When making news was the best deck, the link didn’t hurt that badly because the cards that mattered were sansan and astroscript. The best decks tend to be able to play through the designed hoser and win anyway, most decks can’t do that.
Three things:
The jinteki deck was before power shutdown jinteki was a known deck, the reina deck literally got multiple “how does this even win” threads, and the andy deck is very non-standard, I’m pretty sure you just saw andromeda and made the snarky comment.
2 I drove out 5 hours to the middle of oklahoma to play siphon noise (which steven then took a liking too) and net damage nbn at the covenant store, these weren’t small nothing tournaments, and I’m pretty sure you’re just trying to move the goalpost.
3 The community isn’t hypocritical, you’re taking sentiments from multiple groups, who disagree with each other, and lumping it into one ball. If you take that approach, of course it’ll look hypocritical, hell, it’ll look schizophrenic, it turns out if you have a forum system that doesn’t allow votes to hide posts, you don’t get a hivemind.
EDIT: The word suboptimal has been said twice in my post, and then the rest of the time used in quotes or meta-conversation about use of the term. If you had a dollar for every time the word was used, you would have two dollars. If we extend this to the top 20 threads, you would get a third dollar from a post made in May. Your post alone used the word 3 times. I think you’re just trying to strawman
As a player who has attended every major tournament within 300 miles of my home in the last tournament season - there is always a diverse field. Every faction is represented at least a handful of times. I played against a sweet blackmail deck in round 4 of the swiss on the final day of ANR at gencon - I heard about someone scoring their 7th agenda with a biotic labor in GRNDL the day before that.
At least 1 guy at the top table was playing stirling on Friday, Breaking News’s Dodd Harris was playing Stirling on thursday - I think @DJhedgehog played stirling on thursday as well?
This isn’t MTG, this is not a 3 deck metagame, compared to every other card game I have ever played, the tournament metagame is extremely diverse, the casual metagame is even more so! When we talk about the presence of decks like NEH – we are talking about their presence at the top tables, we are talking about the decks that rise to the top – if you are going to side with Damon Stone, and parrot his uninformed opinions, know that you are taking the side of a game designer who blames his own community for the flaws in his own game.
Every serious netrunner player knows that NEH is a big deal, not because they read the forums, but because they have at least part of a human brain and have practiced and tested in preparation for events enough to see that there is no secret doppleganger exploratory romp anti-metagame jesus deck out there.
I think it is pretty clear that Damon Stone has a much better understanding of the game than the vast majority of players, even the “more serious” ones. Listening to his analysis of the state of the game has helped me be a much better player, and I find it weird that so many people react with defensiveness and anger whenever he gives one of these interviews.
the statistics speak for themselves. if Netrunner is balanced, with a flexible meta, why do the same decks win over and over? I’m not making the statistics up; they are accessible from the home page of this very website. this isn’t a 3 deck meta? How can you claim that based on the statistics: 35% of wins in this season come from andromeda. that is over 1/3. 28.6% are kate. the last third is a free-for-all. is that what you consider an open meta? if everything is getting played, as people claim over and over, and the meta is open, 2 identities would not comprise more than half the tournament winning decks. Corp side is almost open, with the pie chart looking close to quarters. i don’t understand how anyone can argue that the meta is open when this season has been the definition of a Runner 3-deck meta based on the statistics we have.
Disclaimer: i don’t play, support, or think particularly highly of MTG.
even MTG doesn’t have a deck that wins 35% of tournaments, and it is currently MORE homogenized than general.
I think the meta is wide-open, but things aren’t being seriously played, especially on the Runner side. The Corp side is very good, especially when you consider that Weyland is actually good and is currently unpopular only because it hasn’t had any exciting shifts in a while.
Andy and Kate are better, this was never a part of the debate, and balance between IDs was only mentioned in the sense of saying “Andy and kate are the best of the runners”. Your entire post has nothing to do with the previous discussion, we’ve known those two are the best for a long time, we’ve also tried the crap out of everything else. Andy and Kate’s numbers are not due to lack of trying other identities. Looking at the last batch of octgn (february to august)stats as an example:
Andromeda (15827) the only over 50% winrate runner, with her 35% of tournament wins, is played less than Noise (16263) and Kate (23440), with CT (13735) Gabe (12993) and Reina (11703) not too far behind her. This lines up with the playrates at one of the regionals that was kind enough to post stats: San Antonio,TX Regional Tournament: June 7,2014. | Android: Netrunner
I could do the same for near earth hub, but there it came out recently and the data I have dates back to february, but I’d be willing to bet it gets played less than ETF and various jinteki decks (RP and PE).
