Do You Use Internet Resources For Your Decks?

Discussion in 'CPA/WOTC Magic Issues' started by Killer Joe, Jul 30, 2001.

?

Do you use Internet Resources for your decks?

Yes 0 vote(s) 0.0%
No 16 vote(s) 80.0%
I can neither confirm nor deny any such allegations 4 vote(s) 20.0%
  1. Cateran Emperor Passed On

    1) Yes
    2) I see it as meaning "Do you use the people on the internet for advice." After I build a deck, or if I have an idea, I come to a magic site and ask around to see if anyone else is working on something similar. If yes, I work with someone I accessed through the internet to tweak my deck as best I can. I also get winning decklists, plug them into Apprentice, then use my own deck against those decks (played by a friend of mine) to see how the current version works.
  2. Killer Joe Active Member

    I've been reflecting on this topic for a while now, mostly because the IBC PTQ for the Pittsburgh Area is comming up in a week. I have realized that I am a frustrated deck builder, I have never been and never will be a superior deck builder. I DO build my own decks, alot, too. But when it comes to a big tourney, my money is on the Pro's. I would've never thought about creating the Rising Waters deck on my own, but just because I didn't, didn't mean I would automatically dismiss the idea of using it. I had the right cards, so why not? I think maybe I changed one card, but even if I changed 15 cards in it, still doesn't mean it's not a "Net.dec", does it?
    I had a good time playing lit last year for the MBC PTQ in Pittsburgh. I do remember agonizing over whether or not to use it, I guess part of me at the time still hoped that maybe I could create my own deck and do well with it, I created a piss poor version of Con-Troll called "Counter-Rhox", it was bad, real bad. Ya know, now that I think of it, all of my block decks were "Net.dec"
    TSE: Trade-Awake
    LSD: Con-Troll
    MBC: Rising Waters
    IBC: Eladamri's Call
    All, pro-built, net decks. So what. Do I lack nobility now? No. Just the talented skills for creating new and innovative decks.

    TomB: I am so sorry for beating this thing over and over, I never meant for this to be a thrashing party on anyone. I apologize for insulting you.

    Friends?
  3. Gizmo Composite: 1860

    Just by way of contrast, all my block constructed decks were self-made. :rolleyes:

    TSE: Sutcliffe Sligh (they even named it after me!)
    UBC: Pattern/Rector
    MBC: WR Jank (probably better named WR Wan...)
    IBC: URB.org
  4. TomB Administrative Assistant

    Yeah, YJ, we're still friends. I didn't mean to go off quite that bad about the whole issue, man. It's cool. :D
  5. Thallid Ice Cream Man 21sT CeNTuRy sChIZoId MaN

    I agree that if one of the people on the CPA, or on any site, stopped using Internet resources, it would probably be dumb.
    But it wouldn't be as bad to refuse to START using the internet in the first place.
    I enjoyed magic much more when I was just starting, because I knew so little about it.
    I am at least thankful that it took me as long as it did, but I wish I had never gone to TheDojo.
    Of course, considering that I did and there's nothing I can do about that, I'm glad I came here. I'm not saying I hate you people.
    But a world without spoilers, without deck strategies, without pro commentary, is much more appealing to me.
    I don't dread becoming a netdecker.
    But I do live in fear of the day when I feel I have to be one.
    I don't care if others are; I don't think badly of anyone for it.
  6. Killer Joe Active Member

    I wish I would've checked it sooner. Alright, TomB, thanks, I appreciated your reply :). Friends!:D
  7. Wonka YellowJackoff

    Mark everybody knows you get your decks off the internet. I mean everybody does don't they. I am sure everybody copies at least one deck. i know I do. But most of the time I have to change something because something that doesn't deserve to be in that deck is there and I have to change it. Just like my block deck.
  8. theorgg Slob

    Copying a deck is one thing, and it's called "netdecking"

    Testing a deck and experimenting with it, attempting to make it better and more to your style isn't.

    Recently, I was about to go to a Type 1.5 tournament. I had no type 1.5 decks built, and had absolutly NO idea what to expect.

    I went to the Type 1 mill at bdominia.com and browsed their primers on decks. Most of them required cards that were difficult to accuire or obsquer.

    I've got four of the obsquer cards named "Pox" from Ice Age... There's a fairly powerful deck that uses the very same card that I picked up for $1 or less each...

    I read the primer five times over. I scetched together the most commmon cards the decks posessed and composed a list.

    Wasteland main vs Misra's Factory main?
    Steel Golem vs Chemeric Idol?
    Abyssal Gatekeeper vs Funeral Charm/Diabolic Edict?

    I thought that the metagame here would be creature based, since most creature decks have flexable contents, thus I chose Mishra's Factory and Abyssal Gatekeeper for the deck. I also rationalized that most of the people playing would be using non-basic lands, however, they wouldn't be a big problem like other factories, since the "problem lands" were tough to get around here. I also concluded that burn and/or wrath type effects would be present in the decks, thus making Chemeric Idol better.

    I also left out almost all of the land destrcution element out of the deck for more creature control.

    Did I play a Netdeck, or simply did I play a Pox deck that I put together myself?

    There may be a fine line to walk, but if the line is only two feet and possibly a printer or pen, it's a netdeck.

    Usage of the wealth of knowledge imbedded in the internet is smart. Simply ignoring it doesn't seem to be prudent to me, personally...

    For example, how many people ignored the "tretese on: land" that I wrote? I call you a bit dumb. If you listened to it, then now you are a better player.
  9. Turtlewax Joe CPA Hater of Train

    I don't and no one should! Unless it's T II

Share This Page