Are You A Net Decker?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 июл 2024
- Don't forget that the first 1,000 people to use the link will get a 1 month free trial of Skillshare: skl.sh/kenobi09221
I've never talked explicitly about Net Decking on the channel before - but today I am going to talk about the good, the bad and the ugly!
#MTG #NetDecking #MagicTheGathering
You can sign up, support me, and get involved through here:
/ pleasantkenobi
If you liked the video, take a moment to show your love and adoration by clicking on that like button, and ensuring that you are subscribed to the channel! Share the video with your friends if they have yet to experience the splendor of PleasantKenobi! The more people that see it, the less likely I am to cease to exist!
Check out my channel for more MTG, video games and humour: / pleasant. .
Tweet me, follow me and love me over on Twitter: / pleasantkenobi
Come and join the FB community by following the FB page at: / pleasantkenobi 
Игры
No single person is smart enough to overcome the millions of crowdsourced labor hours to tune a decklist.
I mean, just look at lantern control in modern, it was developed by an innovator, had the brewers advantage in a tournament, then the internet refined it incredibly to the point where it didn't actually need to mill as a win condition by adding things like Aether Grid.
Right now if Mox Opal were still in the format it would be the best deck and it's still tier 1.5 without the opal, it's just a hard list to pilot.
Best damn answer I have ever heard.
I use meta decks as a platform to build.
And so we must participate and contribute to the tuning! If we want to, it's fun idk
The reality is, that deck building and brewing is absolutely a skill, and not everybody will be great at it. That shouldn't prevent them from being able to access the highest tiers of competition. There's no shame in learning from others. But, on the flip side, there should be no shame in people experimenting and messing around with brews. Every great deck started off as somebody's brew. Every great innovation was once somebody's bad idea. I've loved watching the rise of Hammertime from a random Saffron Olive brew, into a modern staple, and even turning into a winning legacy deck.
Same goes with greasefang in pioneer
Lantern control is an amazing example of this
Or magicAids in multiple formats…
Let's consider the reverse situation : a good deckbuilder but a bad player.
I'm pretty sure that some people would feel cheated if in a tournament you could have an assistant (digital and/or human) that could suggest you the next move to play (or stop you when you're about to mess up) ?
(Then there's also I guess a third aspect : the metagame part : deciding *which* deck to bring to which tournament.)
@@BlueTemplar15 you really can’t build a deck properly if you don’t know what’s going to be good decisions. The issue with the whole argument is that the best deck builder often times is a good player. But the best player doesn’t have to be a good deck builder. The requirement for being a good player is being good at playing the game. The requirement for being a good deck builder is to be able to recognize utility in individual cards AND being a good player.
I think the problem in my area was not specifically net decking, but instead people bringing $600 decks to standard showdown events with a $5 entry fee. They scared off all the casual and poor players until all that was left was six spikes playing the same teferi deck against each other.
I think the bigger issue is a toxic company that would create the artificial scarcity that leads to such a thing as a 600$ deck.
@@alexcapps9290 that artificial scarcity blame lies on the mtgfinance people. They do buyouts and hoard popular or meta cards in all formats and scalp them on secondary markets and call it investing in the game. Wotc has a bad reprint policy because people complained about the fact that power nine cards and reserved list cards (before there was a reserved list) were reprinted ad nauseum in the past.
@@zztzgza they weren't reprinted enough. They did it out of fear of their "investment". I don't buy your premise though. The creation of rarities like mythic and putting the staples at that rarity is blatantly anti-consumer. You can produce enough product to overcome the mtgfinance bros tbh the idea that any card costs more than 3-5$ is absurd and to be clear I mean a version of that card not some special version of it that's whatever.
It's not just your area, this is becoming a common thing in 60 card formats everywhere. At this rate it'll only be a matter of time in LGS's are no longer profitable and paper magic slowly goes away.
@@alexcapps9290 you're both right. Wotc won't reprint non special versions either out of fear of investors who complain it might reduce value of even their special versions. It's all stupid.
I “net deck” to get a chassis and from there I tweak it to fit my play style. As a player that started this year this method has without question improved my overall game knowledge. After all, you don’t know what you don’t know.
I’d say that’s what you should do. I think some people who net deck turn off their brain and fail to evaluate the value of the cards they play. The player who made the deck made it with his play style in mind against the meta he was up against. The chances it’s the best list for you as a different player are fairly low
I have to do this in most games I play. I can't grasp the intricacies of a set of cards or models from a blank slate. I need someone to go "hey this pile of stuff is synergistic" and then sometimes I can see why and sometimes I need more explanation.
Same. In Magic with its thousands of cards and rules, starting with a good net deck is a great way to learn interactions and combos. From there you start to tweek and adjust to your own preferences. Over time those decks become very personal and unique, but it all starts with a net deck list.
This is my preferred method of deckbuilding . I'm not always on top of the meta to know what the best cards are, so I look at a list similar to what I want to play. For instance, I recently built an explorer deck on arena (bc fuck alchemy) . When I did, I didn't want to waste a bunch of wild cards, so I found a few jund lists, then completely removed the green in favor of white, then tweaked a few more things, and I love the end result! It's slightly more of a control deck than jund, but it's great! I've enjoyed archon of emeria and wandering emperor in particular
I did the exact same thing when I started playing the game, its the best way to also get to learn how to play well and you get the hang of iterative deckbuilding along the way. Nowadays I more look up certain card combos since I am more familiar with what I need at the core of a deck, but it never hurts to look at how other people attempt to do a similar task.
deckbuilding and piloting are 2 completely different skills. you can't call a nascar driver a bad racer just because he didnt build his car from scratch
They are very connected though. A good deck is designed for the meta it’s in, and around a play style of the person who is playing it. I think being a great player and a great deck builder are almost mutually exclusive. A great player might for example pick up a top tier deck but will almost certainly make changes to make the deck better fit his play style. All around being able to analyze the meta and play patterns in order to access the value of a card in a deck is crucial in both. Of course it’s fairly different tunings a deck vs building it but they are not far off
The variables in driving left up to the driver far exceed the variables left up to the pilot of a deck
But you can definitely scoff at them and their lack of passion, since they dont get their hands dirty or figure anything out for themselves.
A nascar driver who couldn’t even do an oil change on his own car he drives home after the event…. Thats a bit of a joke.
Like a “chef” who serves you canned ravioli….
Theres not alot of skill or knowledge in copy/pasting a meta deck and thinking you’re a good player.
My deck? Bulk cards, ones that i like.
Not ones i saw other people play.
Just what works for me and what feels right when drawing my 7.
I think the closest comparison you could ACTUALLY make, is if you and i were both playing the same video game, looking to 100% it.
I went into the game cold, as where you followed a walkthrough that told you the easy way to do everything and where all the hidden goodies are.
Theres a different level of honour involved in the act of doing it for yourself.
As where, if you follow a guide, you cheapen the experience.
Sure, you got every little pickup the game had to offer, but you can 100% the game without grubbing for health pickups and extra ammo….
You know what i mean?
In a way, you have NOT done the same thing.
Yeah, you “beat” the game, but not by your own thinking and intuition.
….. like a chess cheater who uses anal beads lol
You do you tho.
@@nicks4802 beahahaha. Nah. I have home-brewed every deck I have. Not everyone has thousands of cards or dozens of hours to theory craft using online tools.
Some people just wanna play magic with cool decks.
It's more akin to someone tracing a picture for their own pleasure vs someone who draws it. End of the day it doesn't matter, because they're not doing it for you - they do it for themselves.
@@JStack yep. When you drive a car, you must react to situations by accelerating, breaking, turning left or turning right. Now, in Magic...
I don't hate net decking, but for me personally, I find the deckbuilding process to be one of the things I enjoy most about playing card games, so I personally avoid looking up decklists unless I'm just not sure how to make a strategy I want to play work. I like the satisfaction of having an idea for a deck play out the way I envisioned it while building it and that's not really something I can get if I just start with a deck someone else made and then just make tweaks to it.
A lot of times you have to look up a deck just to see if there are any cards to go with a playstyle that you want to do especially since you don't know all of the 20k+ individual cards cards in magic, that's like what 200 individual commander decks? correct me if my math is wrong but isn't 20k divided by 100 to be 200 decks? and this is before taking into account basic lands and such
I'd still recommend looking up deck lists for ideas you have to see what others are trying. You don't have to copy their deck 1:1, but doing this means you can find cards you otherwise weren't aware of, find synergies you hadn't thought of, etc. Honestly, if you don't look at what other people are trying first but you're still good at building decks, you'll at best converge on what other people are already doing anyway. You might as well start with the best currently known version of what you're trying to do and make modifications from there - finding new things from that point on is still fun, but you'll be far more informed and you won't have wasted as much time.
Checking out other people's lists can still help out your own deckbuilding and give inspiration for your own lists. I especially like to listen to deck profiles online; sometimes there's interesting interactions or combos I wouldn't have thought of on my own.
The only issue I have with netdecking is when I want to try out jank with my friends but one of them pulls up a tier 1 deck and I'm like "dude, read the room. This ain't Worlds. Grab something on level."
Yep - like 99% of all other problems with Commander, the issue with "netdecking" is really just a veil over the ever-present issue of forming a playgroup with similar level decks.
@@KingBobXVI I wasn't talking about Commander but yeah.
I personally think netdecking goes against the self-expression deckmaking is supposed to be but I understand it's essential in a competitive enviroment
I remember joining a Local fnm group after Highschool when I started college and it was loads of fun. My brother who was 7 years younger than me wanted to get in on the action. I built him a red deck wins burn deck from some spares I had and he completely dominated at his first fnm. Afterwards people came up to me and said I shouldnt build him a deck he needs to build his own decks. They also complained about how stupid his deck was. This was the start of a situation that slowly dissolved the group.
I would have just said get good. LMAO
What a bunch of sore losers
That's rough to hear man. I did the same thing for my little brother with infect since he didn't understand mtg enough to build stuff on his own and I knew the people that were going to be playing there weren't playing just random junk piles. Everybody just kept laying into him for no reason after he placed second ( keep in mind he would play with me every night to try and get better and understand the the game and all its interactions so he could be prepared and do well in this tournament) that he just never wanted to play again. I still have his deck and whenever I go to seem him he likes to play a few matches but it really just kinda urks me that people can't learn to understand not everybody is going to want to play the long game and some things are just easier to pick up when starting espicially aggro or creature based decks.
