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?
I personally don't like netdecking at all. I think people should make a deck of whatever comes to mind. When is the last time you saw Grixis Control in top 8 at any pro tour championship or other event. Chances are you haven't. But with a little tweaking, it can easily get top 8, I make it work. Lots of the decks I see at my store's FNM netdeck things like U Devotion and R Devotion. Same goes for G Devotion, B Devotion, Esper Control, and lots of other things. Only one or two, sometimes none will get top 8 that have been creatively made. I don't think that netdecking is wrong or bad, but I think MTG Deckbuilding should come from creativity, not from other pro players.
January 17, 2014 5:01 p.m.
Triforce-Finder says... #3
Well, seeing only legacy players, it seems to me that there's a good amount of disdain towards unpopular deck archetypes. I can't count how often I heard that this or that "is the only playable budget deck in legacy" and similar speeches. On the other hand, the card range attracts many individualistic homebrewers, so it's no surprise that unusual decks are often most highly valued by Legacy players. Of course YMMV, if it's really necessary to say.
What everybody hates though, are t1/t2 win decks, just as ChiefBell says.
When comparing formats, especially on this page, unusual Legacy decks are among those getting the most "this should be casual and not legacy" comments, closely followed by modern decks. Those comments are not useful, depreciating, and a waste of the calories burned by typing them.
January 17, 2014 5:14 p.m.
SharuumNyan says... #4
It's also a matter of cash. If you can only afford to buy the cards for one deck, you're more likely to buy the cards needed for a tried-and-true netdeck than randomly spending money on cards to brew your own.
And, Matsi883, most people see FNM as practice for larger tournaments. It wouldn't make much sense to use a homebrew deck at FNM if you're trying to practice for an upcoming PTQ or GP.
Giving netdeckers grief will deter people from playing the game. It's also going to make people with a homebrew deck that's similar to a netdeck feel bad, which isn't fair. If you have a preference - stick to it. But don't judge others and their own preference. If your homebrew isn't good enough to take down a netdeck, either your deck isn't any good or you're still not that good at the game. It's not worth blaming another person over, for whatever reason, unless they cheated.
January 17, 2014 5:19 p.m.
@Triforce-Finder and SharuumNyan
Thank you both for your comments, I find them quite encouraging. Playing lower tier and original decks is not easy in any format. However, in the words of Thomas Paine: The harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly[.]
To all you brewers out there, I say keep up the good work! And to all you netdeckers out there, I say play your best so that us brewers can have an accurate idea of where our decks stand, as several commenters here have already suggested.
January 17, 2014 5:38 p.m.
Schuesseled says... #6
Net decking is boring! It causes the meta to become stale and homogenous, whereas if players all brought their own unique brews then the Meta is far more diverse and leads to more interesting matches at FNM.
As to the insinuation that net decking makes it easier for new players to get into magic, well that's nonsense. Net decks are expensive, buying them doesn't help you to learn how to play properly or how to craft decks designed to play in your local meta. All Net decking does is increase profits for LGS's and online shops at the expense of the game of MTG.
January 17, 2014 6 p.m.
sylvannos and others hit the hammer on the head pretty much, I used to despise it, but over time became okay with it, but there is one thing I will always despise, especially the standard format, is playing against the same damn two decks week in and week out. Why I wish Legacy would get some Wizard love.
January 17, 2014 6:10 p.m.
Triforce-Finder says... #8
I think Schuesseled is right about netdecks not being good for getting into magic. The best way to start is to build (admittedly weak) monocolored decks from 2ct cards (also called gifts in a friendly playgroup) and a few carefully chosen cards for not more than a dollar, because you will inevitably make bad choices picking your cards. That way, you can quickly afford a big collection of cards. What for, you ask? To find out something very important: What kind of player you are. It must be aggravating to buy a 400$ aggro deck only to find out that you're a combo player by nature.
Anything expensive is best borrowed from a friend.
A good way to learn playing magic is playing a ready-built deck open-handed with an experienced friend. The senior gives advice to the junior when it's needed, always keeping the dialogue open and supporting the junior by making him list his options or suggesting plays.
A bad way to learn playing magic is to buy a deck that the junior can't even hope to understand at his current level of (in)experience.
January 17, 2014 6:57 p.m.
I disagree to a point. There is only a finite number of good decks you can build. The meta would not be as plentiful as you guys think it would be. Netdecking is a collaboration of millions instead of the few in your playgroup. Many have attested to independent discovery of top decks is proof of this.
January 17, 2014 7:10 p.m.
Schuesseled says... #10
Why would anyone think it's bad to take home brews to tournaments?
Netdecks were originally home brews!
January 17, 2014 7:14 p.m.
KnightsBattlecry001 says... #11
I don't really care for net decking. Playing against the same couple of decks every time at FNM gets old fast. However it does help with seeing where the deck's weaknesses are and how to deal with them. At my FNM almost everyone has stuff in their sideboards to slow down mono blue or mono black if not flat out shut it down. So net decks are not that big a problem at my LGS and there are plenty of homebrews running around to make things interesting.
