Community Discussion: Netdecking
General forum
Posted on Jan. 17, 2014, 2:03 a.m. by Epochalyptik
This Community Discussion is all about netdecking.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with the term, netdecking is the act of taking a decklist (usually a recent top-8 list) from the internet and copying it card-for-card or with minor alterations.
Netdeckers copy top lists because those lists are considered the best in the current meta. Sometimes, players netdeck because they don't want to put the effort into homebrewing and testing.
There's a long-standing debate about netdecking. Is it "right" or "wrong?" How does it affect the game? Should homebrew creativity be rewarded, or has the tournament structure of FNMs and other events changed what players value? Is there a trend toward netdecking? If so, why do you think that is?
TurboFagoot says... #3
Netdecking in a casual environment is usually useless.
However, playing in a sanctioned tournament, you play to win. There are some decks that are everywhere (MBD) not because people are unoriginal, but because those decks are streamlined, and better. So why would you knowingly play a suboptimal deck in a scenario where you want to win.
Not to mention, deck building and playing the game are two completely different skills. Some excel at the former, some the latter. Unfortunately, many people with little skill in the game, or understanding of the meta, think they're much better at the first for simply being "original".
There is also the discussion of overvaluing the idea of being "unique". I saw someone who posted their Modern Jund deck saying "This might look like a netdeck, but it isn't." It ran 4 Tarmogoyfs, Bobs, DR Shamans, etc. It was as "by the numbers" as you can be, so who cares that it's "not a netdeck". There is no shame in copying a list if your strength isn't in deck building.
tl;dr: People who complain about netdecking often don't have a real grasp on how to play competitive Magic.
January 17, 2014 2:15 a.m.
In my opinion netdecking is obnoxious but it is apart of the game. In my opinion I would rather go 1-4 at a FNM with my own homebrew knowing I actually took a win with my own brew instead of being that person who goes 4-1 5-0 every week because I copied mono blue and played that. As to how it effects the game it sets the meta for the format in a way but as you get deeper into formats such as Standard, Modern, Legacy, Vintage the meta becomes vast and more diverse for sure. Standard right now has 3 top decks where as you get to modern there is a good 5-7 decks that are seen often then legacy gets vast and so on. But the thing about netdecking is if you play your own brew you know how to sideboard against threats that make up the meta so you as well have an advantage to fight against mono blue, black or esper. It's a question that has no real answer in a sense because it's a good and bad thing in magic.
January 17, 2014 2:21 a.m.
Some1TookMyName says... #5
This is my opinion, Magic is fun but once you attend an FNM or another event it more turns more into a mathematical strategy. Netdecking is good for people who want to win and winners should be rewarded on their performance, not their deck. I netdeck and homebrew and have similiar results personally. Its preference, If you hate it or you're not having fun seeing the top tier decks (and losing to them) play Magic outside of a tournament setting. BTW, people always get upset whether they lose to a homebrew or netdeck, someone who netdecks is their escape for an excuse for their loss.
Take an athlete, they could use sub-par or homemade ways to train, or they can do what works and what works best, and in competition, why compromise?
January 17, 2014 2:24 a.m.
TurboFagoot says... #6
" But the thing about netdecking is if you play your own brew you know how to sideboard against threats that make up the meta so you as well have an advantage to fight against mono blue, black or esper."
Um, a competent player knows how to sideboard a deck they did not build. It's called playtesting and practicing.
What people don't understand is that it's players that win tournaments, not decks. I can hand you MBD right now. If you never played it before, you'd never 5-0 a tournament with it. Compare this to a player who has been playing it for months, in many tournaments. They have so much experience with the lines of play, the sideboarding strategies, etc. that they'd do much better than someone new to the deck.
Know why you often see the same players in top 8s of SCG events and GPs? And not a random assortment of no-names playing similar decks? The best players take a list, most often not their own list, and practice practice practice. They learn to sideboard, learn to asses board-state, etc.
Calling their accomplishments lesser because they "netdecked" is ridiculous. It just sounds petty, to undercut someone for doing things differently and more efficiently than you.
January 17, 2014 2:27 a.m.
I didn't have a problem with it for things like FNM, but when a friend of mine show up to a casual gathering between friends with Gruul Devotion worth about 4 times as much as any other deck present, it felt a bit shitty. We build homebrew stuff and generally keep it low so the game doesn't become pay to win among friends.
January 17, 2014 2:29 a.m.
