I wouldn't say it's wrong, it's just VERY unoriginal. I completely agree that it's boring and takes a lot of fun out of the game as well. Building new decks is one of my favorite parts of magic, and every person in my play group would agree wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, it's just part of the game.
It's not wrong, it's just lame. There's 4 decks in standard that everyone picks off of the internet and the winner is determined 100% by luck. I have an idea - draft. You can't netdeck when you don't have the resources, just don't play any dumbass formats and you should be fine. If you do play constructed then you're sort of a tool to go against the absolute best decks that could be made over and over again with your homemade but not perfected one. Just throw your money away why don't you, lol....
I still do wonder why anyone bothers to play constructed because of this though. You either play to lose or you play someone else's deck that you will also have to face all the time... wow... have fun.
There's 4 decks in standard that everyone picks off of the internet and the winner is determined 100% by luck. I have an idea - draft. You can't netdeck when you don't have the resources, just don't play any dumbass formats and you should be fine. If you do play constructed then you're sort of a tool to go against the absolute best decks that could be made over and over again with your homemade but not perfected one. Just throw your money away why don't you, lol....
I still do wonder why anyone bothers to play constructed because of this though. You either play to lose or you play someone else's deck that you will also have to face all the time... wow... have fun.
I couldn't disagree more.
You seem to be saying that if you don't netdeck, you will lose all or most of the time, and if you do, it's boring because everyone else netdecks too. I think you and a lot of other people think that everyone and their grandma netdecks, and that's why you don't play constructed. The truth is, there are a lot of rogue decks out there that can win pretty consistently, and there are a lot of people out there playing those decks. Roughly 50% of the people that attend my FNM netdeck and the other 50% have their own ideas. You know what? 50% the time a rogue deck places first, and 50% of the time a netdeck places first.
I don't see how these decks (netdecks) are regarded as so good, anyhow.
Last week, these were my matchups:
W Soldiers (Blatant Netdeck) - I won. B Vampires (Netdeck with a few unexpected cards) - I lost GRW Mayael's Aria.dec (Pretty rogue, I few popular Naya Zoo cards, but mostly stuff I was not expecting) - I lost UW - Djinn of Wishes.dec (As rogue as can be, it was a control deck that tried to use Djinn of Wishes to "wish" fatties into play) - I won
(BTW, I was playing G-Ramp)
So as you can see from my example, (I know this is just a small sample, but this kind of thing happens every week) I, with a rogue deck, can beat netdecks half of the time, and rogue decks half of the time.
Maybe my local meta is just crazy, wacko, off the charts insane, but I think Constructed can still be about skill.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Although always playing a deck I think is fun, I'm also always trying to win the tournament.
Currently playing: M13 Draft GGGGG Dungrove................(STANDARD) GWGWG Maverick..................(LEGACY)
Jon Finkel on the PWP System:
Quote from Jon Finkel »
Occasional Player? Hold on, because we're sending a Level 3 judge over to your house to kick you in the balls right now! -With Love, WOTC
In my experience, it is almost exclusively less experienced players who complain about net decking. They are also often the players who are less likely to take advice, and as a defense for their card choices, give you scenarios such as, "Yeah, but if I have X in play and X happens I can X!" The former is often an indication that you should not try and help a player for until they come to you, because they need to learn they suck on their own before they can be helped. (As opposed to players like me who have started winning once in a while because we reallize we suck. :D)
I don't think I've ever heard someone who wasn't running sub-optimal cards in a homebrew deck, or making big play mistakes that gave away games, complain about the fact that someone was playing a deck that was similar to something that won a tournament.
Logically, it doesn't even make sense. Every deck can't have an even chance of winning, which is why testing is so important. With enough testing, you will end up with a few good decks, and many of them will look like the few good decks resulting from other peoples testing (assumming your testing methodology was sound. )Most Jund decks for example, build themselves. The deck I won a local tournament with was 2 maindeck and 4 sideboard cards difference from the big winners at the recent LCQ and 5K, not because I copied them, but because with proper testing, most of the slots are pretty obvious as to what they should be.
Players who are less experienced tend to want certain cards/strategies/decks to be good, build around them, then are upset when they fail. What differentiates the future successful from the habitually mediocre, is that the successful don't blame net-decks, luck, whatever, and complain about it, they start looking at ways to improve and fix the problem. Now in my case, I start *****ing, which then alerts the logical side of my brain that I'm doing something stupid and going into denial mode, and it writes itself a note to do some self review and work on fixing the problem once cranky me shuts up and lets logical me do his thang.
You've got a bunch of logical problems in there.
1. You assert that to win, you must netdeck. You assert to be future successfull, you must be willing to netdeck. You then assert that anyone who does not accept these two statements is "Mediocre", less skilled, and generally obtuse. Blanket statements consistently evaluate to false. Or in other words, it's very easy to find examples that demonstrate your statements to be false. It is not at all difficult to demonstrate there are some people who are very skilled who do not accept that netdecking is a positive thing.
2. You assert that without netdecking, everyone would end up playing the same decks anyways. While there is a kernel of truth in there, some cards are clearly superior, in general this is not true. A significant portion of players in Constructed have not demonstrated the level of deckbuilding skills you are asserting, and in truth, it's unlikely that they possess those skills as if they did, they wouldn't be netdecking.