January 17, 2014 7:17 p.m.
Netdecks != expensive.
You can netdeck RDW and build it for under $50. That's far better than spending $100 on a plethora of cards to build a deck that doesn't work. It's a great tool for helping new players get into the game, especially with the amount of knowledge and articles written on netdecks helps them learn the ins and outs faster than a homebrew.
January 17, 2014 7:37 p.m.
Triforce-Finder says... #13
And then you realize that RDW is not your style and that oops!allspells suits you better. XD
Cards that are used in netdecks are requested more often than cards that are not used that often. That makes them more expensive. It's a basic law of economy.
There might be cheap netdecks, but those cards would be even cheaper if they weren't used in a popular build.
For the fifty dollar you spend on a rdw deck, you can get a stack of 1000 cards if they're all below 5ct. Anyways, I woudn't spend more than ten dollars on a starting pool. In my playgroup, new players will get handfuls of those cards for free. If you read my post closely you will see that those are not meant to build a competitive deck, but to find your own style. That's very important if you ever want to become a really good player, and not an automaton that executes the moves it reads in from an article.
About articles, they are never as good as the direct dialogue with a mentor. They don't answer questions. They don't check if you understood. They don't make you aware of your mistakes. They don't help you practice recognizing chances to use the moves they teach.
If you're new to magic, you can't expect to enter the game at a competitive level. You've got to build your skill from a solid base, and the path to playing real magic is a long one.
January 17, 2014 8:06 p.m.
ChrisHansonBiomancin says... #14
Interesting discussion. I made it thru the first page but didn't feel like reading the rest so forgive me if I'm repeating other points.
The first thing that needs to be said is that every MTG player wants something different out of the game, and we even have the terms Johnny, Spike, and Timmy to embody these personalities. Obviously, netdecking is a Spike trait because Spike just wants to win, and he gets more satisfaction from competing with his deck than building it. Even though I am not a pure Spike by any means, I am extremely competitive so I understand that some people want to pilot a deck that gives them the best chance to make Top 8's cinsistently. And let's face it, brewing takes time and is often a trial-and-error process, so I understand that many people don't want to devote the time and energy to building a deck from scratch.
That all said, I personally find it much more gratifying to win with my own home brew and win with style. I love the times I manage to make Top 8, but if I go 4-2 at FNM while managing to pull off a few awesome combos or ridiculous board states, I go home just as happy. I also love the process of brewing, as it gives a person like myself who can't draw or sing a feeling of artistic creativity. It also allows me to explre the seemingly limitless synergies that exist in MTG.
And although netdecks ultimately have a competitive edge because, well, they're good decks, homebrewing does have its competitive perks as well. As someone mentioned on the first page, homebrews have the advantage of being unpredictable, whereas most experienced players know every card coming out of a netdeck, including what they will use in their sideboard. Also, the process of trial-and-error homebrewing means that you're going to have a better chance of knowing the nuanced synergies that exist in your deck by the time a tournament starts (not to say that a savvy Spike can't pick those up quickly, but in general learning those takes a few tries). Researching cards to use also gives you an expanded knowledge of the card base in the meta so you can anticipate fringe cards that the opponent might use.
But in the end, it's all a matter of preference. What annoys me more than anything else is when people act like the game should be tailored to their playstyle, such as Spikes who dismiss any card that doesn't have a classic competitive feel, or Johnnies who whine about netdecking.
January 17, 2014 8:35 p.m.
Dalektable says... #15
I leave the subject alone now. Many people do it, i just personally refuse to. I wouldn't feel like i really won playing someone else's deck, where as winning with a deck i built is incredibly satisfying. I think of magic almost like a chess game, pitting my mind and skills against yours. If i used someone else's deck list that would be like copying every move i saw a pro chess player make. I want to win on my own terms.
January 17, 2014 8:52 p.m.
Triforce-Finder says... #16
Well, if building a good deck is one challenge, and piloting a deck to a top x rank is another, piloting a deck you built yourself to a top x rank is a double victory.
January 17, 2014 9:28 p.m.
Nigeltastic says... #17
I certainly understand why people net-deck, but it goes against what I perceive the spirit of MTG to be. That said, I am a brewer and I love researching cards and combos and how cards interact and the like. I also realize that what I think the spirit of MTG is is not what someone else perceives it to be, and the bottom line is whatever makes you enjoy the game, be it net-decking or brewing, is what is right for you.
January 17, 2014 9:29 p.m.
obviously people like to win, and MUD was a thing even in the testing phases of theros, in a vaccum, MBD or MUD or Esper would be created hundreds of times with the same variance even without a tournament to prove it bc good players will recognize good cards and synergies. Net decking just makes sure those decks are tested and more rampant
When i build decks off popular shells i work and research. when i built shardless bug i started by taking the last 4 top 8 decks, and making an excel spreadsheet of the deck lists, this allowed me to see the bare minimum of each card being run as a place to start, then i was able to tailor it to my own playstyle and feel through play testing the extra spots.
my homebrews i generally just play whatever i want, which is currently B/G Reanimator with Grisly Salvage , Nighthowler , Deadbridge Chant and Sylvan Primordial and use Bow of Nylea and DRS to set up my graveyard to be awesome
January 17, 2014 9:49 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #19
It's good to see thought-out opinions. Many netdecking conversations turn into "netdeckers suck" flame wars.
