Magic deck building is not Magic deck playing

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Dear Magic Playing Community:

I've noticed that many Magic players, consistently, have confused two separate types of Magic over the years.

One game is the game of Magic that most competitive players are involved in. This is the game where you sit down across from your opponent, shuffle your library, draw seven and commence to try to win that game. This game is lost or won on the victory conditions of the game. It is played poorly or well based on the mistakes made, both in number and significance.

A separate game is the game of deck building. This game is played by trying to design, within the confines of the legal card pool, the deck that plays best in the metagame that exists in that environment.

This game is played well when you design a deck that tends to win over many games of Magic in the hands of a skilled player.

This game is played poorly when you design a deck that tends to lose over many games of Magic, even in the hands of a skilled player.

To play a deck without having designed a deck is not to play the second game poorly, but to skip the second game entirely.

Nothing is "wrong" or "uncreative" about failing to play the second type of Magic, to play decks without designing decks. Likewise, nothing is wrong with designing decks but not playing decks.

Nothing is wrong with designing decks that do poorly, either, but neither is this creativity.

Creativity is the ability to apply new and effective solutions to difficult problems.

Altering two cards in a known list in such a way as to significantly improve a deck's standing in a metagame better demonstrates creativity than crafting an entirely new deck that does poorly.

Most drivers don't build their own cars. Most car designers don't drive competitively. This is neither right nor wrong; it is people with different interests doing different things.

Most engineers are not the best engineers, and most drivers are not the best drivers. Nothing about this makes those that are the best illegitimate.

In short:

There is no such thing as "netdecking", or if there is, it doesn't matter. Poor players that criticize others for playing better only hurt their own ability to improve. Poor deckbuilders that criticize others for building better decks only hurt their own ability to improve.

So please, cut it the fuck out.

[Skeggi]

So cute :smile:. You actually care enough to make a post. :wink:

There is no such thing as "netdecking", or if there is, it doesn't matter. Poor players that criticize others for playing better only hurt their own ability to improve. Poor deckbuilders that criticize others for building better decks only hurt their own ability to improve.
I think most people already know this. Only people with a stick up their arse don't. But let's just ignore those people.

[The Grim Reaper]

Sounds like something a NETDECKER would say!

Just kidding, I agree wholeheartedly. I am infuriated when I overhear one player call another a dirty stinkin' Netdecker. Theoretically there is a "best deck" for each archetype, but that doesn't mean you should stop innovating.

[JeroenC]

Thank you for giving me a good and well reasoned post to quote if someone gets on the "omg netdecking sucks" bandwagon again. Gotta love you, IBA.

[Arctic_Slicer]

Great post, it sums up very nicely the importance of good deck building and one that everyone should read. I'll probably link to in the future when this conversation inevitably comes up again.

[davidboan]

Thank You for writing this IBA. The next time I get bitched at about netdecking when I beat random homebrew shit with My Dredge deck I'll be sending out links to this thread via email.

[Michael Keller]

Dear Magic Playing Community:

I've noticed that many Magic players, consistently, have confused two separate types of Magic over the years.

One game is the game of Magic that most competitive players are involved in. This is the game where you sit down across from your opponent, shuffle your library, draw seven and commence to try to win that game. This game is lost or won on the victory conditions of the game. It is played poorly or well based on the mistakes made, both in number and significance.

A separate game is the game of deck building. This game is played by trying to design, within the confines of the legal card pool, the deck that plays best in the metagame that exists in that environment.

This game is played well when you design a deck that tends to win over many games of Magic in the hands of a skilled player.

This game is played poorly when you design a deck that tends to lose over many games of Magic, even in the hands of a skilled player.

To play a deck without having designed a deck is not to play the second game poorly, but to skip the second game entirely.

Nothing is "wrong" or "uncreative" about failing to play the second type of Magic, to play decks without designing decks. Likewise, nothing is wrong with designing decks but not playing decks.

Nothing is wrong with designing decks that do poorly, either, but neither is this creativity.

Creativity is the ability to apply new and effective solutions to difficult problems.