We play the shit out of everything available, andy and kate win because they’re better, but that does not mean we didn’t try the other options.
[quote] Disclaimer: i don’t play, support, or think particularly highly of MTG.
even MTG doesn’t have a deck that wins 35% of tournaments, and it is currently MORE homogenized than general.
and please don’t point to Aggro at 72%, that’s like saying “Runner Scoring Agendas” at 98% ![/quote]
That makes the assumption that literally every andy and kate deck is the same, when there is usually a bunch of variations between builds (parasite andy, R&D dig andy, prepaid kate, opus kate, full rig kate just off the top of my head, I’m sure with the slightest amount of fact checking in those regionals lists you’ll find more variations). also, that list is of top 8s (most of the wins going to mono blue and mono black).
Runner’s have very few options right now, I tested the crap out of different runners (very nearly settling on workshop noise for regionals), nothing was close to the sheer power of datasuckers + blue cards or atmans + R&D dig
You have yet to post anything showing the play rates being skewed, while we’ve posted a bunch showing that you’re full of crap.
In terms of Netrunner, it is my belief that an open meta is one where every ID has an equal chance to win, that is to say, every ID is as likely to win as the next. In an open meta, you can play what you want to, and have an equal chance to win (and no, playing whatever you want doesn’t mean throwing 45 cards together). There is no best ID, in an open meta. In my opinion, these Slaghund numbers are betraying your argument, Sam. Gabe is 9.43% more likely to win than Chaos Theory. Kate has an 9.97% advantage over Silhouette. Even between the 2 ‘best’ Runners, Andy has a 6.61% advantage over Kate. Those are not negligible margins to me. Those are significant. The Slaghund data to me does not show an open meta. RP has a 7.07% advantage over Tennin. ETF over Next is a massive 13.57%. NEH wins more game than anyone, and is 8.11% more likely to win than the next ‘best’ deck.
All I’m ultimately trying to say is the numbers do not mesh with claims of open meta and equal play. I don’t see how someone couldn’t agree to that.
Sidenote: this Damon Stone interview is on point. He definitely is describing the average ANR player to the T. Mathematic over scientific analysis? Yes, Damon, yes! Your arguments are optimal!
I just realized, we can analyze play with that Slaghund data. I’ll have to go more in-depth with that at a later time.
For the record, I did not enjoy employing mathematics, but as Damon says, it’s the only thing ANR players understand.
With your definition, sure. But I think many of us don’t define “open meta” is “every single ID has an equal chance to win.” Which no game with this many ID’s will ever have unless it’s just super stale.
I understand that, but how do most people here define open meta? I’ve come to believe people here use it to connote that there is an even-playing field, and I just don’t see it. I don’t think the data reflects it either. That’s all I’m saying.
I just want 1 single ANR player to admit that the meta is not open!
Just one.
Please.
every Identity having an equal chance has happened once, it was called NetRunner and it was in the 90s, they didn’t have IDs. I believe the quote is “Separate cannot be equal”, but basically, should IDs having any actual difference to them, one will be better than another. And again, you’re trying to change the subject, winrate and playrate are two different things.
The numbers were brought up because when we tried to argue from a scientific standpoint, you either ignored it, moved the goalpost, changed the subject or tried to strawman the observer (all of which are logical fallacies, and if this was a scientific argument you would be discredited and ignored). Numbers get posted because when we say “we tested this thoroughly and it isn’t good” people who have tested it less will try to argue against it, while numbers can’t be argued.
The damon stone interview actually just shows how little he knows about the game (which I don’t blame him for, he’s mostly on thrones from what I hear). From a scientific standpoint, testing something, seeing that it doesn’t work and moving on to another test subject is actually par for the scientific course. In fact, continuing to test something that doesn’t work would get you recommended to a mental hospital. Now, the cardpool widens and that might change synergies, but when there are very few synergies (a la the spin cycle on runner side), there’s very little reason to dust off the old decks.
“meta” is a lot more than the winning decklist, the top table is reserved for efficient, consistent runner decks, but that doesn’t mean that the meta isn’t open. Top 8 at TC Regionals was 2 andy, 2 kate, 2 ct and 2 Iain, even if the finals was andy vs andy, that is diversity, moreso than most card games, and that does not account for the full field. I played more noise in swiss than andy and kate combined. You’re looking for something completely different than an open metagame.
First, an incredibly defeatist and lazy design standpoint.
Second, I wasn’t addressing playrate, I was only referencing numbers of winrates.
Another viewpoint that is disheartening to me. A dynamic, unpredictable meta is stale in your mind? That’s totally the opposite of my own opinion.
