Do we need more ICE?

This topic interests me greatly. I think a lot of the current dissatisfaction we are seeing among the community is due to the fundamental mechanics of netrunner - i.e. the ICE/ICE Breaker interaction - being circumvented by different means. This is changing the fundamental nature of the game. Now, I’m not saying that change is bad or that I hate everything, but I am saying that I fell in love with a game, and increasingly netrunner doesn’t feel like that game any more.

I feel that a LOT of this is to do with AI being an answer to almost everything in conjunction with ICE destruction making ICE a seriously problematic investment. Add to that Blackmail, DLR Mill, Apoc, and suddenly it just doesn’t feel like ICE is worthwhile any more as there are so many ways it can be removed or just rendered irrelevant.

Asset spam IMO is the answer to the issue of ICE just not really working well any more.

So yes, I do think we need more ICE, and I think we need more ICE that has some resistance to AI and destruction. Honestly, ICE like architect. Architect is a beautiful card in terms of design - maybe not balance, it might be a little too good for the cost, thus why I think it’s addition to MWL was entirely justified - but it is a interesting piece of ICE which is relatively taxing to AI, doesn’t die and leads to interesting choices.

Personally I want to see more ICE that has some combination of:

  • Can’t have strength lowered
  • Can’t be trashed from play
  • Can’t be broken by AI
  • Is big but can’t be broken by David

The last one is a personal bugbear of mine. It drives me nuts that David and cutlery have wiped big ICE almost entirely out of the game. The only things seen these days are Booth and Assassin. Big crazy ICE is so much fun, and yet so unplayable. I only hope for the day something like booth 2.0 comes out that is actually worth playing (preferably in poor old weyland!)

3 Likes

I think it would be interesting to have big ICE that can’t be broken by D4, but can’t returned to HQ or something like that. That way, you could have your cake without Blue Sun eating it.

1 Like

‘Weyland Komainu’ would have to be either “-> Gain 2c” or “-> Trace3, if Successful, Tag the Runner.”

Both are in Weyland’s wheelhouse. (Yes, they do have tagging ability with Shadow, Checkpoint, Posted Bounty.)

I honestly think I like the ‘Gain 2c’ one better. The NBN version could have the Tagging sub, or potentially ‘May draw a card’ since that’s also a thing they do.

EDIT: Searchlight, not Checkpoint. Got my binder fodder confused.

1 Like

The only card that can build a board state faster and for longer than the Anarch card pool can delete it is Mumbad City Hall, and there’s no Mumbad City Hall for ICE.

We needed more ICE when ICE let you weather Criminal credit denial, but having better ICE is only marginally helpful at allowing you to weather Anarch ICE and economy denial. You basically need City Hall and Museum for that.

Checkpoint doesn’t tag, you are thinking of searchlight.

2 Likes

ISTM that Assets are doing what ICE used to do: increase the amount it costs for the runner to do things. ICE creates a situation for the runner where you can’t afford to run through it (or you just get ETR’d if you try), and once the runner can no longer afford to pay for it, the corp starts winning. Then as we all know, D4V1D put a hard upper bound on the runner’s cost to get through high-strength ICE, Parasite put a low cost and a time limit on low-strength ICE, Faust put an alternate cost on midrange ICE, and the cutlery turned Faust and D4V1D into a one-time payment.

I see a trend that started all the way back when San San City Grid first came out: cards that sit rezzed on the table that are too dangerous for the runner to ignore but really hard to trash. Eve Campaign is another example, but they’re both balanced by their rez costs. I think Sundew was probably the first instance where they explicitly designed in this idea of “you have to deal with this or the game will get out of control”, but at (2 rez, 2 trash) it still needed something else (ICE, playing RP, or both) to tip the resource costs against the runner.

Then we started seeing cards with powerful effects and really lopsided rez/trash costs: Daily Business Show, Team Sponsorship, Turtlebacks and IT Department are all examples of this type. A few things happened here:

  1. The increased trash cost places a heavier demand on the runner’s economy, which somewhat balances the increased strength of runner engines,
  2. The economic cost to the runner reduces the corp’s reliance on ICE, and
  3. Cards like NBN: Near-Earth Hub reduced the corp’s click cost to play assets. A Security Testing Criminal would take 2 clicks to clear a card that cost the corp ½-a-click to play.