As a follow-up question, what do you think netdecking does to a player's development? Your answer should, of course, depend on when in the player's career he or she thinks about netdecking, and when he or she actually does netdeck. But in general, what do you think of the impact it has on the individual player?
Does netdecking advance player skill? Does it stifle creativity and other qualities? Does it do both?
January 17, 2014 10:37 p.m.
TurboFagoot says... #20
Depends. If you copy a deck, play it, and nothing more, it doesn't help.
If you dissect a list, attempt to rationalize why choices were made in its building, and understand the rationale in certain decisions, it helps with your deck building.
Ultimately, players open to growth will grow, players who don't want to put in any work will not.
January 17, 2014 10:43 p.m.
That question for most part is too open ended for me to answer in just a few sentence. When I first started magic, I played the same few style of decks years on years end save for one, it was what I was good at and familiar with. Played magic for over a decade, and only these past few years have I started to try out the different archtypes, but between that and competitive play, I grew as a player immensely. While picking up a deck from top 8 list you're unfamiliar with might sound like the recipe for disaster, it could potential help you learn about that deck's style as you grow familiar with it, which can carry over into later tournaments when you're playing a different deck. After all, one of the biggest strength in MTG is quickly figuring out what type of deck you're against and how to combat it. I personally play a different deck every month save for those close to Gameday, where I might play same deck two months in a row. It allows me to experiment and understand various interactions, and I think by netdecking or playing with decks you're unfamiliar with, while it might suck at first, should help you grow as a player.
January 17, 2014 10:52 p.m.
Dalektable says... #22
In response to Epochalyptik's second question, i personally believe (I am most likely going to get backlash from this) it stifles a players development and skill level. This is in no way saying that people who net deck are un-skilled but i think without the deck building process they are missing out on a lot of what Magic is about. Personally I spend much more time deck building than actually playing games. Doing this i learn so much about the game, what works and what doesn't, weird card combinations. By building your own deck you know exactly how to play that deck in every situation (if you are doing any research into your format and the existing cards in it). I very well could be wrong, but i just believe it leaves out a big part of Magic. When people net deck generally they do research the deck and find out how it works and how to play it, and they do this so that they are playing the best deck and win as much as possible. But this leaves out a lot of the creativity involved...by brewing you give yourself the chance to create that next big deck, and not just play it.
January 17, 2014 10:56 p.m.
fluffybunnypants says... #23
In my opinion, player development and net decking are separate things. Growing as a player usually has more to do with your environment (playing FNM in a shark tank store will get your skill level up really fast if you manage to keep a good head on your shoulders) and your willingness to learn and not say "that deck is BROKEN. HAX!"
January 17, 2014 11 p.m.
Hallowed_Titan says... #24
It all hinges on how open to learning something new you are.
January 17, 2014 11 p.m.
Dalektable says... #25
This of course assuming that insert magic player here only net decks and doesnt brew decks in addition. Net decking just because you happen to like the list or it is perfect for your playstyle is absolutely fine, in fact i'd encourage it. Really in the end, just play what makes you happy. Everyone has their own opinions, i have mine, but none of them are really correct over another. As long as you are having fun playing, whether you are net decking or homebrewing, then you are doing it right.
January 17, 2014 11:01 p.m.
aeonstoremyliver says... #26
I dig that follow up question, Epochalyptik! So I'll give a bit of an analogy:
I'm a musician that plays several instruments, mainly guitar. As a musician I seek to better myself through lots of practice, learning new techniques, and also by learning cover tunes, that is a song that someone else wrote. By learning new songs or licks I generally see new patterns, chords, progressions, and so forth that influences and strengthens my own compositions and song writing.
Now, not every cover band can play good original material, but they can play songs that other people wrote very well.
To transpose this back into the key of Magic, net decking can both stifle and expand creativity, based upon the individual. If one can learn from various interactions and synergies, analyze how the deck works, what the reasoning behind card choices were, etc, then the creativity can definitely be expanded. It offers adaptability this way.
On the other hand, if one simply net decks to pilot and win, creativity could definitely be Stifle
d. Maybe that person isn't so good at deck building and doesn't care to try. And there's nothing wrong with that.
January 17, 2014 11:32 p.m.
Hallowed_Titan says... #27
I dig that response aeonstoremyliver! Well said and I agree with it : )
January 17, 2014 11:36 p.m.
On phone sorry.
netdecking can help you notice cards you didn't before. My interest in american control was sparked by shaheen sooranis article around the rotation time frame, the list was rough but provided a frame work which I developed on my own, really just sticking to a similar mana base and the natural 4 d sphere 4 verdict. Through weeks of play testing tweaking etc I had a strong list I felt very comfortable with and a decent amount of top 4 fnm finishes many at 3-0-1 or 4/5-0.