I have found that net decking gives the home brewers a bit of advantage. I acknowledge that a top eight is a top eight for a reason, and that it is the fate of a clever and original idea to be copied ad nauseum, but "tried and true" can also be called tired and predictable. In short, for every dedicated MTG brewer, there are ten sheep waiting for the next op deck list to spend money on. (looking at you, Esper) It just gives an outline to build against. Net decking isn't going away, brew accordingly :-)
January 17, 2014 2:35 a.m.
Unforgivn_II says... #9
I save my brewing for EDH. However, I just started Pauper on MTGO and shamelessly built a typical RU Delver build. I'm trying to turn a profit there, so that I can draft to my heart's content. Drafting/Limited is my favorite format, so there really is no netdecking there.
So while a few months ago I would have said "NETDECKERS MUST DIE", I understand the finer points now. Anyone can copy and paste a deck. Few can play it correctly. For those of you that haven't netdecked before, you really can't say much about it. The game doesn't change, but the decks can. It's not like decklists are set in stone; people can make changes that fit their playstyle/meta. I think standard is currently an example of netdecking at its worst, but that's from the poor card pool really. If you look at any other format, there are tons of solid decks that at any time can win, if piloted correctly.
I'm not saying everyone needs to love netdeckers or has to become one. But to write them off as drones/zombies (not referring to this thread but in others I've seen) is plain foolish. The amount of skill required to play the top decks is immense. Anyone can have the cards in hand, but not just anyone can make the right decisions.
January 17, 2014 2:42 a.m.
aeonstoremyliver says... #10
Net decking is unoriginal at worst. I recall when Jace, the Mindsculptor was still Standard legal and CawBlade decks ran rampant. It cracked me up to see these folks dropping $2000 on a deck and had no clue how to pilot it.
At best net decking can be a winning strategy, if one can pilot the deck correctly. Ad Nauseum Tendrils isn't a deck one net decks and goes to play with the next day. That may be an extreme example, but I've made my point.
What I generally do when brewing a deck is pick a framework, or deck archetype, and personalize it. I built my 12 Post and RDW that way. Many of the same cards are found within their archetypes, however I definitely used creative (and sometimes budget constraining) liberties when constructing them.
Bottom line, if you net deck, then pilot the deck correctly and play test with it. Props to the home brewers for keeping it original. And do so with a solid, cohesive, winning strategy.
One more thing to add... Home brewing tends to work best in the Eternal formats, due to a much larger card pool.
January 17, 2014 3:08 a.m.
scottemery says... #11
My old LGS was originally full of colourful and more importantly original decks, this made it so that every FNM round I played was an exciting and different. This is the way Magic should be; ones brainchild vs anothers, a battles of wits and knowledge not a contest of who has the most funds available to buy the current netdecks. The club is now a contest of MUD, MRD and MBD, nothing else. To me, this has ruined my experience of the game, seeing inable and incompetant (not meaning to be harsh) players win games purely out of netdecking is a sad sight. 'Deck building requires a lot of strategy as players must choose among thousands of cards which they want to play. This requires players to evaluate the power of their cards, as well as the possible synergies between them, and their possible interactions with the cards they expect to play against (this "metagame" can vary in different locations or time periods)'- Wizards.
January 17, 2014 3:46 a.m.
blackmarker90 says... #12
I have a small "team" of players that I work with and the four of us work together to build the decks that we run on Fridays. I have assisted my teammate in developing a junk deck that is pretty hard to stop. Junk Slap is what he runs and regularly 3-1 at our LGS. I pride myself in knowing that his success is my brainchild
January 17, 2014 4:13 a.m.
my friend and I was just talking about this the other day. IMHO, a core component of what makes Magic fun is the variety of cards and the multitude of combos you can create and customize with it. i see the pro's and con's of both sides (netdecking assures you a mid-tier ranking at least, cheaper because you're after specific cards, etc..). having said that, i'm a homebrewer, too. I'm actually a bit bummed right now because I just found out an LGS near me had a sealed event earlier. thinking of switching from Standard to purely sealed this year :)
January 17, 2014 4:47 a.m.
Some people play to win, and an easy way to achieve that is to use decks that have already received success. There's nothing wrong with that.
