Who wants to talk about spite scooping?

[materpillar]

I honestly do not think that's true - at least, not for the vast vast majority. Emphasis on "some". If someone literally didn't need ANY competition to enjoy playing, then why not goldfish their decks at the same table as their friends? I know that might come off as hyperbolic but it's a genuine question.

Ah Dirk, this little paragraph has given me a lot of insight into one of our previous discussions about whether or not Group Hug is a strategy or not. For some people the strategy their deck is employing very much has winning as a secondary goal. Furthermore, I'd say it's pretty clear that someone rocking their wincondition free Group Hug doesn't need any personal competitive intent to enjoy a game of commander with their friends while also clearly not wanting to goldfish at all.

I have a friend who values big, stupid things happening dramatically more than winning. You can't say that he has zero competitive desire but winning is a distant, distant secondary goal. He will routinely go for the suboptimal, even blatantly suicidal play that he finds funny over whatever line will most likely win him the game. Ironically, this creates a situation where if you also make a suboptimal, but stupidly splashy play then he's more likely to throw the game for you. Thus making a bad suboptimal play now be the optimal play because he's more likely to throw the game for you. This tilts the spike in our playgroup massively every time it happens and I think it's hilarious.

Off Topic Gilt-Leaf Archdruid Play Pattern Argument

Show

Hide

@materpillar there is one VERY important difference in terms of how easy to use the archdruid is vs lilianas - with archdruid you can activate it immediately, whereas lilianas requires you to sit with your winning board, usually a full turn cycle unless you can flash it or a demon into play somehow. Way more opportunity for your opponents to stop it from going off. A board of 5-6 random druids could look completely innocuous.

I can assure you, you're just completely wrong in your card comparison. You're technically correct that if you already have 6 Changelings on board and then you use Skyshroud Poacher to tutor up Gilt-Leaf Archdruid then someone is in a Trickbind or lose situation. That's the extreme outlier and I'd argue that if you're flashing creatures onto the battlefield it's way easier to flash a 4th Demon than a 7th Elf.

So let's assume no sneakiness, if you're just casting Gilt-Leaf Archdruid and you have you 6 other Druids on the battlefield and even then someone can just Doom Blade one of your Druids in response to the Archdruid cast, so much more likely you need 7 other Druids on the battlefield when you cast it. If you already have 7 Druids on the battlefield, effectively any green overrun would be just as effective at killing one person, so your board state won't be "completely innocuous" as there are a huge pile of effects that would absolutely murder at least one opponent from that situation.

But the main issue with your argument, is that it assumes you're planning on playing your Glimpse of Nature effect after playing 6 other creatures. Playing in that order is definitely going to plummet your winrate. If you play Gilt-Leaf Archdruid, cast a handful of Druids and then eat a Wrath of God you still have a some cards in hand to recover. If you cast a few Druids, eat a Wrath of God and have only a Gilt-Leaf Archdruid in hand you're just cooked. Also, it's going to be way harder to get to 7 creatures on board without using your draw outlet because of this it's almost always correct to jam Gilt-Leaf Archdruid early for value. So you should almost always jam it before your Druids the second ability is just a worse Liliana's Contract 95% of the time.

[ISBPathfinder]

I like commander a lot, and never played any competitive 60 card, but I feel this about Arena. If it weren't for how little I have to do at work, and how bored I am, I would have never reloaded Arena after deleting it. As it stands, I end up closing it in disgust half the time. Historic Brawl takes all the worst parts of constructed and cEDH and crams them together.

Brawl is also a 1v1 format with no socialization elements. I assumed it would be that way and I probably would still be playing arena if they had handled brawl's release better. When it launched it was going to be a limited time mode and then they were slowly going to roll it out as playable only on one day of the week in the middle of the week. Wizards is so damn greedy and stingy which makes me mad.

With all that said, they really should police the brawl banned list better. I don't actually know that I have seen them ban something in brawl before but I don't pay as much attention to that to be honest. I do think that brawl as a competitive is probably fine I just think they need to step up and be more assertive in banning problems. Brawl lacks too much of what makes commander a casual format which is the social element and FFA nature.

[DirkGently]

About 97% of my games since 2018 are this. I build a deck on MTGO and play solitaire EDH games (launch a 1 player table) - "testing" the deck. Once a month or so, I try a table to see if I can actually have a fun casual game. I have succeeded exactly once in five years. Deck goldfishing loses the camaraderie, which more-and-more is the only reason to play a pod. Honestly, once I finish culling my paper collection, I doubt I'll play more than once a year going forward.

I fully recognize that much of this experience is the lack of a playgroup - which is why I had been trying to get a clan of like-minded player with whom to play on MTGO. Now, I fear that is an unattainable goal.

If I end up moving to Tokoroa (aka the middle of nowhere) to become a microlight instructor, I might have to join you xD

Of course I sympathize with your situation, but I'm assuming it's a product of circumstance and not what you'd prefer in an ideal situation. What would be your preference in an ideal situation?

More mocking hyperbole? I thought we were passed that.

I am not, and never have, been mocking you. I'm just using a reductio ad absurdum argument structure. You said, essentially, that wanting even "some degree of competition" was specific to me - implying that, for a significant fraction of players, no competition whatsoever would be acceptable. If you do believe that to be true, then wouldn't that imply that the game structure I laid out - which largely removes the competitive elements of the game - would be fine for those players? And if you don't believe that, then you'd either need to explain why my extrapolation doesn't follow, or revise your position.

Again, please re-read my list. Did I ever say "zero competition?" Did I ever say "do my thing unopposed?" Please don't presume to speak on my behalf.

You quoted me saying "some degree of competition" and disagreed with that. Does that not imply zero competition?

You would have to define what you mean by "optimal." If you only mean applying basic threat assessment, playing cards that progress the deck's plan, and applying interaction that progresses the deck's plan - then yes. However, when I hear "optimal," it usually is the context of nitpicking the best interaction for the most correct play, ensuring you only use the most appropriate mana sources, leaving the correct sources untapped for future turns.

"Optimality" (optimalness? whatever) exists on a continuum. A lot of the "basic threat assessment, playing cards that progress the deck's plan" etc which is second nature to veteran players would be well out of reach for a new player, even if they were to sit down and think about their turn for an hour. Obviously at high level play, things get increasingly nitpicky, but that's why I said "at least a little bit" and not "a lot". You probably wouldn't enjoy playing cards completely at random, you want to play decently, but you don't want to spend 15 minutes in the tank every turn. I think the vast majority of commander players fit into roughly the same space on that continuum.

Too much stress. I do not want to optimize my deck building or my play. I want to play. Playing involves casting things and interacting with the table. I would not say that I am unskilled in MtG - I have been playing since The Dark - but I also am not interested in "optimizing play." Does that clarify?