As someone who's been off-and-on playing MTG for many years, this is interesting to me because it sounds so similar to fighting games. There's a common attitude (particularly amongst more casual players) that you shouldn't try to use the same combos or setups as pro FGC players, regardless of how reasonable the arguments that you should are. There's this belief that combos and setups "have to be" original, or else it isn't real skill or whatever.
I recall having a similar attitude in the early 2000s before I really got called out on it by someone. And that was long before streaming or RUclips were easy places to find top level matches. These days, it's still very prevalent (especially in online ranked modes) but with the greater appreciation of e-sports, the attitude tends to get called out for what it is faster.
I think MTG has a different problem, because the game is essentially "pay to win" to an insane degree, which adds another level of saltiness to the people who don't want to imitate high level decks. It makes it more appealing to hate on what becomes popular because, if you can't afford the cards that lets you keep up with optimized decks, you're going to lose without putting up much of a fight.
Now there's a word I haven't seen in a while. In the age of content creation/consumption, I think complaining about netdecking is incredibly silly. That ship has long since sailed. Serious old man shouting at clouds vibes from anyone complaining about netdecking in this day and age. We're at the point where content creators chug red bull by the gallon and full game walkthroughs are available not even 24 hours after a game release. In MTG we have an ARMY of content creators theorycrafting from the moment a set is spoiled, breaking down the meta piece by piece and even playtesting cards before a set even releases. Way way wayyyy back when not everyone and their mother knew where to look and FNM's all across the globe were battlegrounds of creativity and ingenuity, I maybe saw the point of people complaining about netdecking. Now? There's simply no point. It's spilt milk. Might as well complain about the sun, moon and stars.
I hate net decking. I always sucked at deck bundling and always loved building my own decks.
But I’m fine with it. Now. Honest. Not bitter at all. Nope!!!!
I don't think I've heard anyone use the word net deck since 1998 :D
The problem with your assessment is that it fails to take into account that the MAJORITY of content creators aren't actually any good at building decks and/or theory crafting. Tons of cards are constantly being overrated and underrated, and with no real consistency in the why. Good players aren't automatically good builders; and good builders don't immediately become good players. Yet the consensus, amongst the vocal online community at least, is that the decks used are automatically the best.
These decks all have the latest, greatest tech, or so they claim. Then the copycats just flood MTGO, Arena, and paper tournaments with these decks, players who can't build and can't afford the net decks lose, and then the "net" decks settle into the meta as the "best" choice, whether it actually is or not. So we have a circular logic system that feeds its own ego, and hates on anyone who dare challenge the status quo.
With regards to Standard, there isn't much room for building. It's more or less play the top decks or lose. The "puzzle" is solved quickly, as there are so few choices available to try much else. But in Pioneer and Modern, where there are a ton of great cards that simple get passed over for the newest sets, there is a lot more choice to build a deck that is both good and designed with the meta in mind. Yet that never happens, even within the vast network of the vaunted content creators who could do just that, because they all just do the same damn thing.
To be clear, I've got no problem with someone who can't build a deck, or doesn't have the time to do so, "net decking." Take the list that plays closest to what you want to be doing and go practice. Then get in some tournament wins. There is no shame in that. But when the content creators just regurgitate the same decks over and over with one new card, title that video, "Most broken deck ever!," using the clickbait title to push views, yeah, that isn't good for the game.
I've run into far too many players in person who parrot whatever their streamer of choice is saying, and claiming that this card needs to be banned, or that card needs to be unbanned, without understanding even the basic rules of the game. But because they played first on Arena, they think that they know some shit. Then you proceed to beat them with cards that they've never heard of, and then they call your deck trash and that you need to learn to play the meta. Fun times.
And let's finish my little rant off with Death's Shadow since Vince mentioned it. The first time that I saw that card, I couldn't believe it. I saw so much potential there. Yet the community at large dismissed it. Then all of a sudden it becomes one of the best decks ever. Because someone gave it a chance. That's the real problem with "net decking," is the potential for players to jsut stop truly innovating, and creating the 4C money piles that we keep seeing now.
@@Xoulrath_ bro your claim contradicts itself you're claiming that the people who are coming up with the net decks are constantly overrating cards and aren't good at theory crafting, and that people are just assuming those decks are the best. If people are just "assuming those decks are the best", why do you need to play them in order to beat them? If your Brew can't beat the established archetypes then maybe the Brew just isn't that good?
@@HomeCookinMTG I never once mentioned my homebrew losing to the "best" decks in my prior statement. I mentioned the circular logic of the online netdeckers. They still largely play UR Murktide, despite the deck not being that good. To be clear it's not a bad deck, but it isn't the best deck.
4C Omnath is perhaps the "best" deck, that has been found. Again, the issue is that the deck has plenty of weaknesses to exploit, yet because of how MTGO works, it's just easier to play the decks that everyone else plays, and then know how to beat those decks. So we see a ton of UR Murktide and 4C Omnath online. Then the players who can afford those decks in paper buy them, whether they have the skill to play them, and with no thought towards their local meta. It just makes for stale metas if the majority are netdecking the same decks over and over.
I will give credit to Aspiringspike, who does seem genuinely interested in using different decks than the current top two. But even then, with few exceptions, he largely just plays meta decks from past years with new cards. That's mostly fine, because it's still meta diversity over what we've currently got. But I'm much more fond of his stuff like the Coffers deck, which he recently revisited. It's got a ways to go before it becomes competitive, but at least he is trying something new. Doomwake is another streamer that has a similar MO for MTGO.
The issue here still comes back to what these streamers are willing to test. They will often dismiss cards that have potential for the most trivial reason, while justifying a card that probably isn't good enough for Modern, all because they want to make it work. Cruelty of Gix being used in Spike's Coffers deck being an example in my opinion. It's an objectively good card, but the way that Spike is trying to use it seems forced. Yet you'll see players defending his choice, despite the deck performing less than admirably.
I do want to clarify that I'm not saying that the current best decks can't be found online. They can, at least as far as the streamers are willing to test them. Again, the real problem comes from these streamers ignoring cards unless they are clearly meta picks, or unless they become a pet card for them. And then players who don't build simply assuming that the streamers word is the be all, end all.
And just so there is no confusion, my homebrew decks beat meta decks all the time. The reasons are simple: I understand the game well enough to play my deck to its strengths, and I understand the meta, so I know what I need to beat. I'll continue to use cards that other players claim are trash, and enjoy my victories.
I remember when Netdecking was starting to become a controversy back in the day, and back then I tried to be an innovator (and honestly, it didn’t work out).
Realistically, for many players, they’re better off taking a net deck and fiddling with it to make it their own. The vast majority of players aren’t going to find the new Izzet Delver, or Jund Sac, but maybe they’ll find that random card makes that deck work really well for THEM.
To play devils advocate - why does every player have to play at a competitive level?
Never said they did, realistically this advice should only apply to people playing in a competitive environment. If you feel the need to bring Murktide Regent to a kitchen table game against somebody with random pile of zombies it may be time for some self reflection.
@@Weaver_Games because when one player in a LGS is a sweaty netdecker, all must become netdeckers, switch to draft/cube or not play with the guy.
@@malakimphoros2164 There were always a few players at my LGS who were above curve compared to the rest. Every time I faced them I knew I was gonna lose, but I'd often learn a lot from them or at the very least push myself to survive as best I could.
I totally get the frustration, though, it can feel disheartening, especially if they aren't very talkative or friendly.
As a net decker, this actually happened to me, I was getting into the pioneer format, never had played it before, asked a friend what to play with criteria, he pointed me to Greasefang Combo, after jamming games with that for long enough to understand the meta I can now understand what's good and what needs changing.
I use net decking as a springboard, something to play till I'm comfortable making changes and my own decisions.
I support netdecking for newer players and people who just want to play the game without bothering with deck building.
After all, there's no point as a new player in trying to brew your own deck when you have no clue what's going on in the format and what cards are good. Although I make my own decks most of the time, I always netdeck when getting into a new format.
However, I sometimes see players who have been playing the game for a really long time who netdeck without thought. And it's especially annoying to lose to them when it's clear they don't know how to use their own decks to their fullest potential; meta decks are often dummy-proof unfortunately. A bunch of incredibly powerful cards on their own that basically give you free wins against most decks.
That's fine though, you can always tune a deck to better deal with them
@@florinalinmarginean1135 I guess you should play best of 3 against them because a good deckbuilder wi understand sideboarding much better than someone who never bothered learning how to build
@@randomusername1735 Yeah, although best of 3 is mostly played during tournaments at my locals, so people tend to play bo1
@@florinalinmarginean1135 To be clear I’ve been playing the game for years, just new to pioneer/explorer as a format. Im typically a Johnny/Spike so I like to win via combo if possible so I was like “hey dude what’s a good combo deck in the format” and was given two options, greasefang won and have been jamming that for a bit.
Now that I’m more comfortable in pioneer I can see where some things I can cut etc.
@@florinalinmarginean1135 - "However, I sometimes see players who have been playing the game for a really long time who netdeck without thought."
I mean, you're contradicting yourself here. You said you support netdecking for people "who just want to play the game without bothering with deck building". Someone playing for a long time doesn't mean they're not part of that category anymore.
Sometimes, people just want to play the game, and that's fine. People also buy painted minis for Warhammer, for some, the game itself is the more interesting part.
When I got into magic back in Ixalan I got a net deck. It was the explorer deck and I still have it. I was a bad player when I first started bc I had just started playing mtg. Net decking for new players is a good thing bc it gives you a footing. It doesn't mean your going to win far from it. Learning mtg with a good deck makes you a better player quicker bc the deck will teach you how to play. Building good decks is challenging when your first starting out.
Yesss this! I've been playing on and off for over a decade, and I still don't know how to build a lot of decks. How am I supposed to invent a storm deck if I haven't ever played with one? How do I know what delver or elfball or burn or ramp or tempo or draw go are supposed to feel like if I haven't held them in my hands?
I personally love brewing my own decks from the random things I find in my collection and only looking at EDHrec for some cards I never heard of, but on arena every so often I play against a deck that makes me go "oh wow that's interesting" and I don't want to go through the effort of building the deck from scratch and just want to play the new deck.