The real issue here is actually why people seem to feel like it's ok to judge whether other players are playing the game 'right' or 'wrong'. I think people need to get off their high horses and stop being so petty, because it is absolutely outrageous, and not in the spirit of the game, to claim that someone is playing the game, 'wrong'. Ridiculous. This usually tends to stem from sort of frustration (due to repeated losses) or arrogance (due to perceived 'creativity superiority') homebrewers have directed at netdeckers. Regardless, it's a problem with the homebrewers, not the netdeckers (the group doing the complaining and finger pointing). This game is there to be enjoyed by any individual, however they want, not by some abstract code of honour.
January 17, 2014 5:13 a.m.
Obligatory link about complainers in competitive games: Here
January 17, 2014 5:19 a.m.
I dont see any issue with anyone playing a "netdeck" as there is generally always some variation even if small to the lists the people run. And even if not they all still take skill to run correctly. I think "netdecking" is even the wrong term. Really what the top decks are really showing is the top cards in the format and for valid reasons. I dont think that there is even any issue in this years standard as there is not a single dominate deck in the format. So I find that even with the "netdeckers" that are playing some list from a week ago or more, are not even playing that exact list.
I do agree with playing a proper power level of deck however. FNM and anything above I would consider that you want to play the best deck with the best cards you know how to play. For anything else I consider that casual play and will try to adjust to a deck that is going to be fun for all that are involved. Lately this has been EDH for me where I get to play out crazy combos ie Earthcraft
and Squirrel Nest
but dont have a way to untap and swing for the win so there is time to respond. This way I get to enjoy both sides of magic with the really precise and correct card selection for that week and the fun crazy who knows whats going to happen next side as well.
January 17, 2014 6:12 a.m.
I love Playing to Win. Saw it years ago and my jaw dropped in sheer amazement on how right Sirlin is. Glad you linked that, ChiefBell, since I was about to myself.
As Sirlin so elegantly puts it: "Play to win, not do difficult moves."
The bottom line is that Magic has a finite number of cards with a finite number of interactions and thus a finite number of decks. For example, one of the major turning points in my Magic career was Elves. When Kamigawa came out, one of the first decks I made from the cards available was a re-vamped Elf deck. For a long time, Elves couldn't compete with Goblins because Goblins had Goblin Ringleader and Goblin Recruiter . When used with Food Chain , Goblins can literally draw its entire deck and dump it into play.
Since Elves didn't have anything remotely resembling Goblin Ringleader or Goblin Recruiter , but had all of the mana generation of Food Chain via Priest of Titania , Kamigawa brought in something much needed to help my Elves catch up with my Goblin deck. That card was Glimpse of Nature .
I toyed around with Elves for years using Glimpse of Nature to snowball Elves into play. But the deck always ran into the same problem. If it didn't get Wirewood Lodge or Priest of Titania , it would run out of mana. I experimented with Food Chain , Tangleroot , and a few other mana engines, but none of it felt right.
Then Morningtide comes out.
One day, I'm derping around, looking at Legacy tournament results, and I find people who are playing "my" deck. Card for card, we had almost identical choices. Except for one key difference. Instead of running Tangleroot or Food Chain like I was, they were playing the new combo of Nettle Sentinel and Heritage Druid . While the build I had created was no doubt mine, I admitted to myself I was just playing a worse version by not using the new combo from Morningtide.
It was in this moment things finally clicked for me and I understood why people would netdeck. At some point, we all pretty much figure out the same decks. It why netdecks crop up. Even in a vacuum, people will make discoveries. Right now, there's a younger player at my shop who's been building Orzhov Midrange for months. Just the other day I was looking at Standard Daily tourneys, and found out people were playing almost the exact same deck he was, despite him never having posted his deck to the public or looked at any netdecks.
This same situation just happened to me again when Greg Price got top 8 with MUD at Eternal Weekend (actual MUD, by the way, not that silly blue crap you youngins have been playing in Standard). His deck was card-for-card identical to mine with only two changes. He ran a 12-post mana base (Vesuva , Cloudpost , and Glimmerpost ) with four Trinisphere , compared to my deck that ran Voltaic Key , Thran Dynamo , and a lower land count. Unlike my deck, however, his didn't need to mulligan as often and was much more consistent. His changes to a deck I was working on simultaneously were superior. Recognizing this, I had no shame switching my build over to his.
The end result is always the same. It doesn't really matter how you get there, because no one will know if you came up with something by yourself or if you copied it from somewhere online. Thinking netdecking is wrong and being vocal about it just makes you a holier-than-thou jerkface. How do you know they copied the deck and didn't just figure it out themselves? What if they have more fun playing the game than making decks? What if the card pool is so small, like it is in Standard or Block, that only one or two good decks exist in the format? Are you just playing a shitty version of a good deck that's well established? These are questions you need to ask yourself before getting peeved by the way someone else plays.