Altering two cards in a known list in such a way as to significantly improve a deck's standing in a metagame better demonstrates creativity than crafting an entirely new deck that does poorly.

Most drivers don't build their own cars. Most car designers don't drive competitively. This is neither right nor wrong; it is people with different interests doing different things.

Most engineers are not the best engineers, and most drivers are not the best drivers. Nothing about this makes those that are the best illegitimate.

In short:

There is no such thing as "netdecking", or if there is, it doesn't matter. Poor players that criticize others for playing better only hurt their own ability to improve. Poor deckbuilders that criticize others for building better decks only hurt their own ability to improve.

So please, cut it the fuck out.


This completely summed up my playstyle for years. It took a lot of defeat, time, money, and thought to understand the intricacies that are involved in this business and what it takes to completely alter your playstyle to become more competitive based on how you build your decks. Magic is a game that revolves around a small percentage of creativity; but in reality imitation is what drives the most competitive decks in each format.

[mujadaddy]

Netdecking: Quicker than the Pony Express!

[Bryant Cook]

I'm all sorts of awesome. Deck building and winning!

[DragoFireheart]

This topic is oozing the bias of you NET-DECKERS! :eek:

That is fine, this is suppose to be a mature site for discussing Magic the Gathering. I will tolerate the insanities of this Bear Assassin, but only because he humors me.

[jthanatos]

The term (phrase?) net decking always confuses me, in so much as it seems likely that almost any halfway viable comibination of cards, no matter how terrible, has probably been posted at least once on the net. Heck, I would even venture to say a majority of decks posted on the net are just not good. The only part of copying things from the net that sometimes annoys me is when people don't take any time to learn why certain cards are run, or make drastic changes from the norm just because they saw a pro deck with it. I'm looking at you Nassif one-of sideboard extravaganza.

[Michael Keller]

Reputation also goes a long way when it comes to competitive game play. The Source provides decks for people who seek ideas for decks or cards they might not already be familiar with.

[TheRock]

Netdecking DOES exist - it's an expression that is thrown at people who don't have the ability to, or in most cases don't care to, understand the mathematics, playskill, and creativity necessary to build their own decks (although at a competitive level, it should be promoted to make changes to existing skeletons).

This is one of the three main factors why above-average players never get better at the game (the other being that they don't want to get better or they don't want to put the time into being better players). If you want people to get better at this game, then you can call them netdeckers if they are that way because it's meant to be a remark in order to get them to play the overall game better. It doesn't get used in the right way by the newer or not-so-good players pretty much ever, but it has some merit.

I agree about your overall argument, just not about your conclusion. I absolutely HATE the idea of labeling people, but you can't say that it doesn't exist when it has a purpose. There is a reason why harsh words hurt but yet offer plenty of value.

[Forbiddian]

Sounds like something a NETDECKER would say!

Just kidding, I agree wholeheartedly. I am infuriated when I overhear one player call another a dirty stinkin' Netdecker. Theoretically there is a "best deck" for each archetype, but that doesn't mean you should stop innovating.

I think of a netdecker is someone who doesn't understand why cards are in their deck. This bothers me a bit because it feels like extreme laziness.


It doesn't bother me when people play decks without making a contribution to the design of the deck -- they're playing the deck and making a significant contribution to the play of the deck, which is probably more important than deck design.

It does bother me when people are like: "Why is Ill Gotten Gains in there?" or "What does Flame-kin Zealot do for me?" The people that simply go online and pick the deck other people told them to pick, but don't understand how anything works and suck it up because they didn't understand the basics of deck design.

If you're going to skip one aspect of Magic entirely, you should do the other aspect pretty well.


To continue the competitive driver vs. engineer analogy: You can bet all the competitive drivers know why the car has a carburetor or a transmission, even if they couldn't design one.

[Finn]

This topic is oozing the bias of you NET-DECKERS!

That is fine, this is suppose to be a mature site for discussing Magic the Gathering. I will tolerate the insanities of this Bear Assassin, but only because he humors me.This is pretty funny. I could call IBA a lot of things. But netdecker is surely not one of them. I know this because I am of the same mind about this one topic in particular.