I'm astonished this is still a topic in 2002, current year argument.
I'm astonished that you think it is 2002.
@@BatCaveOz Wait. What? Who's the president?
I love that little vague shot at (I'M GOING TO SAY HIS NAME) at DesolatorMagic at 3:25. That was a nice little touch. :D
Deckbuilding is my favorite thing in Magic and other games like it. I do look at other decks for ideas, though, I'd never just take a list unaltered and run it.
It's like a starter deck for me. Get one and use the decklist a couple times so you can figure out what works/doesn't for you.
Honestly in 40k at least, there's basically a rule 0. If I show up with a thematic Night Lords list full of nothing but infantry and Warp Talons against a tournament list, well I'm fucked. It'd be like going against 4c Yorion with a bulk of random rares. You just need proper communication rather than being authoritative and demanding people play they way you want them to.
My Imperial Guard infantry list looking at the most meta defined disgusting competitive list
Agree with every word but worth noting this goes both ways in EDH. I see casual edh stuff posted by new players all the time and some optimising-obsessed badger comes out of the woodwork with "Too many taplands, add some shocks" (real example). Even the CZ format of "ten cards to bring your precon up to speed" implies a higher than minimum power level...for no real reason. Often it's because such players can't imagine playing an unoptimised deck so they can't see why you would do it either (or can't imagine how much less you spend on magic than they do). But why? Not every unoptimised deck is Chairs tribal or ladies looking left. Sometimes it's just playing with cards you own that you want to play with when you know your usual personal playgroups are ok for such things. Most decks built this way tend towards optimisation over time but you don't need hecklers labelling things unplayable in a casual format in the meantime.
I want to play devil's advocate to this if you don't mind.
There's a certain assumption, for better or worse, that if you're publicly posting a deck or list then you are looking for advice on said thing. From there, you get the gradient of advice between optimizing the deck without compromising the theme/favorite parts of it and the extreme of gutting the engine and replacing 90% of the deck.
In MtG's case, modifying the mana base (which can be done just as well with proxies in casual edh) is the nice point of helping a deck perform better without touching the actual fun parts of a deck (usually).
It's harder to make the argument now, because most rare untapped lands are $5+ and I understand the unwillingness to go out and buy a land base that might cost as much as a Switch game. Unlike when all copies of Pain lands (the reprint helped the current five dramstically) were dirt cheap, tango lands were cheap, and so on and so on. It was quite literally "tap lands are expensive. So are the checks." and that was about it for untap lands...
But even casual decks never really needed to run tapped lands. They just did out of not wanting to spend _any_ money or laziness. Again, less so now because many of the cheapest untapped lands have slowly crawled out of that justification... But it was true for an extremely. EXTREMELY. Long time. PK even had a video on it.
Because people ask for help with their deck. (Guys from command zone has said they get a lot of questions like that)
And then the obvious answer is to fix the mana base. But no one wants to hear that.
@@shumaticrevolution yeah, I guess this sounds like a case of "let me just post my deck and have only people praise it". What other comment do you expect on the post?
Sorry if I sound harsh, but that's the way I'm reading it...
@@thomasfleming8131 I get your point but in my example OP was posting in a context where this wasn't appropriate. Neither was the tone which was "you need to". The assumption is for worse. If people want help, they will ask for it. If you want to give help, ask if they are looking for it.
The piece about competitive vs casual was really interesting, and I think that actually played a part of destroying my LGS' modern scene.
With MH2 released, everyone was building their own decks and it was great. After the meta settled there were a few tier decks, but a lot of people were still doing their own thing, including me, and seeing results.
Then a 5k modern tournament came to town, and most players invested in tier 1 lists to compete in the tournament. I have no problem with that, it's a competitive event, that's expected.
The problem was no one went back to what they were doing before, and brought all their tier decks back to FNM. With the majority of players on tier 1 meta decks, the brewers got pushed out of the format. I started noticing how much I hated the MH2 staples, and stopped showing. Many of my friends quit going too, then events stopped firing.
I mean thats where re negotiations should occur. "Are we now perpetually competitive mode all in for the win or are we doing a brew deck match right now?"
@@Loki- yeah, we mostly switched to pioneer now. Pioneer's meta is more friendly to jank, so we've been having a good time with it.
I'm all for homebrews. It's what I prefer. I can't actually remember a time where I've truly played a meta deck. Even my G Tron deck, while running needed staples like Map and Star, is miles different than any other list people use.
That said, if your homebrews can't beat the meta, then your homebrews aren't good. That isn't a criticism. Deckbuilidng is both an art and a science. Much like you don't play Tron when there is a ton of hate towards it, any homebrew needs to take the meta into consideration. If it can't compete in that meta, shelve it until there is a favorable meta for it.
@@Xoulrath_ yeah, I get what you're saying. The problem wasn't that I couldn't adjust my decks to the meta, but I didn't want to play the cards I needed to adjust, like the evoke elementals and such. Adjusting to the meta is fine, but I just straight don't enjoy those cards, which is what led to the problem in the first place.
I don't like modern enough to pay 300 bucks for staples that I personally don't enjoy to play. I'm not competitive, so I don't have to. That's why I just switched formats.
The amount I net deck is directly proportional to my experience on the deck. For decks I'm super comfortable on I will branch out and try new stuff constantly. Whenever I approach a new format I find it best to netdeck a lot to understand what I'm doing.
Or I do it to understand what other people do with those decks when I face them. Know thy enemy!
Before I forget, I think the word you were looking for was "prodigy". Very good video and deftly presented. I do not have time to figure out new deck from scratch so I see what others are playing. I try to play the decks straight up to get a feel for what might have been intended, then I make adjustments to suit my personal style. Sometimes there are cards in a deck I prefer not to play with. I think you make a good point and certainly reflective of my reasons, when you observed that "net decking" simply allows you to get to playing the game more quickly. I play Arena and as such I do create some decks for the purpose of accomplishing quests. The deck are not necessarily good, but the get the job done. Quite frankly, I really do not care what "purist" think.
Sometimes I make netdeck to understand how other people are playing it to help me counter if I suspect they're playing something at least adjacent. It's knowing thy enemy!
There's a lot to say about Arena...
- It is a gift for people playing their self-made decks because of the automatic matchmaker (AFAIK the same goes for MTGO ?) - you eventually get matched with people on your level (which might also include bad players / metagamers, but it's not much of an issue). At the lower levels you also often get to face WotC' netdecks (aka starter decks), which is somewhat annoying, but I don't really see a good way around it.
- The difference becomes *really* clear in the Midweek Magic events that are NOT matchmaked to rating : last week not only my winrate was something like 10%, but also I got pretty annoyed by the metagame (that I saw) consisting of 50% one deck, and 25% two other decks. This is *particularly* frustrating when Arena also tells you it's time to "experiment" - and in an event that only lasts 48 hours ! (Though fundamentally the issue isn't netdecking but the incentives of 2 rares+ and a cosmetic for 3 wins - I'd guess that if *somehow* netdecking didn't exist, these events would be dominated by mono red aggro decks : quick to make, quick to play !)
- It also bears mentioning that PleasantKenobi seems to be mostly mentioning here the "want to grind to mythic" crowd - they indeed end up playing against each other for the reasons already mentioned - but another issue is that this grind is a "fake" one, or indeed, mostly grind, having not much to do with skill, *because* of the matchmaking to rating, so it's not only your skill that matters, but also the number of games that you've played - but also fake because the rewards for getting to diamond and mythic are tiny, and you *only* get an (indirect !) access to your rating *once* you get the mythic : where IMHO the *real* competition starts (aside of the dedicated tournament events of course).
3:41 DesolatorMagic needs some aloe for this burn.
I only got into Magic within the last 2 years (Commander specifically), and if I wasn't looking at decklists online for either recommendations or ideas, I'd still have no idea that like 90% of cards even exist. I think it's very important for newer players to be able to see what other people are doing and building so that they're not left in the dust while learning how to play. I'm also almost 100% sure there's not many people out there who take decklists card for card. I'll always use cards I already have or think are pretty cool before I go off buying cards for any deck.
See, traditionally, people wouldn't call what you're doing netdecking - you're learning and taking inspiration.
Traditionally, netdecking has been less about learning and growing, and more about copy/pasting decklists. If you're making changes to make a deck your own, I can't imagine anybody would accurately call you a netdecker.
I try to maintain my own decks but am frequently checking in on the metagame and what cards are being played in my decks and archetypes.
My kiddo (17) just put together Amulet Titian. And it's really fun to play. And very competitive in modern. We always had home brews but I just might take it to Vegas
So the biggest problem with net decking is that it creates a feedback loop where a deck being popular makes it more popular, which cycles untill the prices of the staples for that deck are so high that the growth of the popularity tapers off, or untill a new better deck is discovered. This is annoying because it frequently prevents all but the richest players from ever playing any deck that includes copies of a card which happens to be good in the best decks. Ragavan being so good in murktide makes it so expensive that if you are at all budget constrained you can't include it in your mono red list even though it is otherwise a strong card for you. If murktide wasn't so popular and the meta was more even or even slightly less red representing, ragavan would be a more accessible card. The problem is that in modern, murktide and 4c Ommnath money pile are so popular that any card that appears in those decks just skyrockets.
I'm not sure this is the right takeaway. In the vacuum where MTGTop8 doesn't exist, that doesn't make Ragavan or Murktide less powerful as cards. The speed at which info dissemination happens does mean that people might be quicker to pick up on the hot new thing breaking modern more quickly, but if the argument is people knowing quicker makes more powerful cards more expensive, I think that's more a supply issue. The fetches aren't cheap, but they HAVE been the subject of repeated reprints by now so they ARE lower.
So by that logic why isn't Murktide Regent, the card the deck is named after a $70 staple? Ragavan helps keeps decks honest. Decks that want zero to miniscule interaction are what Ragavan eats for breakfast. Much like Tarmogoyf did before it was reprinted to oblivion.
