What if you test a deck and play it a lot and feel that it is the most optimal decklist?
Jeez. People will play what they think is best because they want to win. Sometimes, what they think is best is not entirely their own creation. Sometimes, what they think is best is not at all their own creation.
SO WHAT? In the end, PLAYING SKILL decides whose better.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Winner of the SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Jul 26-28, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Las Vegas, NV, Dec 13-15, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Aug 28-30, 2015
Winner of SCG Worcester Team Sealed Open with Gerard Fabiano and Curtis Sheu, September 28, 2013
You're just proving my point. Net deckers do just that. They pick a top8 deck regardless of the meta and play it hoping to win. They don't actually get it. Not everyone of course. But most netdeckers just copy/paste.
Practically no one actually does that. Post after post here we've seen people say a thousand variations of "I start with a proven deck and adapt it to my style / my meta / my collection." If you're going to define the term that narrowly then this whole discussion is pointless because the people you're talking about barely even exist.
Ultimately, I really think people need to define what their idea of "netdecking" is. My definition of "netdecking" is copying card for card a list that a pro player has played. That's my personal definition.
Nicely defined, Mike. I would have to agree with that definition. I can't think of a single time that I took a deck off the internet and played it verbatim, card for card. I always make changes that I feel either make the deck better for me, or for my local meta. That doesn't make me a great deckbuilder, but neither does it make me a "copy and paste" netdecker.
So where is the line? At what point do you become a "netdecker" for playing a particular strategy? There are thousands upon thousands of competitive players, and they wouldn't BE competitive if they didn't utilize the more powerful strategies presented in each set of cards. As said, many players have evolved their "homebrew" Faerie deck into a full out competitive deck... These players aren't netdeckers are they? Even though they built it from the ground up themselves? Heck, even the players who take the PRINCIPLE of the deck and apply it to their metagame, are they considered netdeckers? There are still deckbuilding challenges when netdecking... I look at Gindy's list and there are choices that I would make to change the list... I would adapt it according to what *I* feel is best. Am I better than Gindy? I would imagine not... But there I still hold to my beliefs and opinions about what is right/wrong, and *that* is where the deckbuilding skill is in... Some people would argue that he is the pro and that his word should be taken over mine, but for my particular metagame, is Gindy the expert or am I? That's what it comes down to... Even tweaking the best netdecks takes skill. It takes even more skill to consistently win large events as well, regardless of whether you "netdecked".
Again, I totally agree. It doesn't take the list a pro plays at a PT to make a particular deck great for you. It might start out with his deck, which you adapt to fit your local meta and play style. It may be something as simple as Rune Snag vs. Remove Soul in a control build. Maybe the pro's list ran Snags due to lots and lots of Fae decks, but Removes are better for me locally since I might see tons of creature-based aggro. That's where each player can use skill in adapting an established deck for personal use, rather than developing a whole deck concept. That is still using your skills to make your deck better.
As others have said, people take what they want from the game... Whether they get the thrill out of playing, winning, deckbuilding, comboing off... Whatever, everyone has a different idea of what the game should be like. There is no right/wrong in Magic in my eyes... According to the definitions of many players in here, I netdeck Faeries. I don't consider myself to be a "netdecker", even though I took the principle of Faeries, I am adapting it according to my playstyle and what I feel are the correct card choices for it. At the same time, I'm developing my own homebrew deck. Is it better than Faeries? Probably not... It's a strong deck and I've been mostly keeping it to myself and my playgroups, but with a little time, who knows? Maybe my deck will become the next netdeck and that's one of the thrills I get from playing Magic. I want to win yes, and in some circumstances I will play the best deck available... But if I feel I've caught onto something new that people will play, then I'll give that a go and see where it takes me.
Exactly right. I was the first player at my local shop to bring a Lark deck to FNM. I hadn't had time to adequately play test and did rather poorly the first night. (I was also running on about 2 hours sleep in 36) However, the deck was interesting enough to watch that something like 3-4 additional players brought it the next week. That deck, or variations of it, won something like 4 of the next 5 weeks. Not one of those decks had the same decklist. Did that make any of us netdeckers? I don't think so.