3. Without netdecking, there'd be no "Known Meta" game, and there'd be no "Testing against the Meta". Without that, the variety of decks would increase significantly, as many decks fall out when being tested against the Meta. Those decks would not fall out should they prove to be reasonably reliable against a localized set of players and their ideas.
Netdecking is a self-fullfilling prophecy. People netdeck to win, so people have to netdeck to win to beat the netdecks, but without netdecking the environment would be very different, so the existance of netdecking is itself what creates the "Meta" game.
Some of us remember what things were like before the 'net was ubiquitous, and before netdecking took off. I remember it very clearly, a number of players in my playgroup went from winning maybe one out of 4 games, to losing maybe 1 out of 6 overnight. All of a sudden, they were all playing Suicide Black, Tolarian, Survival of the Fittest, Living Death. They didn't suddenly become skilled players overnight, they just discovered MagicDojo.
So say what you will about those of us who don't accept netdecking, I remember what it was like to play Mtg before netdecking.
I have a few views on net-decking. If I do it, I don't say "my deck" I don't get proud when it wins. I take great pride in being able to show my skill at building a deck myself and tweaking it to perfection. I enjoy the deckbuilding aspect of the game. It allows me to see certain aspects of MTG that net decking doesn't give you. Like finding new and interesting combinations that you didn't see before. And when your deck beats one of these net decks, it is so fun to watch as the net-decker gets angry because his champion net-deck loses to a home made deack.
To me there is nothing worse than someone who builds an exact replica of a champoin deck and brag when they win. there is no trial and error, no sense of self accomplishment. I know some don't see it that way.
I think it is different when you see a card combination online and try to build a deck out of it that you can call your own. Even if you have never went online and you use a card combination, that combo has a 99% chance that it is somewhere on the net so that is unavoidable.. however you CAN build a deck that is no where on the internet. thousands upond thousands of cards within Magic, there will always be a deck that that is new to everyone. When you build that unique deck that wins at tournaments, that is a pure feeling of self accomplishment. That is why I never net deck. I feel cheap and I get no sense of accomplishment whatsoever. When I win with a net deck I didn't win in my head, the creator of the deck did, I just helped him get there.
I urge people to build their own decks. At least one. Then you can say you are accomplished.
I've stated time and time again my thoughts, so instead of the usual outcome (I state my case, netdeckers jump on me, we go back and forth until one of us just quits) I'll just give my thoughts on a certain point and leave it at that.
I'm against net-decking.
The argument that if you build an original deck and take it to a tourney you will lose 90% of your matches is fundamentally flawed. For one, someone had the balls to do it, got to the top with it and it's now your precious net deck. As well, many original decks have more then enough potential to get to the top, however those that would rather outright win choose to go the easy way instead of test out their awesome deck. In my own experience I've noticed that people saying that your original deck could never win also makes quite an impact on whether or not someone will play something original. The reality of it is quite simple. if you're serious about doing a tourney with an original deck, it can go very smoothly if you simply plan out your deck, think on the sideboard, and keep a cool head. And hell in this enviroment, Jund should be the easiest thing to focus on getting around since it controls 90% of the meta. Also, building a net deck and useing 5-6 different cards that no other build of that type uses does NOT make it an original build. That's just a cheap shot at not feeling guilty you net-decked.
Understand, Dredge is not really a Magic: The Gathering deck. When a card is playable in it, it doesn't mean it's a tournament playable card. It means it's playable in whatever crazy fantasy world that Dredge operates in.
For what it's worth, I also find net decking to be rather boring. The element of creating your own strategy and discovery isn't there. IMHO, the game of Magic is about the fun of exploring creativity and complexity of strategy.. but my idea isn't shared by all. The part which largely bores me is that I am playing my own deck against one designed by a recognized pro and tweaked by the public at large. I'm not playing against the creativity, skill, strategy or uniqueness of the person across the table from me, and that's a bit of a downer. It's insulting when said person gloats about how great of a magic player they are, when they win -- because in MY eyes, they only partially one - the genius / mind behind the deck construction is actually the real winner to me.
With that said, I have a respectable DCI rating, and I normally finish well at States and Regionals, and it's rare for me to not top 4 at FNM or Legacy tournaments. I've never once net decked, although, I have - on occasion - gotten ideas of some synergy or combos from various sources, including over the internet.
The guys who know me well, will often say something like 'what random $#@$ are you playing today?' which causes me to laugh and grin. I know their net decks, I know how they do and don't work. The fact that their deck lists are published online and highly read creates a big weakness in their plot/strategy, especially if they don't think carefully. Most of these guys have 1800 to 1900 DCI ratings, BTW.
They not knowing what I'm doing makes it more difficult for them to 'pilot' what-they-will at me, because they don't know what responses, answers and win condition(s) I am working with. Sure, second and third game they catch on, but often times I hear after the match 'oh, now that I realize what's in your deck.. I should have done this and that..'. Fantastic!
I'm OCD about building my decks, and have been for years. For me, THIS is Magic. It's the very attitude of creating / thinking / doing for my self that will keep my brain and body healthy and active well into my later years of life -- use it or lose it. The idea of piloting is fun for many others, but I'll never understand it.