@@newphyrexian6802 No but the price of a card is not determined by its power. There are plenty of exceptionally powerful cards that are sub £20. The price of a card is determined by its actual play rate and that means its inclusion in actual decks. If one particular combination of 60 cards becomes an overwhelmingly popular mainboard (with potentially a flex spot or two but the same core), then all of the cards on that list will go up in price. This means that the cards in that deck will be more expensive than equivalent cards of similar strength in other decks. I would argue that in a world with less net decking (by which I mean players looking up specifically the top meta decks and just building those card for card) the meta would be slightly less homogenous and so with less players playing the same exact combinations of cards the prices of cards would be slightly more flat also. It just so happens that because roughly 20% of the decks in modern play 4 copies of ragavan, a card with a single printing at mythic, his price is sat around £50 for a single copy. YES increased supply would help ragavan's price, but his price would also go down hugely if he wasn't in 20% of the decks in the format. he is not required in every deck which is in red, in fact plenty of red decks don't actually run him, but the fact that those which DO desire him happen to be over represented in the meta means that the card is extortionately expensive.
Fetches are an example of cards which MUST be reprinted or banned to reduce their value, Since they will always be some of the highest value cards for every single deck in their colour in every format for which they are legal. Cards which are hit by net deck prices are those which are good in a few different strategies, where one or two of those strategies are overwhelmingly popular. In that situation the price of a card can be inflated far beyond what the typical value of such a game piece might be. Do you honestly think that Ledger shredder is anywhere close to a £15-20 uncommon if not for its inclusion in Izzet Murktide???? that is a card which might be good in some fringe budget izzet decks in standard but is completely outside the price range for those decks not because it is in short supply (its an uncommon from a recent standard set) but because it happens to be played in 13% of all modern decks at 4 of.
@@kazekage_gaara_-8027 Not to say that Ragavan isn't played in a good number of decks, it is, BUT those decks are still clustered at the top of the modern popularity (additionally it is present in popular decks in other formats ect). Obviously the more decks that play a card, the higher price its going to be, but if you use the example of a card like ledger shredder that card has no business being £15-20 and wouldnt be except for the extremely lopsided popularity of izzzet Murktide and delver style decks across formats. this is a card that could reasonably go in strong budget spell slinger decks in standard, and is in high supply as an uncommon from a recent standard set, but is essentially unplayable in those decks as it costs about as much as the rest of the deck combined to get your playset BECAUSE of its play primarily in modern.
@@Drakshl Umm...Ledger Shredder is a rare not an uncommon, and it's Standard legal which gives it "inflated price" because it's playable in four formats vs the Monkey Pirate who was banned in Legacy for power level.
And if you were around during Future Sight the same thing happened with Goyf. It was a garbage rare until someone figured out it was a strong card. And many a Masters box was bought because of the card's inclusion when Modern as format was announced. Decks splashed green just to play it.
That same holds true for Ragavan. It may be "over represented" but it's because decks like control are kept in check by it.
Sit there and do nothing for multiple turns decks are the reason Ragavan is expensive. As long as he's played those decks aren't.
I still take some kind of pride in creating my own decks but I use edhrec etc when building so I really do rely on other people's lists to a certain degree.
I really liked this video, and feel it opened my eyes a bit. thank you
I definitely land firmly in the middle of netdecking and exclusively innovating. I played Young Pyro when it was in standard. Never looked at a list online other than using Gatherer to look up what counterspells were available. Absolutely rocked local metas because no one was prepared for me and after the first couple of weeks, my sideboard was ready for anything that could be thrown at me. Now the Pioneer is a thing, I'm planning to play it again (since it can't hang in Modern any more). I don't plan to play a stock list but I do plan to use those lists to help decide decision points, like Power Word Kill vs. Infernal Grasp or how the mana should look, for instance.
Don't play either of those kills spells. Both bad
I build EDH decks for myself, for other formats i at least look at the meta decks before building my own list with what i have.
40k lists i build either with fluff in mind or in prep for a local tournament, i try to understand what the good lists are doing, if i don’t, it’s the best fluff list of the last few months
The shen analogy strangely fit my exact situation with learning shen.
Pat Chapain has a good quote on this in his book "Next Level Deckbuilding". I'm paraphrasing, but it's something like this: "Players who don't brew have no heart, players who don't net-deck have no brain."
The idea being that there is a lot of fun and creative space to brew whatever you would like. It's where players can express themselves in this great game. It's definitely one of my favorite parts of the game. On the other hand, it is completely unnecessary/unreasonable to try and sort out a meta all by yourself. If you want an idea of what the most powerful archetypes are in a format, you should net-deck. No need to reinvent the wheel all by yourself.
Yep completely agree Vince. I find netdecking for Arena is one of the only ways to spend wildcards effectively, as a free to play player, and have a functioning deck. Adjusting that list to the meta is the next step when I get more wildcards…!
Hell yeah PK bravo! I used to hate netdecking but eventually learned to look up cards and concepts I didn't understand.
Nowadays the arguments about staples are waaaaayyyy more virulent.
If you use the tools great, if not also great.
I use the the lists to look at what cards are being played.
But I try my damn hardest to put cards that I think would work to change it a bit.
I also try to mix cards from various decks with the same archetype.
I don’t like copying a deck 1 to 1.
I’m building a 5c Omnath deck… but in pioneer.
I didn’t know Omnath was a modern staple.
I just looked at 4c cards in gatherer.
When I found out it was a modern staple, I checked the decks to see what else people use with it - in both modern and pioneer.
I absolutely love Master Duel. Playing against the "net decks" isn't fun but it's whatever. I tend to stay mid silver or low gold cause that tends to be where the most creativity (except for high platinum, usually by RUclipsrs lol) and it's a blast. I play everything from Cyber Dragon to Tunes. Definitely would love to see you play some Master Duel though, the economy is leagues better than arena lol
In fab, my favorite time is a new set I get a week or two of playing fun decks. my store is hyper-competitive we have a team who goes to every major event and usually does well if not wins.
It's interesting - and maybe it says more about the different circles that we travel in - but I rarely hear complaints about netdecking. Far more common are the attacks on brewers - the 'play better cards!' cries, or the 'use staples, you goof!'.
There's definitely a place for netdecking - as you mentioned, it absolutely reduces the friction in joining and playing. But brewers are also essential to the game - if it weren't for brewers, there wouldn't be any decks to netdeck from. ;)
Great video!
I mainly play edh and I’ve net decked a bunch of decks mainly to see if I enjoy the play style to avoid spending tonnes of time building my own list then if I decide to keep it I will add and chnage over time for something that’s more my own
Back in 1995, people just built decks based on the cards they had and the synergies they saw and played against. Then came wizards magazine. The pro tour. Pro tour deck lists. I played 3 straight tournaments where I finished 2nd. Lost to the same guy 3 times. Every deck he played was the top deck in the pro format. To say, there are resources even more abundant today, to find the best deck in the format is an understatement. Speaking of pay to win, Ahem, Arena. You see content creators playing some interesting deck and you think, damn they got to Mythic with that. NO. They got to Mythic by grinding the format, having full access to all the cards earlier than someone who doesn't spend. They grind aggro, get into Mythic, and then play the content jank.
Someone who doesn't spend never had full access.
One of my favorite cards in my brew is called Revive//Revenge. The Revenge part doubles my life while halfing yours rounded up. I play that with Vito, The Thorn Duskrose who make you lose life equal to everytime I gain life and Alhammer's Archive which make me double the amount of life I gain and double the amount of cards I draw.
I will build my commander decks my self, but when I'm at the tale end of looking for cards to add moxfeild has a sugestions box that I look through
PK - You gave me a thought. Played an EDH game, guy criticized me after I told the table I had done a lot of my deck planning with EDHREC. He was playing a Pre-Con. Just realized the irony.
What about those players who were competing pre-MH2, and have had a hard time going with (or simply refuse to go with) the herd towards playing decks at the top of the meta currently? If they aren’t casuals where would they be?
First off Thank you to all the MTG creators for sharing their knowledge, decklists, gameplay. There is now a treasure filled world of information on MTG that was not there when I started, don't be an elitist, even the genius asks questions (Tupac) and would conclude that Net decking is fine. We all have to learn, I been playing this game since 1998 and I still learn something new every time I play a game of MTG. When I see a new deck that interests me I try it out, if I like the deck I begin adding my own play style to it otherwise I am happy/grateful for learning about a play style that is not my style. We do not know what fractal patterns will come from our experience just that the more experiences we have the more fractal patterns we create, the more decks we try to make and play the more knowledge we acquire and hopefully that in turn helps us become a better player, human.
Everyone needs to start somewhere like my FBLTHP deck. I first saw it on Commander Quarters 3yrs ago I had all the cards lying around but never knew they could interact in that way and finally after much tinkering I am very happy with it, practically a different deck at this point but I would have never thought about FBLTHP as a commander let alone 3 yrs later still be playing it. Most importantly though net decking also taught me more about my style, I love mind games! I like controlling the board by... ''not'' controlling the board (if that makes sense #ArtofWar) and simply winning out of nowhere without ever attacking with my mono Blue deck. There is control in simply letting people do things, knowing that you can handle it if you have to but let others deal with it, sometimes a problem is more of a problem to someone else and that can be used to your advantage. Blue players don't always have to get involved in everything just cause they can, that can make you a target and the last thing anyone wants to be is a target, a good Blue player hides in the depths, and acts like Water (Bruce lee) in any situation.
I like building EDH decks with less known commanders, people tend to underrate you and that can be a huge advantage. People at FNM have referred to my FBLTHP deck as a joke deck, just because of the commander yet it uses all the Blue staples. Also I tend to build my commander decks to win without ever casting my commander because if your deck can't work without your commander out that is actually a huge weakness, what if they take your commander? MTG has so many ways to play, styles to try, I would have never had these ideas, developed these strategies if not for net decking and Kenny Rogers the Gambler because you gotta' know when to hold'em, fold'em and walk away LOL :p
Out of this convo, the questions crop up:
What kind of player do we want to be?
What is your motivation and intent when building?
- Total intolerance of grabbing netdecks, using edh rec and meta tables.
- You must use edh rec mentality.
Or is it just more complicated than that.
I think motives for and against use is worth looking at.
Lil background. I started with a precon, built some decks, bought other precons. The precons I now choose to buy are often using a mechanic Im not used to using or havent tried. Recently, I might look at a netdeck for the similar reasons or inspiration. I might play test/goldfish it a bit on moxfield. To see why certain cards work together in a certain way... then go look at my collection and see if I have stuff that can replicate a similar effect.