Cut to his follow up article his list for the scg invitational. My list was much closer to this list than his previous, which gave me a huge amount of confidence in my ability to evaluate cards and developing a primer into a competitive 75. However a 1 of showed up in Izzet Charm a card I overlooked and forgot about, and became curious has to why it was there, finally playtested it and fell in love with the card.
im not the best brewer but I love trying fun and random things and will be doing a lot of bug control brewing soon, but by the amount of time ive spent viewing lists and comparing, I feel netdecking has helped me develop a better understanding of deck building, allowing me to choose better sideboard cards, and evalute mainboard choices and quanities at a much higher level, not only in standard but legacy, where if I had just my brews I might have been stunted by overlooked cards and missed synergies
January 18, 2014 12:23 a.m.
vampirelazarus says... #30
I just came in to say something that I hold as one of the truths of Magic:
There is a difference between netdecking and archetypes.
Melira pod is an archetype. Thomas Drapala's Kiki-pod is a netdeck.
January 18, 2014 1:17 a.m.
Dookie1984 says... #31
blackmarker90 mmdw34 i think have valid points. I am guilty of netdecking myself and what i have discovered from netdecking is that i do not enjoy playing as much as my own "homebrew". When i loose i get mad at myself for playing someone else's Sh*&t deck (my anger at the time lol i just made mistakes and lost) where when i play my own deck and loose i feel challenged and want revenge and redemption so i have new motivation to go home and do more research and test play. I think if your a real player you will ether never netdeck to begin with because you already know what this game is really about. Or if you do netdeck you will come to a point where you want more from your gaming experience than an unsatisfactory win (or loss in my case).I would like to note am not harping on people that see a fun deck online and want to change it up at there home games with friends. I just think a tournament is supposed to be about you being the best and proving it with what YOU brought to the table.
January 18, 2014 1:17 a.m.
Triforce-Finder says... #32
One thing I don't like about netdecking myself is that I have to wrap my game around a deck that I haven't built. After the fifth build or so (that means Initial build and four cycles of playing and altering), I know my decks by heart. I don't have to learn how to use the deck, because I've built it. I added every card for a reason, and don't need to learn why a certain card is in the deck and what it is used for. When I build a deck, I find cards for my purposes, not a purpose for the cards. It's more likely that the card is the best for what I'm going to use it for.
Netdecking... It feels a bit like borrowing someone else's epee. Your own weapon becomes a part of you. The reach, the balance, the flexibility, the grip, it all merges with your sense of orientation, becomes a part of your body, a living, breathing extension of your hand. The epee you borrowed is just a clunky piece of metal.
Every netdeck has once been a homebrew. Nobody will handle it as good as the one who developed it. It is a part of that players mind, to everybody else it's just a tool.
About the influence of netdecking on a players development...
It's definitely a good way to aquire a broad pool of wincons and strategies that have proven to be useful. Analyzing netdecks also shows what kind of countermeasures are the most effective against certain threats in that format. And the moves used in a netdeck are often explained in detail, so you can learn some cool new tricks.
Did you notice? I only referred to certain aspects of a deck, not the deck as a whole. The deck in it's entirety is a complex structure that needs lot of practice to know thoroughly. Building your own deck, you have thought about every way it's supposed to work, saving you a lot of practice time. For experienced deckbuilders, it's easier to build their own deck from a netdecks pieces than to get accustomed to it.
Another thing is the fish vs. rod question. You can learn new moves and strategies from netdecks, but you won't learn how to develop moves and strategies of your own. That has to be done by breaking the game down to atomic size, looking at single cards, considering each of their attributes and abilities, recognizing card and ability archetypes, understanding the smallest pieces of that giant puzzle. Only then will you be able to fit the pieces together and shape the big picture in your favor.
January 18, 2014 5:40 a.m.
@Triforce-Finder's first comment: You really expect a new player to sit down and be able to play a combo deck as their first deck? Or control? Midrange decks get expensive, especially if the Standard environment is anything like this one where shocks/good mana base and mythic rares are needed. In addition....
@Epochalyptik: Playing a netdeck is inevitable. If your deck is good, someone else will eventually find out, even without seeing yours. Unless, of course, you're just playing a bad deck or a worse version of another one. Sure, you might be playing something "original," but you could also (most likely) be playing something terrible, which Stifle s your growth as a player. Again, as Mr. Sirlin puts it:
"The experts will absolutely destroy the scrubs...This is because the scrubs have not been playing the same game. The experts were playing the actual game while the scrubs were playing their own homemade variant with restricting, unwritten rules."
The bottom line is that creativity alone isn't enough to win games. You also have to make the right metagame call and you have to play a powerful deck. Learning why people netdeck and how it impacts Magic is one of those "Ah-ha!" moments players can have. They can then get into playing the actual game, and not be limited by self-imposed rules that do nothing but lead you towards playing to lose.