And to that early on mention about Ikea furniture -- I do indeed make my own furniture! I've been doing wood-working for a couple of years, and am now learning the ropes of upholstery. It's both fun and rewarding to show off what I have created with my own hands to guests.. sooo funny to see that analogy here.
2. You assert that without netdecking, everyone would end up playing the same decks anyways. While there is a kernel of truth in there, some cards are clearly superior, in general this is not true. A significant portion of players in Constructed have not demonstrated the level of deckbuilding skills you are asserting, and in truth, it's unlikely that they possess those skills as if they did, they wouldn't be netdecking.
I'd argue that it would be more than a kernel, as there are many decks / combinations which are easily discovered. Take for instance, the notion of tribal themed decks - Goblins, Slivers and rebels. Their inherent structure defines what's good and what will logically work well within their own system. If there was no net-decking, I know that there would be white/green agro sliver decks, quick mono red goblin decks and white/black rebel decks with lots of removal.
Moving away from tribal based stuff, there are other obvious interactions which bring together combos, such as Lich and Mirror of the Universe. Because the win condition works by switching life, and the player could be easily killed by someone with quick burn / damage, the logical construct to this is to include cards which keep you safe for that critical turn or two needed. Counter spell, circles of protection / magical hack, swords to plowshares, fog are all reasonable and commonly thought of answers to facilitate this strategy.
Affinity.. well.. built it self.
Wild Mongrel as a Threshold outlet is common sense to anyone who reads cards and considers them.
Many of the Ravnica guilds built them selves.
I'm sure it wouldn't be difficult to name even more examples, but the point is that there are numerous deck ideas / strategies which could be easily 'thought of' by the masses with no direct / indirect contact of play groups to other groups.
The deck like Dragonstorm, for example, is perfect example of an obscure idea that wouldn't pass the vast majority of player's minds who had not been previously exposed to the notion of ramping mana for storm counts as well as casting the big storm spell. But because of the Internet, this obscure idea became THEE deck to beat for quite some time. It was so much the too-beat that main boarding extirpates and/or trick binds had proven to win many games.
.. and now back to our regularly scheduled flame-war.
I played at one of my local store's FNM tourneys a while back (it has recently closed) where the majority of people played Nail.dec and Raffinity.dec. These were maybe 15-16 year old kids netdecking to win at FNM. I always thought of netdecking as wrong. It doesn't really "teach" you anything about the game. You look up a list of cards, buy them and assemble. Same thing at PTQ's and Nats. If you want to win, then steal someone else's deck idea. It always struck me as a legal way of cheating, if not that, then certainly boring. You, personally, didn't build the deck, you just stole it from someone else and are now reaping the benefits. I guess the best way I can describe this is if you buy furniture from IKEA. It's all pre-fabricated, all you have to do is follow/build according to the instructions and it works like a charm, but you don't get that satisfaction of building your own furniture (for cheaper) and being able to show it off to your friends. I've had friends come up to me and say, "hey, check this deck out!" I'd look through it, say, "wow, this is really nice." Then they'll say that they got the idea from some pro online and I'll cease to care about anything that has to do with that deck or the wins he got from it.
Does anyone else feel this way or am I in the minority?
I would call them financially clever
You have nothing to gain when you start from scratch but futile spendings of your hard earned money. Chances are 75% of the cards stored in your attic have never seen serious competitive play, evidence speaks for itself right?
I have no problem with netdecking. In fact, the more you netdeck, the easier it becomes for me to beat you, because i know your deck inside and out. I study the top decks in standard tirelessly because my local meta is full of relentless netdeckers, and i can tell exactly what they are going to do before they do it. That's why i love playing against jund. I can call your play before you make it, and that gives me the upper hand, especially when you have no clue what you're doing.
Here is the thing though, if you are using a netdeck, please understand what your deck does. I have had several players do some completely off the wall things like having first strike kill my creature even though my Wall of Denial can take on a Bloodbraid elf. At least read the rules of the game first before you decide what your deck can and cannot do.
Fact: failure is not an option but merely an inevitable part of the designing process.
I didn't say the failures were a sign to just give up on the concept.
Failure does lead to success, but the fact is that most initial ideas won't succeed at a PTQ, GP, or a PT.
For a lot of people, time isn't a luxury. Taking a list that has already proven itself and testing it saves a lot of time from the hours and hours of brewing a deck from scratch.
Not all of us can be college students/full time workers and at the same time be master deck builders like Luis Scott Vargas or the like.
Understand, Dredge is not really a Magic: The Gathering deck. When a card is playable in it, it doesn't mean it's a tournament playable card. It means it's playable in whatever crazy fantasy world that Dredge operates in.
People who rage against net-decking seem to have this twisted view that winning Magic is a matter of having a good deck, sitting it down on the table, and watching it play itself. Of course while deck selection is critical for any event including FNM, you won't go very far without a thorough knowledge of your deck, it's strengths and weaknesses in your local metagame, how to sideboard against certain matchups, and generally how to manipulate the game state in your favor.
Not to mention that standard is a very small format relatively speaking. The current standard format is fairly well developed, and even if you are the Albert Einstein of deckbuilding, it's unlikely that you're going to find a viable archetype that hasn't already been discovered.
Personally, I would rather spend that time preparing with a deck I already know is viable. Since you know, some of us have jobs and/or school and can't spend 16 hours a day trying to be Conley Woods Jr.