January 17, 2014 6:18 a.m.
Very well put sylvannos this is what I was thinking summed up much better.
January 17, 2014 6:25 a.m.
sonicizslow says... #19
Personally, I enjoy home brewing decks. The ones I make are not the greatest, but are normally fun to play. There is a person in my play group who goes on here and finds a top deck he likes and clicks buy. Some times the decks he buys are fun to play against other times, nobody wants to play him... ever. I think home-brew is better though, shows the talent/creativity of the individual.
January 17, 2014 7:03 a.m.
It all comes down to why you play Magic. At it's core, everybody plays for the same reason: Magic is fun. You could be the most hardcore grinder in the hemisphere, but you know why you picked up your first deck? To have fun. And if building a big strong Jund deck is what us fun for you, I'm damn well not gonna deny you that right. Whatever is fun for you, as long as it doesn't horribly ruin everybody else's time, is totally fine with me.
Personally, I'm a brewer. Even when I get ideas online, they're usually weird combos and I still tweak a lot. Netdecks are essential to the game's health, though. They're a standard to beat. They're the scale against which you can measure your decks.
So basically, do whatever you want and don't stop others from doing that. Live and let live.
January 17, 2014 7:40 a.m.
fluffybunnypants says... #21
sylvannos summed up my thoughts on this as well. I still think that the part people miss is what cards were added as meta calls in the main and side and why. When you can fine tune those things, you'll find yourself doing much better usually.
January 17, 2014 7:43 a.m.
lookoutimscary says... #22
I remember my first FNM I was playing a little White Weenie homebrew (with practically all 1-ofs) and every game I played was against this U/W deck (I know now as Caw-Blade) I wondered if I had missed a memo or something and play against that deck got old really fast..
January 17, 2014 7:45 a.m.
fluffybunnypants says... #23
I also enjoy Modern and Legacy because they are formats where you can be successful with a T2 deck if you know it inside and out.
January 17, 2014 7:57 a.m.
NobodyPicksBulbasaur says... #24
Netdecking is a good thing, and is necessary for the long-term health of the game. There, I said it.
Before I go deeper into that, let me clarify something. Magic is a game, and should be played to have fun. If you choose to net-deck just to win and not to have fun, then you are a jerkbag, and should consider hobbies that are fun to you.
Magic is a game with infinite possibility. Not all of those possibilities are good ones, though, and that's why people brew decklists. Somebody has to go through the countless possible decks and hatch up the one that will win next week's tournament. This person could be Patrick Chapin. It could be an entire think-tank over at Channel Fireball. It could be you. The point is, only one person is going to come up with the "best" deck next week.
But not everybody is an innovator. Some people just love to play Magic, but don't want to get crushed every match. Those people have to have somewhere to turn in order to be able to generate a playable deck. Some might call it laziness, but the reasons don't really matter. There will always be some people out there who want to play Magic but don't want to spend time fine tuning a decklist.
Enter the net-deck. By having an available set of decklists out in the AEther, it suddenly becomes possible for thousands more players to stand a fighting chance at FNMs, PTQs, and all other tourneys. This is good. It brings more players into the game that otherwise would have given up on it long ago due to time requirements or feelings of helplessness. Gone are the days where you had to spend months perfecting a deck, only to find out that it wasn't very good.
Yes, this breeds laziness, but it also breeds competitiveness. Every person at a tournament with a net-deck knows that the deck they hold can win the tournament. Once everyone has a chance to win, then everyone has a reason to compete.
It also generates a reason for the homebrewers to put on their think-caps. There's little incentive to spend time and money brewing a new deck if there is no expectation of victory. When you brew a deck that you expect to win a tournament, you have to consider the current metagame. If your deck looks good on paper, but folds to the current metagame, then you're going to lose a large percentage of your games. But what if there was no metagame? You'd be going into every tournament blind, making homebrews risky at best. Sure, every deck would carry that risk, but many people won't show up to a tournament if they can't expect a decent performance.
Netdecks may homogenize the metagame to a certain extent, but they also define the metagame. They give context to all the brewers out there who would otherwise be going in blind. Building a sideboard is hard enough when you know which 3 decks you'll be facing most often at FNM. I don't want to imagine having to build a sideboard blind to the metagame.
