Who's actually good?

moistloaf · July 18, 2014, 2:26am

ABQ. News on that front, one of the playgroup members messaged me on BGG about he and his friend trying to come out to play the tournament tonight. Unfortunately, my car battery died today, so I spent my evening sorting that out. so many Bummerz

tobinlopes · July 29, 2014, 3:52am

We in Colorado have had multiple discussions about a global ranking system.

I for one, based on my experience with the VTES VEKN system, am strongly against a regional, national, or global ranking system. With VTES it just promoted people bringing degenerate decks in order to keep or increase their current ranking, especially if they hadn’t done well in the last tourney. Yes, they have the right to play whatever they want but I think what they want would have been different without a global list to concern themselves over.

Through reading these posts it’s clear people have a good idea of who the better/best players in their area are. Isn’t that enough? I love this game and I love it because ultimately the deck I play today is today’s deck and my impulse to play something completely different won’t have adverse effects on anything long-lasting like a ranking.

We have SCs, Regionals, Nationals, and Worlds. Winning, Top 4, Top 16, and Top 32 in those tournaments respectively, should be considered great accomplishments and worn proudly. I don’t think there’s any reason to add a ranking to the equation.

-tpl

moistloaf · July 29, 2014, 11:22pm

The more prestige is codified, the more homogenized the playing field becomes, for any system or game. Just look at MTG for the past years. The current meta is particularly bad, with 2 archetypes comprising 40% of all decks played (competitively). IMO the best ANR players are those who forge their own path, play cards others consider ‘suboptimal’ (this word hilariously encapsulates the ANR Spike), and still win. Maybe I just like rebellion, though. I’m not saying one should be ignorant, only that I consider someone who wins a tournament with The Professor or BWBI to be a better player than a player who wins with Andy or Making News.

Close behind them are the pioneer deck builders. There is certainly a difference between a good player and a good deck builder, but we should respect the visionary deck builders just as much, as many of the ‘best’ players are often standing on their shoulders.

edmund_blake_nelson · July 31, 2014, 5:20am

and FFG worlds 2013 top 8 was 7 andromeda (who played the same core), 1 Kate along with
6 NBN making news (2 midseason 4 Fast advance) ( 1 TWIY/5 making news
1 HB Fast advance
1 weyland Tags+scorched
Netrunner is VERY homoginized at top level’s of play, heck look at tournament winning decklists for tournaments with 39 or more player’s since honor and profit
**10 andromeda
8 Kate (4 with atman 4 with tri-breaker)
2 Siphon Recursion reina
3 Other (1 kit/ 1 sillouette/1 Noise)

Corp
6 HB ETF (4 fast advance, 2 Glacier
3 TWIY astrobiotics
8 NBN making news (6 Midseason’s/2 Taking)
3 Jinteki RP Glacier
3 Other ( 1 CI/1 Tennin institute/ 1 PE kill)
Note that the top 2 corp archetypes in NBN midseason’s and ETF fast advance make up 43% of the format by themselves. and TWIY and RP glacier added into the mix makes up 70% of the format. also the variance between faction’s is low, there are 3 archetypes that are winning right now for corp deck’s

Fast advance (HB FA/TWIY)
Midseason’s replacements (NBN MN)
Glacier (RP/NBN/ETF)
The superarchetype glacier has 7/23 spot’s while Midseason’s has 6/23 and Fast advance has 7/23
Runner is even more homoginized 10/23 or 40%! of the runner’s are playing andromeda (most with parasite) while 8/23 or 35% of the runner’s are playing kate, (mostly PPVP kate) and the kate deck’s primary difference is in the ICEbreaker suite, do they go the killer/Fracter/decoder route or the Atman/datasucker route?
Netrunner is a lot of things but balenced isn’t one of them

mediohxcore · July 31, 2014, 5:34am

While I agree with you when you say the runner’s aren’t well-balanced, trying to complain that the corp meta is comprised by only 3 decks, midseasons, FA, and glacier, is akin to complaining the mtg meta is shit because there are only 3 decks, combo, control, and aggro. Personally, I think the variability in the corp meta is awesome. There are a lot of different ways to go about winning corp games right now.

edmund_blake_nelson · July 31, 2014, 6:27am

potentially true. It is interesting at least to consider the “superarchetype” that a given deck fall’s under. Keep in mind that I am still quite new to the game so this analysis may be way off., but Be it Fast advance/Glacier/Although when talking about archetype’s in netrunner we generally are talking about 6-7 actual card’s that define a given archetype. I find it interesting that most corp decks actually follow a very similar formula for sucess, which is in brief