Jack, have you EVER played a deck at a tournament that is not your own?

=======================


There is no such thing as "netdecking", or if there is, it doesn't matter. Poor players that criticize others for playing better only hurt their own ability to improve. Poor deckbuilders that criticize others for building better decks only hurt their own ability to improve.Of course this is simply untrue. Mostly it is as you claim, Jack. But not entirely. We have all met the clown who spent $500 of his parents money to build a deck that he has no idea how to pilot. He has no understanding of what cards to sub in or out as the metagame shifts. He has no understanding of the steps taken to get the deck to where it is.

It is the difference between actual abstract art from a person who CAN create more conventional art. A person who went to school and trained for it.

...and my 4-year old smattering paint on a canvas.

It matters, only not really.

[Mordel]

I think the practice of what I think of as "tuning" should be recognized too. It is touched upon with the mention of changing two slots, but that isn't often the minimum. I've made numerous original decks while playing magic, but not any that were terribly good for 1.5 specifically, but what I do with 1.5 is pick a deck, play with it and often change it a lot as I go. It goes beyond two slots changing often times. I think of it as sort of a middleground between deck design and playing. That is to say that I play the deck, learn it and change it to better suit my objectives as far as making whatever match up stronger and such. I've always liked making original decks in formats where there is a fair amount of narrowness, but an ambundance of cards to allow me to make something that fits my play style. 1.5 has a fuck tonne of viable decks that suit my play style though, so I haven't really felt the need to really hit the drawing board on making something original.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

This is pretty funny. I could call IBA a lot of things. But netdecker is surely not one of them. I know this because I am of the same mind about this one topic in particular.

Jack, have you EVER played a deck at a tournament that is not your own?

I played Solidarity and Goblins a few times at the local 10-20 man tournaments we used to have around here because those decks are a lot of fun. Not in anything sanctioned, no. But, that's because I enjoy the challenge of deckbuilding and I'm one of the people I can reliably count on to pilot my creations at least somewhat competently through a tournament.

On a side note, if you really want to get better at deckbuilding, you should draft. This is a general note.


Of course this is simply untrue. Mostly it is as you claim, Jack. But not entirely. We have all met the clown who spent $500 of his parents money to build a deck that he has no idea how to pilot. He has no understanding of what cards to sub in or out as the metagame shifts. He has no understanding of the steps taken to get the deck to where it is.

It is the difference between actual abstract art from a person who CAN create more conventional art. A person who went to school and trained for it.

...and my 4-year old smattering paint on a canvas.

It matters, only not really.

So this person isn't playing the second game; he's not trying to design a deck. He's trying to play a deck, but he makes many mistakes because he did not do adequate research. So he's doing poorly at the first game and not playing the second.

The only reason people tend to get pissed off at guys like this is because they lose to them, which is usually a case of the deck they chose to play being really good and/or luck. Or the guy has some skill despite being unaware enough not to figure out his deck's combos.

People complain about this guy because they're trying out a deck they created and they lose to a deck that was just picked up off the internet. But if it happens consistently the problem is still with the deck design.

Which, on another sidenote, is alright. If you want to play the game of deck design, you're going to fail a lot more often than you will at the first game. Even the best Magic players in the world tend to bat 60% at best in the environments in which they compete. The vast majority of decks, however, are going to be simply weaker than the best decks. That's why they're the best decks.

[DragoFireheart]

On a side note, if you really want to get better at deckbuilding, you should draft. This is a general note.




Probably the best advice I have heard for deck-making.

Drafting and learning to improvise will help stimulate those critical thinking skills.

[Forbiddian]

Probably the best advice I have heard for deck-making.

Drafting and learning to improvise will help stimulate those critical thinking skills.

Although in reality, people "netdeck" draft packs. There are must grabs that lock you into a new color, even on the last pack. Players who draft those simply learn those colors and can rank the cards in terms of limited power. Also currently you can just play three, four or even five color, so you don't even have to make drafting choices. It's often simply a question of grabbing the best card out of the pack.

