Opinion on Netdecking
General forum
Posted on May 21, 2013, 7:42 p.m. by mmdw34
So ive been on tcg player looking at some decks making it and they are all the same thing in every state.... same with my local shop its everyone playing the same deck. I wanna know what people think about this, personally its really annoying that nobody even tries to create an original deck.
gnarlicide says... #3
My favorite deck that I invented is my modern deck... It literally causes nerd rage to epic proportions. It has started a scuffle at an FNM back in 2006, and recently a dude in all seriousness, said that I deserve AIDS... I was like, lol wtf? just go to my page, and look at the deck called who needs friends...
May 21, 2013 7:50 p.m.
hollandboys says... #4
I am not overly upset by netdecking. Often times good players will make a deck thinking it's original just to realize it's what everyone else is playing. Good players (like the pros) recognize good cards, and thus play them whether they look at someone else's list or not. By no means does it mean you should use an exact list of the internet, you should tweak it and add cards you enjoy using. But you still have to be good to play the deck, if you just throw the deck together on a Thursday night because it recently won the SCG open and bring it to FNM you will still lose because you won't know how to play it. But I don't generally concern myself with what other people do in magic, I just play the way I want to
May 21, 2013 7:51 p.m.
For any format, if given enough time of no new cards added to the pool the competitive deckbuilders of the world will find which decks are the best decks, so quite often if you go and build an original deck and playtest it like crazy and constantly go for the optimal card choices you'll end up at a netdeck. With this in mind you may find out that most of the experienced players in your meta did try their own brews at some point, but found that it'd be cheaper and more likely to win more if they netdeck.
Also there are a ton of people who tries original decks, only this is an old standard, wait until Theros comes and rotates standard and then you'll see some months of "original" decks, just be glad this isn't cawblade standard where the decks inbred to fight the mirror and still was beating nearly every non cawblade deck.
May 21, 2013 7:54 p.m.
People enjoy MTG for different reasons.
playing out the game - sometimes in nauseating (to me) detail
building a creative deck (I like to try do this - but that doesn't mean I don't at times look at what else people are doing - if nothing else to see who else thought of my idea - often, as hollandboys alluded to in general, I wasn't the first to think of something after all)
pushing the limits of the game (how many turns can I take in a row? How much life can I gain? How many tokens can I make? Of how many different types? etc.)
winning
socializing - sometimes this leads to "kingmaker types" and "crews" that travel around with a type that likes to win and kind of make sure he/she does
I'd say that the competitive circuits probably attract those who get a thrill out of winning. If you instead go join up with the [insert weeknight] EDH crew, it probably is a different story (ok - there might be that one guy who just has to win every game ... that's fine with me so long as it is a game)
I will say this with some caution. I have noticed that people at the game store I play at seem a bit more interested in what I am playing than I would expect - there is the possibility of gaining some advantage by not publicizing all the details of what you are playing. So I have an extra thing to consider when posting a deck idea now.
I'm in it for deckbuilding so net-decking isn't interesting to me. However, it is to my advantage on some level if I am playing against someone who has a well known deck build. Those are the decks that I used to playtest against so there is a better chance that I will have some idea about how to answer them. I don't see netdecking as being much different than people who literally offer to buy someone's deck after they lose to it.
May 21, 2013 8:05 p.m.
While what Demarge says is true that once the new card influx stops and people see what works best all decks start to become similar, but I was referring to and I think what mmdw34 might have been inferring as well is when you go to a shop or FNM and all you face is the exact same carbon copy deck card for card with NO variations. One of the few times that I got the chance to play at an FNM back with SoM I took my myr token deck (which gained me praise for the originality and power/speed it had What can Myr do for you!? I'm trying to make this modern now.) I faced player after player with the same exact U/B Control build non stop with just one exception a Goblin RDW. It was infuriating that no one played anything different. After a couple tweaks I went back with the same build and won that FNM; that felt really nice!
May 21, 2013 8:09 p.m.
the3rdH0kage says... #8
Whenever I make a deck that is competitive I do check what is the top decks and build off of that. But I don't follow the list card for card. I egt the things that I absolutley have to have for the deck to function but after that I competely build the deck on my won. I generally have friends help me with deckbuilding. But for things like "kitchen table" games I just pick a few cards I like and that can make my friends nerd rage and build around that. (My friends hate my EDH deck Treva's Army I have gotten Avacyn out as early as T5 with this deck against my friends standard decks.