For me, understanding netdecks was similar to understanding degenerate combo decks. Once you understand the how and the why, a whole new avenue of Magic opens up to you.
As for Triforce-Finder's second comment, it's not really true that the original builder plays the deck better than anyone else. You see this all the time at the professional level, especially in older formats. Teams will come together, one person may actually design the decks played by the team, but one or more others will play those decks in a major tournament. The deck's designer may not even see a single top 16, but his/her teammates will make top 8 consistently with the same deck. Burning Long is just one example. Mike Long designed one of the most consistent and powerful Vintage combo decks ever made, but his own performance with the deck hasn't come close to other player's records.
January 18, 2014 6:12 a.m.
Triforce-Finder says... #34
@ sylvannos 1
No, I don't think that new players should start out with a combo deck. Are you misreading my posts on purpose? If you are referring to my mention of oops!allspells, you may replace that with any simpleton netdeck that isn't RDW. It was merely an example. On the other hand, most combos aren't that hard to grasp. I had no trouble understanding Exquisite Blood + Sanguine Bond despite the fact that I was absolutely new to the game, and Ashnod's Altar + Sword of the Meek + Thopter Foundry didn't confuse me either. So, after some thought, yes, it is possible for a beginner to play simple combo decks if they are explained properly.
One thing you might have missed is that - in my opinion - the first deck one plays shouldn't be the first deck one buys. It's better to try out a few decks from the players in your playgroup while you're learning. That way, when you buy your first real deck, you've got a certain amount of experience and self-knowledge that stops you from wasting money on the wrong deck. Remember, even 50$ can be a lot of money if you don't have it.
My first real deck was a build using Wilt-Leaf Liege and gw creatures like Watchwolf , by the way. However, I had no Idea what the maverick archetype is at that time. I just put the cards together that i liked.
@ sylvannos 2
You're just proving my point. If it needs a whole teams experiences to surpass the builder, then what i wrote is definitely correct. Of course there are also people that are good (or lucky?) at deckbuilding, but not as good when actually playing regardless of the deck. Those can't be held as example for the netdeck vs. homebrew discussion.
Also, it's best not to confuse discovering with creating. Putting pieces together until something comes up can't compare to knowing what you want, knowing the pieces and fitting them. It is possible to build a deck that has more capabilities than the ones you had in mind when building it. That usually happens when you compare A to B, B to C and forget to compare A to C. The outcome can be better or worse, depending on your luck. That too happens especially in older formats where a lot more interactions are influencing the game. I'm referring to decks built with knowledge and not partially aided by luck. (Misreading prevention: I'm not implying that any certain deck is built by dumb luck.)
January 18, 2014 7:16 a.m.
How can I be misreading your posts when you say that newer players shouldn't start with a budget RDW list and play Oops All Spells lol?
January 18, 2014 7:42 a.m.
I remember that when I first read Play to Win by David Sirlin, it changed the entire way I looked at all gaming, not just MTG (incidentally enough, I am also a Street Fighter fan, so I actually know much of the underlying context of Sirlin's piece)
However, after I read it, I didn't just abandon making my own homebrews... I got better at making them! I feel some people do not understand that while some of us homebrewers do not play to win (those people usually play to explore) many of us do play to win, and many of us have actually gotten quite good doing so.
I never saw the truth of Sirlin's piece as a reason to stop homebrewing, I see it as reason to "homebrew to win." With all of the knowledge that us homebrewers are adding to the game, I think it would be foolish for you netdeckers to assume you can't learn anything from us. Indeed one advantage that we competitive homebrewers have is that we learn extensively from you netdeckers, but you often do not learn as much from us. It will only serve to hinder your development as a player if you netdeckers dismiss all of us as "not playing to win." To all the netdeckers that do dismiss us, I highly recommend that you stop doing so and instead start "playing to win."
January 18, 2014 8:53 a.m.
Triforce-Finder says... #37
Again misread. You've got talent for that. I did not propose anything of the kind. I didn't even use the word "should" or synonyms in that sentence. It was all about the deck suiting a player's style and preference. You know what that means, right?
Try reading the post for real if you intend to criticize it, please. You are making yourself look silly if you criticize things that haven't been said.
January 18, 2014 8:57 a.m.
Triforce-Finder says... #38
What the average homebrew-basher doesn't understand is that when he's bashing homebrews, he's also bashing the next up-and-coming netdeck. A traditional netdeck is nothing else than a homebrew that worked out and has then been further improved. Homebrews are potential netdecks. Although only a few make the jump and obtain long-lasting superiority, it is necessary to try many different strategies to find one that has the potential to become the next netdeck.
It's a bit like a 15-year old bragging to a group of 5-year-olds that he's older. The 5-year-olds will soon be 15 too, and still be strong and vital when the older guy starts going bald. One of them might even become his boss.
Or like cursing science while relying on ready-made meals, cars, internet, medicine...
January 18, 2014 9:31 a.m.