Or, just play draft and it's not an issue! ("You netdecked that aggressive B/R build with Trusty Machete!")
I don't see anything inherently wrong with using winning combinations, but I do feel that WOTC could do a lot to reduce the amount of netdecking that goes on.
I personally think that one of the main problems with Magic at this point is the push for archetypes. Early in the games history Wizards just created cards willy-nilly and let the players try to piece decks together with them. This wasn't always a good idea, as it led to both overpowered cards, with ratifications they hadn't forseen (such as the P9) and underpowered cards, which don't have the effect they hoped for (Great Wall, for example). Sure, their was still archetypes. But their was a lot more room for diversity back then since decks could be built around interesting cards much more freely.
Now that Wizards if having a fieldday with archetypes, decks are becoming much more predictable, and thus their is more incentive to netdeck. Who cares if you steal someone elses Elf or Merfolk deck, everyone and their brother already has one anyways. Generally MWS T2 I can tell within three turns not only what deck they are running but also what their wincons are. It's kind of sad.
I think Wizards should try to be as creative as possible, as it very well might help with the netdecking problem. More cards like Kjeldoran Outpost, perhaps? I dunno, that's just my opinion.
Seems like some people have this way your "suppose" to play magic. Certin weird rules that they convince as rules all people should play.
This comes up mainly in casual groups. Like some well ban burn decks because there not fun or cheese.
Net decks fall under this category. Net deck is against there rules for whatever reason. At FNM you can't play such and such decks because there from the net. Net decking isn't real magic
These people should stay casual and not worry about sanctioned tournaments including FNM.
For good or bad FNM over the years have become more compative.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am the stone that the builder refused I am the visual, the inspiration, that made lady sing the blues I'm the spark that makes your idea bright The same spark that lights the dark so that you can know your left from your right I am the ballot in your box; the bullet in the gun That inner glow that lets you know to call your brother "son" The story that just begun, the promise of what's to come And I'mma remain a soldier til' the war is won
Most people don't net deck per say, they take a preexisting archetype and make a deck from that. There are generally a core 80% of the 75 cards in any decklist that are no brainers (ie. the synergistic kithkin in kithkin, the fae in fae) and that any player seeking to play that archetype will come to even if they didn't see it somewhere. The player will then take the last 20% and do their own thing with it.
I always thought of netdecking as wrong. . . It always struck me as a legal way of cheating[.]
Does anyone else feel this way or am I in the minority?
I feel the same way you do. . . that it's a legal way of cheating. Building your own deck should be considered part of the game. . . just as "no proxying" should be (finding alternatives for cards you don't have should be considered part of the game, too).
However, there's no way to stop it. Sticking to my principles didn't win me any games,* so after 10 years I finally knuckled under and decided, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."
Seems like some people have this way your "suppose" to play magic. Certin weird rules that they convince as rules all people should play.
This comes up mainly in casual groups. Like some well ban burn decks because there not fun or cheese.
Net decks fall under this category. Net deck is against there rules for whatever reason. At FNM you can't play such and such decks because there from the net. Net decking isn't real magic
These people should stay casual and not worry about sanctioned tournaments including FNM.
For good or bad FNM over the years have become more compative.
Not really, Netdecking's done more harm to Magic than any other factor.
First, as I probably said 3 months ago, the format's Constructed, not Copied. The intention was never for everyone to be playing the same couple decks. It wasn't supposed to be everyone playing the same 4 Pro's decks ad nauseum.
Second, netdecking changed the face of Magic irreprably. The Urza's debacle was due in no small part to the rampant netdecking, and ever since then, any degenerate deck will result in it warping every single facet of Magic as people try to get a advantage on the other players, many of whom lack the skill to get said advantage.
There was a time when Constructed was a true competition of skill, now? It's just a bunch of people rehashing the Pro's games over-and-over because they'll do whatever it takes to win.
Netdecking is Magic's biggest failure. It's really no different than the justification people give for macroing in a MMORPG. In fact, replace a few words, and all of the justifications people give for netdecking are identical to the justifications for macroing.
"I don't have the time..."
"I'm just going to use the best tools to win..."
"It's a competition and if you don't want to (x) then it's your fault you lose..."
"If you're not doing (x) then you don't have a right to be playing (y)..."
The discussion's just like talking about macroing in a MMO, or even Piracy, people expressing the belief that they're entitled to X and passing around easily disrupted reasons for it.
Regardless, at the end of the day, the format is Constructed, which requires you to actually Construct your own deck, if the intention was Copying the format would be called "Copied" or "Rehash of all the Pro's decks from the last Grand Prix", or something similiar.
I agree with the poster above. I hate what net decking has made constructed play into, but over the last year or so I've grown to deal with it, and have a changed, slightly more optimistic view on it.
Take, for example, Jund.
Jund does well for players. Jund does well for pros. Now, tons of players netdeck Jund and copy it cuz a lot of the pros play it.
That sucks. It really does. But....
Take, for example, Spread 'Em.
One person makes an original, ingenius deck of very intricate construction exploiting Jund's single greatest weakness, and using cascade to effectively attack that weakness almost every turn. Jund loses to Spreading Seas 78% of the time.