Every time convenience breeds laziness, there will always be someone that gets upset, sometimes with good reason. However, there are benefits to every convenience, and I believe that, when it comes to net-decking, the pros outweigh the cons. Anything that makes Magic more accessible to the masses is okay in my book.
January 17, 2014 8:09 a.m.
yes, I have to say sylvannos put my thoughts out there also.
Another missing point is that some people don't have time to brew, they netdeck because of that. Sometimes it's hard to find time between work, family and a life outside of magic, so you can only dedicate a few hours of it to the game. You want to maximize the time by playing not brewing then maybe a few games.
Limited is where the deck building skills really shine. If you want to see a netdecker play something different, get in a draft or sealed event with them and watch what they do. A lot are better than you might think.
January 17, 2014 8:30 a.m.
Netdecking is a part of MTG, and I actually do not mind the practice itself. However, I do mind that it seems to have spawned a culture in competitive MTG where players hate on anything original or low tier (this is the norm in Legacy, where I usually play, but I recognize that this may be different in other formats).
I am actually quite curious as to whether this phenomenon is prevalent in other gaming cultures, or if this is something unique to the MTG competitive culture. Either way, I think it is a self destructive culture that will only serve to suppress new ideas, and therefore it will contribute to keeping the overall level of competition lower in the long run (which is ironic, since a lot of the originality/low tier haters seem to exalt maximizing competition).
The way I see it, if you want to netdeck, fine, just realize that "winning" at MTG is much more complicated than simply having a winning record, since this is a game of both game play and creation.
January 17, 2014 8:37 a.m.
I feel like there is a time and place for net decking. I dont mind seeing netdecks at FNM and such, because those decks are the big threats in the format, so you know what you have to beat and what to expect. It gives you a feel for the competitive decks in the format. People netdeck because they want to win. Totally understandable. I like to win, hell yeah, just as much as the next guy.
But when playing casual tabletop magic, you dont want to use some top tier deck, then it is not fun to win. Would you really feel accomplished beating your friends with a $500+ deck when they're all using 80$ decks (estimating here)?
To sum up what Im trying to say, basically, I dont think theres anything wrong with netdecking at sanctioned events, but in a casual environment it is just unfair, and not fun. I have decks that I bring to FNM and such that dont get touched outside of those events. Then I have my casual decks that i use when we all sit around to table to play
January 17, 2014 8:43 a.m.
I think that people aiming to do homebrew should probably just play EDH, thats what I do. I could very easily buy all the best decks for any format but that isn't fun IMO. I like to build fun and interesting decks of varying win cons and colours and in Standard that would more or less result in me losing a lot and wasting money buying standard cards that plummet a few months or a year later. At least playing EDH the cards usually keep their value or even gain so I am not losing out that way. I also have 13 decks and counting, keeping my creative juices flowing and by switching decks keeps every game different, challenging and unique. I don't have anything against 'netdecking' if you enter a tourney where you can win prizes and money, i would absolutely want to win. But I don't have the time to do that, instead i play with friends at a kitchen table and just so happen to pick EDH, 60 card casual, pauper, and many other formats are suitable, but if you don't want to lose to a 'netdecker' you really shouldn't be playing standard where the creativity is stifled by the limited card pool. Modern, Vintage, Legacy all hav MUCH bigger card pools and as others have said, they can have a more varied winning deck and home brews can be more successful, afterall every winning deck was a homebrew for someone, somewhere, somtime!
January 17, 2014 8:54 a.m.
Beenebulon says... #29
I was having so much fun playing home brewed magic for years, we didn't have the best decks around but they're fun to play. When a friend of ours began to play about six months ago, our play group taught him how, let him build his own decks with our cards, then in his situation with no rent to pay he ends up netdecking the best decks around, laughs with elated joy because he wins. Which is his own choice granted, but you can't expect all players who have worked hard for years to be as good as we are home brewing our decks not to feel like net decking has just slapped us in face.
I feel the idea of standard, modern vintage is what started it all. why aren't we always just using all the magic cards available? So many great sets and cool cards are just not allowed because why? We have to spend more money on new cards, always? Not right, not fair, but just is.
January 17, 2014 9:24 a.m.