I don't think anyone is actually arguing that bashing homebrews is ok; it's not. We ALL need to respect how people choose to play, and that goes for both sides: the homebrewers and the netdeckers.
It's true that every netdeck was once a homebrew in literal definitions, but most of the time the way that professionals build is completely different to the way in which 'normal' (normal is sort of the wrong word here) people build. The playing to win article highlights this: professionals approach the game from a whole different angle; a different philosophy to playing.
There's a certain clinical efficiency and 'eyes on the prize' attitude that automatically causes the individual to approach the game from a different perspective. I think what I'm trying to say is that the claim 'every netdeck was once a homebrew' is a tiny bit misleading because most of the professionals are designing from a scientific, efficient perspective, not a fun, original, somewhat strong perspective.
January 18, 2014 9:58 a.m.
I should have tagged Triforce-Finder.
I also somewhat disagree with other claims.
"Nobody will handle it as good as the one who developed it" : I think there are plenty of instances of people taking netdecks, making tweaks and then actually seeing more success. In fact I would argue that exposing your deck to fresh eyes and minds is a good way of seeing extra subtleties that you might have missed. This applies to netdecks and pros too. Sometimes a deck is seen by another pro and they might find a new tweak that increases efficacy. I would say that the original developer already has extensive experience with the deck and so is initially better, but over time others can learn and can even take it to new heights.
"You can learn new moves and strategies from netdecks, but you won't learn how to develop moves and strategies of your own. That has to be done by breaking the game down to atomic size, looking at single cards, considering each of their attributes and abilities, recognizing card and ability archetypes, understanding the smallest pieces of that giant puzzle. Only then will you be able to fit the pieces together and shape the big picture in your favor." : I think you've contradicted your earlier statement here (where you said that using netdecks is good for acquiring new strategies). Anyway, I disagree again. It is perfectly possible to take a netdeck and analyze the card types and text in order to look for similarities in other cards. Look at what the pros are using and spot similarities in your own cards (that you can afford or already have etc). I would argue that this is a very organic way of learning and becoming a better player. You think, 'this card was popular before and strong and now this set has released this other card which is very similar so I think it would be a strong card to include'. That is absolutely a way of developing your own moves and strategies. By analysing netdecks you absolutely do learn common and effective strategies. By breaking these apart and looking at the individual cards you can then build your own bigger picture. In fact, you're not providing any evidence to suggest that this isn't perfectly possible. Why can an individual not break apart a netdeck? Learn the abilities and attributes of the cards? Fit those pieces to build your own deck?
There's absolutely no argument, in my eyes, for introducing a new player to a homebrew over a netdeck, or the other way around. They both are able to teach strategies, new cards, abilities etc. A netdeck just introduces a newer player to more established strategies.
January 18, 2014 10:09 a.m.
Epochalyptik : I started the game by homebrewing (my first two decks) and then I quickly moved to analysing netdecks. This greatly accelerated my growth because I learnt:
- Why my homebrews wouldn't work - what the netdecks would do to counter them.
- What kind of cards are most often played - their overall goal.
- What a powerful card looks like in terms of mana cost, ability etc.
- How to emulate these strategies in my own decks.
- Cards to look out for in drafting or purchasing etc.
What netdecking did for me , as a new player, was to basically explain what works, how it works and how I can copy it. From there I was able to build for myself. My homebrewing got better after I looked at netdecks.
As a more experienced player I look at netdecks now and I think, 'oh yeah, I see how this works' Or, 'It's just like that deck that was run last season' and then I move on. I recognise the moves / abilities / strategies / cards etc and I like to check up with what's happening at the higher levels, but really I feel comfortable in my own abilities. I would strongly argue that analysing netdecks made me a more comfortable player.
January 18, 2014 10:21 a.m.
Schuesseled says... #42
You can just replace the word net deck with tournament winning deck and hey presto your argument for why net decks shouldn't go the way of the dodo goes extinct as well.
People who when it comes to building a deck for FNM go 'Google' > Top 8 2014 MTG > scroll to top> click on export to card shop > buy with credit card.. Are homogenising their local meta's by being too lazy to create a new deck. I wouldn't have a problem if they chose to net deck something more randimky , for example anyone can click on one of my public decks and build if they want to. I'd even like to heat how they get on.
Netdecking is only bad because everyone who does it is doing it with the same 2 decks.
However anyone who thinks that net decks are more likely to win, require less skill, are cheaters, are bleep bleeps etc are all idiots.
January 18, 2014 10:42 a.m.
I think people who are arguing over the small things Triforce-Finder has said are missing the big picture of what he is talking about. For example, I think when he said "Nobody will handle it as good as the one who developed it," he is using the term "developer" to include anybody who actually builds the deck, including people colloquially referred to as netdeckers who get inspired by looking at a netdeck and essentially use that netdeck as an inspiration to create a very similar deck, which sometimes ends up being the exact same 75 cards.