I think we're getting bogged down in definitions. Finding a perfectly optimal line is pretty tedious (especially in multiplayer where it's arguably impossible) but, at least by my meaning, nearly everyone is trying to play optimally to SOME degree, even if it's a pretty low degree.

That's why I asked both of you to define what you consider "playing to win." Because the most common context I have seen on these forums is "playing to win" is a synonym for "optimizing play patterns." That is the context I defy.

I can just play, without "playing to win" (in the above context).

But you ARE optimizing your play patterns - even a casual player will inadvertently become better at the game over time, even without conscious effort. Becoming better means playing more optimally. To avoid becoming better over time would be almost impossible. It doesn't have to mean you're attempting to achieve pro level play. Honestly I think if anyone played the game long enough - though maybe it would take a thousand years for some people - they would eventually become pro-caliber just through osmosis.

I don't like your definitions because they are too nebulous. Where is the line where "basic threat assessment, playing cards that progress the deck's plan" becomes TOO optimal, and now we're "optimizing play patterns"? Who gets to decide where that line is?

I'm not sure how to be clearer. I play the game - that includes threat assessment, politically motived play (e.g. Phyrexian Splicer, removing flying from an attacker going somewhere other than me so that player can block

I want to point out that, for someone like my good friend Jon, that sort of play would be way over his head, and if he were antagonistic towards higher-level play, he might accuse you of trying to "play optimally".

However, the difference (to me) is that I am basing my decisions in what helps me "do the thing" and doing the thing may or may not result in me winning. I don't care if I win - I care if I had fun. Does that clarify?

To me, it's the difference between "I have a Disenchant, what should I remove to ensure I have a greater chance of winning" vs "What can I remove to ensure I have a better chance of accomplishing my goal (that may or may not result in winning)."

You said earlier that "I won't 'throw the game'". To me it sounds like you're talking about throwing the game.

If you have a decision where one option will almost certainly result in you winning, versus another option where you get to "do the thing" with a decreased chance of winning, which do you choose? Because it sounds like you'd take the second option, and I would consider that to be throwing the game.

Maybe we are using the term "pubstomper" in different ways or with a different meaning. What I mean is "I make or join a table marked as "casual" (or some other indication that the game is for non-optimized decks playing a normal (non-cutthroat) game)." The Pubstomper is the person who joins that game with a netdeck (or netdeck-adjacent) that is obviously orders of magnitude more powerful than the rest of the table. Those players, in my experience, need "the win" - they do this because their skill does not match the level of the deck so the only way to pilot their netdeck to victory is to play a table of significantly weaker decks. They then continuously state that thier deck is casual, because it is not Tier1 (as if anything less than T1 was casual). They tend to prefer play patterns that make sure nobody else can play the game (land denial, creature denial, stax, etc.) and oppose "their dominance."

Your example is, to me, the Whiner - somebody who thinks complaining of interaction is "political" - and this may or may not also be a pubstomper.

That does sound like a garden variety pubstomper (minus ofc the MTGO trappings, and ime combo is more common than stax). What I found atypical was saying that they're always targeting the weakest player? I guess it doesn't really matter I just thought it was strange.

Summary: To me, "playing to win" has the connotation of expending specific effort to optimize your play patterns with the goal of winning. That is the context I do not feel applies to me. I play - playing involves all of the normal elements of playing a game, which does include advancing your deck's strategy and interacting with other tables. I'm just not interested in "optimizing" how I do those things.

Summary: I think you are, just maybe not to a particularly high degree. As is normal for most commander play.

I think we're just caught up on the definition of "optimizing". I really don't see any reason it should apply only to particularly high-level play (nor how you'd determine where that level should start)

I honestly do not think that's true - at least, not for the vast vast majority. Emphasis on "some". If someone literally didn't need ANY competition to enjoy playing, then why not goldfish their decks at the same table as their friends? I know that might come off as hyperbolic but it's a genuine question.

Ah Dirk, this little paragraph has given me a lot of insight into one of our previous discussions about whether or not Group Hug is a strategy or not. For some people the strategy their deck is employing very much has winning as a secondary goal.

Within the context of magic I don't think the word "strategy" applies to a plan to achieve any goal outside of winning. Real life doesn't have well-defined goals - you might talk about "this is my strategy for mowing the lawn quickly" or "this is my strategy for being lazy at work", but you probably wouldn't just say "this is my strategy" without context or implied context. In magic, winning the game is the implied context - when someone says "my strategy is burn" everyone understands that burn is their strategy for winning the game. If you want to say "group hug is my strategy for...making the game more fun?" (strong disagree ofc) I guess you could, but without the added context it's a non sequitur imo.

Furthermore, I'd say it's pretty clear that someone rocking their wincondition free Group Hug doesn't need any personal competitive intent to enjoy a game of commander with their friends while also clearly not wanting to goldfish at all.

That's fair - some types of "doing the thing" do require impact other people. As would playing stax, presumably, on the other side of the coin.

That said, plenty of things don't require opponents, so if competition is literally of zero interest to you then you could still do those other things by goldfishing.

I have a friend who values big, stupid things happening dramatically more than winning. You can't say that he has zero competitive desire but winning is a distant, distant secondary goal. He will routinely go for the suboptimal, even blatantly suicidal play that he finds funny over whatever line will most likely win him the game. Ironically, this creates a situation where if you also make a suboptimal, but stupidly splashy play then he's more likely to throw the game for you. Thus making a bad suboptimal play now be the optimal play because he's more likely to throw the game for you. This tilts the spike in our playgroup massively every time it happens and I think it's hilarious.

The original reason we're on this topic was because I think "playing to win" (as a matter of procedure) and "playing to enjoy spending time with friends" (as a matter of purpose) are in no way mutually exclusive, and in fact usually complement each other.

Of course some people do "play to enjoy spending time with friends" without "playing to win". Personally I think those people would probably have more fun playing D&D or something without a clear objective, but whatever.

Off Topic Gilt-Leaf Archdruid Play Pattern Argument

Show

Hide

I can assure you, you're just completely wrong in your card comparison. You're technically correct that if you already have 6 Changelings on board and then you use Skyshroud Poacher to tutor up Gilt-Leaf Archdruid then someone is in a Trickbind or lose situation. That's the extreme outlier and I'd argue that if you're flashing creatures onto the battlefield it's way easier to flash a 4th Demon than a 7th Elf.

So let's assume no sneakiness, if you're just casting Gilt-Leaf Archdruid and you have you 6 other Druids on the battlefield and even then someone can just Doom Blade one of your Druids in response to the Archdruid cast, so much more likely you need 7 other Druids on the battlefield when you cast it. If you already have 7 Druids on the battlefield, effectively any green overrun would be just as effective at killing one person, so your board state won't be "completely innocuous" as there are a huge pile of effects that would absolutely murder at least one opponent from that situation.

