Netrunner is a game that invites qualitative analysis. There are so many elements that make up the game: cards, credits and clicks (as well as Influence, agenda (points), damage, Icebreaker/Ice interactions) as to make the evaluation of individual cards a complex task. One recurrent element of (critiquing) analyses of a card’s utility is the fallacy of “Click to draw”. In essence, the story goes that when evaluating the utility of, say, an economy card like Hedge Fund/Sure Gamble, that you need to consider not only the click spent to play the card but also the click spent drawing the card. Lets call this the “click to draw” (CtD) analytic assumption.
This means that a card like Beanstalk Royalties/Easy Mark is not considered two credits better than simply clicking to gain a credit each time. Instead the net gain is thought to be only a one credit improvement, working off the basic equality of “one click = one card = one credit” (E). The basic equality is derived from the innate actions available to each side, where either Corporation or Runner may spend one click to draw a card, or spend one click to take one credit from the token bank. So under this analytic assumption, a Beanstalk Royalties is two clicks spent to gain three credits, vs. simply clicking for two credits, and so the gain is 0.5 credits per click expended over the baseline.
Setting aside the difficulty of applying this style of analysis to cards like, say, Daily Casts for a net gain of three credits (-1 click to draw, –1 click to play, –3 credits install cost = –5 credits, vs. 8 credits gained over four successive turns => +3 credits net gain) there are a number of problems with the inclusion of the analytic assumption of the “click to draw” and this is my small attempt to lay the fallacy to rest. The arguments for discarding this assumption are manifold: there are historical reasons, rhetorical or polemic counters, as well as some hopefully logical or analytical reasons to dismiss the notion.( Read more...Collapse )