Beenebulon 'Netdecking" has been around for years, since before the pro-tour at least. Decklists from events appeared in duelist and scry and the internet was available at the time. I'm talking 95-7 after our casual games, I would play a couple friend duels with my casual deck and they would produce a deck seen in duelist or did good that past weekend they learned about from sources online and play that. I never felt it was a slap in the face, but a learning utility. Netdecking makes you a BETTER deck builder if you allow it to actually be a tool instead of an enemy.
January 17, 2014 9:29 a.m.
Beenebulon says... #31
gufymike i agree, but there are people who don't use it as a tool and just ride the victory wave dishonorably. That is slaps me in the face. plus I'm too broke to buy cards all the time with two kids and a disability, so when my friend rubs in my face how good at magic he is......well no time to get all frustrated about it. Thanks for your positive comeback!
January 17, 2014 9:58 a.m.
Hallowed_Titan says... #32
I have no issues with it. I generally home brew but on a few occaisions have net decked. I've also taken ideas from a netdeck to put into a home brew. Nothing wrong with using proven good stuff. Like others have said, it is part of the game. Embrace it.
January 17, 2014 10:18 a.m.
I just wrote a long post and lost it, dernit.
My point was going to be that we each should weigh our reasons and motivations for playing.
If we're going to play in tournaments, we should expect netdecks. If you are strictly play-to-win, why not netdeck? If you are limited in funds, you should not expect to play-to-win, however play-to-learn is a fine motivator. You can still build cheap & moderately competitive, but you are going to lose for awhile.
If we're going to play with casuals at the kitchen-table, some decks should be built for that. Netdecks or brews that make the game un-fun should be retired from casual play. If your friends play-for-fun, please don't poo all over that, because you might lose some friends, or mtg might lose some players.
Look at your context. Play to your context. Don't play in a context or for a motivation that gets you mad and you get no enjoyment from. Find your enjoyment and find the right context for it.
January 17, 2014 10:21 a.m.
Most players aren't open minded enough to know how big a part of competitive play netdecking really is. I've spoken my peace on haters before, especially the ones who think just because someone netdecks means they are worse at the game then someone who home brews.
January 17, 2014 10:33 a.m.
NobodyPicksBulbasaur says... #35
@Beenebulon The concept of Standard as a format is what keeps magic healthy as a game. One of the reasons Yugioh struggles is that it only has one format with all of the cards.
When you have only one eternal format it becomes very difficult to keep the format balanced while also making money. In order to keep interest in your products you end up having to print stronger and stronger cards. Otherwise people end up sitting on their old decks and ignoring the new cards. That's why power creep is so prevalent in other games.
The existence of a rotating standard format allows wizards to keep a relatively stable power level throughout each format. They can split their new and exciting cards between multiple formats to keep people interested without blowing up the game every time a new set comes out.
January 17, 2014 10:51 a.m.
thEnd3000 - Yeh, high level play is always emulated by other players in all games. In Starcraft 2 for example, people copy build orders and strategies.
Netdecking in magic is simply called 'learning a build' in Starcraft amd other strategy games..
January 17, 2014 10:54 a.m.
Triforce-Finder says... #37
I darkly remember posting this somewhere lately, but it can't hurt to repeat myself:
There are two main challenges in magic: Building a deck and piloting a deck.
If you have trouble with one of those, be it because you don't have the time, can't handle gatherer, don't have enough inventiveness, can't adapt mid-game or can't attend tournaments, that shouldn't prohibit you from taking up the other challenge. A lot of homebrew decks are only built for the sake of building, so playing just for the sake of playing is okay just as well.
Netdecks also offer a good starting point for homebrewers to build their own, potentially stronger variation of a netdeck.
Two things though: Don't accuse people of netdecking, because they might have built a similar deck purely by chance. It might even be an improved variation, so watch out. And, if you are netdecking, just own up. Netdecking is fine, plagiarism isnt.
And sometimes, the guy you just accused to be netdecking is the one who posted the list in the first place... XD
January 17, 2014 11:04 a.m.
At first, I had nothing but contempt for net-decking. An imaginative game with no imagination... but as a home-brewer, I've been developing a fondness for those who net-deck. It's not the game that's unimaginative, it's the players.
Since they play commonly known and winning decks, I know what I'm up against before I start to develop my strategy. If I know my opponent's deck, and they don't know mine, I have the upper hand.
Basically, I've taken the view that I don't want to net deck, but I still want to be competitive. So I no longer "home brew", so much as "net brew", by keeping an eye on what is currently winning, and developing my strategy with net-decks in mind.