But the main issue with your argument, is that it assumes you're planning on playing your Glimpse of Nature effect after playing 6 other creatures. Playing in that order is definitely going to plummet your winrate. If you play Gilt-Leaf Archdruid, cast a handful of Druids and then eat a Wrath of God you still have a some cards in hand to recover. If you cast a few Druids, eat a Wrath of God and have only a Gilt-Leaf Archdruid in hand you're just cooked. Also, it's going to be way harder to get to 7 creatures on board without using your draw outlet because of this it's almost always correct to jam Gilt-Leaf Archdruid early for value. So you should almost always jam it before your Druids the second ability is just a worse Liliana's Contract 95% of the time.

SPOILER

Show

Hide

Of course, in a changeling deck, a demon is a druid so the typical mana values don't matter and 6 is a decent amount more than 4. And liliana's gives the draw immediately without the need to extend onto the board, so ofc that can be an upside as well. I'm not saying that GLA is more powerful overall, they're too different to easily compare in that way, I'm just saying that if your only goal is to pull off their ultimate abilities, being able to activate immediately is a very large advantage compared to an upkeep trigger.

Imagine the theoretical card Bilt-Leaf Barchdruid (BLB). It has the land-grabby ability without the draw ability. This card, obviously, is strictly worse than GLA. However, when compared to Liliana's contract, it still has the advantage that it can be activated immediately and my statement would be correct for BLB. If we take for granted that the optimal play line for GLA is to play it first, then that can only make the card better than BLB, because GLA still has the option to play it like BLB. So my statement is still true, it just might also be true that there's an even BETTER option, making GLA doubly better than lilianas (in terms of the ultimate ability on those two cards, setting aside the numbers required).

As far as which line is optimal - I mean idk, I haven't played too much with the card. But I think your analysis is off.

For one, if we're assuming instant-speed removal from our opponents, then it's not like liliana's contract was going to work either (setting aside that doom blade specifically probably can't kill a demon). Lilianas is also weak to sorcery-speed removal though, or instant-speed removal that required an untap to cast, which GLA (at least when played like BLB) is not. GLA doesn't really benefit much from flashing a druid into play since the nature of its ability makes it unnecessary - but with liliana's, even if the player only had 3 demons in play, if they had enough mana to flash in a demon (probably a fair bit) I'd certainly be a lot more likely to hold up removal, a problem that GLA doesn't have if you play it last (unless your opponents are savvy to your game plan, ofc).

For two, you don't need 7 druids in play at the start of your turn - you could have 4 or so, then cast GLA and the last few cheap ones. But even with 6 or 7, it's unlikely that a vanilla Overrun (nor most overruns that aren't craterhoof behemoth or maybe triumph of the hordes) would kill even one opponent on decent life. And even if they do have a strong enough overrun, if they're only killing one opponent then it could be very reasonable to surmise that you wouldn't be the target of the attack, and thus not worry about it. I don't think it's very reasonable to feel the need to camp heavily on interaction just because someone has 5 or 6 vanilla-ish creatures on board. Is it possible they have something that makes that board a lethal threat? Sure, but that's always possible, someone could be sitting on a combo with zero tells, but you can't always camp on answers if it's delaying your own board advancement. At some point you have to accept the risk and hope they don't have it.

Somewhat tangential, but for a third point, GLA is much easier to recur than liliana's, and if we're talking about a changeling deck Patriarch's Bidding is right there. You can quite plausibly dump GLA with all 7 druids into play all at once, barring a counterspell or grave hate. Even if you could do that with liliana's - say, with Eerie Ultimatum - you'd still need to wait a turn cycle to resolve the ability. If GLA manages to survive a turn cycle, you can activate his abilities twice, which isn't technically winning the game but it's pretty damn close.

@Dunadain tell me about it.

Just rewatched that movie btw. I think I liked it less than inside out, but still one of my top-tier Pixars.

[Treamayne]

I'm just using a reductio ad absurdum argument structure.

That structure can not apply when the reduced element is not compatible with the arguement from which it was reduced.

You said, essentially, that wanting even "some degree of competition" was specific to me - implying that, for a significant fraction of players, no competition whatsoever would be acceptable.

Please re-read your sentence in this quote.
Again - slowly.
Do you see it? The glaring flaw?

SPOILER

Show

Hide

Wanting competition =/= acceptable competition
Therefore: a lack of competitive desire is not equal to an unacceptance of all competitive variables.
You keep equating two things that are not synonymous.

Yes, that was satire as overstatement, but all forms of regular description seem to have failed. I hope it was not offensive, but I also hope the point finally makes sense.

You quoted me saying "some degree of competition" and disagreed with that. Does that not imply zero competition?

No, it does not imply that.
Let's review the tape:

SPOILER

Show

Hide

The enjoyment is the purpose, but some degree of competition is necessary to achieve the enjoyment.

Which is missing a key clause. It should properly read :

The enjoyment is the purpose, but some degree of competition is necessary for me to achieve the enjoyment.

Competition equalling enjoyment is by no means universal

The part I disagreed with is now italicyzed (1st) and bolded (2d) to make it more obvious. Also bolded was my point in the exchange - which was not "all competition must be absent" but that "compeition is necessary to enjoyment [of Magic]." I then very clearly listed the main points of what I like/avoid - and the word competition was notably absent from both sides of that list.

I understand how difficult it is to grok for naturally competitive folk. And our definitions are likely skewed from each other - if only in implied contexts. So I will try to restate for clarity: To me, "competition" implies the internal drive to defeat something/someone. I want to play. I don't care if I defeat one or more other players. I do not need to feel the "struggle of competition" in "overcoming other players" to find a game enjoyable. In these cases, I am using "competition" in the emotional sense - that drive (or whatever term suites best) that pushes players to "win" - I am not using it in the basic context of interactions of cards and life totals or what-have-you. That is just the game, it's rules and the method of play. I can play cards, conduct threat assessment, use spot and mass removal, turn creatures sideways, etc - all without feeling some need to "be better" or "overcome others."

One is game mechanics, one is emotions and motive. Yes to the former, no to the latter.

Does that help?

I think we're getting bogged down in definitions.

I'm not sure that is possible. There cannot be meaningful communication until we understand and consider each other's points. Since the first few points seemed to make clear (at least to me) that we were using the same words with different meanings (or at least different connotations) - I can't really understand what your points are until I understand how and why you are using the words the way you are. Perfect example below:

But you ARE optimizing your play patterns - even a casual player will inadvertently become better at the game over time, even without conscious effort. Becoming better means playing more optimally. To avoid becoming better over time would be almost impossible. It doesn't have to mean you're attempting to achieve pro level play. Honestly I think if anyone played the game long enough - though maybe it would take a thousand years for some people - they would eventually become pro-caliber just through osmosis.

I don't like your definitions because they are too nebulous. Where is the line where "basic threat assessment, playing cards that progress the deck's plan" becomes TOO optimal, and now we're "optimizing play patterns"? Who gets to decide where that line is?