9-11 agenda’s
3 Jackson Howard
12-14 Econ
15-20 ICE
5-7 Trick’s (this is the defining part of a archetype which make’s a deck special)
and more specifically
Agenda’s
Agenda’s are typically run in one of 2 way’s
3 NAPD
6 3/2’s and 2 2 Point agenda’s
OR
3 NAPD
3 other 2 point agenda
3 5/3 agenda
Jackson howard: a card type by itself, now that near earth hub is replacing TWIY for the most part I don’t have to talk about exception’s anymore because they don’t exist.
ECON
3 Hedge fund
9 Other
Other tend’s to break down by faction, but generally speaking econ power level among viable deck’s is HB=jinteki>NBN with HB’s Card’s being weaker but the identity power make’s up for the difference in econ card quality. breaking down econ is actually something I do quite a bit of
ICE
3 Eli 1.0 (sooo good)
ICE is generally of 3 type’s
1 Quandry’s (AKA gear check) these ICE force the runner to build a Rig but suck when they actually get the rig together Example Rototurret/Quandry
2. Eli’s: Porous but taxing ICE that is good vs ICEbreaker’s but doesn’t actually prevent the runner from running. Example popup Window/Pup/Bioroid’s
3. Toolboth’s : Expensive big ICE that isn’t porous and is expensive to break Example Tsurgi/Toolboth/Wall of thorn’s
ICE generally depend’s more on faction than anything else, but archetype does play a role, the trend has been to play lot’s of pourous taxing ICE and let the trick’s score the agenda’s
There are a lot of potential trick’s but the trick’s run here define the archetype, and how the corp is actually able to win the game. Let’s face it, trying to score agenda’s by putting them behind ICE alone is a losing strategy, so you need a win condition that isn’t just
Biotic labor/Sansan (fast advance)
ASH/Caprice (Glacier)
Midseason’s/Psychographic’s/Sansan City grid (midseason’s which may or may not be considered a subset of fast advance given the sansan’s)
Scorched earth stuff (tag n’ bag unfortunately weak to plascret carapace unlike the rest which don’t have a hard counter)
Runner deck’s are actually quite generic, consisting of
Econ (datasucker can go here or in ICE breaker’s)
ICE breaker’s (parasite is an ICE breaker for these purpose’s)
Multi-acess
Silver bullet’s

PeekaySK · July 31, 2014, 8:18am

Strongly disagree. What defines an archetype is how you need to play it, and perhaps more importantly, how you need to play against it. That may or may not be dictated by 6-7 actual cards*. But, having played quite a few card games (competitively as well as casually), I can tell you that in my opinion Netrunner definitely falls into the category of “every card choice matters”, and changing two cards can completely shift how a deck feels, how it needs to be played.

You really need to consider more than just NBN when you write things like this

For instance, Jackson is nowhere near an auto-include, because he’s packing several costs (both actual and opportunity), and some decks just don’t need what he’s giving as much as they need other stuff. NAPD Contracts are a similar case, some decks don’t find the trade of “2 points for 4 credits” that appealing and would rather have an agenda they can actually score under their primary game plan and/or a 4-advance that does super-useful things when scored.

In general, the single worst thing you can do in this game is fall victim to formulaic thinking, whether in deckbuilding or actual play. Know why you’re including every single card - why you need its functionality and why it’s the best fit for providing said functionality.

*Question: do you count three copies of SanSan as one card or as three for the purposes of this statement? I’m assuming the latter, because the former would make it a bit tautologic - “21 cards define how a deck plays!”…duh).

p.s. Man, you really need to work on your apostrophes

PeekaySK · July 31, 2014, 8:20am

Oh and btw…

Magic decks are quite generic, consisting of lands, creatures and spells

Arkhon · July 31, 2014, 8:31am

The comparison with Magic’s meta isn’t particularly valid I don’t feel. They are very different games. In Netrunner you have options even without having played a card and there is a lot more skill in the order in which you do things and knowing what options your opponent has with the resources they have available. There’s a greater emphasis on the “pilot” rather than the deck. Magic is entirely defined by the cards you have, so card advantage is immense and why the field will be dominated by meta decks. In Magic you basically can’t afford not to be playing a meta deck (especially in a flat payout structure like a qualifier where there are a certain number of seats available). Moreover, the good decks are already known a year in advance because the Magic playtesters are all elite level players and the ideas leak out. So that environment is stagnant from day of release pretty much.

I think Netrunner gives the illusion of having more diversity than there really is. You get two different games in every match and there are a few viable options for both sides at the moment, but runner in particular has had a pretty stagnant meta for a long time now - it’s pretty much Andromeda or Kate. The only thing that’s really changed really is that people seem to have converged on everyone running Parasite.
Yes you can win with some strange cards and “sub-optimal” IDs, but I think the tournament stats speak for themselves.

lpoulter · July 31, 2014, 8:41am

This is an interesting discussion; do people play these ID’s because they win or because they are the best?