So my rant has kind of gone long enough and I don't know if that made total sense... But to recap, basically I feel that there is no right/wrong whether you play homebrew or proven archetype. What it comes down to still is the strength of the deck itself (since netdecks have been proven already, this is less of an issue... But with homebrew you are relying completely on your own brainpower when it comes to building the deck which can be a good or a bad thing, but always a source of pride), and the biggest thing is skill. To win a tournament you need skill, and you need to know what you're doing. Playing homebrew or netdeck won't help you if you don't have the player skill to back it up.
As a final note, in the competitive environment you need to take into account the definition of COMPETITIVE.
Players.
Play.
To.
Win.
If there is a deck that will maximize the odds of being able to win, many players will take it. If you feel your best odds are to play homebrew, power to ya. But don't gripe when players choose to maximize their chances by playing a tried and true strategy. If netdecking happened all the time in casual, I could see a problem... But in a COMPETITIVE environment, you can't bash players for wanting to maximize their chances of winning. They are playing to win.
You make perfect sense, Mike. The two highlighted sections really sum up things nicely. I talked to Shinjutsei last night about this thread. We agreed that we had never made fun of anyone, other than a good friend, for bringing his own creation to an FNM. The close friend thing is all about the fun of teasing and joking among friends, anyway. If you chose to play only casual, then I would say that netdecking and spending huge amounts of money on cards is going a bit overboard and goes way past fun. That being said, if you do chose to play in a more competitive environment, even at FNM, then using every available resourcejust makes sense. Then, once your have chosen, adapted and tested your deck, it comes down to the most important aspect of Magic...actually playing your deck with skill. I readily admit that I am not the best deckbuilder, at least competitive decks. I do consider myself a good player...not very good or excellent...who plays to have fun and get better. If I can choose a deck that has been extensively tested by far better players than I, then why should I not avail myself of that advantage. I would be stupid not to.
As an aside: I am not really sure where Extarbags was going when he started this thread, but it certainly has sparked some great discussion. This kind of thread is why I come here for more than just deck ideas and strategy.:) Kudos to everyone who has responded in an intelligent and constructive manner.
I just wanted to add on to the adaptation meme that's been running through the thread. Most people adapt the netdecks, and sometimes they go even further and make unique adaptations that completely warps the deck/meta. One of the things I do when I look at discussions of decks online/decklists is contemplate how to make the deck better. I try and improve upon the design. Often I fail, but that's because the posted decklists normally have so many more playtested games under them, the card choices have already been thought through. Every now and then someone comes up with something new.... case in point, adding big Gargs to Lark. I guess the biggest plus I have for "netdecks" is that you have more people looking at it, more ideas flowing on how to make the deck better, to shore up its bad matchups, than if you go it alone. I give mad props to rogue deckbuilders, but they often have a harder job because they do this alone. Look at Project 4.250... there's a rogue deck that's had some success... However I doubt it would have had the success it had if it weren't for the discussions people had about the deck. Sorry for the long rant... just my two cents worth in.
Uh, i netdeck because every time i try to make something original, it sucks.
lol. You just made my day. Thanks
Quote from Mega D »
Practically no one actually does that. Post after post here we've seen people say a thousand variations of "I start with a proven deck and adapt it to my style / my meta / my collection." If you're going to define the term that narrowly then this whole discussion is pointless because
See I have nothing with that. Even I do it.
the people you're talking about barely even exist.
You'd be surprise how many of them I meet every week at FNM.
I net-deck because it makes the game more fun for me. I like feeling like I'm working on a team with all the other players of a given deck, discussing different builds/strategies.
I see deck building in the larger context of strategy choice. If you want to win, your deck must be a good in the metagame. Certain strategies may be more viable than others, and strategy selection is where I see the most creativity, talent, and ingenuity play out. Maybe the answer to a metagame is a rogue deck, maybe it's a modified known archetype, maybe it's an older archetype that's fallen out of favor.
It's relatively easy to create an original deck. Developing an overall strategy that wins is much harder, and it's even more difficult to do on one's own. I enjoy being able to read people's thoughts online, see their lists, argue with them, learn from them, etc.