The trouble is that Anarch has Whizzard and all the breakfaust club pieces, so corps need to tax even harder to keep up the asset game. Enter Museum of History and Mumbad City Hall.

I think ICE destruction is a good thing to have in the game, but its current form was too easy for the design team to fall into given the templates set up in the core set (Parasite and Datasucker). The strength of modern ICE destruction shuts out a lot of the interesting things you can do with derezzing (e.g, Emergency Shutdown, Forged Activation Orders), a design space restriction that disproportionately hurts Criminal. Let’s take a quick detour into tagging: because SEA Source and Scorched Earth were both in the core set, the maximum game state change a single tag can inflict is “you lose”. A healthier design space for tagging would be something like:

  • 1–3 tags: heavy taxing, light meat damage
  • 4+ tags: you’re at risk of insta-losing.

Scorched Earth constrains tagging just as ICE destruction constrains derez. The real design challenge here is that the core set versions of both tagging and ICE destruction were quite reasonable, but they have made a hard corner for FFG to design themselves out of. (Similarly, Blackmail has constrained the design space for bad publicity.)

Back to ICE and assets. Assets have become better than ICE at the only thing ICE was designed for:

  • ICE is only a tax (strong AI makes facechecking less scary); assets generate corp benefits and tax
  • ICE taxes a few credits (or a couple of cards); assets tax clicks and credits.

What does this mean for ICE? I think ICE are cards that hurt the most when considering deck slots. For ICE to be relevant in the current game (especially against the perverse incentive of Mumba Temple), it has to become more versatile:

  • ICE that provides economy has existed for a while (Caduceus, Pop-Up Window, Special Offer). Of those, one is easily broken, one is easily Parasited and one self-treashes.
  • ICE that is also a trap is new (Archangel), and ICE that has a trash cost is a new experiment (Chrysalis). This is encouraging but still has the fundamental problem that the runner can just break it.
  • ICE that always does something, even if broken. We’ve seen some amount of this with on-encounter effects (and good counter-play in the form of bypass), but it’s part of NBN’s faction identity. That could still be a thing but it’s probably worth broadening so that other factions get a taste too.
  • ICE that does something even if it’s not run. ICE that accumulates power tokens at start of turn (to a limit)? (God knows that Helium-3 Deposit needs more love.) ICE with paid abilities? There are a couple (Data Raven, Mamba), but there should be more.
  • This will increase the incentive to use ICE destruction, which should probably be nerfed anyway.

In conclusion, I think that FFG should do the following to make ICE great again:

  • Relax the hard cap on ICE taxation potential by doing something about D4V1D,
  • Make ICE competitive with assets on the deckslot level by adding features beyond subs-that-never-fire, and
  • Neuter ICE destruction to make ICE a better investment and open up the design space for derez.
53 Likes

possibly the best post I’ve ever read on the forums.

1 Like

The response to Damons most recent interview led to an awful lot of rather unsavoury trash talk aimed at the man himself (on slack). This analysis is exactly the kind of constructive criticism of the design that im sure he is aware of and even if he isn’t, it’s the sort of thing that is hugely helpful. There are a number of threads which address this theme and at some point should be consolidated into an article about the state of the game.

I think that to a large extent he has inherited problems from the initial design, the same way a football manager inherits problems from the previous manager. He has had only a few months so far to stamp his mark on the game and that’s primarily been through the MWL – which all in all has been a big positive for the game. We wouldn’t judge a new manager on his results over the first few months (although in reality that does happen thanks to the media circus) and it will take a couple of years at least until his changes filter through into the game. The new Weyland code gate that has been spoiled is a clear attempt to address some of the problems within that faction and another step forward. I think he does listen to the community even if his outward persona doesn’t acknowledge that directly. All in all, we should reserve judgement and trust in him to deliver changes to the game that will be positive in terms of mechanics, balance and strategic depth; posts like this offer a constructive critique that is hugely positive in shaping that discussion.

14 Likes

Really great post. You brought together a ton of concepts I’ve been thinking about too.

