So, for anyone that wasn't watching the Deck Help section this morning, some new member, nick named "UndergroundInformant" posted 3 deck lists that he had found in SixPrizes's Underground section that had been supposedly constructed by Chris Fulop and JWittz.
A handful of people jumped on him for two reasons. 1) The lists had been constructed by other players and it was extremely rude to post others' lists. 2) The lists were part of paid content that those without subscriptions should not have access to.
I was thinking to myself why these lists were so important that even one of the writers came onto the forum and asked the moderators to remove it.
Why are these lists of so much importance?
The format hasn't even started. People may be testing now, but we're still at least 2 months away from any event that may possibly host a format that allows for the use of said decks. I know people are testing currently to get a leg up on their competition, but the lists we see now -- I feel -- are still in infancy, with plenty of improvements to come as players learn more about the radically new format.
I think the worry that some players have about sharing their lists is Netdecking, or someone copying their list card-for-card. That's a perfectly reasonable worry. A player puts a lot of their time into testing a deck, changing out a few cards, teching in a few cards, and have constructed themselves a consistent deck. They don't want another player to just come along and "steal" the work.
Part of that makes sense to me. Another part of that doesn't. There are only 60 cards that can be used in a deck. If we accept the likely ratios for certain evolution lines and the likely # of used supporters, many decks look the same.
4-3-4 or 4-2-4, or even 3-2-3 of a stage 2 deck (2-1-2 if tech)
3-3 or 4-4 of a stage 1 deck (1-1 or 2-2 if tech)
1-2 tech hitters (Bouffalant comes to mind)
2-4 starter helpers
3-4 Pokemon Collector
2-4 Pokemon Communication
0-3 Professor Elm's Training Method
2-4 Professor Oak's New Theory or Professor Juniper or Judge
0-1 Fisherman
0-2 Flower Shop Lady
0-4 Rare Candy
etc etc
It isn't hard for multiple players to come up with similar deck lists.
What I think the main worry stems from is when certain players have found a uniquely useful tech (1-2 of something in a deck -- usually a pokemon) that may improve a certain match up greatly, and they don't want others to know of it so that they can take the most advantage of it. This is understandable.
We've all seen the discussions on this forum and others; "that list is really bad," "the better lists run ____," "the newest list has improved that match up," etc, etc.
It just makes me wonder, if players put less emphasis on the importance of having "the right list", would other players go out of their way to netdeck as much?.
Let's be honest, there are some amazing players in this game. Show me a player that would think twice about giving any list of Chris Fulop's a chance for a tournament without any experience with the deck.
If the netdeckers did not feel such inadequacy and had such a need to obtain the #1 best list for their favorite deck, perhaps they would feel more able to construct a decent deck themselves, and perhaps they would spend more time working on their own decks.
So my conclusion is that the importance players place on their deck lists plays a large role in the encouragement for certain players to netdeck. And that if players didn't put as much emphasis on their deck lists, if players shared their deck lists more, certain players would possibly construct their own decks more often. Even if they borrow ideas from other peoples' lists, I would think they would be more willing to make changes to suit their playing style, unlike what we have seen in the past with certain players just copying decks card-for-card.
What do you think?
A handful of people jumped on him for two reasons. 1) The lists had been constructed by other players and it was extremely rude to post others' lists. 2) The lists were part of paid content that those without subscriptions should not have access to.
I was thinking to myself why these lists were so important that even one of the writers came onto the forum and asked the moderators to remove it.
Why are these lists of so much importance?
The format hasn't even started. People may be testing now, but we're still at least 2 months away from any event that may possibly host a format that allows for the use of said decks. I know people are testing currently to get a leg up on their competition, but the lists we see now -- I feel -- are still in infancy, with plenty of improvements to come as players learn more about the radically new format.
I think the worry that some players have about sharing their lists is Netdecking, or someone copying their list card-for-card. That's a perfectly reasonable worry. A player puts a lot of their time into testing a deck, changing out a few cards, teching in a few cards, and have constructed themselves a consistent deck. They don't want another player to just come along and "steal" the work.
Part of that makes sense to me. Another part of that doesn't. There are only 60 cards that can be used in a deck. If we accept the likely ratios for certain evolution lines and the likely # of used supporters, many decks look the same.
4-3-4 or 4-2-4, or even 3-2-3 of a stage 2 deck (2-1-2 if tech)
3-3 or 4-4 of a stage 1 deck (1-1 or 2-2 if tech)
1-2 tech hitters (Bouffalant comes to mind)
2-4 starter helpers
3-4 Pokemon Collector
2-4 Pokemon Communication
0-3 Professor Elm's Training Method
2-4 Professor Oak's New Theory or Professor Juniper or Judge
0-1 Fisherman
0-2 Flower Shop Lady
0-4 Rare Candy
etc etc
It isn't hard for multiple players to come up with similar deck lists.
What I think the main worry stems from is when certain players have found a uniquely useful tech (1-2 of something in a deck -- usually a pokemon) that may improve a certain match up greatly, and they don't want others to know of it so that they can take the most advantage of it. This is understandable.
We've all seen the discussions on this forum and others; "that list is really bad," "the better lists run ____," "the newest list has improved that match up," etc, etc.
It just makes me wonder, if players put less emphasis on the importance of having "the right list", would other players go out of their way to netdeck as much?.
Let's be honest, there are some amazing players in this game. Show me a player that would think twice about giving any list of Chris Fulop's a chance for a tournament without any experience with the deck.
If the netdeckers did not feel such inadequacy and had such a need to obtain the #1 best list for their favorite deck, perhaps they would feel more able to construct a decent deck themselves, and perhaps they would spend more time working on their own decks.
So my conclusion is that the importance players place on their deck lists plays a large role in the encouragement for certain players to netdeck. And that if players didn't put as much emphasis on their deck lists, if players shared their deck lists more, certain players would possibly construct their own decks more often. Even if they borrow ideas from other peoples' lists, I would think they would be more willing to make changes to suit their playing style, unlike what we have seen in the past with certain players just copying decks card-for-card.
What do you think?
