This is an interesting idea. Why do you think it would improve things? I assume you mean 2 datapacks (~40 new cards) and not a whole cycle every other month.
If you’re re-releasing the core set regularly, which I approve of, you need to have a core set that comes with a playset of all cards. I’d also like to see a streamlined version that doesn’t come with tokens and rulebooks.
I still haven’t figured out how to quote here properly…
Well the two months cycle has a few reasons:
I’m totally fine with playset core sets, marketed as deluxe sets or whatever (Like Doomtown did it for their Core). Tbh, I think that this is something which is pretty easy to set up and has a very low risk factor but like I said in my first post, FFG doesn’t like changes and tends to react very slowly to the actual market.
I would even consider to test new distribution models like only faction packs for a cycle (and every faction pack should have all neutrals from the cycle), expand the Android lore, bring in more flavor, shift the marketing, let the players more identify with the different identities, than with the power cards. Pretty much stealing a little bit from the old L5R where lots of people actually played only their clan and not the most powerful current deck.
Highlight what you want to quote, and you’ll get a prompt. 
The problem isn’t getting new players IMO, I’ve seen a healthy amount of players who have tried the game, and joined in after a foray. The issue is retention, and creating a positive experience. If you continue to retain players, and minimize loss, the meta only continues to grow and becomes infectious.
Are you suggesting that FFG’s behaviour has zero influence on the popularity of the game? Netrunner is their game, it is made by them and ultimately if they put resources into getting new players into the game (and keeping them there) the popularity will rise. People in this thread have already made very good suggestions about the ways FFG could change the way they support Netrunner in order to achieve this.
We can do as much as possible to promote the game as fans, but FFG has the opportunity to give us tools to make this easier and more successful. WotC provides 30 card starter decks to stores that can be given to new players, for free, in order to get them into the game. That is how a game company can encourage new players. The game does need to stand on its own merits, but letting people try it for free is a great way for these merits to be seen.
Personally I think that the suggestion for starter decks based on competitive archetypes would be an incredibly good way to get people into the game. Netrunner is definitely reaching a point where the price of entry is daunting, and having a way for people to get into the game without paying such a large up front cost would in my mind definitely encourage more players to join.
I’m surprised that nobody has mentioned game balance, because that’s the first thing that I thought of.
When you look at Starcraft as an e-sport, you see constant tweaks to balance the game and keep in interesting. FFG is very, very reluctant to do that, to the extent that some IDs dominate, and most others are unplayable.
Just look at how much Kate and ETF were in the top 16 of Worlds. Then think about the total number of different IDs and factions produced. For competitive play, a large portion of the card pool might as well not exist. It’s really hard to sustain interest in yet another Katie v ETF matchup.
Starcraft was interesting because each faction had multiple winning strategies with their own strengths and weaknesses. Netrunner has far fewer of those winning strategies.
I think the game is in the best spot it possibly be in years. There are many viable strategies, and I find it kind of ignorant to suggest there’s only only a handful of competitive ID’s. Also, before we start spewing that Worlds was skewed, why don’t you take a look at the stats:
http://www.acoo.net/anr-tournament/802/worlds-championship-2015/
Anarch was the dominant force, not Shaper. NBN also dominated popularity, not HB. The cards to play are dictated by the pool, and it’s pretty diverse at the moment.
Hasn’t Starcraft viewership/playerbase been steadily declining because of a stagnant content and strategy pool and the easier accessibility of other esports who have the developer properly involved?
Starcraft seems like an example of what not to do, when compared to the approach the MOBAs take of constant fresh content and high developer involvement in the competitive scene?
Well, that was a creepy over-reaction. Little sensitive about this are we?
What I actually said was:
Just look at how much Kate and ETF were in the top 16 of Worlds. Then think about the total number of different IDs and factions produced. For competitive play, a large portion of the card pool might as well not exist. It’s really hard to sustain interest in yet another Katie v ETF matchup.
Using the page you linked, ETF was 11 of the top 16. That’s roughly 69% of the field, when it is only 1 of 29 possible corp IDs, or about 3% of the total possibilities. What is that? 23 times the expected number?
There was, of course, no Weyland of any kind in the top 16.
Runner side was a little better, with Kate being only 6 of the top 16, or about 38% of the field. That still made her the most commonly played runner, and as she is 1 of 25 IDs, or 4% of the total possibilities, she was over represented by, what, 9.5 times?