No one could net deck Spread 'Em until it had won the guy who created it a top 8 spot at a pro tour, because it wasnt all over the internet until then. I forget his name, but its in an article on Wizard's site about him and the deck.
The guy who comes out on top will always be the craftiest, most inventive, clever, resourceful, etc. That guy didn't learn to build decks like Spread 'Em by copying everyone else, and the people who solely net deck will never have a chance at pulling off something like that. Netdecking will get you far, but only so far.
That being said, I don't think theres anything wrong with someone who has played, say, Vampires for X months in the metagame and has played many many matchups against, say, Boros, deciding he likes Boros more and wants to try it, and then netdecking it. It IS a good place to learn where to start, so long as its not just "HAY LOOK TOP EIGHT" *COPY*PASTE*PAYPAL*.
Not everyone is a NEET (Not in employment, education or training, just playing Magic in my mother's basement) like most pro players are who have all the time in the world to play Magic.
There are people who have other hobbies they attend to and of course when they play Magic they still want to win. People play sports and they go out on dates. Not everybody prioritizes Magic the same way pro players do.
If I can summarize this thread, its saying that people who don't want to invest a huge chunk of their time and money on Magic does not deserve to win. Yes I netdeck because I never seen Magic as a good investment of time, it does not return anything to me in the long run. I'm willing to invest 5000 hours on my violin practice because it actually gives me a skill that I can take with me for the rest of my life sadly the same cannot be applied to Magic.
I feel the same way you do. . . that it's a legal way of cheating. Building your own deck should be considered part of the game. . . just as "no proxying" should be (finding alternatives for cards you don't have should be considered part of the game, too).
I do not feel it is cheating. Just because someone came up with a deck does not mean that all other players should be banned from every playing that deck. If I came up with a deck that is fun to play and wins, why shouldn't other players also get a chance to play this deck and enjoy it, too? I personally feel it is a compliment if I see others build and play a deck similar to mine after they see it.
If you want to play in an environment where deck building is a larger component of the game, then there are various limited formats. In these formats, it is highly unlikely you would be able to net deck.
However, there's no way to stop it. Sticking to my principles didn't win me any games,* so after 10 years I finally knuckled under and decided, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."
People copy decks like people copy play strategies. If you see someone block a 3/3 with a 1/1 and then play Giant Growth to kill the 3/3, would you not copy that strategy? Copying a deck is similar. People study the game, the deck building and the play and use the best decks and best plays in order to win tournaments.
I played at one of my local store's FNM tourneys a while back (it has recently closed) where the majority of people played Nail.dec and Raffinity.dec. These were maybe 15-16 year old kids netdecking to win at FNM. I always thought of netdecking as wrong. It doesn't really "teach" you anything about the game. You look up a list of cards, buy them and assemble. Same thing at PTQ's and Nats. If you want to win, then steal someone else's deck idea. It always struck me as a legal way of cheating, if not that, then certainly boring. You, personally, didn't build the deck, you just stole it from someone else and are now reaping the benefits. I guess the best way I can describe this is if you buy furniture from IKEA. It's all pre-fabricated, all you have to do is follow/build according to the instructions and it works like a charm, but you don't get that satisfaction of building your own furniture (for cheaper) and being able to show it off to your friends. I've had friends come up to me and say, "hey, check this deck out!" I'd look through it, say, "wow, this is really nice." Then they'll say that they got the idea from some pro online and I'll cease to care about anything that has to do with that deck or the wins he got from it.
Does anyone else feel this way or am I in the minority?
Stop whining. These decks are usually the result of many minds, collaboration, discussion of the best cards, combinations of them and usage. People don't win PTQ's by bringing their creative crap combo deck that will get blown away by a cut throat player squeezing every card of every ounce of it's worth. Sure these kids are not creative and just trying to win. The way it sounds, if they are just copying net decks and facerolling they probably don't have the skill to pilot the deck well. Look at those decks, what type of deck it is, aggro, control, etc. Look at it's colors, take the same deck type and build something better within it's colors. Chances are you probably won't be able to come up with to much to add or take away from it. The meta right now is dominated by Jund, but in my opinion the meta has many, many options for different decks to be played competitively. So much to the point that anything you make in T2 could be running along side of a net deck to a point. You should be able to beat skilless players with your hodge podge, creative original decks while they run net decks in all honesty.
Net-decking really didnt bother me until recently when i went undefeated with a "homebrew" and lost against the exact replica of LSV's control deck in the last round.
I was HEATED.
I net-deck and use ideas found from the internet, but I am also in a playgroup that playtests every sunday so really its always good to use the internet for resources
and honestly chances are some japanese guy named Hiroshima Wasabi probably thought of your deck already
Sig & Avvy by Disappointing Signets Inc.
CCC&G BRAGGING RIGHTS
Mafia Statistics
I collect pacifism: 228
I still do wonder why anyone bothers to play constructed because of this though. You either play to lose or you play someone else's deck that you will also have to face all the time... wow... have fun.
From around here? Cheap booster boxes!
BANNED for posting, "mind your own business please" to a mod.
I couldn't disagree more.