It doesn't always work... but since net-decking doesn't always work either, I think I'm ahead of the game by playing entertaining decks. I have fun, even when I get crushed... and it usually doesn't cost me an arm and a leg.
Some things to keep in mind though. When home brewing, you need to know the concepts behind the net-decks. They commonly win for a number of reasons, and you need to know that when home-brewing... things like using the right mana-base, what makes some creatures good and others bad, avoiding being 2-for-1'd, etc...
January 17, 2014 11:07 a.m.
Ultimaodin says... #39
I like winning, who doesn't. That said, I personally hate net decking. I don't hate on people doing it themselves, I just find it boring. For me making decks is more fun than playing and if I win with my home brew (which most the time I do) then I feel awesome because bam I just beet your MBD copy into the ground with my Simic.
I personally like challenges, winning without the challenge for me is boring. Somebody says Simic isn't competitive, well - yeah I've already won enough times with that. Selesnya is currently bad since it's only good at aggro and it's poor at that at the moment. Guess I'll just go late game beat down with my Selesnya.
One time when Gruul got no love I went Gruul with my lovely Legion Loyalist and Bow of Nylea Synergy to destroy all. That synergy appeared a tonne in the next FNM I went to. (Damn it). Nobody plays my Simic deck though, mainly because barely anybody can pilot it correctly. My Irindu deck also doesn't get copied... although that dead set is a combination of my Gruul and Simic deck smashed together with Niv Mizzit for good measure.
Another issue I have with net decking is they just don't suit my play style. I learned pretty quickly I can't play Esper control, I don't have the patience, and I also learned I couldn't go complete aggro. One glance at top 8 decks and I can tell they're generally not suited for me. This is something though a lot of net deckers I find fall to, they take a top tier deck and flunk with it hard because they either don't know how to pilot it or it straight out just doesn't suit their play style.
This said I've on occasion seen a brilliant deck on here that I've had to modify and play test because it looks fun.
January 17, 2014 11:23 a.m.
scottemery says... #40
Ultimaodin- Couldn't agree more. To me magic is two games: Playing others and creating decks. For me creating a deck and experimenting is key to my enjoyment of the game and also development as a player, playing others is just seeing my brainchild in motion. I must start playing EDH.
January 17, 2014 11:34 a.m.
Smith_and_Tonic says... #41
One good thing about netdecking is, it makes creating a sideboard that much easier. If you know the top decks from the past couple weeks, then you can craft a sideboard to fit a "general" meta. the sideboard should be tuned for the specific region or store you are playing in, but it does help.
January 17, 2014 11:59 a.m.
Quadsimotto says... #42
I have recently decided to do this very thing myself. When i return to the states i will take a MBD deck to Fnm to see if it is just my shitty play or if if is my terrible deck building that is keeping me out of the top 4. I realize i have been gone for a looong time and the people i am playing against are all pretty damn good (with some exceptions) but getting my ass handed to me every time i go play finishing 1/3 on a regular basis is pretty damn embarrassing. I am getting no respect from the guys that play continuously. One or two guys bring their own brews and do well but the rest are running RDW,MUD,or MBD and its frustrating to just take beating after beating to RDW. I want to do well at least one damn time before I go back to using my own builds.I play because its fun but its not that great when you lose consistently. Do not take what i am saying out of context. I could care less if other players netdeck. If its a proven winner by all means use it. It is just not my style....Or at least after i win a few,. It will not be my style..HA!!!
January 17, 2014 1:08 p.m.
SharuumNyan says... #43
Netdecking can be a great way to learn more about deckbuilding. There is a reason why those netdecks work well, and by studying that deck and playing it you'll figure out why that deck was built and what makes it work. That'll make you a stronger homebrewer in my opinion.
Then there's the fact that most netdecks were built by people with lots of time on their hands, and who have tried many different deck combinations to get to near perfection. If you homebrew long enough, you're probably going to achieve the same results as the pros. I know a couple of people who independently came up with a mono-blue devotion deck before the Pro Tour. They were homebrew decks that just happened to mirror a netdeck. So if you're judging people for playing netdecks, you never know if they copied it or not. So it's best just not to judge in my opinion.
And, netdecking isn't always successful anyway. Your meta may be completely different than the environment that made the deck successful. You still need to playtest, adjust, and be competitive with it.
Magic attracts a lot of different types of people. A college kid may have many more hours of free time per week than a working professional with kids. I'm on the busier side these days, and I don't have the time to homebrew as much as I'd like. Netdecking is often the only chance I have to play a competitive deck on Friday nights, especially right after rotation.