So perhaps you should stop ‘spewing’, look at what I actually said, and look at your own data. The top 16 results are indeed skewed, and well outside of normal variance. The fact that you suggest, possibly correctly, that the game ‘is in the best spot it possibly [sic] be in years’ is actually quite a sad commentary on the ongoing balance issues.
It’s been brought up before, but aside from being great players in general, the T16 guys made a really good meta call. Look at the data for the whole tournament to get a broader picture.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect all IDs to be similarly powerful. Many IDs are interesting and fun, but not consistent enough to be competitive (e.g. The D&D runners, Nasir, The Professor). Some IDs/builds have 1 or 2 matchups that are nearly impossible to win (e.g. Most Cerebral Imaging against most Noise). Some IDs are bad (Stronger Together, BWBI). Many of these IDs add plenty to the game, especially at a casual gaming evening level, but aren’t good enough for the highest level of competition. There are many discussions about how acceptable this is. I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect it any other way. The ID is one card in a deck of nearly 50. If you look at @mediohxcore’s HB deck and compare it to @cerberus’s you’ll see several differences. I think these differences are as important as the similarities. Even though those decks had a very similar game plan to winning overall.
HB EtF was over-represented. But it’s one tournament, and it was a surprise to many that it was as successful as it was.
I have no problem with the top 16 guys. I know many of them, and they are excellent players without exception. That does not invalidate my observation.
We are talking about e-sports. What matters from a coverage perspective is the top end of the field. There is only so much air time that will be given to an event, and it will focus on the top players at the top spots.
It does not matter how much diversity or jank there is at the bottom tables if there is not a similar diversity at the top tables.
Why is it not reasonable?
If it is unreasonable, what proportion of the IDs IS it reasonable to expect are competitive?
Do you genuinely think that a lack of diversity has no impact on how interesting the game is as an e-sport?
Because it is hard to make many different strategies that are all equivalently powerful without some of them just being better. Look at magic- usually there are what, 4-6 top tier decks in standard at any one time? And they get plenty of interest and coverage. Starcraft is not the obvious comparison here, but even there it would be hard to have every unit have an equal chance of being built in a game- some just end up being less efficient. The number of top tier decks at worlds was around 4 corp decks, 5 runner decks- not far off what we’d want. Foodcoats and DLR were perhaps a bit strong, but they were also unexpected, so they might fall off as they become the deck to beat.
srsly?
Because playing competitively means trying to ‘solve’ the puzzle of the game. If one ID is found to be 2% better than another either generally (because they do similar things) or in a specific metagame (especially if the IDs are in the same faction), then the inferior ID won’t be played.
I think the game is pretty diverse.
Does any card game have enough tier 1 decks for all the IDs to have one? Are the IDs all different enough that one ID doesn’t eclipse another?
We shouldn’t worry that some IDs aren’t good enough, so long as there are a reasonable variety of good ones.
Anyway, Top 4:
(1)EtF, Val DLR
(2)NEH, Whizzard
(3)EtF, Leela
(4)RP, Kate
There are 7 different IDs, and 6 of 7 factions there.
I struggle to debate with outside observations, because it always feels like a cyclical conversation around “this is what the data represents” VS “this is what I experienced.” I’m going to concede and allow you to converse as such, but I know I speak for a good amount of players, that this year Worlds had a bigger pool of possible winning strategies than previous years. If your sole belief that game balance falls purely on represented ID’s, much less of playable cards, then I cannot further a debate.
Srsly.
I state an opinion without attacking anyone in the thread on a matter of very little real life importance (whether or not a card game could become an e-sport), and that opinion is described as ‘ignorant’ and ‘spewing’, without actually addressing or rebutting the points I made beyond linking to page that confirms exactly what I said.
That seems oversensitive to me, but perhaps I’m wrong to assume that he normally has a more measured response to the opinions of others.
I do agree that Kate and EtF (and to an only slightly lesser extent NEH) are problems, because they set the benchmark too high for basic efficiency. But the metagame is healthy despite that, and that’s a discussion we’ve had elsewhere already.
Your response was much more defensive and hostile than D1en’s, and you’re follow up is a smear on his character, so perhaps you’re the one that needs to develop a thicker skin.