You seem to be saying that if you don't netdeck, you will lose all or most of the time, and if you do, it's boring because everyone else netdecks too. I think you and a lot of other people think that everyone and their grandma netdecks, and that's why you don't play constructed. The truth is, there are a lot of rogue decks out there that can win pretty consistently, and there are a lot of people out there playing those decks. Roughly 50% of the people that attend my FNM netdeck and the other 50% have their own ideas. You know what? 50% the time a rogue deck places first, and 50% of the time a netdeck places first.
I don't see how these decks (netdecks) are regarded as so good, anyhow.
Last week, these were my matchups:
W Soldiers (Blatant Netdeck) - I won.
B Vampires (Netdeck with a few unexpected cards) - I lost
GRW Mayael's Aria.dec (Pretty rogue, I few popular Naya Zoo cards, but mostly stuff I was not expecting) - I lost
UW - Djinn of Wishes.dec (As rogue as can be, it was a control deck that tried to use Djinn of Wishes to "wish" fatties into play) - I won
(BTW, I was playing G-Ramp)
So as you can see from my example, (I know this is just a small sample, but this kind of thing happens every week) I, with a rogue deck, can beat netdecks half of the time, and rogue decks half of the time.
Maybe my local meta is just crazy, wacko, off the charts insane, but I think Constructed can still be about skill.
Currently playing:
M13 Draft
GGGGG Dungrove................(STANDARD)
GWGWG Maverick..................(LEGACY)
Jon Finkel on the PWP System:
You've got a bunch of logical problems in there.
1. You assert that to win, you must netdeck. You assert to be future successfull, you must be willing to netdeck. You then assert that anyone who does not accept these two statements is "Mediocre", less skilled, and generally obtuse. Blanket statements consistently evaluate to false. Or in other words, it's very easy to find examples that demonstrate your statements to be false. It is not at all difficult to demonstrate there are some people who are very skilled who do not accept that netdecking is a positive thing.
2. You assert that without netdecking, everyone would end up playing the same decks anyways. While there is a kernel of truth in there, some cards are clearly superior, in general this is not true. A significant portion of players in Constructed have not demonstrated the level of deckbuilding skills you are asserting, and in truth, it's unlikely that they possess those skills as if they did, they wouldn't be netdecking.
3. Without netdecking, there'd be no "Known Meta" game, and there'd be no "Testing against the Meta". Without that, the variety of decks would increase significantly, as many decks fall out when being tested against the Meta. Those decks would not fall out should they prove to be reasonably reliable against a localized set of players and their ideas.
Netdecking is a self-fullfilling prophecy. People netdeck to win, so people have to netdeck to win to beat the netdecks, but without netdecking the environment would be very different, so the existance of netdecking is itself what creates the "Meta" game.
Some of us remember what things were like before the 'net was ubiquitous, and before netdecking took off. I remember it very clearly, a number of players in my playgroup went from winning maybe one out of 4 games, to losing maybe 1 out of 6 overnight. All of a sudden, they were all playing Suicide Black, Tolarian, Survival of the Fittest, Living Death. They didn't suddenly become skilled players overnight, they just discovered MagicDojo.
So say what you will about those of us who don't accept netdecking, I remember what it was like to play Mtg before netdecking.
To me there is nothing worse than someone who builds an exact replica of a champoin deck and brag when they win. there is no trial and error, no sense of self accomplishment. I know some don't see it that way.
I think it is different when you see a card combination online and try to build a deck out of it that you can call your own. Even if you have never went online and you use a card combination, that combo has a 99% chance that it is somewhere on the net so that is unavoidable.. however you CAN build a deck that is no where on the internet. thousands upond thousands of cards within Magic, there will always be a deck that that is new to everyone. When you build that unique deck that wins at tournaments, that is a pure feeling of self accomplishment. That is why I never net deck. I feel cheap and I get no sense of accomplishment whatsoever. When I win with a net deck I didn't win in my head, the creator of the deck did, I just helped him get there.
I urge people to build their own decks. At least one. Then you can say you are accomplished.
Necro Warning.
I'm against net-decking.
The argument that if you build an original deck and take it to a tourney you will lose 90% of your matches is fundamentally flawed. For one, someone had the balls to do it, got to the top with it and it's now your precious net deck. As well, many original decks have more then enough potential to get to the top, however those that would rather outright win choose to go the easy way instead of test out their awesome deck. In my own experience I've noticed that people saying that your original deck could never win also makes quite an impact on whether or not someone will play something original. The reality of it is quite simple. if you're serious about doing a tourney with an original deck, it can go very smoothly if you simply plan out your deck, think on the sideboard, and keep a cool head. And hell in this enviroment, Jund should be the easiest thing to focus on getting around since it controls 90% of the meta. Also, building a net deck and useing 5-6 different cards that no other build of that type uses does NOT make it an original build. That's just a cheap shot at not feeling guilty you net-decked.
Modern:
Something new every week
Legacy:
Something new everyweek
With that said, I have a respectable DCI rating, and I normally finish well at States and Regionals, and it's rare for me to not top 4 at FNM or Legacy tournaments. I've never once net decked, although, I have - on occasion - gotten ideas of some synergy or combos from various sources, including over the internet.
The guys who know me well, will often say something like 'what random $#@$ are you playing today?' which causes me to laugh and grin. I know their net decks, I know how they do and don't work. The fact that their deck lists are published online and highly read creates a big weakness in their plot/strategy, especially if they don't think carefully. Most of these guys have 1800 to 1900 DCI ratings, BTW.