I don't net deck (never did it), but I do look at the net decks. Then build a deck I think I can beat those with. Now when going to FNM, it's fun to take something completely Rogue (not the class Rogue, but original). When going to a big event, I could see playing a net deck, just tweaking a few cards. It's always important to have something off base that isn't in net decks. I top 8ed at an Extended PTQ by playing my own build of U/G madness with Oxidize in the main (artifacts were rampant back then). If you want to see the deck list, google "Joe Jaczewski" and you'll see it's basically a net deck, but with some important tweaks that my opponent's didn't expect. I wrecked Reanimator, Orim's Stick, and Ravager decks because people just didn't expect G in the main deck to turn into an Oxidize. Actually, I assume everyone's deck could be a "net deck." Whether is popular, good, or bad, I'm sure someone posted a deck list. The cards are out there. How many different decks can you build?
I don't net deck (never did it), but I do look at the net decks. Then build a deck I think I can beat those with. Now when going to FNM, it's fun to take something completely Rogue (not the class Rogue, but original). When going to a big event, I could see playing a net deck, just tweaking a few cards. It's always important to have something off base that isn't in net decks. I top 8ed at an Extended PTQ by playing my own build of U/G madness with Oxidize in the main (artifacts were rampant back then). If you want to see the deck list, google "Joe Jaczewski" and you'll see it's basically a net deck, but with some important tweaks that my opponent's didn't expect. I wrecked Reanimator, Orim's Stick, and Ravager decks because people just didn't expect G in the main deck to turn into an Oxidize. Actually, I assume everyone's deck could be a "net deck." Whether is popular, good, or bad, I'm sure someone posted a deck list. The cards are out there. How many different decks can you build?
That sounds a lot like what I usually do. I personally love metagaming for big events. It just sucks when you don't play the decks you're prepared for.
That sounds a lot like what I usually do. I personally love metagaming for big events. It just sucks when you don't play the decks you're prepared for.
Like the UR storm that took 1st place at my regionals.
I net deck because i don't have time to test a deck that much. It takes hundreds of hours of tuning an idea to make a good deck and most non pros just don't have that kind of time juggling schoolwork, work, and life(yes, some magic players have a life).
The plain truth is that there aren't that many decks, slight tweaks aside, that are truly viable in any given environemnt. And if someone does create a good, original deck, it's going to be copied by others; this is how decks become netdecks in the first place.
Measure your happiness by how satisfied you were with your deck's performance ability and your piloting skills, not by how different the list is from others around you. Otherwise you're setting yourself up for failure, to be honest.
I do it because I am a pilot not a designer. I can play about anything but building is just not something that comes to me. If I play with friends I don't netdeck but thats not really the same.
I netdeck because bringing a knife to a gunfight might make you original, but it doesn't make you any less dead.
I just love this one. ROFL! Fantastic analogy. I am all for creativity, but just how many possible combinations of cards can possibly be made into good decks at any one time? Man...I'm still laughing at that one, Angel.
I netdeck because bringing a knife to a gunfight might make you original, but it doesn't make you any less dead.
[Harvey has challenged Butch to fight for control of the Hole-in-the-Wall gang] Harvey Logan: Guns or Knives?
Butch Cassidy: Neither? Harvey Logan: Pick. Butch Cassidy: I don't want to shoot with you Harvey.
Harvey Logan: [Draws a big knife] Anything you say, Butch.'
[Butch walks over to his horse, by Sundance]
Butch Cassidy: [in a low voice] Maybe there's a way to make a profit in this. Bet on Logan. Sundance Kid: I would, but who'd bet on you?
Harvey Logan: Sundance, this doesn't concern you. When we're done, and he's dead, you're welcome to stay.
Butch Cassidy: [low voice, to Sundance] Listen, I don't mean to be a sore loser, but when it's done, if I'm dead, kill him.
Sundance Kid: [low voice to Butch] Love to.
[Waves to Harvey and smiles]
Butch Cassidy: [Walks back, and Harvey tenses to begin the fight] No, no, not yet. Not until me and Harvey get the rules straightened out.