Personally, Im happy with my style of innovation. It suits my budget, its fun to explore others work and see what I can do with my own limited resources...the ugly side was gatekeepers in 2019-2020. The number of competitive players, who play edh as well, I met who told me, Ive got the wrong cards, I have to have this other expensive card to make my deck less shit, go look at edh rec to build it properly. It was actually a pretty nasty hurtful experience as I progressed out of beginner towards intermediate play. Luckily, it happens alot less now but elements of that mindset do crop up. Annd it always will, diversity dictates it will. Again, motivation behind why someone tolerates, insists or ignores netdecking are very wide and varied. From a nafarious superiority dominance complex, to an innocent sandbox playful mentality. Playing with ways of building decks. Reminds me of another phrase that gets mixed reactions "It's only a game."
I love building my own EDH decks and will often intentionally avoid EDHREC if it's something really fun to build, but that's because that's one of the things I enjoy about EDH. Occasionally I jump into Runeterra because I enjoy playing the game from time to time. I'm not up with all of the changes so often I'll just net deck an archetype that seems enjoyable to me (LoR has great tools for this) and jam some ladder games. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with either approach
Also, in mtga, I just came back for explorer, resources are limited. It’s good to start with a template.
Oftentimes, I like to take inspiration from decks on MTGGoldfish or unique ideas from Powrdragn and the like. Then, I add my own cards to make it more interesting or budget-friendly, like using Anje in lieu of a sheoldred.
I used to loathe net deckers when I was a highly competitive player. It was incredibly frustrating watching people who had no idea how to play the deck stumble through turns. As I've gotten older and started playing with the mindset that whatever I'm playing is just a game, I've begun to embrace that it is easier for some people to pick up and play a deck than it is to brew one. Stumbling comes from not practicing enough or not having someone to coach you and teach you lines of play. Understanding the meta and knowing what to sideboard in or knowing what to expect to play against and knowing how to "counter" those decks comes from knowledge, practice, and having people willing to help you and coach you. I'm probably one of the few people that can brew an amazing deck and pick up and play almost anything but I gave up on the competitive scene because I was tired of the stress of trying to be the best. I use my skills to try and help teach people and help people learn and get better while also supporting and encouraging creativity and going "off meta."
Long story short, I used to disagree with net decking and now I don't care what you play, I care that you play.
Watching 9 months later and the thing that stuck with me was the typo “Flithy net deckers” 😂
I watch and read a lot of D&D builds and ideas which I borrow bits from, but I don't care where a person gets the build. Just hope it fits the feel of the table and everyone has fun.
That’s a good way of looking at it. As a DM, my reaction to the guy who comes up with Pun-Pun and wants to play it, and the guy who read about pun-pun online and is asking the same, is going to be the same: fuck no, you can’t become invincible literal god at level 7, go roll up something that is actually playable! Even in less extreme cases, the issue is whether something is fun, not if it’s original. Sure, I might roll my eyes a bit if you play a drow ranger with dual scimitars and a panther companion, but let’s be honest; most ideas, whether for mechanical character builds, backstories, or even mtg decks, have probably been done before by someone else. I don’t need to look at decks on the internet to figure out that Lurrus is good, that if I run Luruss as a companion, I want to include a lot of low CMC cards, that Ranger of Eos will synergize with that, and so on. Even if you come up with a novel strategy, odds are that at least one casual player uncovered a combo accidentally, or that some theorycrafter came up with the idea but never bothered posting it online. And of course, I don’t care if you came up with the combo yourself, if you bring a deck that can reliably go infinite turn two to a normal game of magic, I will be annoyed regardless.
I built Mitch's Goreclaw deck almost 1:1 well over two years ago.
The deck looks very little like that deck now. It has been updated, upgraded, downgraded, re-upgraded, further optimised, and it's something I'm really proud of now.
It has options, it has interaction, it can survive 6-8 board wipes in a single game and STILL get Goreclaw back out and get going again.
The deck is worth a decent amount of money now, but that's because cards I bought have appreciated in value and not because I bought them at the height of their value.
It even has a Guardian Project, bought back when it was a $1 card (and I still regret not buying 20+ of them back then.)
The deck is nasty, it's aggressive, it's fast (and can get rolling in only a few turns), and it's what I'd call Competitive Casual at this point.
It's a deck I'm absolutely fine with playing as an intentional Archenemy deck the table can team up against.
It's a deck I'm absolutely fine with sitting back and taking my time with so even more casual players can enjoy themselves.
Since playing a few online decks, I've become more capable of building and optimising my own decks.
I built a Vannifar deck 1:1 from the internet, played it once and then broke it apart to do something else with the pieces.
Not including answers in your deck is stupid. There's plenty of room to have theme and answers, and there are plenty of options to not just use the same damn cards over and over and over again, deck after deck after deck.
I have no issues with netdecking. It gives ideas, it can help you learn, EDHREC is useful, but there are so many cards out there that people have absolutely forgotten about.
But screw playing the meta.
Im going to tell a story from another game. In Pokémon, people have always complained about players who make teams based on the strongets mons avalaible, and look online movesets and stats improvements distributions. there was once a world championship that had the player that won the tournament run a pachirisu. A pikachu clone deemed useless for its low stats and lack of offensive presence. This tournament was a particularly limited metagame dominated by pseudo legendary dragons that just overpowered the competitions, and the pachirisu player seemed to be beating them with no issue.
After this, pokemon fans of all the world went into this "stats dont matter just play your favorite pokemon craze" and bitching badly about people who "netdecked" or as they said "were slaves to the meta". In truth what happened is that the pachirisu player predicted the meta of the tournament, thanks to his experience playing on the limited pokemon metagame that was chosen for the tournament. And with that prediction, he built a team using some heavy hitters to beat the dragons that would dominate the meta, for that to happen he needed a pokemon capable of redirecting attacks to itself, to protect the teammate while it set up (pokemon worlds is on double battles), and that teammate had also to be able to do other support stuff while having enough special defense to live a draco meteor.
Pahicirisu was not only like one of the two redirectors available, but also the electric rat, while criticized for its lack of any offensive stats, and general mediocrity, had an above average special defense. High enough that if fully invested in EVs (limited stat improvments in the games, crucial in the competitive scene), the rat becomes fat enough to live at least one hit from most dragons, leading to some epic plays and turns where the unexpected redirection and one or two free turns granted to his actually good pokemons were enough to turn the tables on his opponents and win the whole thing.
Whats the lesson here? Well, he's not a random guy who decided to play his favorite pikachu clone on a tournament just because and won thanks to the power of friendship. That's super reductive and almost offensive to the actual level of skills behind his meta read. Picking pachirisu was an incredibly high stakes meta prediction, because if he was off about the dragons or the moveset those dragons would play he would be stuck with a very mediocre pokemon, but it payed off and he became the world champion thanks to his skill in the game
"What year is it, 2014?" Hit the surprisingly on the head. I built a deck for the Journey Into Bud Game Day which I adjusted to my local meta, and was scolded as a net decker. It was weird.
Patrick Chapin always said something along the lines of 'If you don't net-deck, you don't have a brain; but if you don't innovate you don't have a soul'. Both have their merit and are important. I think what SOME people are more mad about at the core of it is first: that net decking can lead to a stale meta QUICKER, since people hear "mono black is the best" and go there and stay there. Second, that we "non" competitive players (I'm personally competitive up to the line of participating in tournaments, we all want to win to some degree, but that's another post), we non competitive players want to play with some of the fun cards, but we're tired of accepting that doing so will always lead to us losing the vast majority of our games. I love playing my jank decks, and I almost NEVER build anything above tier 2.5/3 anymore; but I get discouraged when I lose 90% of my games because I'm playing something that almost literally has no chance against tier 1 decks. And no, it's not just my skill making me lose ( admittedly I'm not great at this game, but I am good. And did decent at local tournaments when I used to play in them using top tier decks). I think. Part of this comes from the new design philosophy that Wizards seems to be following, where cards are so powerful that anything left unchecked will win the game. I remember when I would teach people magic at the game store I owned, I would often say "sometimes just attacking with a lot of bad creatures can win because a decks plan may not come together". But now every card in every deck wins the game. SO maybe that's more of the issue. I could go on and on...it's complex. I think Net decking is just an easy target to vent frustration upon because it's the most visible part of the issue. So...I'll stop here rather than go on and on....
I can never hate netdeckers. Never underestimate the value of having something convenient to blame when your beloved jank pile loses.
Netdecking is simply a part of every competitive event in the information Era, and we should all accept that. Where I have an issue is when people who swear by netdecks stifle innovation in their local meta
To be fair, "net decking" was a thing even in the 90s. It just happened a bit slower.
Also at some point you just have to accept the fact that the number of viable strategies is finite and people are going to play the best ones to try to win, take standard for example, I bet you even if there wasn't a place where you could go look up deck lists on the internet, you would still see a whole hell of a lot of mono black and rakdos. People don't play those decks just because the Internet told them to, they have the best cards in the format in them.
@@HomeCookinMTG the difference there is that Standard has a very small card pool, even at its largest, when compared to Pioneer, and especially when compared to Modern. So yes, in Standard, it's pretty easy to find out what works best whether you're checking lists online or not. That really isn't true of Pioneer and Modern. The vocal online community just latches onto the newest money pile deck and trumpets its glory, regardless of whether or not it's even a good deck.
@@Xoulrath_ I'd argue with how much magic gets played today, the formats would still get figured out pretty quick regardless. Also side note this is partially why I like legacy, at least in paper. Mtgo is one thing, but paper events you never know what you're going to play against, people just play what they have cuz the cards cost so damn much, that or they borrowed burn, because every legacy player has the deck they actually wanted to play, and burn for some reason. You could argue that they're all net decks but the field is so wide, and when you brew for legacy your deck winds up looking like a lot of other decks anyways, especially if it's blue.
Like most things magic, it can be solved just by talking about game expectations before playing. If you want to just play a casual game with some wacky brew with you're trying to work using leftover cards from your closet out but then try-hard Timmy rolls up with this turn 1 infinite combo deck he found online - it sucks. That said, netdecking is here to stay. If someone hasn't gotten used to it by now then I don't think they'll ever accept it.