In my opinion, what I have described is not even really netdecking, and while pros do sometimes truly net deck (usually when they are running very short on time and need a deck fast), I think they usually build an archetype from the ground up while using a netdeck as inspiration, at least that is what I gather from reading countless MTG articles on Channelfireball.com and Starcitygames.com
January 18, 2014 10:54 a.m.
I personally do not net deck per say. That is to say I don't pull the exact list from the web. I usually pull the cards I like (usually roughly half not counting lands) and then tweek and mutate it from there. Kind of making it my own though the idea started elsewhere. I feel the need to say that I used to be one of the "netdeckers are evil" people. I understand the many reasons people netdeck. Some good some bad. It's just not for me and I'm not a fan of it. But I'm also smart enough to not judge people who I "think" are netdecking. This is where, imho, things get risky. DO NOT accuse someone of netdecking. If they say "I say this on the web and......" then fine they netdecked. Who cares. Netdecking (as stated by many people in this thread) is in my eyes essential to MTG. The reason is simple. Whether you are a netdecker or homebrewer or a (like me) a little of both how can you measure your success without a standard to compare it to? If I homebrew something that beats a top 8 deck awesome. If I lose then my mind set is "okay better luck nextweek"
I was once accused of "just netdecking" and that was followed up by a wide range of insults about net deckers. This was game one of my first match at an FNM and it was only turn 2. I was paired against a real jerk who has tons of cash to spend so he homebrews but with an unlimited budget. So I just flat out asked "and what makes you think I net decked?" He responded "well there's only one really good deck with green right now so you have to be playing it". I said "okay" and continued the match.
Well in point of fact I had NOT netdecked but never indicated to him if I had or not so he played as though he had been right and I pumelled his build because he was expecting a midrange deck and what he got was Evolved Aggro and I smacked him in the face for 8 on turn 3 every game
"Does netdecking advance player skill? Does it stifle creativity and other qualities? Does it do both?"
I say both depending on approach. If you ONLY netdeck u miss out on the fun of deckbuilding. But some people don't havetime. If u only home brew then you could miss some of the more competetive combinations.
Just my 2 cents
January 18, 2014 11:13 a.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #45
Well, let's see how quick it takes to get my head chopped off.
@ Triforce-Finder I got into Magic roughly 7-8 months ago. There are two things you should no about me before I continue: One, I net-deck. Two, I net-deck because before even considering making an investment I did an extensive amount of research about the game. How things work, why they work, how many licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie pop, ect. And then I entered Standard and promptly had my ass kicked by aggro. See, I did a lot of research, and then decided that I really really really like Izzet. And that Izzet was going to win with counter magic and burns and I would laugh like a madman (though I lack a Blue Box). That obviously didn't happen. And I continued to lose despite the various combinations I tried until I got fed up, posted my current Azorius deck on this site and had everyone explain what I was doing wrong. I then adjusted that deck to be better. And the more I played, the better I got. Turns out my deck was actually fairly close to some competitive U/W decks at the time too, I just didn't know it.
And then rotation hit and I got bored with standard so I moved to Modern. And this is where the Net-decking started. I didn't want to go into a format again without having some inkling of what worked and what didn't, especially when Modern was going to be a big investment. I decided I liked Esper Gifts. Modern decided to show me that I can't play a combo deck to save my life no matter how many times I play it. So I moved towards control decks, I even brewed a U/R Counter Burn deck trying to make it competitve (I failed). So I picked out a net deck and began playing it. I jumped between Cruel Control and UWR Control for a while, finally I settled on UWR Control because it has all the elements of the game I enjoy. Namely it utterly turns the game into my opponent asking what can and can't be played (I guess I'm a saddist that way).
So, point in case? Net-decking has taught me a lot about a game in a very short amount of time. Because I decided to net-deck and do my homework on the game I find I'm able to have a better idea of how to build decks when I decide to go crazy and build my own decks (currently trying to build Esper Control). However, I still had to learn what works when and how to play the damn thing. I still struggle with makings the appropriate moves at the appropriate time. So your claims of not being able to learn my own moves because I'm using a net-deck are wrong. Because I've net-decked, and because I learned a lot from that experience I'm able to build effective, fun decks that may or may be competitve. This is also allowing me to plot how to take down Jund in Modern.
TL;DR: I accept net-decking as part of the game and have learned a great deal from it. It has allowed me to have fun by winning and playing control, as well as allowed me to become a better deck builder.
January 18, 2014 11:17 a.m.
Ultimaodin says... #46
Can I just say I play to win as well, but I play to win with home brew decks. I play with concepts other people mock such as Simic and Irindu and build a deck that is competitive to the point I can beat down MUD, MBD, RDW and Esper Control. I will be playing Karametra come Born of the Gods - and I will win.