They not knowing what I'm doing makes it more difficult for them to 'pilot' what-they-will at me, because they don't know what responses, answers and win condition(s) I am working with. Sure, second and third game they catch on, but often times I hear after the match 'oh, now that I realize what's in your deck.. I should have done this and that..'. Fantastic!
I'm OCD about building my decks, and have been for years. For me, THIS is Magic. It's the very attitude of creating / thinking / doing for my self that will keep my brain and body healthy and active well into my later years of life -- use it or lose it. The idea of piloting is fun for many others, but I'll never understand it.
And to that early on mention about Ikea furniture -- I do indeed make my own furniture! I've been doing wood-working for a couple of years, and am now learning the ropes of upholstery. It's both fun and rewarding to show off what I have created with my own hands to guests.. sooo funny to see that analogy here.
I'd argue that it would be more than a kernel, as there are many decks / combinations which are easily discovered. Take for instance, the notion of tribal themed decks - Goblins, Slivers and rebels. Their inherent structure defines what's good and what will logically work well within their own system. If there was no net-decking, I know that there would be white/green agro sliver decks, quick mono red goblin decks and white/black rebel decks with lots of removal.
Moving away from tribal based stuff, there are other obvious interactions which bring together combos, such as Lich and Mirror of the Universe. Because the win condition works by switching life, and the player could be easily killed by someone with quick burn / damage, the logical construct to this is to include cards which keep you safe for that critical turn or two needed. Counter spell, circles of protection / magical hack, swords to plowshares, fog are all reasonable and commonly thought of answers to facilitate this strategy.
Affinity.. well.. built it self.
Wild Mongrel as a Threshold outlet is common sense to anyone who reads cards and considers them.
Many of the Ravnica guilds built them selves.
I'm sure it wouldn't be difficult to name even more examples, but the point is that there are numerous deck ideas / strategies which could be easily 'thought of' by the masses with no direct / indirect contact of play groups to other groups.
The deck like Dragonstorm, for example, is perfect example of an obscure idea that wouldn't pass the vast majority of player's minds who had not been previously exposed to the notion of ramping mana for storm counts as well as casting the big storm spell. But because of the Internet, this obscure idea became THEE deck to beat for quite some time. It was so much the too-beat that main boarding extirpates and/or trick binds had proven to win many games.
.. and now back to our regularly scheduled flame-war.
I would call them financially clever
You have nothing to gain when you start from scratch but futile spendings of your hard earned money. Chances are 75% of the cards stored in your attic have never seen serious competitive play, evidence speaks for itself right?
BWOrzhov Syndicate(Extended)
(Maelstrom Graphics)
Fact: failure is not an option but merely an inevitable part of the designing process.
GBW Teneb EDH
BW Titan control
I didn't say the failures were a sign to just give up on the concept.
Failure does lead to success, but the fact is that most initial ideas won't succeed at a PTQ, GP, or a PT.
For a lot of people, time isn't a luxury. Taking a list that has already proven itself and testing it saves a lot of time from the hours and hours of brewing a deck from scratch.
Not all of us can be college students/full time workers and at the same time be master deck builders like Luis Scott Vargas or the like.
Modern:
Something new every week
Legacy:
Something new everyweek
Not to mention that standard is a very small format relatively speaking. The current standard format is fairly well developed, and even if you are the Albert Einstein of deckbuilding, it's unlikely that you're going to find a viable archetype that hasn't already been discovered.
Personally, I would rather spend that time preparing with a deck I already know is viable. Since you know, some of us have jobs and/or school and can't spend 16 hours a day trying to be Conley Woods Jr.
Or, just play draft and it's not an issue! ("You netdecked that aggressive B/R build with Trusty Machete!")
I personally think that one of the main problems with Magic at this point is the push for archetypes. Early in the games history Wizards just created cards willy-nilly and let the players try to piece decks together with them. This wasn't always a good idea, as it led to both overpowered cards, with ratifications they hadn't forseen (such as the P9) and underpowered cards, which don't have the effect they hoped for (Great Wall, for example). Sure, their was still archetypes. But their was a lot more room for diversity back then since decks could be built around interesting cards much more freely.
Now that Wizards if having a fieldday with archetypes, decks are becoming much more predictable, and thus their is more incentive to netdeck. Who cares if you steal someone elses Elf or Merfolk deck, everyone and their brother already has one anyways. Generally MWS T2 I can tell within three turns not only what deck they are running but also what their wincons are. It's kind of sad.
I think Wizards should try to be as creative as possible, as it very well might help with the netdecking problem. More cards like Kjeldoran Outpost, perhaps? I dunno, that's just my opinion.
This comes up mainly in casual groups. Like some well ban burn decks because there not fun or cheese.
Net decks fall under this category. Net deck is against there rules for whatever reason. At FNM you can't play such and such decks because there from the net. Net decking isn't real magic
These people should stay casual and not worry about sanctioned tournaments including FNM.
For good or bad FNM over the years have become more compative.
I feel the same way you do. . . that it's a legal way of cheating. Building your own deck should be considered part of the game. . . just as "no proxying" should be (finding alternatives for cards you don't have should be considered part of the game, too).