As a relative newcomer to the game and a player that wants to win I have found myself mimicking the current tournament winning decks. It is hard to have the confidence and time to try a new deck in a competitive format when you know you already have a very ‘safe’ deck in Andysucker. If 60% of runners turn up to regionals with Andy it follows that 60% of winners will be rocking Andy.

PeekaySK · July 31, 2014, 9:07am

Depends on your definition of “safe”, I guess. Don’t know if I’m alone in this, but when I build a corp deck, my decisions are re-examined and checked in light of the various probable matchups. Garden variety Andromeda is definitely on top of that list. This means that when you sit down across from me and bust out your “very safe” deck, I do have the answers in mine. The cards may not come together every time, you may get lucky on early accesses, and a number of other things can happen that means I’ll still lose (such is the nature of card games), but I do have the answers available at least. That’s definitely a better position for me (both objectively and psychologically) to be in than when you sit down and bust out something less… boring/standard.

I guess what I’m saying is, Andy doesn’t scare me, which is a disadvantage to you.

This really fascinates me. Why do you insist on not using runners that are particularly well-positioned to beat the current corp meta? For instance, Eli becomes waste paper once Morning Star hits the table. Andromeda can’t really play Morningstar, and Kate usually has other priorities with her influence.

Yet most of Andy/Kate’s power is a trait of their faction, rather than their particular IDs. Sure, the reduced variance and the econ boost help, but they’re far from being the actual deciding factor (see: Kate before Shapers got the cards they needed).

Personally, my winrate with Professor is much higher than with Kate. Probably a matter of playstyle/preference.

hasuprotoss · July 31, 2014, 1:15pm

The three Andromeda in the top four played completely different. One had Opus and a Ninja/Gordian/Corroder suite. One had no R&D multi-access whatsoever, using Parasites instead, and one ran Hostage and Pro Con/Masanori.

I’m sure one could find similar differences in the various Andromeda’s that made up the 5-8 spots.

kiv · July 31, 2014, 2:14pm

When you draw most of your deck each game and have many tutors available for singletons, having small differences between lists is a lot more relevant than you may be used to in MtG.

It only takes a tiny change to have ripple effects on the context in which other cards are used.

Consider the role of Siphon in Jens (Datasucker) vs Aaron’s (pumpable breakers). It’s the same card, but the usage is very different because a relatively small number of cards changed.

Jens has Hostage/ProCon/Kati, so if you install expensive Resources you (on average) delay going tag-me and Siphon for specific purposes: for example to allow entry to a remote, to force HQ ICE to be rezzed, or to close out the game. Siphoning an open HQ on turn 1 is probably still good, but you may have to remove tags and install Resources to avoid running out of steam against a slow, grindy deck.

Take out those couple cards and put Same Old Things, and now Siphon is used much more freely and repeatedly: any opportunity to create a credit swing is worth taking tags (assuming Plascrete). That Turn 1 Siphon is now incredible since it funds your early rig with which you just Siphon them again. You never want to remove tags.

moistloaf · July 31, 2014, 2:30pm

This is a bit of flawed thinking, IMO. If I understand, you’re saying that the strengths of Andy and Kate are the strengths of Criminal and Shaper, respectively. That goes without saying, but it doesn’t account for why they are the most played and consistently victorious Criminal and Shaper. Their ID’s account for that.

An interesting, tedious, and ridiculous way of earning Prestige points (which will never happen for every good reason but which just occurred to me) would be to rate every single ANR card in terms of their universal value, with the ‘optimal’ cards being worth less points. Then reward victorious players extra points for using ‘suboptimal’ cards.

Disclaimer: not saying this is a good, reasonable, or logical idea, only that it would be interesting. Provide incentive for working outside the box.

Maybe we could make an OCTGN Jank league…

Arkhon · July 31, 2014, 9:48pm

Why do I? Or why does the world?
I don’t, I play Chaos Theory mostly.

Totally take your point re: Morningstar. I think we’ll see some good Paintbrush Shaper decks using Morningstar and probably Dagger in the future.

bluebird503 · July 31, 2014, 10:04pm

Achievement leagues do just that. Reward players for winning with suboptimal IDs and combos. Etc.

Honestly, when it comes to organized play, if you want to see something new and exciting at Worlds or Gencon, they would need to take place 2-3 weeks after the release of a big box. This is the same way that MTG holds the pro tours(3 weeks after a new set release). It makes a lot of sense and rewards players that innovate and deck build. (except for people deckbuild as a team and very rarely as an individual for large events, same thing happens with Netrunner)

This idea that “IMO the best ANR players are those who forge their own path, play cards others consider ‘suboptimal’ (this word hilariously encapsulates the ANR Spike), and still win. Maybe I just like rebellion, though. I’m not saying one should be ignorant, only that I consider someone who wins a tournament with The Professor or BWBI to be a better player than a player who wins with Andy or Making News.”