I want to point out that, for someone like my good friend Jon, that sort of play would be way over his head, and if he were antagonistic towards higher-level play, he might accuse you of trying to "play optimally".

Optimal play and optimizing play are used interchangably here (unless I am really missing something - which is always possible) but they are not the same and I have not been using them the same. "Optimize" is present progressive and, to me, implies a voluntary ongoing process of improvement. That is the part that I am not interested in. I do not want to analyze past/current games/plays and "optimize" (continuously improve) my card selection or play processes. Think of it like deck building - you can't "optimize" a deck without actively comparing options for a given slot, weighing factors in relation to the deck's goals and making a selection. "Optimize" is an active process.

Optimal play is singular present tense, and simply means using threat assessment and strategy to play any given card/ability/attack in a way that advances the plan of the moment. That is what I said "if this is what you mean, then yes I play with some level of an optimal play mindset."

You mention "a line" - but, to me, there is no line. No matter what level a player is (first game ever to decades-of-experience veteran), you are "optimizing" if you are making a concious effort to improve. Present progressive. You make a (hopefully optimal) play if you take a game action that advances your strategy. Singular, past or present. One is adverbial (describing a method of improvement), the other adjectival (describing a noun - in this case "play")

Yes, any given player will improve as they gain experience - I agree. A player that is "optimizing play" is actively analyzing situations and experiences to purposefully improve. Passive improvement is a function of experience, and therefore not "optimizing" since it is not an active voluntary process.

Again, all of this is simply how I undertand the concepts and terms - and therfore how I was using those terms in the quotes you referenced. I accept we have different outlooks on these terms and their uses, implications and connotations. Maybe understanding from which context my comments were derived will help you grok what I was trying to say. At least that is my fervent hope.

To me it sounds like you're talking about throwing the game.

I'm sorry you see it that way! Can you accept I did not, and do not mean it that way? Just because a game action is taken without the "how does this make me win" mindset does not mean it is "throwing the game." To me, "throwing a game" is intentionally making plays that either 1) make it so that I cannot win - or - 2) help ensure somebody else is more likely to win. Neither of those applied to the example I gave.

What I found atypical was saying that they're always targeting the weakest player?

That was part of the "absurd oversimplification" series of joke comments. My use of "always" was one of the indicators that it was oversimplified absurdity. The reality, in my experience, is that the pubstompers will grief the weakest player a disproportionate amount (usually under the false assumption that removing at least one player early is "always" a good thing - emphasis on false assumption). But that is clearly not "always."

I'm sorry for the confusion.

The original reason we're on this topic was because I think "playing to win" (as a matter of procedure) and "playing to enjoy spending time with friends" (as a matter of purpose) are in no way mutually exclusive, and in fact usually complement each other.

For the sake of transparant clarity, I never said they were mutually exclusive, and I never meant to imply they were mutually exclusive; so I apologize if you got that implication from me. My point was the non-dependancy that enjoyment of a game like Magic does not in fact require a competitive mindset, and that the oft-repeated idea that not "playing to win" is synonymous with "playing to lose." This is a fallacy that I think has exacerbated many discussions on the forums.

I understand that, for the majority, playing to win is a significant (if not primary) component of enjoyment of this game. I'm just hoping to help those that beleive the fallacy to understand why it is not true of all players.

[RxPhantom]

Semantic rabbit holes are the worst.

[TheAmericanSpirit]

Semantic rabbit holes are the worst.

Agree to disagree. This is fascinating. Treamayne is putting up one hell of a fight without losing ground on individual points or emotional maturity and Dirk is employing his usual wide frontal assault of rhetoric, dissection, and logic. This is the best battle in a while.

[RxPhantom]

Semantic rabbit holes are the worst.

Agree to disagree. This is fascinating. Treamayne is putting up one hell of a fight without losing ground on individual points or emotional maturity and Dirk is employing his usual wide frontal assault of rhetoric, dissection, and logic. This is the best battle in a while.

Walls of text make me tune out. I believe that brevity is an overlooked component of good communication.

[TheAmericanSpirit]

Semantic rabbit holes are the worst.

Agree to disagree. This is fascinating. Treamayne is putting up one hell of a fight without losing ground on individual points or emotional maturity and Dirk is employing his usual wide frontal assault of rhetoric, dissection, and logic. This is the best battle in a while.

Walls of text make me tune out. I believe that brevity is an overlooked component of good communication.

Being concise is important. However, long-form argumentation is a feature of a forum like this, not a bug. If I wanted to watch a bunch of unfunny twits exchange quips, I'd head over to reddit. This, on the other hand, this is quality.

EDIT: Grammar

[DirkGently]

I'm just using a reductio ad absurdum argument structure.

That structure can not apply when the reduced element is not compatible with the arguement from which it was reduced.

That was why I said "you'd either need to explain why my extrapolation doesn't follow", which I assume you're about to attempt.

You said, essentially, that wanting even "some degree of competition" was specific to me - implying that, for a significant fraction of players, no competition whatsoever would be acceptable.

Please re-read your sentence in this quote.
Again - slowly.
Do you see it? The glaring flaw?

SPOILER

Show

Hide

Wanting competition =/= acceptable competition
Therefore: a lack of competitive desire is not equal to an unacceptance of all competitive variables.
You keep equating two things that are not synonymous.

Yes, that was satire as overstatement, but all forms of regular description seem to have failed. I hope it was not offensive, but I also hope the point finally makes sense.

"A lack of competition" being acceptable is not the same as competition being unacceptable.

The original statement of mine which you disagreed with was "The enjoyment is the purpose, but some degree of competition is necessary to achieve the enjoyment." (relevant part bolded).

To replicate the same structure with a different, less contentious topic: "some amount of fuel is necessary to start a fire". To oppose this statement would imply that a fire could be started with no fuel, would you not agree?

Competition equalling enjoyment is by no means universal

I never said that competition equals enjoyment. Obviously you can have competition without enjoyment, just like you can have fuel without a fire. But the fuel is necessary for the fire, and competition is necessary for the enjoyment (at least beyond the meagre joys of goldfishing).

I understand how difficult it is to grok for naturally competitive folk.

I strongly believe this is primarily a problem of communication, not that we're from different planets.

And our definitions are likely skewed from each other - if only in implied contexts. So I will try to restate for clarity: To me, "competition" implies the internal drive to defeat something/someone. I want to play. I don't care if I defeat one or more other players. I do not need to feel the "struggle of competition" in "overcoming other players" to find a game enjoyable. In these cases, I am using "competition" in the emotional sense - that drive (or whatever term suites best) that pushes players to "win" - I am not using it in the basic context of interactions of cards and life totals or what-have-you. That is just the game, it's rules and the method of play. I can play cards, conduct threat assessment, use spot and mass removal, turn creatures sideways, etc - all without feeling some need to "be better" or "overcome others."