In a real draft, there's little room to be creative and see novel combinations. It's pretty much like: X is good, YYYYYYYYYYYY are bad. Ok, I'll draft X and now I'm playing Green.


I'd say Sealed Deck is more similar to real deck design than draft, because you actually design a deck and can see how it looks completed. It's also more interesting (albeit more expensive).

[chokin]

I've had people bitch about me not designing my own decks. But these people are the same people who make play mistake after play mistake every week I see them. Like a Sligh deck racing a Wellwisher instead of picking off the elves. There's also a difference in me finding a list and playing it the kid who played Ichorid last week who attacked for 8 with a FKZ and 2 Ichorids instead of 21 for the win.

I admit I'm not the greatest deckbuilder, but I'm a pretty decent player.

[4eak]

I'm not sure drafting is the best way to become a good deckbuilder. I think drafting a lot is a good way to become better at deckbuilding in drafts. Drafting is fairly different from constructed. There are many cards and strategies that see heavy play in constructed that aren't nearly as viable in drafts (cube or otherwise). Additionally, while I like drafting because it outright forces all players to make a deck on the spot, it doesn't necessarily translate to good constructed deckbuilding and tweaking, where a larger set of interactions are possible, predicting metagames is relevant, and you have a very different timeframe to build and test your deck.

As for the overall (and obvious) distinction between deckbuilding and playing actual magic, I can definitely agree they are two different games being played. We shouldn't overlook the fact that several aspects of both games are very, very related. To some degree, I will not seperate these activities.

Most 'netdecks' evolve over time, in part because they are shaped by the experience of those who actually go out and play the deck. Deckbuilding is reliant upon practicing magic, and I've yet to meet a good deckbuilder who wasn't also a very capable pilot.

Also, good sideboarding and even the use of card filtering/understanding probabilities behind your deck during gameplay relies to some extent on deckbuilding skills. Deckbuilding skills are tremendously useful in predicting your opponent and making wise choices throughout the match.




peace,
4eak

[Pulp_Fiction]

I used to think it was cool to be all rogue and shit then it dawned on me, wtf does it matter if I build my own deck or not? The only question I ask myself now: do I enjoy playing this deck? As long as you are having fun, who cares where you get your list from, isn't that why we all started playing Magic to begin with ... because we enjoyed it?

But, along with that argument, the people who would actually call someone a "net decker" is probably the kind of person who thrives on deckbuilding and enjoys playing their own creations. Their fun is had building a playing a deck that they built without any outside assistance and they can't possibly think that Magic is fun without that level of creativity they feel they have achieved. Too those people I say good job, have fun, and just enjoy what you are playing but just because other people aren't as "original" as you are, those "net deckers" are having just as much fun as you, so just leave it be. I whole-heartedly enjoy casting Tendrils of Agony, too each their own.

[Apex]

Drafting is a good way for deckbuilding only in terms of managing your manabases and curves and whatnot. Otherwise, it's kind of a different thing altogether. I have a pretty decent limited rating because I can remember print runs, draft different archetypes, memorize packs and stuff, and not because I am awesome at deckbuilding/designing. In drafts, the deckbuilding you engage in is often something like "so I need more creatures, I guess this Cylian Elf will do as the 23rd card". Whereas in constructed, you have basically all the cards available to you and you have to take the metagame into account when you build, pack specific sideboard, playtest against relevant archetypes to fine tune your deck, know what to bring in, what to take out, etc. Whereas in draft, you are constrained by your 45 cards pool, which is constrained by how you navigated the draft and how the packs opened. Two very different animals.

[tivadar]

I completely agree with this. The only thing that irks me somewhat is that if you want to compete, only the first type of person gets rewarded. If you're a deck builder, you get maybe 1 tournament to showcase your deck, the list is published, and then if you did well (which, as we remember, has no connection to how good you are at building the deck) people will start using your list.

If this were truly highly competitive, people would show up to tournaments with 2-3 team members, a player, a builder, and a metagamer. The last two overlapping a good deal. But it's rare to see anything but the player get the actual credit.

