns of Netrunner. Largely the ID has a lot to do with it, along with what’s possible in the rules, with archetypes in mind.
Looking at Netrunner as a customizable system players can tap into, helped me become a better player. I’ve been able to find janky plays by thinking out of the box, and I think this is another facet of high level play I never grasped. (The other 2 being archetype-knowledge (like pressure, control, and aggressive, etc.), and the second being combinatorial thinking).
Knowing when to switch tempo by changing line of play, to offset my opponent’s groove, in a way that benefits me, is strategy. I see this now.
I also started bluffing better. I flatlined a runner yesterday when he walked into Urtica Cipher and took 6 net damage. I even made sure to Rez a baby ICE to play along. I remember this is what Netrunner wanted to emphasize in the core set. (I’ve come a long way from placing a snare!, and then forgetting that I need 4 credits to activate it, and so the runner runs when I don’t have credits 
)
I also see how the cards are meant to be advanced tools compared to basic actions, and tools are always meant to be lesser than the craftsman. It largely felt like pre-NISEI the game was tool dependent, in certain matchups, in certain metas, and in certain data cycles, which may have been all the time. Now it feels like a player can struggle more, but can be reasonably expected to find a way out or in with the bad tools they have for a bad matchup. I could be wrong about this, since I became much better in the past 3 years.
The games feel less swingy than I remember, and with less focus on meta-game depth, and I now see a good meta was largely attractive to most of you. I find the current state to be a better reflection of chess.
Finally, I also have had some theme questions answered, with respect to clicking, the matrix, and what exactly happens when Diesel is used.
Now, I still think Netrunner is not a strategy game, while it employs a decent amount of system thinking, logic, risk and strategy in 1 cyberpunk package. This is what I am trying to confirm in my mind.
Taking into account all of the following factors:
- Knowledge of cards (to avoid getting flatlined without knowing Measured Response exists)
- Luck (in the probability sense)
- One’s ability to mitigate or work around luck (through deck building or hedging for or against risks)
- Strategic skill (Know your deck, keeping an eye on lines of play, etc. Art of War for a lack of better phrase - relational dominance)
- Domain specific skills (card counting, managing hidden information, bluffing)
Even with all of this being linked, the game can still come down to an access, which is still outside of 2 player’s control, skill, knowledge, luck, risk and applied domain-specific strategy.
And that in itself, is not a strategic result. I can see the fun in this, and fun doesn’t make a single card access win or loss, more strategic. Fun is a feeling, just like jacking in.
I think that’s my problem with Netrunner. I don’t think this is a game where a tier 1 deck has you set for life if you know what you’re doing, nor is it a game where you can win 10 games in a row against any opponent who is less skilled than you, if you don’t know what deck they have.
After an exhausting high level play between 2 talented and skilled players, with possibly tier 1 decks, none can definitely say even with luck management, who the winner will be. I think this sentiment aligns a lot with the Cyperpunk 2077 video game, which I have since played.
So when I say strategy, I think I mean deterministic strategy. Where an umpire observing all lines of play, knowing all cards (neither player knows this, except with R&D lock), and all hands, can definitely make a prediction on who will win assuming perfect plays.
Then there’s another element - competitive play.
At that time, competetive play was 2-games between 2 players - one corp, and 1 runner. I think 5 games per side would be a better metric, especially if I’m right about Netrunner being a game that uses strategy, without having a deterministic result.
This wraps up my thinking. In 2 points:
- I am currently thinking Netrunner is not a game with deterministic strategy, and while it employs strategy, the lack of determinism makes it a luck based game, not a luck mitigated or skill dependent game.
Unlike being a mix of chess and poker, it’s a mix of chess and poker when you don’t know if your opponents have tampered with the deck before dealing.
- Especially if I am right, and even if I am wrong, in tournaments, high level players should have access to 3 games per side to downplay ignorance of card sets, reward reconnaissance in early games, and eliminate disproportionate luck.
Can anyone here explain to me definitively, why I am wrong to think:
“I don’t think this is a game where a tier 1 deck has you set for life if you know what you’re doing, nor is it a game where you can draw 10 games in a row (or win 5, lose 5) against any opponent who is as skilled as you, if you don’t know what deck they have.”
In other words, the following game can happen as a valid, correct, legitimate and smart game, as it did 2 days ago:
- Round 1 - Corp - starts 1 ICEd remote, doesn’t chose to ICE centrals
- Round 1 - Me - I have a Deep Dive. I get 1 Let them Dream, and Vulnerable Audit - total 4 points by running R&D and using Deep Dive.
- Round 2 - Corp - Reduces my clicks next turn by 1, and ICE’s HQ.
- Round 2 - Me - In 3 clicks, I steal 2 agendas from R&D, winning the game in round 2 with a total of 8 points.
Now - I know ICE’ing centrals is a basic move, and even a must in most cases. Sometimes you can’t, though, and it’s reasonable for me to expect that I’d run into traps, or my opponent wants me to run centrals, or I am setting myself up for failure for wasting 2 rounds, or my opponent’s strategy emphasized remote focus instead of centrals, whether I knew it or not.
Or maybe what I did was 100% right. Even if there’s something my opponent can take away, is ICEng her centrals round 1 a good move next game? Probability wise, at that time, maybe her 3-pointers were at the bottom, and there’s no way for anyone to know short of multiple game runs, with an umpire collecting data.
My confusion is that if all of strategy cannot balance luck, risk, skill, and knowledge, in 1 game, then the game might as well be betting money on a coin flip, in a casino.
And coin flipping is not strategy.
Note that the best players still have game against their ‘bad’ matchups. Every deck has holes that can be poked in it, and the best players can mitigate or play around those holes when they come up. Also you do see this in Netrunner, because we’ve had the same person take Worlds twice. That’s not done with a lack of skill/experience/knowledge.
The person you’re referring to, picked a tier 1 deck, I’m sure. If a player has to pick a certain set of choices, to increase chances in-game, that’s a part of meta-strategy. I think a fairer way to compare would be if the tier 1 decks were randomly given at the start of the top 16, and then see if most winners tend to be the same person (or set of 2) every time.
I think the way the meta works being a fundamental part of picking a deck list, automatically disqualifies the game from being called a strategy game, unless there’s a format which restricts the meta equally to all players.
Aren’t most of you conflating work-arounds for a lack of strategy, as a strategic measure for a luck based game?
I’m also not convinced if what you’re describing covers agenda flood, with or without Jackson Howard. Does someone winning with skill, experience and knowledge consistently say more about the player, or the game?
I think a lot of you were leaning towards thinking I had a skill issue, and while that was correct, I don’t think my point was wrong, either.
I just had to work on my skill first, to realize what we were missing.
“When almost every loss has a lesson to learn when you look at it objectively, I find it hard to say that the game lacks depth. When you have opponents with identical decks play full matches (both sides), the player with the most skill will come out on top an overwhelming number of times.” - Cynchworm
The implication here is distinguishing between having a lesson that’s learned meaning you missed something fundamental to strategy, versus a lesson that masks design flaws. I think you can learn nuance in this game, without necessarily learning strategy. If you know strategy, however, you can definitely play better.
Also, if you give 2 players the same decks, and the better player wins most of the time, isn’t that credit to the pilot, and where the pilot fails without fault of his own (in those games he missed), a fault of the game?
If I compare with poker the way you all do, the game itself is a tool with money as the win condition. Having more or less at the end of 1 game can still be luck. So, yes, skill over multiple sessions is a different metric than 1 game of netrunner.
That’s not the same with chess - 1 game, putting aside first player advantage, theoretically rewards the better player.