One is game mechanics, one is emotions and motive. Yes to the former, no to the latter.

This in particular is a semantic problem. I would define competition, in this context, to mean "attempting to win". One can attempt to win without any burning desire to win the game as a whole, or even while intentionally misplaying to a degree. To not have competition at all would require that the players are making no effort whatsoever to win - feel free to reference my past examples.

If you don't like this definition, that's fine, but I think we should recognize that this is simply a differing of definitions and move on.

EDIT: I hate quoting the dictionary, but competition gives me:

the act or process of competing. such as
a
: the effort of two or more parties acting independently to secure the business of a third party by offering the most favorable terms
contractors in competition for the contract to build the new school
b
: active demand by two or more organisms or kinds of organisms for some environmental resource in short supply
the interspecies competition for food
2
: a contest between rivals
a gymnastics competition
also : one's competitors
faced tough competition

Note "process". And note that there is no mention of desire in any definition.

We can use your definitions moving forward but I hope this clarifies what my original statement meant.

Optimal play and optimizing play are used interchangably here (unless I am really missing something - which is always possible) but they are not the same and I have not been using them the same.

The first is a noun phrase and the second is a verb phrase so idk how they could be interchangeable.

To me, "optimal play" is an unachievable goal, which is why I say things like "MORE optimal".

"Optimize" is present progressive and, to me, implies a voluntary ongoing process of improvement.

I would say that optimizing involuntarily/unintentionally is also optimizing. At the end of the day, whether you've sat down and analyzed all your games, or just played a lot and learned through osmosis, the end result is the same - you get better. I don't see any definition for optimizing that requires that it be intentional.

But even though I don't like your definition, I can at least now better understand what you're saying.

Think of it like deck building - you can't "optimize" a deck without actively comparing options for a given slot, weighing factors in relation to the deck's goals and making a selection. "Optimize" is an active process.

I think plenty of very casual players optimize their decks by, say, being disappointed with the effectiveness of Razorjaw Oni in their kaalia precon and/or trading for some new big spicy demon and swap them. I don't think there needs to be any serious analytical effort. Given enough time someone can make a pretty strong deck without ever thinking about their deck's goals or weighing factors etc. Optimizing (by my definition) can happen pretty organically. But fine, we can use your definition.

Optimal play is singular present tense

This is a silly sort of problem but I really don't follow. Optimal is an adjective. Play can be a verb or a noun, and if it's being modified by an adjective then it's a noun. If it were a verb it would be "optimally play" (though I think most people would say "play optimally").

Can you link to which dictionary you're using? I wouldn't be such a stickler except you've gone out of your way to break it down grammatically.

and simply means using threat assessment and strategy to play any given card/ability/attack in a way that advances the plan of the moment. That is what I said "if this is what you mean, then yes I play with some level of an optimal play mindset."

I continue to not like your definitions but okay, I understand you.

You mention "a line" - but, to me, there is no line. No matter what level a player is (first game ever to decades-of-experience veteran), you are "optimizing" if you are making a concious effort to improve. Present progressive. You make a (hopefully optimal) play if you take a game action that advances your strategy. Singular, past or present. One is adverbial (describing a method of improvement), the other adjectival (describing a noun - in this case "play")

Your line for "optimizing" is intentionality. I don't read that from any definition of "optimize" and I don't think you made that clear before this post, but maybe I just missed something. Feel free to pull up a quote from a previous post to make me look a fool. Anyway, okay, we understand each other at least.

The adverb form of optimal is optimally. Optimizing is a verb. In the phrase "optimizing play", optimizing is the verb and play is the noun being acted upon.

Yes, any given player will improve as they gain experience - I agree. A player that is "optimizing play" is actively analyzing situations and experiences to purposefully improve. Passive improvement is a function of experience, and therefore not "optimizing" since it is not an active voluntary process.

I don't like your definitions and don't see any source for them but okay.

Again, all of this is simply how I undertand the concepts and terms - and therfore how I was using those terms in the quotes you referenced. I accept we have different outlooks on these terms and their uses, implications and connotations. Maybe understanding from which context my comments were derived will help you grok what I was trying to say. At least that is my fervent hope.

It does. Even though I don't like them.

To me it sounds like you're talking about throwing the game.

I'm sorry you see it that way! Can you accept I did not, and do not mean it that way? Just because a game action is taken without the "how does this make me win" mindset does not mean it is "throwing the game." To me, "throwing a game" is intentionally making plays that either 1) make it so that I cannot win - or - 2) help ensure somebody else is more likely to win. Neither of those applied to the example I gave.

To me, it's the difference between "I have a Disenchant, what should I remove to ensure I have a greater chance of winning" vs "What can I remove to ensure I have a better chance of accomplishing my goal (that may or may not result in winning)."

If you target something that isn't maximizing your chance of winning, then your chance of winning is lower than it would have been if you chose the optimal target - if it's not, then you DID choose the optimal target. And if your chance to win the game is lower, then in a zero-sum game like magic, someone else's chance to win must be higher. This seems like it fulfills your own second definition, no?

My point was the non-dependancy that enjoyment of a game like Magic does not in fact require a competitive mindset, and that the oft-repeated idea that not "playing to win" is synonymous with "playing to lose." This is a fallacy that I think has exacerbated many discussions on the forums.

I understand that, for the majority, playing to win is a significant (if not primary) component of enjoyment of this game. I'm just hoping to help those that beleive the fallacy to understand why it is not true of all players.

I don't think playing to win is necessary to enjoy the game - clearly many people do, even if I'd rather not play with them. But I do think SOME competition is necessary to enjoy the game. I'd even argue goldfishing almost always involves an imaginary opposition of some kind. Competition is baked into the DNA of the game.

I think you're applying your own, imo, unusual definitions to what I'm saying, and then using those misconstrued sentiments to assume there's a massive gulf of understanding between us that doesn't exist.

[Treamayne]

BLUF*: Thank you for providing definitions, I can now re-read your previous posts with the correct context in mind. I do not think our beliefs are a disparate as first impression would imply.

Semantic rabbit holes are the worst.

Agree to disagree. This is fascinating. Treamayne is putting up one hell of a fight without losing ground on individual points or emotional maturity and Dirk is employing his usual wide frontal assault of rhetoric, dissection, and logic. This is the best battle in a while.

I'm sorry, should we take this to a new thread? I did not mean to derail the thread's train of thought.

I would define competition, . . . past examples

You are correct. I'm sorry. I failed to point out that "playing to win" (an action) implied your use of competition (a noun) was indicative of competitive (adj. Wiktionary: (of someone's character) Inclined to compete) which is why I derived the emotional context that, now obviously, was not meant to be implied. In attempting to not alter the quoted section(s) I failed to note this distinction.