I got into MTG by proxying a CEDH deck and trying to find all the combos myself (I didn't know there was a primer button on moxfeild)
I'd say I'm mostly an inventor. But that does not mean I don't look up decks and cards online. Most card games have a vast pool of cards and to sift through them manually for all my decks would be insane. There is a reason some cards are picked 95% of the time with certain commanders. They just work well together. I might not pick that specific card, but the interaction type might give me ideas to use another card for my personal twist on the strategy.
context: mainly commander/EDHrec, some competitive Hearthstone and Eternal card game
I like using EDHrec to see what others are playing in strategies I'm building, but the part I like even more is entering my decklist and seeing which cards I play that are the most unique. I'm also wary of issues of an inbred meta, or when many players play a card that has a high score on EDHrec but doesn't seem to actually fit the deck's strategy. on EDHRECast they have a segment called challenge the stats that looks at cards potentially overplayed or underplayed in strategies. so data like a decklist is always a good jumping off point, but understanding why the list runs a certain card or a certain number of copies is an entirely different aspect
I enjoy the Vicious Syndicate Data Reaper Report and their weekly podcast on the Hearthstone metagame. but because so many people have access to that (if they're looking for it) it can lead to the data trends that they find becoming exacerbated. when VS recommends a list then players can just take that list and ladder with it. they do a pretty good job of explaining card choices and tweaks they'd make to existing lists that some player took to high legend. but even so, it just leads to homogenization. but in all card games it comes down to the card pool available to you.
for Eternal it's a smaller community so I think that definitely has the potential for undiscovered decks/synergies to fly under the radar even after a major tournament has passed. but otherwise many people will see what did well in the latest official or unofficial tourney and just run the list. unless you're grinding those games on the ladder and are instead just playing a couple games a week, then you probably won't tweak the list at all. knowledge of the metagame informs card choices. however, if there are cards that are just extremely efficient/powerful, you don't gain much from swapping out certain cards for a tech card. that's the case in most card games, I find. Tier 1 decks have a certain power level that cheeky synergies can't compete with.
I review decklists online because I don't have enough wildcards in arena to brew decks to test out. Especially with rotation I maybe have enough wild cards for a few playsets after drafting the new set
Yeah, starting out is rough... but then, by the point that rotation comes out (at worst, after a bit more than a year, if you started playing with AFR for instance), you should already have a diverse enough collection (if not wildcards) to be able to *at least* play a wide variety of historic brawl decks ? (And there's always limited.)
I would push back a little on "my deck just beats your deck" a little. Part of the challenge in a competitive setting is trying to pick a deck for the meta, and sometimes you do, in fact, guess wrong, build your deck to do well against 1 deck you expect to dominate, and it turns out you guessed wrong. To some degree, that's where the art of sideboarding comes in, but sometimes you legitimately just have the wrong deck for the match0up..
Fun fact, I have played for 6 years and never netdecked, I just went to my modern tournament with the 2017 welcome deck, and tweaked it until it works in modern, now I play weird budget midrange decks.
Perhaps I’m just an outdated Grognard, but I think I enjoy the game more slowly than most. I love deck-building and enjoy using the daily Arena challenges (hat tip to Absurd Heroine) to encourage myself to try and create good decks that do weird things. But ultimately, those decks and those challenges are stepping stones to getting the wildcards and practice I need to try and go for - often - a late format push up the ranks. During this time, I’m often consuming content from RUclips creators who are either helping to set or to study the meta - I’m not netdecking particularly, but I’m not ignoring the meta and the good decks either. And then I either win or I lose, but I give it a go. I’ve had fun learning, I’ve had fun building, I had fun consuming good content and I’ve had fun competing.
Where I think net decking is tedious - it’s never really bad - is when a format becomes ‘solved’. I think that at that point a player needs to either be on the hunt for new versions of the deck, or new decks, or have the brewing knowledge to tweak the decks to attack the meta, not just supinely give into it. Consistency is good, but competition is also about risk and innovation and even if you are someone who prefers netdecking, there has to be an understanding of some of its traps. My example of this was the Kethis, Hidden Hand deck that bowled into competitive standard play from seemingly out of nowhere when it appeared the whole format was settled, similar to the new ‘unplayable’ commanders from cEDH that Vince mentioned.
In the same way as competitive players might say to brewers (competitive or otherwise) that they’re placing restrictions on themselves and should netdeck to be optimally competitive, the people who netdeck should be heads up and looking to not just pilot a pre-designed deck to success all the time - they will run into the local maximum problem if they aren’t always testing new approaches themselves. Someone above noted that racing drivers aren’t expected to have built their car too, but I think the important part of that analogy is that even if you’re an amazing driver, if that car isn’t tuned to suit your style, you’re still going to be starting at the back of the grid too.
So, there’s no moral objection to netdecking, and brewing isn’t best, but it’s probably worth considering that understanding MTG deeply, your deck construction intimately, appreciating the successes of the other decks in the meta, and still being switched on and creative are essential to being properly competitive and having a lot of fun, however you get there.
I got 6th at my LGS store championship, it was my first ever tournament for pioneer. I used to casualy play modern with a friend and I had a human deck. Saw they had 4c humans and copied a list online. I've been playing magic for about 7 years now and the part where you said just copying the list won't make you good. I didn't know anything about pioneer before this tournament but I knew humans strengths and weaknesses. I also know when I need to hold back and when is the best moment to attack. I don't think net decking is a bad thing, but I do know that sometimes you need to try new things to push the deck you love so it'll stay strong.
A great article about the "anti Netdecker" mentality is "The Scrub" by David Sirlin, since the two are essentially the same.
Sirlin uses the examples of fighting games, with the Scrub insisting on innovating with complex combos while the one truly playing to win will use the same "cheap" move ten times in a row because it works. Scrubs *think* they're playing to win but self impose these restrictions on themselves ("I can't use move/card X", "Net decking is a sign of a bad player so I won't do it") such that they're clearly not. The "Pro", or really just anyone playing to win, recognises that metagames exist for every game and that there's nothing wrong in taking advantage of them. The *High jump* has a meta game: Is the Scrub going to insist on not using the Fosbury Flop because to do so would be "cheap and unoriginal", despite it being the objectively best method to get over the bar?
There's absolutely nothing wrong with self limitations, refusing to use certain cards, refusing to Net deck, etc. But if you are doing that, then you have to admit to yourself that you are *not* playing competitively, you are *not* playing to win. You imposed a restriction on yourself, you don't get to enter a competitive environment and then complain when others don't follow suit.
Absolutely nothing wrong with netdecking in any situation that has even a slight competitive edge. You claim you came here to try to win, so act like it and stop complaining that my deck is unoriginal.
Dude, you can impose restrictions on yourself and build competitive decks yes this is a nit pick about what you said
"There's absolutely nothing wrong with self limitations, refusing to use certain cards, refusing to Net deck, etc. But if you are doing that, then you have to admit to yourself that you are not playing competitively, you are not playing to win."
Like even if you restrict yourself to not using the best of the best cards you still can build a competitive deck and it will be competitive as long as it can consistently present a threat to win by turn 3-4 or prevent opponents from winning by turn 3-4 outside of the turn 2 formats. Like if it can win by competitive standards of turns 1-4 even if it does not have meta or the best cards are they not playing to win? I would say yes they are playing to win but with deck building restrictions. And no don't be one of those people that say it is not a competitive deck unless it wins turns 1-2, also don't be a douche and say it is not competitive unless it is 1v1 just because you don't know how competitive politicking works in multiplayer magic as in 3+ people unless you are the type of person that plays Ramses, Assassin Lord and just goes ham on a person to just invalidate the others there.
Side note i am surprised that Ramses, Assassin Lord is allowed in Commander as it reads "Whenever a player loses the game, if they were attacked this turn by an Assassin you controlled, you win the game." so the entire card by nature goes against the format of being 4+ players and encourages just aggroing down on just 1 person to win preferably the weakest person and the other cards in the past that invalidated the entire format or just straight up hated out one person was straight up banned
@@JohnnyYeTaecanUktena - "Dude, you can impose restrictions on yourself and build competitive decks yes this is a nit pick about what you said"
They addressed this, if indirectly, in the third block. What makes the scrub a scrub is not that they're using non-meta cards, it's that they're blaming their losses on other players not being original. Trying new cards is how you find new strategies and either find new ways to adjust to a meta or even change said meta, but it takes a lot of trying before you figure out something good. The differentiator in that situation though is how the player takes their losses.
@@KingBobXVI They did not mention that even indirectly as in the 3rd block they said
"There's absolutely nothing wrong with self limitations, refusing to use certain cards, refusing to Net deck, etc. But if you are doing that, then you have to admit to yourself that you are not playing competitively, you are not playing to win."
Sure it is not the full quote but the other sentence does not matter as it was not the point of my nitpick. As the point of my nitpick was that you can apply self limitations or restrictions on how you build your deck and it still be competitive as they said if you had any kind of self restriction it is not competitive that you are not playing to win. So i honestly don't what your comment is trying to say especially after i said Nitpick which you quoted as in a thing i disagreed with.
Though you would be surprised with how often some people that do play competitive would say or think that if you are not running the best of the best cards in your deck that it is not a competitive deck or that you are not playing to win you are just playing for fun with a highly powerful deck. In the world of Proxy friendly which most competitive games are outside of tournaments a lot of people just can't comprehend someone opting to not use the best of the best as you can just proxy them as the best of the best cards for those formats are fucking expensive which is why competitive games for mostly any format are proxy friendly. Restrictions breeds creativity in most cases as long as it is not over done then it would stifle creativity just like always using the best shell and switching out a few cards stagnates the metas. Like just because a card is really strong or fucking broken does not mean you should shove it into all of your decks.
Let's not even get into how some people have their own prejudice on what decks can be considered competitive as a archetype or idea clashes on their own even if it can consistently win by turns 1-3 or stops a win by those turns which in most cases would constitute it as competitive as some ideas just don't sit well with people unless they played against it a few times as explaining it to them is not enough. Though here is a fun challenge try making a mono Black cEDH without K'rrik, Son of Yawgmoth or Yawgmoth himself being the commander, it is harder than one would think as the only two decks currently are Yawgmoth and K'rrik and K'rrik is a Black Storm deck pretty much if you read what that card does.
