Home | About | Tournament Winning Decklists | Forums

Worldwide Regional Results

You are not the only one, after all, the point of a tournament of Netrunner is to play Netrunner and IDs are exactly the opposite of that. In fact, they are something much worse: They are an elitist tool that only a clique have access to.

Simply put: They provide an advantage to people based on who they know, and not according to how well they played. That’s ugly and unfair and does drive many people out of the game as its disrespectful of the game, the tournament and everyone involved on it.

Of course, “pros” will defend the practice since they think who they “deserve” an advantage other people don’t have access to.

I mean, people are getting into the top by playing only against one opponent. That’s beyond absurd.


You really are a gem of these forums. First, dumping on the GLC MWL, now this.

FFG introduced IDs, as it’s impossible to police. I was already doing them when they illegal. I’m glad they’re in the open.

However, don’t blame ‘cliques’ or ‘pros’. The fact there’s an open rule actually allows ALL to use them, not just ‘pros’ like me, who ID’d when it wasn’t kosher.

What happened yesterday was absurd, but it’s consensual and a roll of the dice. 3rd in Swiss (me) through 14th were all on 14 prestige. If you want to ID in, and end on 14, in this example, better have decent SOS. My opponent didn’t, so we played, to give him the sweep chance.

Here’s the real problem: FFG’s arbitrary round numbers. They prob. didn’t expect the drastically reduced attendance numbers, but only 2 US Regionals (WI, NYC) went over 57, getting to 6 rounds. I attended one of those, and noted having that six round forced way more plays, and less IDs. I started 6-0 there, and had to sweep the last round to make the cut. So many Regionals were close, in the 50s. I think the rule in the Advanced structure should be 6 rounds of Swiss at 33+. People generally want to play more ANR. Give the people what they want (like they did with IDs).

FWIW, I didn’t ID all day yesterday.


I could really care less if people wanted to ID if it only affected their score and their opponents score. What I find a bit irritating about the system is that by removing the possibility that one of those players goes 2-0 over the other, they are directly manipulating someone else’s standing because of strength of schedule.

That is, if I lose to player A who then ID’s with player B, I’m effectively worse off than if they had played their games legitimately and player A had swept B (which would raise my SoS).

At this Chicago Regional, I ended up being one of the players tied and not able to play in the cut based on Strength of Schedule and I played all my games to get there. It’s a bit frustrating to have played all 5 rounds and know that many of the players in the cut didn’t. I guess it seems like ID’ing should be something that only happens in the last round between players who are already 1st-4th seed who basically “should” already get in, not something that people do after sweeping two games and just basically cruise into the cut.

I know some players will disagree, and I accept that ID’s are basically a necessary evil. As Spags pointed out, people were going to falsely report ID’s anyway even when the practice was not legal according to tournament rules. I’m not sure what the solution to the issue is, but as it stands it does seem to take away a bit from the competitive spirit of things. One solution I’ve heard proposed is that in the last round of swiss you would only play a half round (1 game instead of 2) but against 2 different players. This would make it impossible to ID the last round because you and your opponent couldn’t get equal benefit from doing so and it would simulate another round of swiss for the calculation of strength of schedule by factoring in an additional opponent’s schedule.


TLDR: increase opportunity cost of early ID’s

I agree that having intentional draws be legal is superior to the situation where they are unenforceably illegal. It has been interesting to see the opposite path taken in the chess world where various tourney organizers have imposed move limits that must be reached prior to a draw offer or in some cases simply banned agreed draws altogether (which is just silly given the threefold repetition rule). It hasn’t increased the rate of decisive games one iota.

I was going to say that the simplest way to stop players from coasting to the cut on IDs is just to change the scoring system to devalue them. However, if a played out split is worth more than ID, we will just be back to the situation of people constructing artificial splits as they did in the illegal ID days. What about having “number of sweeps” as a first tiebreaker? I don’t think that would eliminate ID’s (I personally don’t think they need eliminated, but a reduction would probably be welcomed by a lot of people), but it would make ID’ing in early rounds riskier.

This could work well in combination with a small increase in the number of rounds of Swiss.