May 21, 2013 8:09 p.m.
Creativity isn't enough by itself to win games.
The smaller the card pool, the more decks will look like one another. Suppose the only two drop green cards in Standard are Runeclaw Bear and Ashcoat Bear , and there isn't any other creatures or even spells that cost two. That means if you want to play mono-green, those are your only choices. There is no reason whatsoever to use Runeclaw Bear over Ashcoat Bear . None. One is better in any situation over the other.
Netdecks are the result of this on a larger scale. There's few reasons to use Kessig Wolf over Boros Reckoner . Why play Golgari Longlegs in your green deck over Thragtusk ? Etc. etc. There are formats where you can innovate because the card pool is huge (namely: Vintage, Legacy, and Commander). But in newer formats, that's just not the case.
The only real weakness to netdecking is that people have sideboard answers to your deck. However, netdecks are often answers themselves to other netdecks.
Bottom line is a quote from David Sirlin: "Play to win, not do difficult moves."
May 21, 2013 8:21 p.m.
ShimmerVoid says... #10
I don't mind people netdecking as beating netdecked decks feel a lot more satisfying than beating some random homebrew. Also helps me play better in FNMs and such by sparring with optimized decks.
May 21, 2013 8:24 p.m.
good point about the limiting cardpool sylvannos. Even with commander, though, there are a limited number of generals - especially for tri-colored decks. So while every single card might not be the same, there tend to be patterns where a certain set of cards usually go along with certain commanders and then there are the multi-lands and standard artifacts and standard better-than-the-rest cards that are just good in every deck ... but I'd say this happens more with certain commanders than others.
May 21, 2013 8:37 p.m.
Schuesseled says... #12
Netdecking is boring, i don't hate people who do it, not at all, but it's not as fun as crafting a unique and original decklist.
Bare in mind that some cards are essentially a "must" play, for a given colour or deck type, this isn't to say that you have to play them or play the exact same deck as others (netdecking) but your choices are limited by this.
For example for 3 drops in naya aggro your choice is Boros Reckoner or Loxodon Smiter , no one is gonna do well playing Ember Beast .
So sometimes a completely original deck can just look like another clone from the net, but it may just be that the deck is forced into that similarity.
May 21, 2013 8:53 p.m.
KnightsBattlecry001 says... #13
To me netdecking is boring. I love creativity and I always try and build a deck that's different. I don't hate people for doing it, but what I do hate is when people netdeck, win at FNM and get cocky and run around like their the best thing since sliced bread. I usually sideboard in stuff that can deal with netdecks, and it's a lot more rewarding when I beat someone who netdecks. I understand why people do it, but it's not my cup of tea.
May 21, 2013 9:19 p.m.
DukeNicky you are right, I understand if you use a few cards that are good like who is not gonna use voice of resurgence I understand but when its literally the same deck list over and over all the same cards it just gets super annoying. I literally do not care about winning as much as everyone does I like to make decks that are my brew and tweak them week by week to make them better. Like right now im playing dimir mill... obviously im not gonna win when im being naya blitzed all over the place but its just fun or my other deck for this friday is Maze's End Door to Nothingness combo deck. Its just fun to play
May 21, 2013 9:29 p.m.
Schuesseled says... #15
i played against a maze's end / door to nothingness deck, is pretty damn effective.
May 21, 2013 9:41 p.m.
I'll sum up this entire argument with this:
People will net-deck at tournaments because they paid to play in it. If there's money on the line, wouldn't you want to win, too?
Net-decking doesn't equate to a lack of creativity; it just skips the deck-building process altogether.
May 21, 2013 10:46 p.m.
zandl that doesnt sum it up, it only adds fuel to the fire.... building your deck is what makes magic fun, all the card possibilities and things you can do, all your doing is taking the creativity of the guy who took time to make the deck and ride that guys creativity... and were talking at FNM mostly playing the same deck so bringing in money and tournaments has nothing to validate your argument. Net decking is lack of creativity because your so focused on winning and being the best at your shop you steal a deck some guy used to win a big tournament then walk around like your the greatest thing ever when all you did was copy a deck and claim glory.
May 21, 2013 10:52 p.m.
Again:
Net-decking doesn't equate to a lack of creativity; it just skips the creative deck-building process altogether.
unsubscribes
May 21, 2013 11:11 p.m.
