Net-decking is a pretty maligned subject in the world of competitive gaming. In a nutshell, net-decking is when you find a winning deck or army list online (usually from tournament results) and use it for yourself. It's not stealing per se, unless the person is a complete jerk and acts like they created the list. Instead, people often rail against it because it removed the creation aspect of a game.
My first experience in competitive gaming was YuGiOh. We had a pretty competitive scene around here, and the same 3 or 4 guys would always win tournaments that cost $5 to enter. The reason they won is because YuGiOh only has 1 or 2 winning decks at a time, and it would usually change any time a new expansion was released. This basically left the rest of us with two choices - either we try to be innovative and use our own decks, losing $5 in the process but at least being able to claim originality, or we could "net deck" and use the same decks all the tournament winners used.
When I moved on to Magic I found a competitive scene that had more variety of winning decks at a local level, but when I followed the national meta it was always the same 2 or 3 decks winning. To this day whenever I visit a Magic news site there's usually a featured article about beating a certain deck type. While Magic possesses infinitely more depth than YuGiOh, there's no denying that there's a reason people play with the same decks over and over and see good results.
Now here I am in Warmachine. I'm still getting used to the fact that player skill and list selection plays a bigger role in the game than the exact models a player brings. I'm still puzzling my way through the lists taken to the World Team Championship and how out of all the people and factions represented, there were barely any 1:1 repeats of lists. It all boiled down to what each player thought would help them to overcome the armies they'd be facing, and using things that matched their playstyle to help them win. And while there is certainly a top 3 in terms of faction representation, players around the world realize that having the right models isn't what secures your win.
Now at a national competitive level I think that's just dandy. These are the guys who set the standard for what everyone else wants to play to be competitive. But what about those of us who would be lucky to win a single game in a best 2 of 3 against any of them? Should we be trying to pioneer our own lists and strategies, only giving a peripheral nod to what these players deem competitive?
Net-decking seems to be a rather taboo subject in Warmachine. People pride themselves on coming up with original lists and playing what they like, regardless of winning. Sometimes they'll hit on something really good and it can change the way people play. Often it will just end in them retooling their list and seeing how it fares next time.
Today is the first time I'll be playing a 50 point Warmachine game ever since injuring my back. Before that I'd only played a handful of games in the course of a few months. Before that I was on a very long hiatus after playing 1-3 games of Warmachine each week for like 6 months. When I first started I was heedless to what anyone else would say about good models. I knew what I liked and I tried to make it work every week. As time went on I realized that my list-building was atrocious and I had no idea what "good" really was. The only thing I'd really learned was that Widowmakers were much better than every else said, and I even got a nameless mention on Muse on Minis after playing a game with Keith where he saw how much damage they could do if left unchecked.
Still though, finding a unit I liked was a long way from being able to build an entire list that was worthwhile. I don't have the time to create a list, play it 10 times to see if it works, and then make necessary adjustments until I'm happy with it. At the rate I've been playing it would take me several months, and that's even assuming I remember why the list had been struggling!
This is where net-decking becomes a beautiful thing.
I'm not the kind of person that wears a badge of honor for originality. I don't find the need to be innovative to win - I just want to win fair and square. And while my heart may be in to winning, my brain is found rather lacking. I'm still trying to figure out proper model placement, deployment, threat assessment, piece-trading, synergy, planning ahead, reacting to my opponent, and using the terrain to my advantage. All of that assumes that my list is even built to be able to handle those tasks.
I don't want to fight against my opponent and my poorly-made list. There are people out there who completely understand the synergy of certain pieces and have dedicated months of endless play to perfecting a list that suits them. And while I may find things that don't fully jive with how I play, a net-decked list serves as a fantastic springboard.
