KEM said:

For what it's worth, Corp vs Corp action is covered in the Agendas that the Corp players manages to secure, such as hostile takeovers, executive extractions, even full out corporate wars.  Whilst you may not be directly affecting a rival Corp, the Agendas you build your deck around shape the "theme" of your Corp- to what end will you secure the future of your business, and to what lengths are you willing to succeed?

A more "direct approach" involved a 2v2 team variant, pitting Corp vs Corp, each with a Runner at their disposal, but I digress.

So the game will always be Runner vs Corp, but what does that actually mean? For the Corp, does this mean trying to secure quick advances for cheap Agendas, allowing a snowball effect? Do they go for big ICE and secure the heavy costing agendas for riskier, but more rewarding, play? Does he simply aim to flatline any weefle nooby enough to test his defences?

The Runner has just as many options, but also has the additional threat of needing to have the right tools to counter the Corp's machinations. All the icebreakers in the world won't save you when a schlaghund is tracing your genetic signal… 

I honestly don't see why you're referring to fundamental facets of the game as limitations; they just are what they are, hard-bound by rules and design. Football, for example, will always be two teams and not a free-for-all kickabout.

Just something to note, please don't take this a flat out assault on your opinion ("netrunner is teh best and u r wrong and dum") as I don't think anyone here has been trying to force you to change your mind about getting this game- it's more the dismissal of the game, (or potentially any game for that matter) for the reasons described that is being challenged.

 KEM I can't express strongly enough that your concept of the game is off. You don't choose one or the other, at least not really, you play both sides. At least in normal play each player brings a Corp deck and a Runner deck and you battle it out with the winner being whomever collected the most points between the two games.

In many ways this really does sort of mimic the idea of corporations working with, hiring, or just, misleading runners to attack their business rivals as well as runners competing against each other (Hackers style) for the biggest and best hack against a corporate target assigned to them by the other runner.

You are correct, the corporations do not directly square off against each other, but part of that is because in Android and Cyberpunk 2020 these corporations put our own multi-nationals to utter shame. They have profits several times the size of GDP of first world nations. They aren't too big to fail, they are the power behind the thrones of many different governments. Direct conflict between the corporations would be like open warfare between the US and China. The entire world would feel its effects in the most negative sort of way.

So yes, it is limiting from a game perspective, from a thematic perspective it would not make any sense. If it doesn't work for you that is okay and understandable.

If you really wanted to you could play both games concurrently, if that help you imagine better that the corps are sending covert runners against each other.  For most of us, it's easier to concentrate on playing one game and then the other.

And again, as everyone keeps pointing out, something isn't really a limit just because it's not part of the game concept.  Whatever games you like have just as many restrictions, you just don't think about them because you're used to them being there.  This game has different restrictions.  Some of them are ones you're not accustomed to and those stand out to you, some of the restrictions from your old game are no longer there and you may not even notice because you're used to looking right past them.

Random interjection:

DB, I lost your email in a system reinstall, not sure you're still active over with SG, and they don't have PMs here.  Hopefully you've still got my email, so email me, I've got an idea :)

And on the topic at hand:

Sure, you're limited because you can only play Corp v. Runner.  You can't play Corp v. Corp.  You also can't play Corp v. Government, or Homeless Guy v. Homeless Guy.  The game focuses on what it focuses on, and doing so creates a truly unique level of asymmetric game play.  You really can't do that if you added more elements and let them all go after each other - including Corp, Runner, and Homeless Guy would have nine distinct gameplay structures.  That's not really realistic to expect from the game design.

I do think it's rather an odd complaint, though.  The two unique playstyles of Netrunner may be locked into facing each other, but that's still one more playstyle than most CCGs give you, where everyone works from the same rules, same card pool, etc.

The runner is probably working for another corporation which pays for the stolen information. There you have tou corp vs corp. Also, there is a 4 player variation where runner and corp are paired against another couple of runner plus corp. Sounds fun.

I find it interesting to think about what would be required to make Runner vs Runner or Corp vs Corp work.  It would definitely be more intrusive than I'd like to see out of a reboot….it would be more like an entirely new Netrunner-inspired game….

I'm assuming that the goal of allowing mirror matchups would be to let a player build a single deck (maybe because they prefer one side or the other) and play it against any opponent they came across.  (The "bring two decks to a tournament" thing always kind of threw me, but I never actually went to any tournaments.)