I think it’s worth remembering the effect assets had on the meta at the time these cards were being designed. The only asset anyone ever ran was a defended Adonis or Eve Campaign. Anything you put out naked would be trashed by the superior runner economy - putting out and rezzing a Pad Campaign typically just cost you a click and a credit, and Bank Job/Security Testing just made that even worse. For assets to be relevant they probably did need to ‘do more’ in some way. But maybe the implications were not properly worked out.

1 Like

Nice analysis. However there is also a significant difference between ICE and assets:

  • ICE is not going to win you game passively just by virtue of being rezzed (see Bio Ethics)
  • ICE is not providing you with searchable and reccurent economic engine (Temple, Product recall)
  • ICE is not providing you searchable resource trashing capabilities (Exec Search firm, Mills)

The whole strong alliance asset engine introduced in this cycle represents a clear power creep, and I’m affraid it will be creating a lot of problems for the game for coming months and years.

The answer is clearly not making ICE as good as assets, that would be insanity.

I would recommend a step back approach.
Museum of History and Mumba Temple are both a huge design mistakes, and their “restrictions” are clearly not doing anything. Both cards are breaking the fundamental parts of the game (Corp decking winning condition and the economical balance of reccuring credits).
They will always create problems for the game and give incentive to create more power creep as long as they exist.
The Netrunner designers should finally swallow their pride and introduce Ban list. These 2 cards should be the first entries there on the way to make Netrunner a healthy and balanced game, again.

3 Likes

I feel like a heel for picking this out of your great post, but I really don’t think SanSan is costed correctly, the trash cost should be lower…

However, that said, good points in your post! Making ICE more interesting would definitely be good. I’ve been playing with Grail recently and on-encounter powers or other such things are all very cool and mix things up for the game. There are only so many combinations of strength/sub-type/rez cost we can have.

1 Like

I think given the MWL, FFG would agree!

3 Likes

I didn’t see the Slack stuff, but my comment on what Damon was saying would be a mild concern that he didn’t buy into Tiers of deck, but Tiers of players. I’d hope the designer would be aware that some factions or archetypes are fundamentally stronger than others (otherwise, as someone else mentioned to me, he’s doing himself out of a job if the cards don’t matter).

However, we’ve not seen any of his datapacks yet, and encouragingly the spoilers we have seen include ICE with new mechanics on, so there’s a good chance some decent change is already in the pipeline.

The Weyland code gate looks just what the doctor ordered, although it’ll not be out until late in the cycle, regrettably.

2 Likes

I think what he states is true though – we all know that the a top player with an average deck can generally overcome an average player with a top deck. It’s a good job too – else the game wouldn’t be worth playing if this wasn’t the case.

He also went on to state that his goal is for each faction to have a viable tier 1 archetype/deck within it. Balancing the entirety of the game is essentially an impossible task but I think if we give him a couple of cycles he will deliver on this promise where each faction has something viable – he may well overshoot but he has created a valve with the MWL to allow him to be more aggressive than his predecessor was.

5 Likes

Which interview was this?

The latest episode of the Run Last Click Podcast.

1 Like

So when is this article going to be featured on the front page?

4 Likes

It… kindof can? If you install a Chimera and start scoring out behind it, if the Runner can’t find an answer (All breakers, AI breaker, Parasite) then Chimera could easily be pointed to as winning you the game. (Obviously there’s other considerations like where did you get the money to rez Chimera and score out every turn, but the number one thing that made it so you could advance agendas and win was the Chimera sitting in front of your server.)

I suppose that if you compare it to Bio Ethics, Bio Ethics does eventually win you the game just by having it rezzed, so I think you still have a pretty good point.

After all, the fundamental problem with ICE that I’ve always seen is that all it does is help you Not Lose. It doesn’t help you win, except indirectly. (Or if they faceplant a Neural Katana with two cards in hand.) This is how Iceless Jinteki actually functions, and we can see now that IG can do it, too. I definitely agree that Mumba Temple is… not good. The ‘restriction’ is closer to a deckbuilding guideline than anything else. I don’t think its restriction was pushed hard enough. It does fight with itself, because if you don’t have ICE you can’t defend it, which is why only Asset Spam is using Temple still, despite most decks having barely more than 15 ICE anyway.

1 Like

We don’t need more ice, because ICE is now invalidated by Faust. Just like we didn’t need >4 strength code gates cause of Yog, now the same works for Faust.

1 Like

No, but now your serious answer please.

3 Likes