@mmdw34: No, that does sum it up. Again, creativity isn't enough to win games by itself.
You still have to pilot the deck. If you think all it takes is to copy a deck to ride it to glory, you'd be wrong because if that were true, then we wouldn't see the same people consistently make top 8 at professional events.
Jon Finkel, for example, played Pyromancer Ascension this last Modern Grand Prix in Portland. The deck has been used ever since it was played in Standard. The version he played is almost identical to every version out there, except he used Increasing Vengeance in place of Seething Song since it got banned. That's it. Pretty much four cards. Max Sjoblom used the same thing back in 2011 to make top 8 in Philadelphia.
Are you seriously going to sit there and argue that Jon Freakin' "I'm-the-greatest-MtG-player-who-ever-lived-along-with-Kai-Budde" Finkel is "uncreative" and he only made top 16 because he "copied" Max Sjoblom?
Just because he's using an optimized list out of the small card pool of Modern doesn't mean he's uncreative. Using Increasing Vengeance with Seething Song is an absolutely AMAZING innovation for the archetype.
May 21, 2013 11:15 p.m.
Joshuawesome says... #20
I usually try to build my own decks from my own ideas. I try to avoid netdecking, because I think half the fun is figuring it out on your own (or asking your T/O comrades to assist).
Of course, a fair 90% of my decks are garbage, so what do I know? /shrug
May 21, 2013 11:18 p.m.
sylvannos if you want to tweak the deck and make it better then fine thats acceptable but when your taking the deck card for card its just sad. If you wanna say it doesnt make creativity then people are entitled to their own opinion, I just think if you want to copy some big players deck and say your great then look silly go ahead, but ill continue to strive to be the guy who makes the deck everyone is gonna want to copy.
May 21, 2013 11:24 p.m.
mmdw34 are you aware that it is literally impossible to create a truly "original" deck? most archetypes are discovered weeks, if not months before new sets are released by the professional level deck brewers, quite a few archetypes are even discovered long before that by Wizard's Future, Future League, so unless you're brewing with the 3rd set of Theros you have about a 1% chance of coming up with a new archetype, which means you'll likely never be the guy who makes the deck everyone is gonna want to copy.
May 21, 2013 11:57 p.m.
@mmdw34: But you're missing the point. Many people who supposedly "netdeck" do innovate. They change their deck to fit their local metagame. I sincerely doubt the people you play who supposedly "netdeck" copy+paste their deck and make no changes based on budget, meta, or personal preference.
Even your own Burn Faster that you got 3rd. place with is nearly identical to every Modern burn deck out there.
May 22, 2013 12:16 a.m.
sylvannos exactly underline NEARLY I took ideas and made it into my own, boros charms, nobody liked to use vexing devil they told me take it out, I took red cards that were suggested because I just started in rtr so I know nothing before then and turned into my own stuff. Im literally talking everyone at my shop plays the same deck list card for card my whole netdecking wasnt about changing a few cards its literally card for card same thing which I am against.
May 22, 2013 12:27 a.m.
Whenever I explain Magic to people who don't know what it is, I always jokingly tell them it's a game where you copy decks from the Internet and spend lots of money on cardboard for the thrill of victory.
I'm pretty new-ish to magic. I played for about two months back when Scars of Mirrodin came out, but I just got back into the game in March., and there's something I learned at an art seminar that I can always apply to some other aspect of my life, and I think it applies to Magic. The lesson basically went something like: when you're first starting out, steal, steal, steal! Stealing ideas helps you learn. If you're going to copy decks, ask yourself why the original creator picked the cards they did for the deck, think about how they play it in order to win. Do they just play creatures after every draw step, or wait until after they declare attackers? Do they attack each turn,or play it defensive?
After enough copying, playing, losing, and learning, you'll be able to look at decks and think about what might make it better. For example, I recently made a deck inspired by Craig Woscoe's 1st place deck from the Dragon's Maze Pro Tour this past weekend. Now, Craig could only use cards from the RtR block for the tourney, so I made a version rounding it out with other standard stuff based on what I have available to me. I may have only added a few extra cards, but I'm sure the deck plays significantly different than the original.
TL:DRNetdecking is annoying, but kind of helpful for new players. Still, after enough netdecking, it's eventually time to stop suckling the teet and be a man (or woman) who thinks for themselves.