Anyways, obviously, I consider myself a deckbuilder. My play skills are good, but nowhere near awesome. They also tend to sag after 5 or so hours in a tournament. A good player must be able to stay sharp for at least 6 hours straight to be competitive.

I'd also argue that drafting does not necessarily help build deckbuilding skills. However, it is a good type of tournament for someone *with* deckbuilding skills.

[Ectoplasm]

I remember I copied a TES list from deckcheck and I had no clue why it had IGG until someone actually explained it to me :laugh:

[coraz86]

If this were truly highly competitive, people would show up to tournaments with 2-3 team members, a player, a builder, and a metagamer. The last two overlapping a good deal. But it's rare to see anything but the player get the actual credit.

I would argue that one person could, with practice, do all three. In fact, it's harder to build a deck if you don't play (which I think was the point of the first post in this thread); things that look good on paper don't always pan out. I built a Legacy Eva Green deck about a year ago, and I threw Urborg in it to smooth out my mana curve. Looked good on paper, since I had seven colorless lands (out of 21 total), but I never needed it, and it actually lost me three games by smoothing out my opponent's mana when their draws stuttered.

This, of course, is why I like Legacy; you have a million options for any given deck, there's room for creativity. It's harder in Standard, especially when a linear block like Lorwyn comes out. I think the success of Magic in general, though, has to do with the game reaching all kinds of people; I've seen decks themed after actors and I've played peasant, but I've also been to twenty-person tournaments where ten people were playing card-for-card identical lists (a list which itself was taken from the previous week's PT) and drafts with every single kind of predictable behavior that can occur at a draft. At the end of the day, as Pulp_Fiction said, it's a game; if you derive fun from it however you're doing it now, go ahead and keep doing it that way.

[John Rohan]

Nothing is "wrong" or "uncreative" about failing to play the second type of Magic, to play decks without designing decks.
...
In short:

There is no such thing as "netdecking", or if there is, it doesn't matter.

I strongly disagree. Was anyone here playing in the 90's before everyone had access to the Internet? It was a whole different game. EVERYBODY had an original deck, and that was great.

But soon, M:tG fan sites sprung up, the most popular was dojo.com. Everyone called it the "dojo effect" when suddenly clone decks popped up everywhere. The most ludicrious side effect was the period when 90% of people were playing Necropotence decks at tournaments. Sure, that was a powerful deck type, but it wasn't the alpha and the omega. There were still plenty of other powerful decks out there. But the conventional wisdom was that you had to play Necro or anti-Necro, and you would be laughed at if you chose otherwise. So everyone did it.

Now today, it isn't quite that bad. But still, people who simply copy and paste championship decks they see online are netdecking. And there's nothing creative or original about it. The small tweaks people make here or there may show some original thought, but the fact remains that the engine they are using was someone else's idea.

It would be great if the tournaments could judge you by style as well as by your win-loss record (kind of like figure skating is judged). But alas, I don't think there's any way to do that.

So, netdecking is here to stay, and often it makes sense if you want to win. I do agree that there's nothing inherently wrong with it per se. But lets be honest with ourselves and call it what it is.

[Sek'Kuar]

I am pretty good myself at the playing aspect, but i have trouble designing non-EDH decks. My biggest problem is that i have a tough time making cuts because i can find many synergies. Anyone else have these problems?

[Finn]

I strongly disagree. Was anyone here playing in the 90's before everyone had access to the Internet? It was a whole different game. EVERYBODY had an original deck, and that was great.

But soon, M:tG fan sites sprung up, the most popular was dojo.com. Everyone called it the "dojo effect" when suddenly clone decks popped up everywhere. The most ludicrious side effect was the period when 90% of people were playing Necropotence decks at tournaments. Sure, that was a powerful deck type, but it wasn't the alpha and the omega. There were still plenty of other powerful decks out there. But the conventional wisdom was that you had to play Necro or anti-Necro, and you would be laughed at if you chose otherwise. So everyone did it.

Now today, it isn't quite that bad. But still, people who simply copy and paste championship decks they see online are netdecking. And there's nothing creative or original about it. The small tweaks people make here or there may show some original thought, but the fact remains that the engine they are using was someone else's idea.

