See :spicy: 1x Scarcity in Worlds 2017 finals for proof.
That said, it would allow corps to actually invest in tech cards like runner decks. Although really it’d likely be used more so for things like T1 Architect/Moon/Sensie (pre-ban)/bankers etc.
Similar in the Babylon 5 CCG but you had to pick a different card type for each card. It actually really crimps the game because every card has to be assessed against what happens if you pick it in the starting hand.
I’m not sure that’s true. For every runner who Makers into three agendas, there’s one who accesses many cards without finding anything. Failing to draw the right icebreaker or tutor is an even more automatic loss. The main difference is just that the corp’s luck-based losses tend to be more dramatic and memorable.
2 Likes
IMO Runners losing to gear-checks and whiffed accesses feels like part of the game, whereas losing because you mulliganed into 4 agendas or failed to see any of your 17 ICE in the top 15 cards feels less like a game of ANR.
4 Likes
That’s what I mean by asymmetrical luck. The Corp can just flat out lose to bad luck. Bad luck for the Runner (with one exception) mostly just means you haven’t won yet. The one exception is against flatlines where you can die to a randomly accessed snare however that is still because you made a decision to do something that backfired. The corp losing to randomly accessed agendas because they haven’t had a chance to protect their centrals yet can happen despite them perfectly playing the hand they’ve drawn. That’s the nature of the game.
1 Like
Exactly. My last game of Netrunner playing a Corp before my (almost 2-year long) hiatus took about 30 seconds. It’s experiences like that that kill any desire in me to play the game. It’s hard for me to simply shrug it off. I definitely consider it a design flaw.
Absolutely, but in all of these cases, it’s not that the corp’s bad luck was game losing and the runner’s wasn’t. The luck was the same. It’s just that the runner’s game-losingly unlucky shuffle was only revealed 20 draws in, whereas the corp’s was probably apparent in the starting hand.
Is this a design flaw? I dunno, depends. The subjective experience is very different, and yes, it can certainly be disheartening when it happens to you as corp, but personally I’d rather find out right away so we can just reshuffle and play again, instead of playing a game that “feels” real, and which I realize only in hindsight that I had no way of winning.
4 Likes
If I understand you, you’re saying that there’s ultimately no difference between the RNG of a Corp losing to a horrible draw and a Runner whiffing on a last turn RND access. Ultimately, you’re right: every game of ANR is determined by luck; however, there’s a massive experiential difference between those two games IMO. In one, both players likely felt that they got to play a full, satisfying game of ANR. The ‘reshuffle and let’s forget that anomaly’ method works beautifully for weekly nights but doesn’t exist in competitive settings, which is where it’s arguably most important to diminish RNG blowouts as much as possible IMO.
Despite this, let me state for the record that I don’t think a card like JHow is the be-all-end-all solution to the asymmetrical RNG factor.
3 Likes
Another Problem is, that the good (and neccesary) Weyland cards have/had too less infl. (Boom!, Scorched, Traffic Accodent, u name it)
i’m not sure if either case is more or less satisfying. yes, losing to someone who runs HQ a lot when you’re flooded and wins feels kinda bad, but someone running HQ and not seeing anything when you’re flooded gives me such a rush. like oooooh man, i can’t believe he didn’t hit any of the FIVE agendas… better not give a tell how relieved i am. the same thing happens for grabbing the ONE agenda in 5 cards, but i better not show how upset i am ‘1 in 5 maaaaan’ (unless there are more agendas!)
honestly, i think the core game of netrunner was intended to encourage liberal use of traps to discourage running blindly for accesses. i think that’s part of the game that has kind of shifted from the original that made runners just jam for accesses and win the game and capitalise on flooding be a reason to maybe slow down.
but jinteki is the only real corp faction who does this. it’s shifted only a little bit recently. every faction got their trace on access upgrade card, and i like weyland’s a lot. i think NBN’s is ok. HB’s is just… bleh. brain damage will never be a thing (at least, on its own: it’s a lot better with snare to close out the game, but anyway)
i think these kinds of things being shifted more into one faction (even with influence existing) kind of made that bluffing ‘run here bro, i have 4 credits’ way of dealing with a bad hand a bit worse
i agree with you that jackson is not the answer. i mostly feel though that it’s too much in one card, and i don’t know if ‘more snares’ is the answer either, but it’s clearly something missing from the original game where those kinds of cards were actually quite common. i think the new 5/3s make things a bit interesting though.
like you score an SSL as the runner, you’re happy to get 3 points, but the corp is happy to get 9 credits (especially at not cost to them), so it’s not the same but it makes agenda density lower (having 3 points in one card) and also makes losing those points hurt less
4 Likes
One of the biggest highs of the game is knowing you will win next turn (say, because they gave up on the remote play) and the runner went for the Maker’s Eye, Last Chance Medium Dig, or [in these modern days] a Deep Data Mining play. Flipping up One. Card. at. a. time.