The core mechanic of the game is runs, where the Runner uses icebreakers to get through waves of ice installed by the Corp.  The easiest way to implement Corp vs Corp would be as two non-interactive agenda point races (the honor vs honor matchup in L5R often turned into something like this, depending on edition), but that's far from ideal--aside from being non-interactive, it doesn't help Runner vs Runner, speed-based Corp decks would almost automatically win, and if any of the matchups don't actually involve running then all the ice or icebreakers in your deck are dead cards in the matchup.

If you want to keep running involved, then you'd have to let the Corp play icebreakers and the Runner play ice.  This feels somewhat clean, because together those mean that the Corp's icebreakers and the Runner's ice may not be dead cards in the non-mirror matchups, but it's only the start…

Just giving the Corp icebreakers already has some other impacts on reducing the asymmetry, because one of the main reasons the "three types of ice" system works is that the Runner has lots of deck search, which is something the Corp never has access to.  Maybe you give the Corp some program-only search?  Then you have to deal with what the rewards are for the new mirror-match runs.

The benefit for Corps successfully running on each other could be pretty straightforward…it would be easy to let the Corp pay bits to trash cards and steal agendas just like the Runner.  I don't think the balance would work out between stealing and advancing agendas, but you could implement a point penalty or a cost or something if necessary.  Suitable rewards for successfully running on a Runner are less obvious.  Give them tags?  Trash programs?  Deal net damage?  Except for the net damage, none of those advance victory conditions, and dealing net damage still wouldn't make you win unless you were dealing it faster than they could redraw cards (or if you go until you mill them out, I guess).

The best way to deal with that would seem to be to consolidate the sides further and give the Runner the ability to install and advance agendas.  At that point, it seems like you could just go all the way and get rid of any distinction….both sides can play all cards (save for identity restrictions), Corp and Runner both discard cards when they take damage and can lose to over-damage (so Tag & Bag survives in this format), both sides can install and advance cards in data forts, programs get new trash costs….Thematically it would be difficult to explain how the one hit-man does the same damage to a lone hacker and a multinational corporation, but with the asymmetry gone you might as well just call both sides individual hackers and the Corp runner just has a backer.

I think that might be an interesting game to play, but it's not really Netrunner without the asymmetrical sides.  You could maybe maintain a little of that with the new factions (identities) by giving one identity or the other better bit-gain, card search, ice, etc…but it doesn't seem like you'd have the same feel.  Nothing's jumping out at me why it couldn't work mechanically, though.

Buhallin said:

PM's do exist here. Click the My Messages link by your profile picture at top of page. 

Toqtamish said:

Huh.  Good to know - although I'm not sure why they can't have a "Send Message To…" button like every other forum in existence, but it's handy to know it at least exists.

It exists, but it's pretty clunky.  I wouldn't mind at all if FFG replaced their forum software someday with, well, ANY other forum software ever made.

Buhallin said:

That would make it far too convenient. It's clear enough they want the PM feature to be used only sparingly.

KEM said:

Frankly, you really need to understand the very nature of the game is asymmetric. It's not a limitation, it's the design of the game.  The corp has hidden info and tries to protect assets and score points, while the runner can only succeed by cracking through corp defenses and stealing their points, having to often run blind into hidden cards and weigh risks.  One side is bluffer, the other bluffee.  Corp vs corp would be a solitaire race with no way to attack each other, and runners have no ways to inherently score points in their deck and their deck is all about interacting with the corp defenses, do runner v runner makes zero sense either.

I suppose each side could play one of each deck and you could make rules on up on victory being a combo of stolen and advanced agendas somehow…but that's really more a weird 4 player variant. Each side is so fundamentally different and use different cards, it's not like a control vs weenie rush matchup I magic the gathering.  It's like a complaint that d&d doesn't support dungeon master vs dungeon master. Think of the corp as dungeon master, laying traps and hiding their intent, and the runner as the clueless adventurer out looking for booty.  It really ISN'T a limitation, it's the fundamental mechanics of the game and the asymmetry is the whole reason the game is awesome…

flamejuggler said:

That's actually a really good comparison there.  And, as pointed out before, two different sides to play is already one side more than most CCGs.

flamejuggler said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=vChEPj0dXXk#t=140s

 I wonder if it will be possible to play a "Runner" who is performing freelance espionage for the Corporations themselves. That's the kind of flavor I could get behind. I like privateering a bit more than pirating.