However, my point still stands. "Playing to win" implies "being competitive" which implies an emotional inclination to compete; this is separate and distinct from simple competition (n. Wiktionary: The action of competing) which can be reduced to the simple actions you imply.

I understand how difficult it is to grok for naturally competitive folk.

I strongly believe this is primarily a problem of communication, not that we're from different planets.

Really? Ad Hominem? I expect better of you. You seem to understand that that MaRo introduced the term to the Magic Lexicon decades ago, and you obviously understood the term and context or you could not have made an oblique reference to its origin in "Stranger in a Stange Land" (Heinlein - 1961). Was this an attempt at "digress into irrelevancies?"

For the record - Grok, as instroduced to the MtG Lexicon in the 90s, is to understand intuitively, but possibly lacking in nuance or minor detail (e.g. the reason why a keyword like Vigilance was added to simplify Alpha's Serra Angel ability "does not tap when attacking" was because the connection is easy to grok).

Summary: Can we concur?

SPOILER

Show

Hide

competition - The action of competing
competitive - Inclined to compete.
play(ing) to win - competitive actions taken in Magic's internal competition to attempt victory (a.k.a. "A-game")
optimal - The best, most favourable or desirable, especially under some restriction.
optimally - In an optimal manner (connected to the similar derived term: optimality - The property of being optimal)
optimize (trans) - To make (something) optimal. (make being an action means this implies a deliberate process).
improve (intrans) - To become better (may be the result of an active act of optimization or the inactive result of experience)

I am sorry, but I will stop here for now:
1- because I need to leave for work
2-so that we can decide if this should split to a new thread

Thank you very much for the discussion so far, I will re-read with context and reply more tonight.

*For those unaware: BLUF = Bottom Line Up Front - it's TLDR that comes before the post instead of at the end.

[DirkGently]

BLUF*: Thank you for providing definitions, I can now re-read your previous posts with the correct context in mind. I do not think our beliefs are a disparate as first impression would imply.

What does BLUF* mean/reference? (oh nvm I just read the end lmao)

But yes I agree ofc.

I'm sorry, should we take this to a new thread? I did not mean to derail the thread's train of thought.

Eh, this has kinda become what the thread is about now, I'm not that worried about it.

However, my point still stands. "Playing to win" implies "being competitive" which implies an emotional inclination to compete; this is separate and distinct from simple competition (n. Wiktionary: The action of competing) which can be reduced to the simple actions you imply.

Let's not get into semantic argumentation again - when I say that I believe the game is most fun when everyone is "playing to win", I simply mean that everyone is making a good-faith effort to make the best plays they can, without any requirement that they are emotionally invested in the result. In part I believe this because I also derive enjoyment from seeing my deck "do the thing", but I don't feel it's properly "done the thing" unless there has been a legitimate opposing force.

I don't believe that being invested, and certainly not heavily invested, in the result of the game is necessary for maximum enjoyment.

So I think we're mostly on the same page, we're just using different definitions.

I strongly believe this is primarily a problem of communication, not that we're from different planets.

Really? Ad Hominem? I expect better of you.

What is it with this thread? It seems like I can't say anything without someone reading offense into it. Your statement implied, to me, that you thought there was a significant gulf of understanding between our modes of play - metaphorically speaking, that we are on different planets - and I didn't think that was true. I'm honestly not sure how you could read that as an insult in any way.

You seem to understand that that MaRo introduced the term to the Magic Lexicon decades ago, and you obviously understood the term and context or you could not have made an oblique reference to its origin in "Stranger in a Stange Land" (Heinlein - 1961). Was this an attempt at "digress into irrelevancies?"

I might be missing some context here as I have not read Stranger in the Strange Land - funny enough, though, it's on my hold list at my library's audiobook catalog, but there's only one copy and like 50+ people ahead of me so who knows when I'll actually get to listen to it. At any rate, "grok" is used pretty commonly in software and other fields which is where I first heard it - I didn't know it's origin until now tbh.

I have absolutely no idea what you mean about maro introducing it (How did he? What "lexicon"? Why would you think I knew that?). Obviously I didn't make an oblique reference to SIASL as I haven't read it yet. And I'm not sure why the phrase "digress into irrelevancies" is in quotes, but maybe I'll figure it out when I read SIASL (probably around 2030 at this rate).

For the record - Grok, as instroduced to the MtG Lexicon in the 90s, is to understand intuitively, but possibly lacking in nuance or minor detail (e.g. the reason why a keyword like Vigilance was added to simplify Alpha's Serra Angel ability "does not tap when attacking" was because the connection is easy to grok).

What lexicon exactly? Like just the informal terms magic players use when talking about the game? I know what grok means, but pretty much everything else in these paragraphs I have no idea what you're talking about ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Summary: Can we concur?

SPOILER

Show

Hide

competition - The action of competing
competitive - Inclined to compete.
play(ing) to win - competitive actions taken in Magic's internal competition to attempt victory (a.k.a. "A-game")
optimal - The best, most favourable or desirable, especially under some restriction.
optimally - In an optimal manner (connected to the similar derived term: optimality - The property of being optimal)
optimize (trans) - To make (something) optimal. (make being an action means this implies a deliberate process).
improve (intrans) - To become better (may be the result of an active act of optimization or the inactive result of experience)

-I think "competitive" has a connotation of having a significant desire to win (i.e. my mom), which I think both of us would include in the use of the word. Merely "inclined to compete" would, I think, include people who enjoy competition but aren't invested in actually winning (i.e. my dad).
-"playing to win" - personally I really prefer a definition something like: "making a good faith effort to take the moves most likely to result in victory". The use of the term "competitive" within your definition I don't think fits with the already stated definition of "competitive" above - an action itself can't be "inclined" - so I think that muddies the waters in its inclusion.
-optimal: not sure what sort of restriction you mean? Every play is restricted by the current game state, unless you mean something else?
-I don't think "make" requires anything deliberate - one "makes a mistake", after all - but we can use the term that way in the context of this conversation.
-What do the (trans) and (intrans) tags mean?

Thank you very much for the discussion so far, I will re-read with context and reply more tonight.

No problem, I've been having fun. Although I do find it befuddling that I keep getting accused of being insulting. I know I'm argumentative but I really can't see any insult from the things that are bothering people. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Besides haggling over definitions to come to an understanding, the primary area where I think we may have a deeper disagreement is in the "throwing the game" segment of my previous post, so I'm curious to see what you think about that bit.

[Treamayne]

I strongly believe this is primarily a problem of communication, not that we're from different planets.

Really? Ad Hominem? I expect better of you.

What is it with this thread? It seems like I can't say anything without someone reading offense into it. Your statement implied, to me, that you thought there was a significant gulf of understanding between our modes of play - metaphorically speaking, that we are on different planets - and I didn't think that was true. I'm honestly not sure how you could read that as an insult in any way.