Yeah, some people seem to have forgotten the wider definition of metagame :
- a good metagame will eventually stabilize, a great metagame will stabilize in something like a rock-paper-scissors cycle where one of them is at the top at one specific time
(This doesn't *really* happen with Magic because WotC constantly changes the "rules" of the game by introducing new cards, issuing bans, Standard rotation, &c.)
- but yeah, Magic is complex enough that an outsider can completely revolutionize the current metagame (breaking the stall / cycle) even without the "rules" changing - which is awesome ! - "eventually stabilize" doesn't mean there aren't "jumps" and that it takes a long long time...
- some people tend to be indeed focused on the top tournaments, but a good game designer will *try* (it's super freaking hard) to have an healthy metagame *across* all the skill levels, from the newbies (which in Arena get their "WotC-netdecks" in the form of starter decks, which is *fine*, even though I was happy to see that WG lifegain starter deck go) to the world champions (with perhaps more of an emphasis on spectators rather than players having fun there, because e-sports).
And yeah, the "your-skill-local" metagame is going to be different depending on your skill level and knowledge of the game, not just of the format !
And in Magic you have at least two dimensions of skill : the deckbuilding and the playing itself (with perhaps a third one being "metagame-reading" though this is becoming... meta).
I agree with most of what you said in this video, but I also agree with feeling annoyed about fighting the same thing every time. Especially when that thing is the best there is, it gets demoralizing and just flat out boring to run the same matchup into this powerhouse
I want to hone in on your LoL analogy.
Let’s say I am running Nasus (Susan) Top and I “netdeck” my build. Enemy team sends Jinx up top. Now everyone and their grandmother does A1 first. Duh, but if your build assumes you are dealing with close/midrange characters at top, need to grab A3 ASAP to keep Jinx from getting close enough to hit your tower with her mini gun. A n00b with a list won’t understand how to adapt, get pissy, and probably quit out making the match near-unwinnable for their teammates.
This is why LoL (at least Wild Rift, been a while since I started on PC so I forget) forces you to play tutorial and get to a certain lvl before you are allowed to play ranked matches.
So yes you are playing reanimator, but maybe don’t play your nonhasty beater when a Disk is already on the table. Yes, Bonesplitter is a value equipment, but you Naturalized it during your first main phase against a Stoneforge Mystic deck.
Lastly: a person should the majority of their deck better than their opponent does. Yes, Questing Beast should probably be reread by everyone at the table to see if it has a new line of text, but if you are running a Doom Blade and target my Phyrexian Arena BECAUSE you just got a list of cards and threw them all together because you watched one video of someone playing a decklist without you goldfishing at least once before going public, yes, I am judging you. This is excusable if you just have a precon and bought some new packs and slotted some new cards in within the last 15 minutes, but when you buy a list of pieces with minimal understanding of how said pieces work before playing another human being, yes, it is insulting.
MtG does have strictly better pieces in comparison to other pieces which goes back to the “either play to your group’s power level or accept you are going to be the archenemy for running a deck filled with expensive (because they are good, not expensive because they are old) cards.”
I am not bashing research. Running the education comparison: let’s say I write my thesis using one main source our even better several sources. Okay. Now let’s say I copy that first source verbatim and put my name on it and submit it as my thesis. The first option is acceptable as long as I can site my sources if asked. The second is plagarism. Deck building is an intimate part of MtG. This is why gifting a precon is nice, but building and gifting a deck is far more special. When someone completely copies a single netdeck verbatim, you aren’t playing your friend at the other end of the table, it is some stranger-friend hybrid that is uncanny-bad, as it lacks your friend’s personal touch. If you and your friends only run precons and 100% verbatim netdecks, then this will probably far be less creepy.
I usually have an idea, partially build it, then use a few net decks as reference. I'll usually end up with something that's 90%-95% the same deck as everyone else.
brewing and crafted a deck can be a lot of fun, especially in commander where you don't have necessarily have the best deck to still have a great time, but if I want to play something competitive I'm always going to be looking at what has been doing well. How original or creative your deck is can be a metric in some circles but at large its always going to depend on the context of the game. No one would get criticized for netdecking at a modern event for example. No one there probably has a single truly original deck idea anyways.
counterpoint: playing against the same goddamn deck in 4 of my 5 rounds of fnm is godawful regardless of whether it's a good or bad matchup.
I am absolutely a net-decker, but not in the way that pulls whole lists from some online source. I use EDHREC and other tools to remember what might be out there that I just forgot was sitting in my boxes (plural) of cards that have been collecting dust over the years. In 40k/AoS, I get a handful of games in each year. That isn't enough to actually be able to fully understand any of my armies, so I look at tournament lists to try and understand what I might be missing because I don't play 8 times per week.
I used to play legend of the Five Rings competitively, and there was a culture of keeping decklists secret for as long as possible during the main competitive season for the game. I never quite understood it at the time, but people would get incredibly shitty if tournament organizers wanted to collect decklists and they wound up online. Now that I'm much older, I assume those folks just wanted a competitive advantage over folks who might be better pilots but not particularly good at deck construction. This is how I view anyone that complains about netdecking or playing meta lists. The second someone complains about "meta this", "competitive that", or "tournament other thing" I just assume they think they're better off if other people aren't allowed to use all of the tools at their disposal to win games.
When it comes to setting expectations for a play experience in advance, understand what you're getting yourself into before you go. If you are at something that has prizes at stake (even something like FNM or a "For-fun local RTT"), you are signing up to experience meta choices. If you're meeting up with your friends for a casual game of commander or a game of Warhammer where you want to run your favorite (but mechanically terrible) deck/army, then a different expectation can be set in advance.
Vince, this was very well said.
in Academia, we are encouraged to learn from the notes and discoveries of our peers and build off of that knowledge base. while it is good to test your peer's theories and see if they hold water, it is also legitimate to just use that research to further your own studies.
The only problem I have with netdecking is that it tends to make playing a format boring, which is bad or unimportant depending on the situation. In a tournament situation where winning is the #1 goal? Netdecking is perfectly fine. Playing in a casual situation and being forced to see Tron for the 16th time in an hour? That gets old really quickly.
I also agree that netdecking doesn't decrease skill to run said decks.
Net deck -> fundamentally learn the game -> branch out with possible tech choices -> start noticing cards that may not have been thought about atleast not on a large scale -> go from here maybe noticing interactions of cards and so on to make something of your own eventually.
Hopefully you can see where I am going with this it is missing a few steps but I am tired.
You forgot the last step: Put your deck up online.
I think the difference between the two can be summed up like this:
An innovator thinks "because this card is good, I can 5-0 with it!"
While a net decker thinks "this card is good because someone 5-0'd with it"
As someone that prefers innovation, I feel that net decking can stifle growth. It can lead to an inability to deck build, to assess card quality, and to a general stubbornness (won't play anything cute or off-meta unless a pro tops with it). I think all of those things translate to a stunted player, even when it comes time to actually sling spells.
It's also far less impressive to win when you only had to do half the work; i think we can all agree that winning with something entirely new that YOU created is always a more interesting story than the guy that wins with the exact 75 card Burn list. Deck building being dismissed as an unimportant aspect of being a competitor is upsetting, as it is my favorite part.
And it always feels bad when asking my friends for advice on a spicy brew; they're all net Deckers and the only suggestions that they can provide are usually in the form of urls and hyperlinks. :/
One last analogy: in Super Smash Bros Melee, new players nowadays learn through hacked training modules like Uncle Punch and online resources like slippi. The new players are INSANE at tech skill. They can do some of the most impressive technical things that years ago only pros could do. And yet, they have no concept of neutral game. They have no fundamentals. Their gameplay is carried by their ability to memorize button sequences and execute them perfectly, rather than actually interacting and outplaying or outsmarting the opponent. To me, this is a similar case, and while it's not a perfect analogy it makes someone that grew up learning the long way feel... like people are missing something. A player without a soul. That's what it feels like.
As someone who has been playing Magic at some level for 20 years, I'm not good at deck construction. Building a deck in the void is something I've never developed the skill for. I'm pretty mediocre at draft and sealed formats, much to my disappointment. But if you hand me a deck, I can understand how it is designed to function, how the pieces complement or combo one another, and even perhaps looks at cards I might want to trade out for the maindeck or sideboard dependant on my meta. I'm pretty decent at TUNING a deck, but building one from scratch is something I lack the gift for.
On the other hand, my piloting skills are pretty solid, aided by my understanding of how a deck fits together.
I netdeck in mtga constructed to get to play with cards that are expensive in paper and try to find out if they would work well in commander, where I bumble around with my mediocre homebrew skills.
I building draft and sealed decks, but that is just something else.
Regarding the analogies in the video:
I'd rather be a jazz musician that can play whatever tune pops into his head, or a composer that could create a new song, than a musician that only plays what's on the page.
Similarly, I think I'd rather be a cook that can eyeball a recipe, guesstimate measurements, and improvise when they run out of an ingredient, than a chef that has to measure everything exactly as it says on the page. Imagine not knowing how to make oatmeal raisin cookies even though you know how to make regular oatmeal cookies sans-raisins. That's the idea of the net decker.
Grandma, who hasn't touched a measuring cup in years, makes the best cookies. ;)
Take the juicy bits from Cedh (The Value) and mix it with the creativity of the Casual side (The Fun).
I will also add. With Warhammer, Your spending big money on the modles, then big money and time making and painting them. Hence you should deffnitly check to see if a unit is good. You dont need to get the Vagas pro tour lists. But its nice to know this unit your about to spend 10+ hours on is going to be effective in game.
If it weren't for net decking and RUclips of games and game play I would not have found my two favorite modern decks.
I personaly don't net deck per say, but do look up combos just because there are too many to remember. I expect to lose a lot though and spend a ton of time tweeking until I create a deck i'm happy with.
The title I read "Fill thy net, deckers"
Practicing therapist here. I don't memorize every diagnosis in the DSM and Doctors don't memorize every medical condition in the ICD10. Neither is possible. What we actually know is where to find the information we need to make an informed decision about something. A bit of an extreme analogy, I know, but this is really the same process we use in TCGs when net-decking. We have this mythology about being "original" and "smart" and "unique," but most successful people, or professionals given the above analogy, are better served by knowing how to use their resources and the information they have available to them rather than memorizing because memory is fallible and it's not possible to have so much general, working knowledge. So why the big paragraph? Childhood "trauma"? Haha. The hate toward net-decking was really about access to information before "everyone" knew about sites like EDH rec and before people really started realizing what a simple google search could do for them. Now that everyone is (mostly) on the same playing field with access to info, much of heat is gone, but people still get passive aggressive about being "original" and "inventive." Anyway... TLDR the heat is silly and misplaced.