Harvey Logan: Rules? In a knife fight? No rules. [Butch throws dirt in Harvey's eyes and kicks him in the groin, who falls to his knees]
Butch Cassidy: Well, if there aint' going to be any rules, let's get the fight started. Someone count. 1,2,3 go. Sundance Kid: [quickly] 1,2,3, go. [Butch knocks Harvey out] Flat Nose Curry: I was rooting for you all along, Butch Butch Cassidy: Well, thank you, Flatnose. That's what sustained me in my time of trouble.
Sometimes I netdeck, sometimes I don't. it's all about getting prizes. Wanna be original go play casual with some friends. wanna win phat packs and some $$ netdeck something you know how to play. I played G/B rock for like 4 months straight, people would see the pairings and already be thinking about what to sideboard, giving me a serious advantage. I'm playing Revilark now and it's almost the same as playing the rock, people don't want to play against it and whine to me about "netdecking".
Netdecking has become a controvery at my local FNM. We have some who advocate it and then we have those who are strickly opposed.
I dont netdeck however I do find that since I dont have the time that the "pros" have I do like to see what they do and figure out why they use one card over another. That saves me time. What drives me batty is the fact that in standard there is a very limited card pool to choose from making limited amounts of what you can do effectively. We are blessed here to have many original thinkers making our local meta very unusual from many others. Some of them do as I do and learn from others on what and why certain cards work better.
My take is that if you want to play an "optimal" decklist from whomever go right ahead. Part of the fun is planing out what you will see and how to take apart a teir 1 deck. For me it is more fun to beat a "winning" deck with something unusual.
The best answer I can give for why people netdeck is the simple personalities. Spike wants to win at all costs. Therefore, Spike likes optimal decklists. They cannot call it their own but they dont care. Magic takes all types. We are no longer in the days of Legends, Antiquities, etc where the game didnt have a massive tournament following. During those times Wizards tried to make the game more popular and tourneys for money was the way to do it. When money got involved, things changed. It became less of a who can build the coolest deck and more who can use the best deck. Winning became everything and it will stay that way. For those of us who dont enjoy that part of it, casual formats have sprung up such as Type IV.
I like both aspects. I love the competitive part of magic and therefore I will do what I can to win. Now as I mentioned I dont netdeck but in my local meta that may not win you a tourney.
At the place I play we have a bunch of younger rebels who don't like to net deck and they talk bad about netdecking and the players who netdeck. They're the same players that never win. They never even make top three.
I netdeck to the point where I ask the good players what they're doing with their versions of the deck and then play that myself. I can understand that the good players play good decks, and that's why they win often.
I also like winning, simple as that.
In the MWS world, for many players, winning also makes you a noob.
The same applies to:
-Knowing the rules.
-Netdecking.
-Not netdecking.
-Using old versions of a card (yeah, it has hapenned to me: "Ugh... ugly pic noob")
-Knowing English.
-Using phases.
-Countering spells.
<@MarkRosewater> THis is a secret we've carefully guarded but for this chat I'm going to spill the beans.
<@MarkRosewater> Some cards in Magic are better than others.
<@MarkRosewater> Ssh, don't tell anyone.
I'm against netdecking. however, I am not against taking someone's deck idea, making it your own, in hopes of making it better. You see, if someone wants to play a combo such as sinking feeling, power of timmy, and Morselhoarder, and I see it, and i can make it work more efficiently, i don't see the problem. Now the problem I'm seeing is taking down that deck card from card, having the same amount of everything. It's not like you're playing your deck. Now I know that people have their preferences, but I personally believe that the game is about creating the most efficient way to win, without people stomping on you. And creating a deck is part of that experience.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Experience is going through different scenarios, not the same one over and over again.
plus with Wizards planning to decrease the size of sets now, people better get used to seeing the same deck they're playing, whether if its a homebrew (wow! flashbacks of the old "Homebrew" Killer deck in an old issue of Inquest came to mind just now) deck or a net deck.
I have that issue still.