I might be missing some context here as I have not read Stranger in the Strange Land - funny enough, though, it's on my hold list at my library's audiobook catalog, but there's only one copy and like 50+ people ahead of me so who knows when I'll actually get to listen to it. At any rate, "grok" is used pretty commonly in software and other fields which is where I first heard it - I didn't know it's origin until now tbh.

That is ironic and hilarious: My apologis for the misunderstanding - but your comment was so on the nose it seemed obvious you were referencing Stranger, and not in a complimentay way. In fact, I actually thought to myself "this is Dirk being competitive, even in conversation. A stealth insult just to see if I would catch it."
This likely says far more about me than you (or about why posting at 0530 after the dogs wake me up is a bad idea - maybe it's both).

SPOILER

Show

Hide

Summaries:

SPOILER

Show

Hide

It tells the story of Valentine Michael Smith, a human who comes to Earth in early adulthood after being born on the planet Mars and raised by Martians, and explores his interaction with and eventual transformation of Terran culture.

Raised by Martians on Mars, Valentine Michael Smith is a human who has never seen another member of his species. Sent to Earth, he is a stranger who must learn what it is to be a man. But his own beliefs and his powers far exceed the limits of humankind, and as he teaches them about grokking and water-sharing, he also inspires a transformation that will alter Earth's inhabitants forever...

More specifically Michael is a human descendant, born on Mars, of people who survived the first manned Mars mission that crashed on entry when trying to land. Twenty+ years later, a second Mars mission is successful and finds Michael as the sole surviving human - but he was adopted by a Martian family and had never met another of his own species. His apoted family sends him to earth with the returning humans so that he can learn his heritage and teach Humanity of Martian Culture.

Note: The story is good, but can be. . . disconcerting for some readers. Though many aspects that made it so controversial in the 60s can have significantly less impact in modern times. By the way, the ebook is less than $3 - if you consume ebooks, it would be worth the price. You can probably get a used copy even cheaper.

So, in the context of the story - your comment impled to me that you thought [I was a Martian, now on the same planet as the rest of you, but woefully ignorant and incapable of understanding of the culture by which I am surrounded.]

More Vocabulary:

SPOILER

Show

Hide

Lexicon - A set of vocabulary specific to a certain subject.
- E.g. Tim, on-legs, on-a-stick, to-the-dome, all keywords, 187, ETB, etc are all examples of vocabulary in the MtG Lexicon (which includes "official" words specific to the game, definitions specific to the game, and slang)
- MaRo introduced Grok in his early articles (and probably still uses the term - but I stopped reading the mothership when they decided to rewrite history by purging all old articles to which they no longer wanted to be beholden)
To "Digress into irrelevancies" is a debate technique by which a topic is avoided (or a question evaded) by focusing on a small detail and moving the conversation in that direction in an attempt to ignore <something>

Why would you think I knew that?

Because you are very smart and have been playing Magic for a long time.

optimal: not sure what sort of restriction you mean?

I do not mean anything - that is just the definition, copied exactly as I found it.

What do the (trans) and (intrans) tags mean?

Transitive (trans) is a dictionary tag meaning the word requires an object to be a complete clause or sentence. Intransitive (Intrans) is the opposite; an object, if used, should be indirect, but not required to form complete clauses and sentences. Wiktionary example:

transitive verb
A verb which requires one or more objects (e.g. I kick the ball); contrast intransitive verb.
intransitive verb
Not taking a direct object; not transitive. For example, the verb 'listen' does not usually take a direct object; it is grammatically incorrect to say "I listened the concert" (instead of the correct "I listened to the concert" with the indirect object "to the concert").

To me, it's the difference between "I have a Disenchant, what should I remove to ensure I have a greater chance of winning" vs "What can I remove to ensure I have a better chance of accomplishing my goal (that may or may not result in winning)."

If you target something that isn't maximizing your chance of winning, then your chance of winning is lower than it would have been if you chose the optimal target - if it's not, then you DID choose the optimal target. And if your chance to win the game is lower, then in a zero-sum game like magic, someone else's chance to win must be higher. This seems like it fulfills your own second definition, no?

The logical chain here defies. . . logic. The truly optimal play is unknowable, merely guessable. Percentages of liklihood to win are not calibrated on a per-card/per-stack basis. And even if those assumptions were true, removing a target that furthers my goal is still not helping an opponent - especially when it is unknowable, that even if a given player should benefit from my action then, that play will win because of my action from which they profitted. No. It does not come close to meeting either criterion, as described.

Let's not get into semantic argumentation again - when I say that I believe the game is most fun when everyone is "playing to win", I simply mean that everyone is making a good-faith effort to make the best plays they can, without any requirement that they are emotionally invested in the result. In part I believe this because I also derive enjoyment from seeing my deck "do the thing", but I don't feel it's properly "done the thing" unless there has been a legitimate opposing force.

I can agree with that.
It does, however, beg the question of: What (uncensored) term or phrase then describes a player that is focused soley on winning regardless of the impact/effect on the rest of the table (regardless of if they have the skill to succeed in the endevour)?
I would also be curious as to how many of the other players on the site view the phrase "play to win."

Besides haggling over definitions to come to an understanding, the primary area where I think we may have a deeper disagreement is in the "throwing the game" segment of my previous post, so I'm curious to see what you think about that bit.

To me, "throwing the game" is comprised of things like kingmaking (one or more successive actions and decisions that obviously favor one opponent over everybody - including yourself), or a direct action or series of actions that reduces your chances to win to near 0 and/or increases an opponent's chances to win significantly.
- Example: casting spot removal of a given type that could have removed the already-played first piece in a two-card infinite combo - but choosing not to do so (even when it is pointed out) because the player would rather grudge remove different target.

Hope that helps.

[DirkGently]

That is ironic and hilarious: My apologis for the misunderstanding

lol no worries. I'm not going to read any of the spoiler tags because I don't want to be spoiled I did glimpse a mention of a cheap ebook while cleaning up formatting, however I'm in a 100% audiobook phase since I can listen to them during my job, and I'm too much of a cheapskate for audible. So I look forward to understanding this conversation better in 2030. :D

- MaRo introduced Grok in his early articles

Ah, ok. Is that common knowledge for veteran players? I've never heard it. I don't read that many articles though, and definitely not when I was a newbie.

To "Digress into irrelevancies" is a debate technique

I thought it might be a quote from SIASL. I definitely don't mean to digress into irrelevancies - digression happens too much even while staying relevant.

Transitive (trans) is a dictionary tag meaning the word requires an object to be a complete clause or sentence. Intransitive (Intrans) is the opposite; an object, if used, should be indirect, but not required to form complete clauses and sentences. Wiktionary example:

transitive verb
A verb which requires one or more objects (e.g. I kick the ball); contrast intransitive verb.
intransitive verb
Not taking a direct object; not transitive. For example, the verb 'listen' does not usually take a direct object; it is grammatically incorrect to say "I listened the concert" (instead of the correct "I listened to the concert" with the indirect object "to the concert").

