Home | About | Tournament Winning Decklists | Forums

Would cap for remote servers make game great again?


#1

so i was thinking how core netrunner differs from what we have now. overall consensus seem to be that asset spam is problematic.

what do you think on idea to introduce the rule of remote server cap? im not sure how exactly to do that, but would that bring asset spam in line?

my best idea how to implement it, would be to have fixed number of remote servers available (like MU, lets say 4), then corp would need to pay 3 (maybe more?) credits for increasing allowed servers number by 1.


#2

I don’t think the problem is that people can make many remote servers. The problems at the root of asset spam are that there are a lot of powerful assets, there are some strong cards that support them by either making it painful to trash them or by increasing the pace that those boardstates can be built, and that there has been an overall change in rez-to-trash ratios that favor the Corp. Personally I’d rather have balance changes in the card pool than fundamental rule changes, especially when a limit to the number of remote servers doesn’t just nerf asset spam but would severely limit asset economies in general, which aren’t as problematic.


#3

u could not be able to put a lot of powerful assets in play now without proper planning and resource management. those cards in a vacuum are all ok. its quantities that dont scale here imo.


#4

If you really need a rule to limit remote creation, you could say when you create a remote, the number of remotes can’t be inferior to number of installed ice.

(uninstalling ice doesn’t make you trashing remotes, but if you need a new remote #5, you’d have to wait for ice #5 to be installed, then you can create this one).

If you need 15 remotes, you’d need 15 ices.


#5

Capping remote servers may keep asset spam from forming an oppressive board state, but it is a fundamental change to the game in order to respond to decks created through cards and their synergies rather than something fundamental to the game. There’s nothing that makes multiple remotes by themselves oppressive the same way the runner having lots of resources doesn’t make the game oppressive by itself. It’s what goes into those servers that makes the difference.

This sounds like a fine change if your ideal board state for the Corp is a scoring remote and 1-3 remotes for econ or whatnots, but there are styles of deck that use remote play that isn’t abusive but require large number of remotes. Mushin decks or anything shell game would be hit hard by a cap almost to the point of being unplayable, which would deeply effect the character of the game. There was a time when very few decks were expected to have a lot of remotes, back when Whizzard was considered a very weak ID. What changed wasn’t the number of remotes but the general power level of assets and the cards that support them.


#6

I think a rules change is a very bad idea. This is a card game, let’s print cards that solve the problem.

◆ Travelling Salesman
Shaper - Resource: Virtual
0c 2 inf

As an additional cost to create a new server, the corp must pay 1c for each remote server with an installed card.


Short Sale
Criminal - Event: Current
0c 3inf

[current text]
The rez and trash costs of all installed cards are swapped.

Ransomware
Criminal - Program: Virus
2c 3inf

Install Ransomware only if you have made a successful run on HQ or R&D this turn. Cards cannot leave Archives for any reason.

[trash] : gain 1c for each facedown card in Archives.


#7

Short Sale inadvertently buffs trashable ICE… :wink:

Oh, and Off the Grid.

Yeah, those rez to trash ratios sure are getting insane. I mean, 0 to rez for a 5 trash is just nuts, right? People have been complaining about it ever since it was released.

(I’m talking about Marked Accounts. A card that no one has ever complained about.)

(Because ‘rez-to-trash ratio’ isn’t what you are actually complaining about.)


#8

I guess it’s more like the economic balance, which rez-to-trash plays a part in but isn’t the whole story. Marked Accounts has a strong ratio, but it’s click intensive and slow. By comparison Temples are very strong econ because their pay-off is immediate and the trash cost is relatively high for the value and the rez cost. That’s an important clarification.


#9

3x Ransomware in any Noise deck :slight_smile:


#10

So let’s talk about Mumba Temple… The only real problem is the 15 ICE number. It should’ve been more like 12, or 10.

Mumba Temple is a powerful Asset at 1 to rez, 3 to trash, and giving two recurring credits, but only to be used for rezzing cards.

  • 1 to rez 3 to trash indicates a card that does not immediately pay out for the Corp, but pays out over time. (PAD Campaign is similar.)
  • Because it gives out more credits than it took to rez it, the limitation on what you can use those credits for is an important factor in the card’s power. Realize: To get value from this card, you must be Installing Things.
  • Because ICE are how you protect servers, and you could potentially use Temple to rez ICE much more easily, the limit on how many ICE in your deck was designed to put a cap on how effective that use case could be.