It would be great if the tournaments could judge you by style as well as by your win-loss record (kind of like figure skating is judged). But alas, I don't think there's any way to do that.

So, netdecking is here to stay, and often it makes sense if you want to win. I do agree that there's nothing inherently wrong with it per se. But lets be honest with ourselves and call it what it is.I was playing in those days. I remember what it was like before there were "pilots" of a deck. I remember arriving at a tournament and wanting desperately to see what brilliantly sleazy interactions my opponents had thought up since last month. But those days are gone. They are never coming back. And here's the rub of it.

"Netdecking" is only a pejorative if you think you are in an environment like the one you describe. We have not been for a loooong time. For a brief period it was a word with a very strong negative meaning. But now...

It is just a fact.

[coraz86]

"Netdecking" is only a pejorative if you think you are in an environment like the one you describe. We have not been for a loooong time. For a brief period it was a word with a very strong negative meaning. But now...

It is just a fact.

Part of this, though, is people in different places having the same rough idea and the Internet providing other versions of your idea for you to use as a baseline. There are accepted 'best' lists of Faeries, but that wasn't one person creating it and a bunch of people following; a number of people had ideas how to play it, and the best list was gradually distilled from there.

Of course, there's a difference between people who actually have the idea and refine it (through some combination of testing and/or research, as time and resources allow) and people who say 'check out that deck that keeps winning, I'm going to build it because it keeps winning so I can win a lot too.' I occasionally build odd homebrew decks and take them to my local store, and the people there are so focused on what's on the internet that a) they literally can't comprehend what I'm playing, as though I've brought a Legend of the Five Rings deck or a HeroClix army by mistake and b) even though they play their deck often, they don't understand the card choices or anything particularly well, and so I can routinely outplay them.

Not that I'm hot shit or anything (I lost every game last time I played FNM, in no small part due to the crappiness of my deck). I would submit, though, that there was a time when school and work ate a huge chunk of my schedule, and I'd use the internet to see how other people were working with an idea I had to gain ideas. I didn't copy any of them, but if I was working on a Standard Rock deck, it helped me to look at other people's card choices, and I could use that information to help myself. There's a difference between using the information available to you for a constructive purpose and simply parroting; it's the same for Magic as it is for going to college or anything else.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

So deck building was easier in the old days because, although the bar was lower, most other people were terrible at it and those that weren't could only have a limited impact.

Nowadays you have to actually be able to develop or tweak an archetype well for a metagame to have a big impact on an environment and create a deck that slices through whatever Gordian knot is plaguing the scene.

That doesn't seem so dire to me.

[scrow213]

Am I a bad player in both categories if I intentionally play "fringe" decks - decks that are not top tier, but just outside - and try to modify them enough to make it big?

I like playing offbeat decks that have strong potential, but never seem to get there often enough to be big. Like Geddon Stax.

[Bigface]

Hey, people should play the deck they like the most. Magic is first of all a game. You should have fun playing it.

Example: in your metagame Canadian Threshold is the dominant deck. It wins all tournaments. You have two choiches: play Thresh (and you don't like it), or play your beloved Elf Survival.
If you aren't playing some big tournament, just go with your <insert_favourite_deck> and have fun with it, maybe you'll even find a way to improve it and beat <insert_strong_deck>.

An example of weak player: I'm playing my version of Enchantress against Hypergenesis. He plays Hypergenesis, and Inkwell Leviathan. I think: "Well, I'm fucked." I'm at 12. I draw Elephant Grass (with tons of mana) and play it. He has 5 untapped lands. During his next turns, he never attacked, allowing me to find Words of Wilding + some Enchantress effect and win.

That's being a bad player. Find a decklist, take it and manage to lose in a win-win situation, just because you don't know how to play the deck / you can't read cards / you know nothing about strategy.

[iamajellydonut]

I have little problem with netdecking, but can we still accuse people of being on a bandwagon?

example1: Elves. I'd seen a couple people posting about a couple of them long before LSV (i think?) made the deck big. Those threads were almost ignored entirely, and the few posts that were on there said that the deck sucked and/or made suggestions that would completely change the deck.