If I go in to a game with a winning list, I will know exactly why I did poorly. It's not because my models didn't work right, it's because I somehow failed. If there's no question in my mind that the list is well-made, then evaluating how I can improve becomes almost effortless. I can easily say "Okay I know this unit can kill a heavy warjack but they died too soon. I need to hold them back until they can reach their target rather than just sending them at whatever is in range." If I had built the list myself, I'd instead have to wonder if those models were even any good, or needed better support, before I could even start to evaluate how to play them better.
Understand, I'm not advocating a YuGiOh style of game where everyone has the same list. I'd actually be very disappointed if I saw Gencon coverage where the top 10 players were only using Cryx and Circle, and all their lists looked the same. That's because these guys are supposed to be the ones training for high-level gaming. They understand list-building, they understand tactics, and they know how to win. They don't need a crutch because they're beyond that point.
That's not me. I'm willing to admit that I need a crutch until I can better understand a game. I know not everyone learns like I do, and I know that a lot of people will net-deck because they simply want to win, not because they want to get better. But I don't improve by being crushed while using a sub-par list. I learn by seeing what's good, using it until I understand it, then going out and trying to create my own greatness. If I'm playing a game casually, a rags-to-riches story about my skill improvement is low on my priority list.
I like even games, because that's why I game. I don't want to be so overwhelmingly powerful that my opponent has little chance of winning, nor do I want to be the one put in that position. I'm not advocating net-decking to stroke my ego and be able to say "Boy look at me, I just crush everyone!" Instead I want to have a fair chance, and since I don't expect my opponent to lower themselves to my level I need to try to bring myself up to theirs.
I'm reminded of a conversation I had with Fritz that showed me how different our playstyles are. For those who don't read every day, Fritz is my trainer/rival/benchmark. He had played a small game of Warmachine with Zach, who is the chess-version of Fritz. I tried to build Zach a decent Circle list since he's been really interested in them, and he took it up against a Troll list Fritz built. Zach basically lost on turn 2, and it was painful to watch.
Afterward Fritz had asked me if he was too hard on Zach, and as I thought about it I realized that he probably wasn't because of who Zach is. When I'm teaching someone, I teach them the way I learn by keeping the game balanced. That may mean not punishing an amateur mistake or purposely bringing a bad list so that they aren't at such a disadvantage because of my experience. I'd never throw a game, but I'd do my part to make the game fair to the end. I blame it on the fact that I love teaching, but I just can't fathom crushing someone who is quite obviously not on my level.
That's not Fritz, and that's not Zach. They don't need someone holding back or giving them an unrealistic idea of how people play. If skill levels were represented by literal distances between people, they improve by running to catch up to someone a mile away from them. I do better by having someone a few steps ahead of me at all times, making that gap seem much less insurmountable.
So yes, there is danger in net-decking. It can cause laziness, it can stunt someone's growth in understanding all aspects of the game, and can turn the focus away from improving and being able to stand without the crutch. But if used well, I think net-decking can be a valuable tool for some players who need to experience greatness before they can replicate it themselves.
When I first saw it I knew she didn't draw it because his body was much more proportional than her usual drawings and even had a nose. She excitedly told me how she drew it by pausing the iPad and copying the image from the show, and I thought it was an excellent metaphor for what I'm talking about. By being able to copy what others have done (even if the show's drawing was purposely rudimentary), she can become better equipped to integrate certain things in to her own art. If she were to copy art for the rest of her life that would be problematic to her growth, but emulating something above her skill level can help pull her forward without her having to figure it all out by herself.
What do you guys think? Do you have a problem with people netdecking during regular games? What about tournaments? I'm curious to hear your thoughts!
See you tomorrow!
Remember to follow me on Facebook! I'm doing a blog post every single day for 2013, and Facebook is a great way to stay up-to-date as well as take part in my monthly giveaways.
I don't think there is anything wrong with net decking an army list as long as you give credit were it should go, understand what pieces in the list are supposed to be used for, and possibly trade out a couple pieces if you don't quite understand their purpose in the list. Otherwise it comes down mostly to how it is played.
ReplyDelete