The problem(s) with Temple only appear in decks that are built specifically around Temple. I would argue that you can see these same problems in decks built specifically around almost any powerful card, like Clone Chip, Parasite, Sifr, Account Siphon, Accelerated Diagnostics, Boom, 24/7, Astroscript Pilot Program, Biotic Labor, Jeeves, Ash, Caprice, Batty, Hard-Hitting News, Sensies Actor Union or Blue Sun.

Is Temple a good card? Undeniably. Is it a broken card? Well that depends…

  • Is it seeing play across all Corp factions? (No; Afaik, there isn’t an HB Temples deck. It does see play across the other three, so that’s a point against it.)
  • Is it going into every deck without concern for the gameplan of the deck? (Definitely not. Mumba Temple only appears in decks that have a significant number of Assets.)
  • Does it immediately change the game state in one player’s favor? (Arguable; The card by itself does nothing, but it does set up an economic advantage over several turns. Compare/Contrast: Sansan City Grid, Account Siphon.)

But anyway. This topic isn’t really about Mumba Temple. It’s about whether we should do something to cap the number of remote servers a Corp can make.

If anything I think there should be Runner cards that deal with it, I sorta like the three proposed, but honestly I think if we got a slightly-buffed Scrubber that might do it.


#11

It’s been my impression that the problems with assets is not really a problem with any specific asset, but rather that if you put enough “must trash” assets into your deck, you can put the runner, particularly a non-Whizzard runner, into a situation where they just can’t keep up. At that point, the runner has to decide what supposedly “must trash” asset really isn’t must trash.

I don’t know what the solution is. I really like cards that can punish the corp having a really low ICE density, because that’s a definite cost of running a bunch of assets. I like cards whose effects scale with the number of assets installed, though I think only Apocalyse really fits the bill at the moment.

I wouldn’t mind seeing a card that made it easier to trash uninstalled assets specifically, further punishing a corp for running a bunch of assets by giving them a more porous R&D.

As good as Whizzard is, I don’t even like Whizzard very much, because Whizzard makes playing assets if you AREN’T planning on spamming them out a lot harder.

A fundamental rules change appeals to me, but goodness if there wouldn’t be a lot of collateral damage.


#12

Spooky HB plays Temples, and that deck is a bear. But I think your other points are right, and Spooky is using a lot of strong assets. I don’t think Temples needs to be built around because the ice requirement doesn’t constrain the deck much and it allows the ice to be stronger/higher cost.

I think a more aggressive rotation schedule could help a lot, so that there’s a lower mass of threats for the runner to have to manage.


#13

What about this: Creating the first remote is for free. Creating the second remote will cost you one credit, third remote two credits, fourth three credits, and so on. The same mechanic as installing ice.


#14

I think this is a fundamental game design imbalance. The vertical tax on ice imo exists because the essence of the game is the corp plays ice and the runner breaks it. In the core set there were two playable assets and the power level vs trash cost on asssets remained marginal at best until lunar and beyond. My solution would be each remote after the first costs an additional credit and then not printing silly cards like sifr and Faust that let the runner ignore ice.


#15

This might be controversial, but … I don’t think that “Asset Spam” is a problem at the moment.

In my experience, both Anarch and Criminal are pretty favored. Even Shaper is never completely out of it because of zero-to-hero stuff like Indexing / Freedom / Dash.

It’s a viable corp archetype that is kind of bad. What more do you want?


#16

You’ll laugh, but: Skulljack


#17

I would never laugh at Skulljack!

That’s a good point… Desperado, bad publicity, and kinda sorta Net Mercur are also pretty nice anti-asset spam cards.


#18

i actually think remote spam should be a thing, just the trash costs of cards should be adjusted a lot to account for 'not everyone is Whizzard’
some of the costs are crazy out of proportion, like Student Loans and Capitol Investors is too low, Team Sponsorship is too high
plus CtM’s ability should not have existed in the game. it’s way too strong for messing up the math on controlling assets

there also needs to be some form of balance between operation and asset econ to the point where a deck could reasonably include only operation econ and not completely shoot themselves in the foot for doing so

also cards that work well with a mixture of asset/operation econ. Stinson is a good direction for this: he’s an installable/trashable card that only works to help the corp’s operation economy


#19

Fixed it for you :slight_smile:


#20

Maybe we need an econ card that pays the runner based on the number of remotes or rezzed assets.

Net Access Fees?