One of the things that I find curious these days, is not net-decking per se, but the assumption that any deck being played is one from the internet. I went to a tournament at the weekend and played the latest version of my World’s Val deck. One of my opponents asked “Is that just Dan’s deck or have you made changes?”. There were 21 slots in my deck at Worlds that were the same as Dan’s. Meaning stats fans, 29 cards were different – i.e. more than half. My own success (I think of it as such) at Worlds and deckbuilding didn’t even occur I don’t think – people see a Val deck and assume it’s “that DLR one”.
Does playing Val, DLR and Wireless Net make a deck “Val DLR”?
Another example, when I head down to my local games shop and pull out my decks, I’m always asked the same sort of question.
“Is that Headlock Reina?”
“You running Calimsha Kate?”
“Ah! Cambridge PE is it?”
“Is that Chris’s Spark deck?”
“Jumping on the HB bandwagon are you?”
It doesn’t matter how often I berate my local meta or how many withering comments I deliver, people in general seem to assume any deck is one of the “meta” decks that’s on netrunnerdb, or from a tournament. We seem to have lost the idea that people might actually come up with their own decks more often than not.
Does anyone else experience this? I’m not saying I exclusively build my own shizzle, far from it. I often check out the winning lists, ask people for their versions of stuff, get advice on what to include etc. But I am feeling more and more like there’s less emphasis on people being able to build their own decks these days, and more emphasis on a small number of archetypes. Which is a bit of a shame.
Of course some people don’t like deck building, or find it in the least bit fun, but for those of us that do – where’s the love?
It’s great seeing Timmy’s crazy NEH, Spags rocking a Whizzard, Dave doing great things with Leela. Is there a way to encourage more diversity and less assumption that a rare few will create the meta-defining decks worth trialling?