i mean, the problem is you took one thing and focused on it and completely ignored the context of the post as a whole.
it’s fine that you missed it, it’s whatever. it happens. we’re on forums, and it takes a long time to reiterate things, but even if this very post you just completely dismissed the whole reason i made it relevant to my overall point in that post. it wasn’t a post about brain damage. it was a post about on-access traps that didn’t need to be installed.
Ok that is the first time someone has been able to articulate why they dislike the current meta beyond leaning on complete untruths and gross misrepresentations like ‘Corps suck’ and ‘Runners too good’. I definitely agree with this assessment that Corps lack a strong mid/end game threat unless they are able to rush to 4-5 points early. It’s miserable to play out the last few turns as the runner durdles even while their win percentage is likely 95%.
It’s definitely miserable to experience as the corp, but I’ve found that the late-game durdle strategy is often the right choice as the runner, especially considering how many runners are using Turning Wheel for their late game pressure.
It’s particularly effective against something like Obokata-based Jinteki decks that try to grind you out with repeated runs through Kakugos. If you suspect that they aren’t holding agendas in HQ and you’ve seen the next few cards on R&D with Turning Wheel/Indexing/Maker’s Eye/DDM, the best play is normally to farm Turning Wheel counters, draw up to 5, and/or take money rather than aggressively going for low-value accesses. Sometimes you know that you only have X HP worth of cards in the grip/stack and you have a limited number of runs left in the game.
It’s similar with Corps that really care about the tempo game like CtM, Argus, etc. where you would rather bounce off the Data Raven on R&D/HQ 4 times for the Turning Wheel counters rather than paying credits to break through risking Economic Warfare > Hard-Hitting News. With these decks especially, reaching that match-point threshold is probably more important than anywhere else because patience almost always seems to win otherwise.
Now for all my complaining about the Jackson-sized hole in the game, I will say that Rashida Jaheem seems to be a step in the right direction as a card that helps you break those locks and gives you more options as the Corp. The downside of course is that it’s a one-shot effect on a card with a trash cost of 1, but it’s better than nothing!
This is a really good point. I completely understand why High Level Competitive Players might not be into the swinginess of rush or (speaking to dr00’s point) the inefficiency of traps, but for me, that tense early game where I’m forced to play a little bit faster than I’m comfortable with (and/or pull off some audacious bluffs) is the very essence of the corp netrunner experience.
So what I’m now wondering is…maybe this is not a game that’s meant for high level competitive play? We talk a lot about the balance between designing for “standard” competitive players and designing for the hidden ninetysomething percent of casual players, but I guess there might also be a separate question of how much we should be designing for the top hundred or so players.
Illegitimate hot take: if their game experience is at odds with everyone else’s, screw 'em
Oh mama, this is straight hot sauce of a take that deserves it’s own conversation. It seems that most collectible card games (TCG, LCG and otherwise) have a competitive, organized play element to them. Even Pinochle and Euchre have a competitive scene (I think, anyway)
Assuming Pokemon is a “casual first, competitive player second” game, I wonder if they still have folks who put effort into keeping the game as balanced as possible.
Hopefully cooler takes will prevail, but I suspect that it’s actually a pretty unusual game that keeps offering more and more the better you get at it. I personally would find high-level Magic–or for that matter, chess or scrabble–absolutely miserable. Obviously the skill ceiling is extremely high, but the fun ceiling is considerably lower. On the whole, keeping the game fun (by the standards of each group) at each level of play may be much more difficult than keeping it balanced at all those levels.
(Actually just this morning I listened to Damon briefly touch on this point in his excellent RLC interview; doubtless that’s why it’s on my mind.)
That’s what I’ve figured out (for me), as well. I’d much rather enjoy the game casually. Unfortunately, that’s at odds with the preferences of many of the players in my local board gaming scene.