Many Samuel Jackson’s have held onto many butts in those moments.
And when the whiff happens…or when they only score some, but not enough points…
It’s like the game just sells itself.
6 Likes
There is an important reason for brain damage being reasonably hard to land, and nearly impossible in lethal quantities.
You don’t ever want it to be a ‘thing.’
That reason is that even a couple points of brain damage make a kill shot so much easier. Net and meat damage kill decks would get out of control with easy, reliable brain damage. If I land a two point Overwriter, that’s virtually game for my Jinteki deck.
No, brain damage will never be a ‘thing,’ and it’s best for the game that way.
i’m not sure if you’re intending to disagree with me or not? that was actually exactly my point
I won’t say I hate this meta,I quite enjoy it,but the fact that corps have to lean heavily on Rush because they don’t have significant wincon mid-late game is not a good sign.
For instance I played various glacier decks like AgInfusion or Palana,they still have to rush early Nisei to have a chance in mid-late game or it’s just total lockout.Sometimes I even rushed out 2 Niseis but still can’t close out the game once runner is fully setup and effectively blank all my ICE.So many games are hands down to the top several cards in R&D,to decide whether I can be fast enough,since this is the only way I can put pressure on runners and have a decent chance in mid-late games,or they’ll just play netinstaller games and see me dying.
So I can feel why top players may be disappointed with the meta.I always think a meta where no unfair decks exists (IG,CI kill,DLR pre-errata,etc),slightly corp favored,and corp got a decent mid-late game wincon is the best meta,and currently we are runner favored,not much mid-late game for corps.
That being said,the best way to deal with this is that someone who can communicate with designer like Boggs to address the current problem felt by the community.I really don’t think being nostalgic with rotated cards,old meta and rant about current meta will produce anything but toxic thoughts.We are moving forward,not backward.
3 Likes
I’m a little confused by this statement. I always had the idea that this was more or less by design. Runners that were allowed to completely set up were almost always able to compete with the corp in their favor, no? I mean, obviously there have always been runner decks that hit hard in the early game and peter out late game… as well as late game corp decks (IG prison comes immediately to mind), but for the most part the early game was the domain of corps and the late game was the domain of runners.
Granted, this was just my perception and my competitive play experience consists of store champs and GNKs only. Nor am I saying that this was an ideal situation. All I’m saying is that this doesn’t seem to be anything new.
4 Likes
Rush is not a problem,it’s an essential part of the game;what I mean is that right now corp can only win through rush.Once you can not rush out early,the possibility of winning becoming very small,thus many game has to depend on top several cards of your R&D to decide whether you can rush or not so you can win,which is not a good sign from my perspective.
1 Like
I think it’s a fair point. That early/mid/late game balance between runner and Corp is a key part of the game and has been for a long time.
I think the issue being referred to is how much (or how little) control the Corp has over that pacing. That early game section where the Corp is advantaged is very draw dependant and the game is generally better when both players can make proactive plays to set the pace in their favour.
1 Like
Ok, I didn’t get that as your point. You were ‘meh’ about HB’s card because it caused brain damage, and well, going all in on brain damage will never be viable.
You aren’t the first to say something like that and my response is that evaluating brain damage that way is the wrong approach.
Brain damage is great support for kill strategies (you mentioned Snare! which of itself is not a strategy), so the evaluation of HB’s trap should be how effective it supports a kill strategy, rather than ‘lol, here’s more brain cards for those janky HB brain damage decks. We all know that will never work.’
If I missed the nuance in what you were actually saying, I apologize.
There were plenty of metas where the corp had such strong endgame that if they could get there, it was close to impossible to lose. RP Glacier, Foodcoats, and even CI7 (in a sense) come to mind here.
2 Likes
This.