On occasion I admit I make fun ones to bring (an example would be my Naya Christmas deck, or my Esper - I play your deck)
I also thinking not learning from home brews is ignorant. Yes the Pros make awesome decks but there have been some Top 8 home brews that came out of nowhere. The Simic Flash deck for example, he was probably the same as me - sick of hearing people such and such can't be competitive. Then there's the crazy Newt + Gift of Immortality deck that became massive. All these are home brews (that then got net decked...) and believe it or not, but there are plenty of home brew decks that are competitive. I've seen a ridiculous land flood deck that also used the Gift of Immortality and the sac to get lands creature to hit Howl of the Nightpack, Woodborn Behemoth and Worldspine Wurm with early control. That deck was also insanely consistent in what it did. Like me that person will also be playing Karametra when I showed him my wolf deck list. Seems strange for him to play when he almost always goes an early control into big heavies like shell.
Ignoring the benefits of net decking and home brewing is silly. I never net deck top8 but I love scanning through decks on here and just seeing some cool synergies that I simply missed - sometimes entire cards I'd never even noticed before then. (There is legit a common in Theros that I do not own a single copy of after multiple booster boxes)
All this said there is a PTQ tomorrow and I have to work all day. T_TMy Simic deck will alas have to be happy with my love alone.
January 18, 2014 11:29 a.m.
A netdeck is just using someone else's deck design. I know plenty of MTG "teams" or just groups of friends that share a cardpool where they are willing to lend and borrow decks between them. Is this cheating? I think not. It's an edge I don't have, but I don't begrudge them theirs. Sometimes a player close to you might understand your play style better than you do, and could build you the perfect deck, or recognize that a top-8 deck would fit you like a glove. Maybe another player want to get into the head of a top-ranking player and copies all of that person's decks and modifications like some sort of cloned superfan. Is that cheating? I think not. You don't get to tell other people how to have fun, so long as they are playing by the rules and are not being jerkfaces.
I think it comes down to (for lack of a nongendered term) sportsmanship. If you are a good sport, no matter whether you're playing scorched-earth, control, pillow fort, zoo, or undefinable homebrew, people should respect your deck choices. If you're losing every match and having a bad time, ask questions, pay attention, and don't whine. If a person is being a horrible sport with trash-talk or insufferable whinging, call them out on it. You are a member of a gaming community, act like it.
If you have a very strong opinion on the matter, maybe you should try and experience the other side's perspective. If you hate netdecks, maybe you should try one just for fun (even casually with proxies if money is an issue.) If all you ever do is netdeck, pick your favorite card ever and try a build-around for it. For either side, maybe you need to try a different angle altogether. Play limited. Relax with a book or music or whatever. Play some chess.
It is, after all, only a game (even if it is the finest strategy game on Earth.)
January 18, 2014 11:35 a.m.
I dont think people should netdeck, it gets boring playing against the same top tier decks and it takes no skill to make them. I actually play mono black devotion, but i made the deck before i found out it was a top tier deck for pro tour and such. Now im changing it up to be a mono black ramp deck because people probably do not like playing against it because i would not.
January 18, 2014 11:41 a.m.
Triforce-Finder says... #49
There is no contradiction. Copying a move and developing a move are two different things.
As to the second point, you're talking about "people taking netdecks, making tweaks and then actually seeing more success". The interesting part of that sentence are the tweaks they made. I'm not sure if you are referring to finding new uses for the same cards or tweaking by changing the individual cards in the decklist (or at least trying to change it and ending up with the same outcome). As thEnd3000 said, if you improve the decklist, you are developing the deck, even if you're building on top of the previous developers work. You're not netdecking, but using and developing an archetype.
Thanks for sharing your story. By the way, letting a community help you improve a deck of yours isn't netdecking. It's simply working together. You said you improve the decks you copied. That too is not netdecking.
Most people who use one just read an essay about it, but it is of course also possible to take the hard road and learn the moves by try and error. If you do, you're actually doing almost the same as when developing your own moves in your own build, with the difference that the pieces are given. However, you will only find moves that are possible with those pieces. In any case, judging the situation and knowing when to pull which move is something you can't just read from an article, it comes with practice, no matter what you're playing.
To all who quote the famous "play to win" article: I had never heard of it before. I just read the articles all in a go, but sadly, he wasn't writing anything I didn't know or is conflicting with my way of thinking. It was still interesting, as I could relate to his examples due to my earlier experiences in Soul Calibur IV. When someone accused me of repeating a move (what I mostly did when their defense was always open for that hitzone), my standard answer was: "Oh. So you found a pattern in my attacks. Then use it against me instead of whining. That's what a pro does."
I agree with every word he wrote. That being said, I'd like you to take another look at one of the articles you are quoting: playing-to-win-part-3. In order to stay competitive, you have to take risks sometimes and try out strategies that have not yet been tested, so that you know if they work when it really counts.
January 18, 2014 12:17 p.m.
I'm really impressed by how few "NETDECKS ARE EVIL" people there are in this thread. Maybe T/O has finally rid itself of that restricting mentality.
thEnd3000 says... #1
@ChiefBell, I actually did not know that all the races in Starcraft were considered balanced. I had a friend, who was pretty good at the original Starcraft, and he always used to play Protoss, so I assumed Protoss were the highest tier race. It is always fun to learn something new, so thanks for sharing.
January 17, 2014 4:53 p.m.