I started the game brewing my own decks, finding cards like Melira and creating combos that I thought were unique with Murderous Redcap, throwing them into my modern elves deck. I got my ass kicked every time I tried to play FNM with it. I built a mono blue deck that played Ponder before I realized it was banned. Lost every round.
I don't understand why people were always so angry about netdecking because like you say, it is a different skillset.
Conversely, my friends bought into decks like UR delver and Jund when they were tier 1 and would lose most their matches because they didn't have experience with the deck. Hell, they might just not like the deck archetype but thinks since it is tier 1 that is the deck they should play. Just not the case, you need a good deck with good cards, goodplaying, and experience.
The first deck I ever built from online was Summer Bloom in modern because I couldn't afford fetchlands and it was a niche deck at the time. I started winning because of the power of the deck, but I also lost a lot of games because of just wasn't good enough at that point. I went from 3-2 at fnm (losing to missing a pact trigger and to affinity) for the first time ever, and I eventually ended up top 8ing a PPTQ before bloom got banned and I got busy with university.
I love magic and if I had never netdecked my first modern deck that I still play to this day, I don't think I'd still be playing
So I wanted to get into Modern, so I took up Prof. Brian's suggestion and net-decked a mono-red burn deck. I practiced on MTGO in preparation for GenCon and I was annoyed at how I kept getting my ass kicked. I slowly learned what cards I was lacking, what the meta was like, and before I knew it, I had a personalized mono-red deck that I was fairly happy with. It won't win any national tournaments or anything (cuz, ya know, boros burn exists) but I like the fact that I have a decent Modern deck now that can let me play just about anywhere, and I would have had a far shittier time if I didn't net-deck at the start as a jumping off point.
I do eventually want to build a deck from scratch (no where close to that level yet), but when you have a steady meta, like Modern, you better be prepared to lose A LOT until you finally make something that works. There's no way you'll make a decent deck on the first try, and you'll often have to go back to the drawing board and start again from scratch. That doesn't sound nearly as appealing to me as getting some good competitive games in right now.
Some people are great deck builders, but bad players. Others are great players, but bad deck builders. They are two separate, but related skills. But getting mad about even just suspecting it I find more often than not is just salt on the part of the person complaining about it.
That's not really fair, net decking has been slowly killing casual play. I now avoid my LGS because instead of playing agaisnt fun new inventive homebrews, it's just 10-20 people who all have almost identical meta decks. I could go on about how it drives card prices up, making cards that would otherwise be affordable rare and expensive, but the main impact for me is that I now *have* to play much more competitively just to get a chance to interact. Additionally because people are only playing to win and not for fun, by the third round most people have left because they won't end up at the top of the leader board.
@@92HazelMocha You mention casual play but also mention rounds and a leader board, I'm guessing your LGS plays EDH in a tournament style setting. I'm sorry, if that's the case then the point is to win. If there are points, prizes or bragging rights at hand then yes, you should be sweaty. My local store has 2HG Commander tournaments that I never enter for this exact reason.
I think you're blaming a problem that exists because of the environment you play EDH in rather than the actual problem itself.
I said more often than not, not everytime. And question. Is this in sanctioned or unsanctioned tournament play.
@@RCCrisp I don't play EDH, I play modern. The prizes are almost always just sealed packs or the occasional promo. Also I don't really see how netdecking could really effect EDH as its a singleton format, but I also don't play EDH lol
This sounds more like a Tournament problem more than a straight netdecking issue. Whenever you start involving prizes of any type, people will inevitably move to the more optimal play strategies and decks, whether its pure netdecking or modifying those decks. The only real way to avoid it is to not play constructed formats. Limited events might have optimal strategies, but requires luck just as much to get the cards you need for said strategies.
I play a video game called Wargame: Red Dragon. There were no balance updates or DLC for the game released from 2016 to 2021. Despite that, and the fact that the "meta" was known to everyone because the competitive and competitive-adjacent community (this is what I call people like me who know what the meta is but are also kinda mediocre at the game) is very small and very online, the meta evolved constantly over time. People were always discovering new things and finding new ways of playing the game (I wasn't one of them). That's what separates good players from ok ones like me. If you're just copying others, you're entitled to do that, but you will fall behind because someone will break out a new strategy that they've been keeping in their back pocket when it comes time to attend a tournament, even if that strategy is just a slight variation on something someone else was already doing.
My issue when it comes to net-decking is that, to some extent, Magic does feel pay to win. While new strategies can always be developed, many of them rely on the same expensive cards to run. While new strategies are always possible, the fact is that buying decks is very expensive for new players and pre-cons or something you make by pulling cards out of your collection won't be able to compete. I'm in a weird place where the only person I can play magic with is very new to the game and, while willing to learn, doesn't have many cards or particularly good cards and doesn't know how to build decks. I let them play my decks regularly, but because I understand the game and have a larger number of cards, I can make stronger decks. These decks are largely things I came up with on my own, but they'd lose 9 times out of 10 against
Another issue I have is that there's not really a power level system beyond card age. I played a lot of magic many years ago, so I have a lot of 10-15 year old cards. Very few of them ever see play in Modern or older formats (essentially just lightning bolt). If I want to play magic outside of like kitchen table stuff, I need to buy a bunch of cards, either to increase my power level to the level of modern or to bring my card age forward, into pioneer or standard. Either way, it will cost me money. If netdecking wasn't a thing, I might still be able to show up to modern events with decks I make using only or mostly the cards I happen to own and be competitive. Despite my not usually having an issue with netdecking, I can see why it's a problem for many. I kind of think there needs to be some sort of format which allows you to play older cards, but at the power level of newer formats like standard or pioneer by removing a bunch of new powercreep and just by lowering the number of cards and therefore the amount of combos that actually work.
I have been on both sides of the debate about creativity vs. just following someone's list. I am a big fan of coming up with decks myself, brewing with whatever I have and whatever I can easily purchase(no super expensive cards), and making something I like...even if it doesn't always win at fnm because it's not full of the expensive powerful cards that the colors I'm using could use...
On the other hand, I have net decked for a tournament, practiced on a proxy deck, and then got thoroughly disappointed at not being able to do the full list....Now, that was Alara/Zendikar and Worldwake Standard, where JtMS was about $200 and we HAD a copy in our group....that got stolen by someone we considered a friend to sell for cash....
I'm also willing to bet that my first MAJOR tournament, which was a team tournament, I had used a net-decked deck....as I didn't make it myself, and had beaten the guy who make it with my own, still Standard Legal at the time, Mono-B Rats/Discard deck with mostly Kamigawa Rats.... And I can say with certainty that powerful deck =/ always winning. I had a B/W Orzhov deck that I had been given a week to practice with...that was missing two key cards up until the day before the Tournament, which were two copies of Umezawa's Jitte...I had been playing with copies of Shadowlance up until then...and I didn't quite understand how Damage on the Stack worked, and yes, that existed at that time, so I was basically screwed...I was playing an midrange deck while I was an aggro-control player...The only two matches I won the rest of the team lost.
One the other hand, I went to a Star City Open in DC with a U/W Knights deck in...I believe it was just Alara/Zendikar, but had previously stated that I had wanted to make a RUG deck for the format, as u thought those colors had a bunch of hood cards in it.....Well, I didn't get very far, and guess what won that Open....a RUG deck....
The Anti-homogenization crowd is a big voice against putting too much into net-decking, as it CAN lead to formats that are stale and just people playing the same deck over and over...sometimes it's just a Meta call....but please don't tell me that everyone spamming Caw Blade at Tournaments was because they saw someone else win with it at locals and decided that they wanted to build the hyper-control swing with a bird holding too many swords deck...
Whether you can be justifiably salty about net-decking or not definitely depends on context: where you're playing, what's on the line, & what you're likely to be playing against.
If there's nothing riding on the game/event and/or it's aimed at a more casual demographic then there's a little justifiable salt at running into net decks/lists in that context. If a player was intending to bring a net deck into that environment I would be questioning whether or not that event/game is a good fit for that player.
However the minute you put something tangible on the line, the moment you are actually playing to win something: you cannot expect players not to play to win, and you cannot expect them not to use tools(I.e. the internet) they have at their disposal to help them do that.
It is correct that this isn't very much of an issue in 60 card magic anymore. It's mostly accepted(At least for organised play) as a competitive game, and net-decking is accepted as a part of it. Mostly.
Other games maybe don't have so clear of a delineation between the competitive & the casual. This causes a lot more instances of competitive builds running into casual builds, which invariably ends up with one person getting an easy win & the other feeling a bit salty. Especially if they are both led to believe that this is a suitable arena for them to play that deck/army/thing.
On the net-decking itself. There is an element of expertise to it, despite what people may think.
Obviously crowdsourcing an efficient & synergistic 75 cards is a lot easier than crafting it yourself, not going to attempt to deny that.
But as with all things, the devil is in the details:
Is this a deck you can comfortably pilot? What is the meta going to look like? Is this deck a suitable choice against the expected meta? Are there any maindeck or sideboard changes that want to be made?
I've seen plenty of new players hop online and grab a net deck, and still spend their first few events getting destroyed (sometimes by homebrews). Because they either picked up a deck that was not a good fit (either for the meta or for the player) or just didn't get enough reps in with the deck to be good playing it.
Also I feel like you kinda have to be living under a rock not to be influenced by netdecks to at least some degree (talking mostly about mtg here). If you follow the community at all then you're gonna get exposed to net decks whether it be through arena or fnm or RUclips or any of another hundred or so places. Unless you're making the (very dumb) conscious decision not to use any of the knowledge you've gained from this content then you are (at least partially) netdecking.
I disagree entirely about the DnD point, it really does depend on the table. Some people get mad at you for being an unoptimized player.
I netdeck most of my lists since I don’t have the time or money to brew much these days. The only negative I see to netdecking is if there is a dominant strategy, some people resign themselves to playing a mirror they hate instead of trying to overcome said strategy. Games should be fun and people should play how they want
As someone who likes to brew decks in 1v1 formats, you still have to net deck to see what you need to sideboard for.