Vanilla ICE - an Analysis of Defence [Article]

jesseo_o · July 25, 2015, 3:42am

Hello everyone

I’ve written an article over at thewinningagenda.com about some changes in design philosophy I’d like to see, particularly in relation to ICE.

You can access the article here:

I’m interested in your thoughts, and look forward to hearing what you think!

Jesse

Callisto · July 25, 2015, 5:14am

I like the idea of getting more ‘on encounter’ ICE. It can make a piece of ICE better throughout the game, when it would normally be relegated to its second phase, and, to balance, it would have a weaker first phase. I agree that it would make deck-building decisions muchless boring.

I don’t think I can agree that a stronger first phase on ICE would strictly be a good thing. Pile too much of it together, and things could become oppressive for the runner real fast. It would depend just how strong this primary function of the ICE is, in the end.

Thanks for writing!

Argamas · July 25, 2015, 11:04am

Stop, collaborate and listen…

TandooriChicken · July 25, 2015, 12:41pm

Or grab a table and a menu

bblum · July 26, 2015, 5:20am

It breaks my heart when new abilities that suggest really interesting and interactive tactics appear on assets/upgrades/resources that are too narrow to be worth the card slot because they don’t do anything else.

On the other hand, y’all can’t be trash talking caduceus like that. Caduceus is baller elite.

presheaf · July 26, 2015, 1:40pm

I think the key point here is really “because they don’t do anything else”. Take EBC, which I think is an amazing example of asset design done right. If it had only been a rez cheaper card, it probably wouldn’t see much play even with a slightly better trash cost. But it does two things, so it does do something else which you can always get something out of. So instead of having this card which would help against Valencia/Nasir/Leela which you can’t play because its too narrow, you have a overall playable card which is especially good against those Runners.

For example, Isabel McGuire could probably have been saved by the addition of an extra ability, which would make it a card which always does something neat and in addition is especially good when you need to reset campaigns or fight Parasites.

crossbrainedfool · July 26, 2015, 7:46pm

presheaf:

I think the key point here is really “because they don’t do anything else”. Take EBC, which I think is an amazing example of asset design done right. If it had only been a rez cheaper card, it probably wouldn’t see much play even with a slightly better trash cost. But it does two things, so it does do something else which you can always get something out of. So instead of having this card which would help against Valencia/Nasir/Leela which you can’t play because its too narrow, you have a overall playable card which is especially good against those Runners.

For example, Isabel McGuire could probably have been saved by the addition of an extra ability, which would make it a card which always does something neat and in addition is especially good when you need to reset campaigns or fight Parasites.

The only problem I have with this is the two parts of EBC feel disconnected from each other.

TandooriChicken · July 26, 2015, 7:57pm

I don’t know, kinda makes sense… they train up by rezzing stuff at a discount then turn into something better.

Ilza · July 26, 2015, 9:05pm

While there is still ways to go, I Think FFG has already done some big steps in this regard.
There is a reason for Architect and Crick seeing alot of play!

During SanSan Cycle we’ve had a bunch of interesting ICE already that also have reasonable secondary attributes (type, strength, rez cost) while having interesting subroutines.

Also, I like Netrunner to be about icebreakers and ICE while running so too many on encounter effects is not something I look forward to.