A short while later, LSV piloted it and made it popular. After that, it was the greatest deck since sliced bread, and those posts may as well have never existed.

example2: Trading with a two guys who just poured $ into Magic. One week they came in asking for Elves. A couple weeks later, Fae/Wiz. I attempt to strike up a conversation, and I lead it to AIR/D-Stompy/Whatever. They had no idea. I had to explain the deck for what seemed like ages before they came up with a name. The pilot's name.


So, I beg, can we still hate these people?

[Otter]

Two things --

1) I agree with the basic premise that there's nothing inherently good or bad about netdecking. In a competition, your goal is to win by playing your pile of 60 to beat their pile of 60. How much you "netdeck" is essentially a wager. The bet of netdecking are that no one will innovate a better deck than the one you are playing and that the time you put into practicing a very good deck is going to be more productive than trying to design a new one. The wager of innovating are that you can come up with an unexpected list that will either catch people unprepared or just be better than the rest of the format. Quite simply, netdecking is the far safer bet and in a competitive environment, it is most likely to pay off.

Therefore I would say that there is nothing wrong with either approach, as long as you are aware of the risks involved.The problem is that often the people that complain about netdecking when they lose with homebrew fail to see that they made a bet and lost.

2) I agree with the poster that said drafting does not make you a better deckbuilder, but sealed deck could help. For example, does anyone remember the story of the American guy flying to a kamigawa limited PT or GP in Japan? He spent the flight ranking every single card in the format from best to worst and then memorizing it. He always picked the highest ranked card in the pack and made T8. Now obviously it took some skill to rank all of the cards like that and remember it, but at the same time, being able to follow a set formula to victory doesn't help your deckbuilding skills.

[Nessaja]

There is no such thing as "netdecking", or if there is, it doesn't matter.
It seemed as if you knew what you were talking about and then you end with this. Netdecking means that someone didn't put any effort in game 2 - whether that matters or not is entirely up to the individual and the situation. For instance in a "design the best deck with a restricted cardpool" contest game 2 is of relevance, now of course.. there's no such thing as a best deck but just because the majority is playing game 1 does not mean that everyone who plays and values game 2 is automatically an outcast.

I like game 2 better then game 1, but I enjoy both. I have much more awe for a player that knows his/her deck inside-out then a player who takes a winning list and plays it like that to come up with a concrete example, I have much more respect for Probasco then Nassif as a game 2 player (for Legacy - anyway). If that doesn't always lead to winning game 1 that's fine, they're sepperate games anyway.

[thefreakaccident]

In short:

There is no such thing as "netdecking", or if there is, it doesn't matter. Poor players that criticize others for playing better only hurt their own ability to improve. Poor deckbuilders that criticize others for building better decks only hurt their own ability to improve.

So please, cut it the fuck out


It sounds like someone thinks they're good :wink: .


...
About the comment about changing 2-3 cards in an established list rather than constructing your own entirely new list... or whatever...

This is due to the fact that people who have been playing in this format for EVER have already found what works and what doesn't, and have therefore created ESTABLISHED decks that take advantage of those things... the few things that come even close to allowing anything new in this god forsaken format is new sets that rarely make a large impact (perhaps 1-2 cards that can see competative play and another 1-2 that can be used in someone's pet deck.. etc.)...

Anyways.. I haven't been playing magic for several months now that I have liquidated my entire collection and used it to fund my sweet new gaming room... I have noticed that this format still hasn't changed one bit... it still revolves around the same exact threats and answers that it did when I did play...

For that, I am disappointed in all of you 'deckbuilding pros' for letting the format down.

[TheAardvark]

Altering two cards in a known list in such a way as to significantly improve a deck's standing in a metagame better demonstrates creativity than crafting an entirely new deck that does poorly.


In Vintage, this is called deckbuilding.

[Gui]

Anyways, if a player do not design his own deck, he will have to play a lot more to get familiar with deck mechanics... That effort will make him "even" to a deck builder who has less play time.
It's not wrong to have a couch, what is wrong is to think that having a couch makes you a better player without the need of practice