It's great to be inspired, but wouldn't you want to be inspirING instead?
May 22, 2013 12:55 a.m.
mmdw34: But do you think, maybe, just maybe, they're like you? Where they're playing nearly the same list as those online, but not quite card for card? You seem to think others are incapable of doing what you do and then tout a sense of superiority over them.
I don't think I've ever seen a deck that is card-for-card copy + paste from something online. Like, 16 years worth of Magic the Gathering and everyone I've played against will alter their deck to suite their own tastes.
Here is four Junk Rites decks from MtGO and not a single one of them is identical. Yet, people will look at each player and say "wow, nice netdeck you uncreative jerk." But each of them may have spent weeks or months coming up with the number of each card in the list and which cards to use.
I'm just wondering how you can possibly say that everyone at your local store is playing exact copy and paste decks from online without showing us they did indeed do so. My suspicion is you're making assumptions about them.
May 22, 2013 2:31 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #27
The last line of the original post confuses me. Don't take this personally, but you have no right to be annoyed with other players because of the way they build their own decks.
If somebody wants to copy another player's deck card-for-card, what business is it of yours? Creativity is not the end goal of this game, especially in competitive environments. Unsurprisingly, the players most likely to netdeck are those participating in competitions. If something is winning with unprecedented results or is superior to your own approach, you have to make an educated decision to change your strategy or stay the course. Neither is more "moral" or "honorable" than the other despite what you seem to imply here.
I am a proponent of capitalizing on every advantage. Netdecking is one way of doing just that. I don't advocate that everyone copies rather than creates; instead, I advocate that players consider what their peers have tried and, if it's suiting, adopt and adapt those approaches according to their own circumstances. Learning from others is a critical part of any game. And arguing that copying isn't learning is effectively tantamount to arguing that you can only be proud of something you've done entirely by yourself.
May 22, 2013 5:40 a.m.
Briannasaurus says... #28
I'm very on the fence about it. I am not a fan of the people who truly copy and paste, putting no originality or thought into it. However, I can't entirely condemn it, because winning is a goal of this game. The other part about it is- as with the prebuilt commander and intro decks- people make changes to better suit their playstyle or what they want the deck to do. So while the overall scheme of the deck may be the same, the cards are vastly different.
I will always value a deck that someone took hours to find the right cards for- whether its entirely original or the builder spent hours deciding just the right cards to fit into a prebuilt idea.
If you copy and paste, card for card...I don't see any builder's pride there. You are just playing something that has been shown to win...putting no thought in for yourself. But that is not the majority of decks. Bear that in mind, before making assumptions about netdecks.
May 22, 2013 5:59 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #29
I should also point out that it's illegitimate to argue that netdecking is bad because it effectively means some players have better decks than others or are more likely to win than others.
- That is ostensibly the primary purpose of netdecking. You can't argue that something is bad simply because it achieves its goal. You must argue about the goal itself. In this case, nothing is inherently bad about winning more or being better.
- In the event that a player brings to the table a deck that is unquestionably inappropriate for the meta (e.g. someone brings a winning Vintage build to a casual game amongst non-competitive friends), the problem is no longer one of netdecking. Rather, it is one of dickishness. The issue stems not from the fact that the player is playing the winning Vintage deck, but from the fact that he or she has elected to play that deck in a way that is detrimental to the goal of the game in which he or she is participating. THIS ARGUMENT CANNOT BE EXTRAPOLATED TO COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENTS. In a competitive environment, players can and should be expected to play to win. You can't legitimately criticize a player for running an effective deck in a tournament or otherwise ranking-based system. Tournaments' natures encourage players to make decisions likely to lead to their victory.
And keep in mind that I'm not saying you can't argue or think that netdecking is bad. I'm challenging you to convince me it is. Just do it logically.
DukeNicky says... #2
As stupid as it is that is the "meta" and people see what's winning and want to build that to win them selves I personally hate the idea of "copy, paste, buy" because there is no originality I love making up decks to see how they will work when you take that out of the equation, MtG looses some it its appeal. If they see a good idea and tweak it to their own tastes then I'm ok with that, because there is still originality going into it. Now do you need to take a deck designed to win Worlds or other high level tourneys to FNM? Hell no that is overkill to the max and stifles other people and makes some people quit the game since they wouldn't really ever win without dumping a few hundred into some cards.
May 21, 2013 7:48 p.m.