Fine take your Crisium point. Sometimes.
We’re obv. in some disagreement about the MWL (I plan on writing an article on it over the next day or so, not that anyone cares). However, I agree about the toning down of Kate, the best Clot user, leading to NEHFA only being stronger. It lost some juice, for sure, but after running a 2 Biotic NEHFA MWL yesterday a bit against @aandries, I find it to still be strong. Even took Whizz to the cleaners, continually dropping stuff for him to destroy, while digging for scoring pieces.
I was 3-0 v. DLR at Worlds with NEHFA, and see it being my strongest Corp deck going into SC season, that I will take if I am really looking for a win.
About PPVP: It’s just drip econ, right? Easy to trigger, cheap for Kate, but still drip econ. It doesn’t really make events cheaper, it’s drip that requires you to play at least one event to get the payout.
Cyberfeeder is comparable, but won’t get the Kate bonus.
Yet most programs you use cyberfeeder for don’t gain you a net amount of money, while 2/3 times ppvp does, and as we all know, money (used to) win(s) games
I worded my statement too strongly. I think there are multiple reasons Yog is on the list. One is to fix up the color pie. Another is the design-space issues it presents.
Noone in ~300 messages (that I saw) had mentioned the color pie aspect, and I think it should be part of the discussion.
Look fwd to the article. I’ve been wanting to hear some concrete opinions by the big names in the scene. Too bad @mediohxcore said on Reddit he wouldn’t be speaking much on the matter.
Title:“NAPD Enemy No.1 talk about NAPD”
How about Underworld Contacts then.
PPVP is better, but it’s not different.
I am interested in seeing the numbers of how people feel about this, so here is a poll:
If you are reading this then I would appreciate it if you voted
Astro also had to be nerfed so that any NBN player would consider not running it without eating paint chips
It’s rumoured that the MWL will be updated every tournament season
what? i can’t imagine anything worse for the state of netrunner. where is this rumor from?
Seems to require a Twitter account to vote. Make a Google poll and I’m in. Also, the current 3 options are a bit too broad to be useful, IMO.
I chose a small set of options to make it easy to see the big picture. I’m not really interested in the breakdown between “I think it’s good” and “I think it’s good except I disagree with the inclusion/exclusion of card X” (PPVP being there is unequivocally silly; beyond that I’m sure People Have Opinions).
Requiring a Twitter account is unfortunately (sampling bias! ). If someone else wants to make a Google poll then that would be cool.
I’m pretty surprised no one has posted this here, but the most recent ‘The Winning Agenda’ podcast has an in depth interview with the lead designer of netrunner, Damon Stone, about the MWL and more. I’m incredibly new to the scene, so i’m kind of just sitting back with popcorn and will netdeck when possible, but seems like it’s at least worth mentioning, considering he spends about 3-5 minutes explaining the choice for each card to be added to the list.
I’ll actually go on a little bit about PPVP, if you cbf finding the explanation yourself.
Basically the reasoning was it affects game design. It means you can’t release an event at 5 cost and assume its a 5 cost card. you have to assume kate will have at least one PPVP, which means balance it around being a 4 cost card. Meaning it’s just bad for everyone who isn’t using PPVP.
Hopefully I interpreted correctly.
Appreciate the parse - I’m at work and can’t listen yet.
I can’t imagine any interesting or particularly powerful cards where a 1c cost differential really makes-or-breaks them outside of more econ cards - which is exactly what PPVP turned on (event economy as a companion or alternative to resource or run economy).
Excuses like this are why I don’t like the design-in-a-vacuum mentality. I could give less than a shit about a card on paper - how does it effect top 32/top 16 makeups, how does it affect deck participation? Ugh.
Confirmed via the podcast, too.
There’s still only one deck you can logically not run it in (the same one there was beforehand). It did nothing except remove 3 influence from NBN decks.
If someone wants to explain why The Professor want to play PPVP now, since it’s basically have the same 3 turn payouts as Cyberfeeders,
If someone wants to explain why the professor wants Yog in x1 over a Gordian Blade x3,
If someone wants to explain why the professor wants to play Clone Chip over Scavenge,
That would explain to me that rather “blind” (I could say another word) conclusion which is saying he’s Shaper #2 now.
“Because he can put 3 Ladies” is not an answer.
I say he’s #2, as in “second from the bottom” of Shaper tier.
I made 2 professor loosing a game vs Nisei Division and another vs Sol this weekend.
Breaking news : decks who won vs the Professor still win vs the Professor with +/- 3 less inf points.