People who whine about netdecks are usually just sore losers in my opinion.
January 17, 2014 1:09 p.m.
Didgeridooda says... #44
I would never even dream of it. I like to take my decks and build from the ground up. If I find out about a new card I will try it.
I also do not mind playing against them. The better the deck I beat the better I know I played.
What I do not like is when I make a deck, and someone copies it. I know I should be more flattered then frustrated, but it has happened a couple times. I am not a fan of that.
January 17, 2014 1:58 p.m.
@ChiefBell, I was mainly talking about whether a culture of hating on people who play low tier strategies is the norm in other gaming communities. I mainly follow Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo, and from what I can see so far, there doesn't seem to be as much hate for people who use lower tier characters, such as Zangief.
From what I have experienced so far in the few instances where I tried my hand at competitive Street Fighter, I have received applause for picking Zangief, not hate. This evidence is admittedly from a small sample size, so the truth about the greater Street Fighter community could actually be 180 degrees the opposite.
On the other hand, when I play my Enlightened Tutor Toolbox White Weenie Legacy brew in a fair sized event, people usually assume I am new to Legacy, they write off my wins as blind luck, and suggest that I play Death and Taxes instead (which is a totally different deck with a prison style strategy I do not really enjoy). And for the record, I have played my deck extensively, and I know when my deck is giving me lucky hands and when it is not, and there has been no correlation so far between when I have been accused of getting lucky, and when my deck actually gives me lucky hands. More casual settings have usually been more cordial, but I have just learned to embrace the hate in bigger events.
On that note, I am curious, I don't know too much about Starcraft, but I would imagine the races in that game are tiered like MTG decks and Street Fighter characters are. If that is the case, do players repeatedly get ridiculed for using lower tier races in Starcraft? I am actually quite curious.
January 17, 2014 3:07 p.m.
SharuumNyan says... #46
thEnd3000 - people who accuse you of winning through blind luck will usually say that to anyone - even people playing top tier decks. Those kinds of people are just jerks, and aren't worth your time.
January 17, 2014 4:12 p.m.
HarbingerJK says... #47
there are definite, obvious advantages to it, but personally it just screams that the player netdecking is either a Spike or just didn't bother taking the time to create a strategy themselves. Although I will say on a personal note that looking a top tier deck lists inspires me in creating my own decks, but it isn't as fun for me to run a deck resembling another
January 17, 2014 4:15 p.m.
Honestly at first I thought it was for uncreative "spikes" who can afford a 4x Black Lotus , but after I forgot my deck at FNM and a guy let me borrow his "netdecked" Azorius control (he used the term netdecked), I realized that it gives the game a more strategical view and forces a player to think about plays instead of "If I could afford this card I could win".
I found that in games I played against other common decks (MUD and MBD respectively) the deck matters less and the plays matter more, rather than blaming your deck (or the meta and the cost of cards) for your loss, you blame your misplays and things that went unnoticed or uncountered or unremoved.
"Netdecking" is fine in my book and if you go 4-0 with your own brew then +1000 internets to you.
January 17, 2014 4:19 p.m.
thEnd3000 - No, all 3 races are (arguably) perfectly balanced with each other. There's no hate for any one race. There is hate for particular strategies that are considered cheap (and are referred to as 'cheesing'). Most are the equivalent of winning by T2 with an unstoppable combo in Magic. If you don't react instantly in T1 - you lose. That's sort of an analogy for what makes people mad in starcraft. Strategies that give you barely any warning or time to react.
January 17, 2014 4:20 p.m.
I think that netdecking is OK at times.
At FNM level or with your friends, netdecking isn't OK. It makes the game not fun for everyone else but you. At FNM, that's not OK.
However, it is OK once you get to a higher level. Even at a PTQ, where the prize is going to a PT, it's fine to piss everyone off for the prize. At a Grand Prix, where the prize is $2500, that's fine.
But at FNM, I wouldn't do it. The purpose of FNM is to get out there and have some fun, and netdecking isn't fun.
blackmarker90 says... #2
I think that netdecking causes a lot of good "homebrews" to go unnoticed. I mean the netdecks are obviously used because they win. That aside i think that it homogenizes the meta. I would rather go to FNM and see four completely original decks than have to deal with MUD and MBD for four rounds every week, it gets old fast.
January 17, 2014 2:10 a.m.