However, there's no way to stop it. Sticking to my principles didn't win me any games,* so after 10 years I finally knuckled under and decided, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."
Now I, too, only net-deck.
*(Although I must admit that my homebrewed & original Elvish Piper / Dramatic Entrance / Progenitus deck was quite competitive.)
The Great Creature Token Project
Not really, Netdecking's done more harm to Magic than any other factor.
First, as I probably said 3 months ago, the format's Constructed, not Copied. The intention was never for everyone to be playing the same couple decks. It wasn't supposed to be everyone playing the same 4 Pro's decks ad nauseum.
Second, netdecking changed the face of Magic irreprably. The Urza's debacle was due in no small part to the rampant netdecking, and ever since then, any degenerate deck will result in it warping every single facet of Magic as people try to get a advantage on the other players, many of whom lack the skill to get said advantage.
There was a time when Constructed was a true competition of skill, now? It's just a bunch of people rehashing the Pro's games over-and-over because they'll do whatever it takes to win.
Netdecking is Magic's biggest failure. It's really no different than the justification people give for macroing in a MMORPG. In fact, replace a few words, and all of the justifications people give for netdecking are identical to the justifications for macroing.
"I don't have the time..."
"I'm just going to use the best tools to win..."
"It's a competition and if you don't want to (x) then it's your fault you lose..."
"If you're not doing (x) then you don't have a right to be playing (y)..."
The discussion's just like talking about macroing in a MMO, or even Piracy, people expressing the belief that they're entitled to X and passing around easily disrupted reasons for it.
Regardless, at the end of the day, the format is Constructed, which requires you to actually Construct your own deck, if the intention was Copying the format would be called "Copied" or "Rehash of all the Pro's decks from the last Grand Prix", or something similiar.
Take, for example, Jund.
Jund does well for players. Jund does well for pros. Now, tons of players netdeck Jund and copy it cuz a lot of the pros play it.
That sucks. It really does. But....
Take, for example, Spread 'Em.
One person makes an original, ingenius deck of very intricate construction exploiting Jund's single greatest weakness, and using cascade to effectively attack that weakness almost every turn. Jund loses to Spreading Seas 78% of the time.
No one could net deck Spread 'Em until it had won the guy who created it a top 8 spot at a pro tour, because it wasnt all over the internet until then. I forget his name, but its in an article on Wizard's site about him and the deck.
The guy who comes out on top will always be the craftiest, most inventive, clever, resourceful, etc. That guy didn't learn to build decks like Spread 'Em by copying everyone else, and the people who solely net deck will never have a chance at pulling off something like that. Netdecking will get you far, but only so far.
That being said, I don't think theres anything wrong with someone who has played, say, Vampires for X months in the metagame and has played many many matchups against, say, Boros, deciding he likes Boros more and wants to try it, and then netdecking it. It IS a good place to learn where to start, so long as its not just "HAY LOOK TOP EIGHT" *COPY*PASTE*PAYPAL*.
Blue/Red forever, baby! You just got SWERVED!
View my trades here.
There are people who have other hobbies they attend to and of course when they play Magic they still want to win. People play sports and they go out on dates. Not everybody prioritizes Magic the same way pro players do.
If I can summarize this thread, its saying that people who don't want to invest a huge chunk of their time and money on Magic does not deserve to win. Yes I netdeck because I never seen Magic as a good investment of time, it does not return anything to me in the long run. I'm willing to invest 5000 hours on my violin practice because it actually gives me a skill that I can take with me for the rest of my life sadly the same cannot be applied to Magic.
I do not feel it is cheating. Just because someone came up with a deck does not mean that all other players should be banned from every playing that deck. If I came up with a deck that is fun to play and wins, why shouldn't other players also get a chance to play this deck and enjoy it, too? I personally feel it is a compliment if I see others build and play a deck similar to mine after they see it.
If you want to play in an environment where deck building is a larger component of the game, then there are various limited formats. In these formats, it is highly unlikely you would be able to net deck.
People copy decks like people copy play strategies. If you see someone block a 3/3 with a 1/1 and then play Giant Growth to kill the 3/3, would you not copy that strategy? Copying a deck is similar. People study the game, the deck building and the play and use the best decks and best plays in order to win tournaments.
\>tuntman
Stop whining. These decks are usually the result of many minds, collaboration, discussion of the best cards, combinations of them and usage. People don't win PTQ's by bringing their creative crap combo deck that will get blown away by a cut throat player squeezing every card of every ounce of it's worth. Sure these kids are not creative and just trying to win. The way it sounds, if they are just copying net decks and facerolling they probably don't have the skill to pilot the deck well. Look at those decks, what type of deck it is, aggro, control, etc. Look at it's colors, take the same deck type and build something better within it's colors. Chances are you probably won't be able to come up with to much to add or take away from it. The meta right now is dominated by Jund, but in my opinion the meta has many, many options for different decks to be played competitively. So much to the point that anything you make in T2 could be running along side of a net deck to a point. You should be able to beat skilless players with your hodge podge, creative original decks while they run net decks in all honesty.
I was HEATED.
I net-deck and use ideas found from the internet, but I am also in a playgroup that playtests every sunday so really its always good to use the internet for resources
and honestly chances are some japanese guy named Hiroshima Wasabi probably thought of your deck already