Also Luis Scott Vargas said this at the recent block pt, "“there are two types of people who are playing Faeries at this tournament - people who haven't tested at all and played it because they thought it was the best deck, or people who tested a lot and played it because they knew it was the best deck.” this is true of every single netdeck. And guess what? Fairies did poorly at the PT. Do you know why? Because the vast majority of people who make it to PTs, are not people who pour every minute of every hour into strategizing for Magic. They go to a local qualifier, and do well. Then they're on the plane train or automobile to Hollywood, or Indy, or wherever. The point is, most of them will "net-deck" and do HORRIBLY, because they're not like Vargas, or Finkel, or any of those guys who have SKILL. Finkel is one of the best pure skill players at any game I've ever seen. And he's regarded by many as the best player in Magic. Because of his SKILL.
And the fact that he tutors......every turn.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
SKRules on Dark Rit art
5th is just a guy snapping his fingers. Maybe Nicol Bolas can get mana that way, but I can't.
If someone wants to express individuality, then fine, but don't be surprised when somebody else thoguht of the same thing, and did it better. That's natural in this game, with how many people building decks around the clock.
It doesn't help that Wizards will on and off again build decks for you, like tribal, and make it seem silly to play anything else. Have you really looked at Elves from an objective point of view? 2cc for a 3/3 Deathtouch? A 2/2 lord, with the ability to make 2/2's for 1, for 3cc? 2 different ramping dudes? A huge pro-black finisher elf for a measly 4 mana? It's stupid. I won't even start on Faeries. It takes a pretty good 75 cards to even start to touch that.
If anything, I think being a good deckbuilder is being willing to adapt to the metagame as quickly as it shifts (the first players to say "Hmm, Faeries is good and I'm not playing them. Cloudthresher looks pretty good right now"), or being able to quickly realize the potential of new cards, etc. Being able to identify Thoughtseize as a good card is easy, but what about Primal Command? Obviously the world of magic will slowly adapt things that end up being better in practice due to lots of players slowly incorporating them, but riding on the front of that wave will help you get to the top faster, or win more, due to the fact that skill aside, you are running a better deck than the opponent, even if it's only 10%.
I kind of netdeck i guess. I like to take a basic shell of a deck and morph it to fit my style of play. I also perfer to build decks but thats cause im a better builder then a player
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Sure look at competitive decks, proxy the top tier decks and test them. Get inspired. But DON'T COPY.
Jeez. People will play what they think is best because they want to win. Sometimes, what they think is best is not entirely their own creation. Sometimes, what they think is best is not at all their own creation.
SO WHAT? In the end, PLAYING SKILL decides whose better.
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Las Vegas, NV, Dec 13-15, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Aug 28-30, 2015
Winner of SCG Worcester Team Sealed Open with Gerard Fabiano and Curtis Sheu, September 28, 2013
twitter
Practically no one actually does that. Post after post here we've seen people say a thousand variations of "I start with a proven deck and adapt it to my style / my meta / my collection." If you're going to define the term that narrowly then this whole discussion is pointless because the people you're talking about barely even exist.
Nicely defined, Mike. I would have to agree with that definition. I can't think of a single time that I took a deck off the internet and played it verbatim, card for card. I always make changes that I feel either make the deck better for me, or for my local meta. That doesn't make me a great deckbuilder, but neither does it make me a "copy and paste" netdecker.
Again, I totally agree. It doesn't take the list a pro plays at a PT to make a particular deck great for you. It might start out with his deck, which you adapt to fit your local meta and play style. It may be something as simple as Rune Snag vs. Remove Soul in a control build. Maybe the pro's list ran Snags due to lots and lots of Fae decks, but Removes are better for me locally since I might see tons of creature-based aggro. That's where each player can use skill in adapting an established deck for personal use, rather than developing a whole deck concept. That is still using your skills to make your deck better.
Exactly right. I was the first player at my local shop to bring a Lark deck to FNM. I hadn't had time to adequately play test and did rather poorly the first night. (I was also running on about 2 hours sleep in 36) However, the deck was interesting enough to watch that something like 3-4 additional players brought it the next week. That deck, or variations of it, won something like 4 of the next 5 weeks. Not one of those decks had the same decklist. Did that make any of us netdeckers? I don't think so.
