OK, make architect 4 str, done
[quote=“mykonian, post:34, topic:4723”]
do we really need threads like these?[/quote]
Yes.
I’d like to say something about Caprice Nisei and pay.
Without the ability to deny the runner access to a remote, the Corp pretty much loses glacier as a strategy, and before crisium grid, there was literally nothing you could do against the more powerful runner run events, if you got a poor draw and couldn’t bait the runner into spending money adorably, as a Corp. Now that runners/strategies like Valencia/blackmail exist, caprice is important more than ever, since pre rezzing your ice takes away one of the fundamental points if the game, hidden information, and it simply becomes a math exercise too successfully run a server, when you decide it needs to be done. If traps were more prevalent, this would be serviceable and OK, but as it stands, the top runner strategy is to inconvenience ones self for part of a turn to play around something. Damage by never dropping below a certain amount of cards, glacier by never running often, and tagging by running first click and hoping you don’t get midseason tags. Caprice does allow the Corp to get away with slightly weaker ice defenses on a single server, but she also enforces the idea that the runner isn’t invariably going to win by default by locking a Corp server down, at least not without serious investment. For all the games that Caprice wins, once she’s gone, it’s almost assuredly a losing game for the Corp. Also, Corp decks that can afford Caprice influence wise, can also afford more experimental, and unconventional tactics, increasing the variety of Corp decks in the game. I’ve always felt netrunner should have more variety to boost the hidden information/bluffing part of the game, and the way people talk about certain runners/corps, there seems to be more of a “right way” to make a deck/play the game, and that seems wrong.
Playing on OCTGN, I’ve noticed that many people’s decks don’t have a lot of variety, and I’m one of the only people I see playing stranger cards than normal, usually at least. There seems to be more potential for many cards than is given credit, and many more cards and strategies are scattered to the wind because “they aren’t good”. I’d like people to really ask themselves whether their strategy works because it’s the best, or because it beats the odds more often than not because people generally play predictably. If you netdeck a popular tournament winning deck, are you predictable? Should you pack a surprise or two? Most times the answer is “yes, but I’d rather not lose so I’ll play what I know works rather than risk it” and “absolutely not, variance”. It seems too robotic a mindset for such an abstract game.
Tl;dr caprice is important, runner and Corp have problems at a deckbuilding level, shit decks are shit, but trying to make them work works more often than you think.