Rather than attack ID’s, why not just make them a less powerful tool?

Btw, if the top tables are ID’ing while you are sweeping your way through middle Swiss rounds, you will likely have a crack at those players late in the tournament. One unlucky game early on doesn’t automatically eliminate you, even in a four-rounder.

EDIT: Cross-post with rubyvr00m

EDIT: why not just change the round structure in Swiss to how the cut works? Is it really necessary to have a Corp/runner match with every opponent, as long as you play Corp and Runner an equal number of times?


The issue with the current system of IDs is that there are too few rounds of swiss. We should be allowed to ID but for it to be safe to triple-ID is dumb. I haven’t seen any elitism from IDs, pretty much everyone knows when they can ID, or I tell them when it’s a good move, and then they do it.

Won NYC regionals (68 or 69 players) with Whiz and Hot Tubs. Museum decks undefeated for me this year.


ATL Regional (41 player) final results: (Top 8 Bracket)

  1. Zach Cavis - NEH/Andromeda
  2. David Weeks - SYNC/MaxX
  3. Pacer Stringfellow - NEH/Noise
  4. Richard Baxter - NEH/Whizzard
    5/6) Mark Czirr - SYNC/Whizzard
    5/6) Michael Norman - Blue Sun/Andromeda
    7/8) Ross Freitag - NEH/Andromeda
    7/8) Austin Sutherland - NEH/Whizzard

I have all the data from swiss as well, I might try to do something special with the data if I can.


Yeah, I was shocked that there were only five rounds with 56 players. That’s not a good structure.

And if you’re against IDs, no one is forcing you to accept your opponent’s offer of one. If everyone around you is IDing, then just sweep.


:triumph: :triumph: Those were fun games, glad I finally got the chance to play you! But also, :triumph:

I got second in NYC with Nexus Kate and NEH. Kate went 7-1 in NYC, and 4-0 in Philly to make the cut there as well. NEH went 6-3 in NYC, was not played in Philly. Props to Zach Cavis for building the NEH list, and to the DC and NY metas for helping me stay motivated to improve and test the Kate list.

Kate: https://netrunnerdb.com/en/deck/view/649333
NEH: https://netrunnerdb.com/en/deck/view/647555


Little nit pick but last name is Feeney. I snapped a photo of Swiss results.


Yeah, how do I agree with another poster that intentional draws unsporstmanlike. I’m truly a villain. Almost as worse as Museum of History, I swear!

Or, if tournaments promote faking results over actually playing Netrunner, I can stay home and play with my buddies.

1 Like

Yeah, let’s stop it, while we can… Don’t bother. back on topic.

Still love you both :wink:


I’m still unfamiliar with the concept of an ID. Is an intentional draw agreeing to split a match, 1-1, or is it Drawing both games of a match?

Generally, intentional draws in Netrunner are identical when it comes to tournament results to winning one and losing the other of the two games in a match. Basically, each player gets 2 tournament points out of the 4 that were in play.

1 Like

I think its one thing to say IDing is shitty for the game, and another to attack people personally when they do something thats both allowed explicitly and advantageous. You want to argue its a bad rule, fine, but dont take it beyond that here please.


I’m done, Dad. Just defending the players I love so dearly.


@dodgepong NY regionals (69 people)

1 - @mediohxcore Whizzard / Gagarin
2 - @dogs Kate / NEH
3 - @SimonMoon MaxX / Palana
4 - @robotussin Whizzard / NEH
5 - @tf34 Val / Sync
5 - @Zeromus Whizzard / IG
7 - @crfluency Whizzard / Sync
7 - @Tr33beard Whizzard / IG


I didn’t intend to offend anyone personally, if someone has been offended, I apologize. It wasn’t my intention.


@crfluency and @zeromus were on Whiz. I was the Kate/NEH.


You cant generally safely ID in middle rounds, but you stand a decent chance if you get opponents with good tiebreaks. Generally a decent idea to ID with 2-3 rounds left and undefeated because best case youre done playing and worst case is you just have to play a different round.

1 Like

Wouldn’t smaller top cuts discourage IDing?