You make perfect sense, Mike. The two highlighted sections really sum up things nicely. I talked to Shinjutsei last night about this thread. We agreed that we had never made fun of anyone, other than a good friend, for bringing his own creation to an FNM. The close friend thing is all about the fun of teasing and joking among friends, anyway. If you chose to play only casual, then I would say that netdecking and spending huge amounts of money on cards is going a bit overboard and goes way past fun. That being said, if you do chose to play in a more competitive environment, even at FNM, then using every available resource just makes sense. Then, once your have chosen, adapted and tested your deck, it comes down to the most important aspect of Magic...actually playing your deck with skill. I readily admit that I am not the best deckbuilder, at least competitive decks. I do consider myself a good player...not very good or excellent...who plays to have fun and get better. If I can choose a deck that has been extensively tested by far better players than I, then why should I not avail myself of that advantage. I would be stupid not to.
As an aside: I am not really sure where Extarbags was going when he started this thread, but it certainly has sparked some great discussion. This kind of thread is why I come here for more than just deck ideas and strategy.:) Kudos to everyone who has responded in an intelligent and constructive manner.
Courtesy is contagious. Go out and catch some.
<Sigh> My quest for intelligent life on the internet continues.
Thanks to spiderboy4 @ High~Light Studios
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=3304230#post3304230
HOW TO CONSTRUCT MANA BASE (not mine)
T2 -
WW Kithkin
RGW Zoo
lol. You just made my day. Thanks
See I have nothing with that. Even I do it.
You'd be surprise how many of them I meet every week at FNM.
I see deck building in the larger context of strategy choice. If you want to win, your deck must be a good in the metagame. Certain strategies may be more viable than others, and strategy selection is where I see the most creativity, talent, and ingenuity play out. Maybe the answer to a metagame is a rogue deck, maybe it's a modified known archetype, maybe it's an older archetype that's fallen out of favor.
It's relatively easy to create an original deck. Developing an overall strategy that wins is much harder, and it's even more difficult to do on one's own. I enjoy being able to read people's thoughts online, see their lists, argue with them, learn from them, etc.
Yeah, its true. I try to make stuff for days at a time when im not doing stuff, it all pretty much turns into a "it coulda got there, but it didnt"
Thanks to spiderboy4 @ High~Light Studios
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=3304230#post3304230
HOW TO CONSTRUCT MANA BASE (not mine)
T2 -
WW Kithkin
RGW Zoo
*Mayreturn*
I have some EDH cards and rare Magic basic lands (APAC, EURO, ARENA, etc) so message me if you're looking.
Number of members banned after I posted a BTR: 7
Looking for honest buyers, sellers, and traders.
techoverrated.Like the UR storm that took 1st place at my regionals.
Banner made thanks to spiderboy4 and High~Light Studios
Faeries yar.
Measure your happiness by how satisfied you were with your deck's performance ability and your piloting skills, not by how different the list is from others around you. Otherwise you're setting yourself up for failure, to be honest.
Thanks to DarkNightCavalier at Scuttlemutt Productions for the awesome sig.
Currently playing:
EDH
:symw::symu::symb::symr::symg:Pro-Everthing-Genitus
Netdecking is Rightdecking
My latest data-driven Magic the Gathering strategy article
(TLDR: Analysis of the Valakut matchups. UB rising in the rankings. Aggro correspondingly taking a dive.)
I just love this one. ROFL! Fantastic analogy. I am all for creativity, but just how many possible combinations of cards can possibly be made into good decks at any one time? Man...I'm still laughing at that one, Angel.
Courtesy is contagious. Go out and catch some.
<Sigh> My quest for intelligent life on the internet continues.
[Harvey has challenged Butch to fight for control of the Hole-in-the-Wall gang]
Harvey Logan: Guns or Knives?
Butch Cassidy: Neither?
Harvey Logan: Pick.
Butch Cassidy: I don't want to shoot with you Harvey.
Harvey Logan: [Draws a big knife] Anything you say, Butch.'
[Butch walks over to his horse, by Sundance]
Butch Cassidy: [in a low voice] Maybe there's a way to make a profit in this. Bet on Logan.
Sundance Kid: I would, but who'd bet on you?
Harvey Logan: Sundance, this doesn't concern you. When we're done, and he's dead, you're welcome to stay.
Butch Cassidy: [low voice, to Sundance] Listen, I don't mean to be a sore loser, but when it's done, if I'm dead, kill him.