I have heard the same thing from from lots of different people in lots of different games. Let me put my thoughts here, and you can feel free to respond or ignore them.

I soundly disagree. Building decks is a skill, Piloting decks is a skill. What makes the Professor player a better player? Because you admit they were playing with a handicap? If a player consistently does well and plays the “best deck” for a format, and they decide for a major tournament they have a perfect read on the meta. And bring something they constructed to combat it, like Professor, and do very well. Then yes, that person is really strong, and I think really great. If they are just always taking shots in the dark and playing all sorts of nonsense just to be different, and they put up one good result with Professor over some Andromeda players. It’s really hard to list that player as “better” then every Andy player out there. This is not to say the player is ignorant/stupid/etc. I think the player can play the game and enjoy it any way they want too. I soundly believe that casual players are good for the health of any game. I soundly believe that people that are competitive but like to bring rogue decks and be different are good for the game. I love these players, I have many friends that fall into all categories.

The skills that matter are “reading the field”(figuring out the best deck and tweaking the deck for the field, “deck building”(innovating, making something from scratch, I’m pretty awful at this), and “piloting”. How good can you pilot the deck. Considering that the first two often include a team/group/even a forum of players and the last one is the individual. The only one that really comes down to mattering for me is piloting. One of the designers of this game said that you can’t be good at this game unless you build your own decks but that is ridiculous. Let’s be honest, I’ve never built my own deck completely from scratch that I have taken to a tournament(although I have made significant tweaks to decks) and have put up fine results.

As for the thread.

Figuring out who is actually good won’t happen because it’s subjective, and everyone is biased in some way. Me and moistloaf obviously disagree :D. I’m not very interested in a world ladder etc. We probably won’t ever know for Netrunner like we do for MTG because the largest tournaments are too spread out and we don’t have travel stipends for winning regionals or what not(at least here in the U.S.). This isn’t to say I devalue Nationals/Worlds, on the other hand they are extremely prestigious and would love to attend and experience them some day. It’s just a lot different from MTG where the most prestigious tournaments are invite only, you must earn your way there, and the best players were helped to attend by travel stipend. This is not a bad thing in the slightest, it’s just a lot harder to piece together a best of the world players list, and well, I don’t really care.

moistloaf · July 31, 2014, 11:27pm

Good points and not new ones to me. Handicaps are a standardized thing in many sports, so if we consider playing a suboptimal deck to be a handicap, it reinforces my point that winning with suboptimal decks is a sign of a better player. Consider golf: Player A is recognized as better than B, so player B gets a handicap. Player A must work harder to win because they are a better player. You can backwards engineer this for ANR. If player A plays a more ‘optimal’ deck than player B, and player B still wins, player B has overcome the handicap and should, in my opinion, be recognized as a better player than player C, who beat player A with an equally ‘optimal’ deck.

Skill will always be necessary for victory. A newbie can pilot a Tier 1 deck and lose to a veteran playing jank. I’m not downplaying skill. I just think many others in the ANR community value all wins as equal, and wins being the only factor in determining skill. I do not hold to that belief; that’s all.

mediohxcore · July 31, 2014, 11:51pm

You really are looking at it backwards.

A lot of the time, when someone wins with a janky deck, a lot of the time the tournament was small or soft. If you want to know when a player is winning with an original/interesting deck because they’re “just that good,” you’re going to have to decide in advance what tournaments you think are worth making that judgement on, and only then decide that the Jinteki PE player was really a step above.

For example, Db0 has long done well with weird decks. We all love him for it. He won a store champ with Street Chess/Untrashable. But it was a 4-round tournament. If you judge a player on results like that, you’re just going to be wrong. On the other hand, Hinkes won the Cambridge regionals with PE Flatline/Kit Vamp. When someone wins a tournament like that with those decks, you have to give them big props for it and judge that they play at a very high skill level.

All wins are NOT equal, but the strength of the players and size of the tournament is a lot more telling than what decks the player who won did it with.

GreedyGuts · August 1, 2014, 12:48am

Similarly/relatedly, I think that it’s more impressive to Top Four at an event with 70+ people than to win an event with less than 20 (unless you know that among those 20 is a pretty dedicated and skilled group). You’ve got more skilled players, more rounds to even out play, and a better chance of meeting strong players you’re unfamiliar with.

moistloaf · August 1, 2014, 2:41am

Definitely, no arguments there.