There is no more argument to be had here. Perhaps my opinion is misinformed and misguided. My enjoyment of ANR has not slackened, but I think most players are too proud and stubborn to admit that the nature and state of its meta will likely never be significantly different from any other card game. There is no ‘open meta;’ there is only the ‘meta,’ which is by nature not open. In the four games I have played seriously, those being Yu-Gi-Oh, MTG, Jyhad/VTES, and now Netrunner, the nature of the meta remains the same. There are tiers of decks, with those of the highest tier being the most consistent and powerful. To compete, you must understand these top tier decks, and have a deck that can compete. Most players will play tier 1 decks; a smaller percentage will play tier 2. The Tier 1 decks will win more often because A) they are more consistent and powerful, and B) more players play them. While ANR still has some diversity in the playing field, I think the winrates have already started to show that there are Tier 1 decks, that are more consistent and powerful than others. This is the meta - the fact that there are decks that are more likely to win by virtue of their components.
I was making a statement on the impossibility of balancing ~15 IDs to all have equal winrates. In order for that to happen all 15 will need to be the same.
A reasonable variance would be 5% in my mind. With that, we could perhaps re-examine the Slaghund winrates. ID’s outside 45-55% winrate range would be outliers, and imbalanced. In reality, many are within those boundaries - those are the ID/archetypes within the meta. The outliers on the bottom are those outside the meta, and those above are breaking the meta.
Oh right, talkin’ Anarch IDs. They’re all good-but-not-great right now; none in the tip-top Andy/Kate tier, but all threatening. I’m intrigued by Valencia Estevez’s starting Bad Pub and want to subscribe to her newsletter, while Quetzal seems a little lower on the ladder (in the faction that has native Corroder a single barrier sub ain’t much in the long run, though it is a 1c savings per turn potentially, so…).
I’m currently revisiting Noise to see if there’s anything to this Cache revivalism, but I think it might need to wait for some of the other interesting Virus bits we’ve seen to really open alternate builds up.
The Whizz is actually quite good now that assets are back in vogue, and Reina’s still Reina.
My big hope for the Order and Chaos box is that it gives Anarchs enough in-faction oomph to break these archetypes through into the upper tier, because I’m a “lift all boats” kinda guy. I’d love to see some high-influence, scoped tools to even out variance in Anarch deckbuilding. If Shapers can reliably tutor and recur cards (building), and criminals can reliably get money and make runs (tempo), I feel like Anarchs should reliably be able to blow stuff up (destruction).
Right now the destruction engine is like… an old alfa romeo: pretty frickin’ sweet when it’s working, but mostly its in the shop getting tuned up.
I agree. For me, trashing is the most fun part of playing Anarch–and it should be. I am definitely hoping for some (more) powerful trashing engines and tricks. I would also like to see some reliable, low economy options for Anarchs. I hate playing Siphon, and what the heck kind of Anarch would be streaming Daily Casts? A poseur, that’s who! A program that bypasses ICE or breaks subs at the cost of click(s) could be a cool idea.
Self-inflicted brain damage is something I’d like to see implemented more with Anarchs. I see them as filled with rage, pushing themselves to the limit, not caring if they potentially die in the process. Obviously, these cards would have to be powerful, but as an Anarch, I want to run dangerously and die gloriously.
(Much obliged, while I appreciate the conversation about the meta, well… it seems like that’s up there with politics and religion for polite subject matter.)
I’d argue about Quetzal’s ability, but I’d like to wait for confirmation on deck size and influence first. I will say that I think she’ll have an easier time remaining relevant than Kit, because barriers are the biggest source of ETR, and while she only breaks one subroutine, that covers a lot of Ice while you’re waiting for your Corrodor to hit the table. Maybe that is arguing a bit. Oh well.
Noise is certainly boosted, but I think he’s got some pretty hefty weaknesses… though mostly to things that aren’t in vogue at the moment. I think a more standard Noise deck with incidental milling might do better than the mill engine ones, but I might be proven wrong. Either way, if Noise hits Tier 1 again it’s going to be as the highest variance ID on that level right now, I think, so it’ll be interesting to see how that shakes out.
For me Anarch will stay inconsistent until they get either some tutoring or some good early card-draw, as is pretty much every deck I have tried cannot reliably get a good enough start to keep up with NBN. Criminals have that carddraw built into Andy (combined with Special Order) and Shaper got the good stuff already…
Lets hope we get something in the bigbox.
4 of the players out of the 6 from my local playgroup were in the top cut on Thursday; 3 were playing a Stirling deck. (Okay, they were all playing the same Stirling deck.)
CORRECTION: 3 Stirlings. The 4th guy was running an Andromeda deck with Keyhole and Test Runs to whip it out whenever.