Sundance Kid: [low voice to Butch] Love to.
[Waves to Harvey and smiles]
Butch Cassidy: [Walks back, and Harvey tenses to begin the fight] No, no, not yet. Not until me and Harvey get the rules straightened out.
Harvey Logan: Rules? In a knife fight? No rules.
[Butch throws dirt in Harvey's eyes and kicks him in the groin, who falls to his knees]
Butch Cassidy: Well, if there aint' going to be any rules, let's get the fight started. Someone count. 1,2,3 go.
Sundance Kid: [quickly] 1,2,3, go.
[Butch knocks Harvey out]
Flat Nose Curry: I was rooting for you all along, Butch
Butch Cassidy: Well, thank you, Flatnose. That's what sustained me in my time of trouble.
I dont netdeck however I do find that since I dont have the time that the "pros" have I do like to see what they do and figure out why they use one card over another. That saves me time. What drives me batty is the fact that in standard there is a very limited card pool to choose from making limited amounts of what you can do effectively. We are blessed here to have many original thinkers making our local meta very unusual from many others. Some of them do as I do and learn from others on what and why certain cards work better.
My take is that if you want to play an "optimal" decklist from whomever go right ahead. Part of the fun is planing out what you will see and how to take apart a teir 1 deck. For me it is more fun to beat a "winning" deck with something unusual.
The best answer I can give for why people netdeck is the simple personalities. Spike wants to win at all costs. Therefore, Spike likes optimal decklists. They cannot call it their own but they dont care. Magic takes all types. We are no longer in the days of Legends, Antiquities, etc where the game didnt have a massive tournament following. During those times Wizards tried to make the game more popular and tourneys for money was the way to do it. When money got involved, things changed. It became less of a who can build the coolest deck and more who can use the best deck. Winning became everything and it will stay that way. For those of us who dont enjoy that part of it, casual formats have sprung up such as Type IV.
I like both aspects. I love the competitive part of magic and therefore I will do what I can to win. Now as I mentioned I dont netdeck but in my local meta that may not win you a tourney.
I netdeck to the point where I ask the good players what they're doing with their versions of the deck and then play that myself. I can understand that the good players play good decks, and that's why they win often.
I also like winning, simple as that.
I have that issue still.
Also Luis Scott Vargas said this at the recent block pt, "“there are two types of people who are playing Faeries at this tournament - people who haven't tested at all and played it because they thought it was the best deck, or people who tested a lot and played it because they knew it was the best deck.” this is true of every single netdeck. And guess what? Fairies did poorly at the PT. Do you know why? Because the vast majority of people who make it to PTs, are not people who pour every minute of every hour into strategizing for Magic. They go to a local qualifier, and do well. Then they're on the plane train or automobile to Hollywood, or Indy, or wherever. The point is, most of them will "net-deck" and do HORRIBLY, because they're not like Vargas, or Finkel, or any of those guys who have SKILL. Finkel is one of the best pure skill players at any game I've ever seen. And he's regarded by many as the best player in Magic. Because of his SKILL.
And the fact that he tutors......every turn.
It doesn't help that Wizards will on and off again build decks for you, like tribal, and make it seem silly to play anything else. Have you really looked at Elves from an objective point of view? 2cc for a 3/3 Deathtouch? A 2/2 lord, with the ability to make 2/2's for 1, for 3cc? 2 different ramping dudes? A huge pro-black finisher elf for a measly 4 mana? It's stupid. I won't even start on Faeries. It takes a pretty good 75 cards to even start to touch that.
If anything, I think being a good deckbuilder is being willing to adapt to the metagame as quickly as it shifts (the first players to say "Hmm, Faeries is good and I'm not playing them. Cloudthresher looks pretty good right now"), or being able to quickly realize the potential of new cards, etc. Being able to identify Thoughtseize as a good card is easy, but what about Primal Command? Obviously the world of magic will slowly adapt things that end up being better in practice due to lots of players slowly incorporating them, but riding on the front of that wave will help you get to the top faster, or win more, due to the fact that skill aside, you are running a better deck than the opponent, even if it's only 10%.
Art Page
Alters for sale