Oh boy, we're really dusting off my English major now.

Luckily I have surmised that this distinction probably isn't important to this discussion, and have returned my diploma to the ancient box from whence it came.

To me, it's the difference between "I have a Disenchant, what should I remove to ensure I have a greater chance of winning" vs "What can I remove to ensure I have a better chance of accomplishing my goal (that may or may not result in winning)."

If you target something that isn't maximizing your chance of winning, then your chance of winning is lower than it would have been if you chose the optimal target - if it's not, then you DID choose the optimal target. And if your chance to win the game is lower, then in a zero-sum game like magic, someone else's chance to win must be higher. This seems like it fulfills your own second definition, no?

The logical chain here defies. . . logic. The truly optimal play is unknowable, merely guessable. Percentages of liklihood to win are not calibrated on a per-card/per-stack basis. And even if those assumptions were true, removing a target that furthers my goal is still not helping an opponent - especially when it is unknowable, that even if a given player should benefit from my action then, that play will win because of my action from which they profitted. No. It does not come close to meeting either criterion, as described.

There are two types of the "optimal play": the optimal play from an omniscient perspective, and the optimal play from the information available. The former is indeed unknowable, at least while playing the game (unless Telepathy and Field of Dreams and etc are in play, and ideally some sort of mind reading device). It can be interesting to analyze, and occasionally useful, but ultimately the more important type of "optimal play" is the latter, because it's the one that can actually guide our actions. That view of optimal play is not unknowable, though it may be difficult to determine at the time, but making a good-faith attempt to find this play is imo the way one ought to play the game. Just because the optimal play (omniscient perspective) is unknowable doesn't mean we can't judge the quality of plays at all. We judge them based on the limited perspective.

If you say you are choosing your target to maximize your chance of "doing the thing", or maximize your chance of winning, my assumption is that we are talking about maximizing in the limited perspective - maximizing your chances to _____ based on the information available. If you say you are choosing targets based on maximizing chance to "do the thing", then that means you are not maximizing your chance to win (unless they happen to be the same, which is ofc often true), based on your current read of the game.

Percentages of liklihood to win are not calibrated on a per-card/per-stack basis.

I don't know what you mean by this. Can't you theoretically continually update your win% based on the latest possible information?

removing a target that furthers my goal is still not helping an opponent

To be fair, even an optimal play (omniscient or limited perspective) could help an opponent. If Winter Orb is locking you down, and also an opponent down, disenchanting it would increase your own chance to win as well as the opponent (versus not blowing up anything, or blowing up something else of lesser importance) but still be the correct play. So increasing an opponents win% isn't really a good definition for game-throwing to start with.

But setting that aside, it seems like you're saying that, until you cast the disenchant, the disenchant had no relevance to your win%. If you never cast it, your win% stays the same. If you cast it on a subpar target, your win% will increase by a little. If you cast it on a good target, your win% will increase by a lot. I don't think this is a sensible view. Cards in hand can be as relevant to the assessment of win% as cards on the battlefield and must be taken into account when making that assessment. I don't assume that a 5/5 is going to sit around doing nothing, and I don't assume that a disenchant in hand is going to sit around doing nothing either.

In a 1v1 game of skilled opponents, I think a sensible baseline to use for win% is assuming that each player will make the optimal move (from their limited perspective). If they fail to make this move, they cede win% to their opponent. If they make a more optimal move (omniscient perspective), they might increase their win%, though this is merely a lucky coincidence (assuming the one doing the analysis is a perfect magic player). Of course most players will not play an optimal game (limited perspective) so it's a contest of "who will screw up the least?"

To apply this to the disenchant example, I would evaluate your win% based on the assumption that you will use the disenchant in your hand in the optimal way to maximize your win%. Of course, you could use it suboptimally on accident, lowering your win% inadvertently - no fault there, ofc - but if you're intentionally taking a line with a lower win%, then I would say that you are throwing the game because you are intentionally lowering your own win% relative to the optimal line. (ofc, you might take a more optimal line (omniscient perspective) on accident, but if you believe the line is less optimal then I would still say you're throwing the game, since your intention was to take the less optimal line).

To sum things up, my definition for "throwing the game": intentionally making a play you believe will result in a lower chance for you to win the game versus another line.

It does, however, beg the question of: What (uncensored) term or phrase then describes a player that is focused soley on winning regardless of the impact/effect on the rest of the table (regardless of if they have the skill to succeed in the endevour)?

I think even players who are completely ruthless in their pursuit of victory are still ultimately interested not in the victory itself, but in the feeling of accomplishment it provides. In this sense, we're all looking for enjoyment - it's just that some players' paths to enjoyment might be less palatable than others.

Ofc, winning can become an addiction where there's not even enjoyment anymore, but I think those neural pathways are carved into the brain by the initial dopamine rush of victory, even if it dries up over time.

Anyway, I think "competitive", when used to describe a player, is an adequate term. I guess "very competitive" or "extremely competitive" as the case may be (i.e. my mother).

To me, "throwing the game" is comprised of things like kingmaking (one or more successive actions and decisions that obviously favor one opponent over everybody - including yourself), or a direct action or series of actions that reduces your chances to win to near 0 and/or increases an opponent's chances to win significantly.
- Example: casting spot removal of a given type that could have removed the already-played first piece in a two-card infinite combo - but choosing not to do so (even when it is pointed out) because the player would rather grudge remove different target.

Hope that helps.

I think we're forced to draw a nebulous line here, though. How much do you need to lower your win% before it becomes throwing the game? Would you not say that someone who is 90% to win the game, but then wipes their own board and then is 25% to win, has thrown the game - even though their win% is still technically average? I prefer my line, as it's very black and white. If you intentionally make a play that lowers your win% at all, you are throwing the game. I'm not too concerned with which manner you're doing so.

[Treamayne]

lol no worries. I'm not going to read any of the spoiler tags because I don't want to be spoiled :teach: I did glimpse a mention of a cheap ebook while cleaning up formatting, however I'm in a 100% audiobook phase since I can listen to them during my job, and I'm too much of a cheapskate for audible. So I look forward to understanding this conversation better in 2030.

The spoiler tags are just the equivilent of cover blurbs - so if you would read those before reading/listening, you should be fine. If you would skip those before reading/listening, then obviously skip them.

Can't you theoretically continually update your win% based on the latest possible information?

If you do this, then you are the first person I've met in nearly 30yrs of Magic that does so in multi-player casual.

To sum things up, my definition for "throwing the game": intentionally making a play you believe will result in a lower chance for you to win the game versus another line.

I'll admit I just don't think this way at all. Given two (or more) valid targets, where one may objectively be "more correct" (based on board state alone - without hidden information from anybody) and one that specifically further's my goals (based on board state and the hidden knowledge to which I have access) then I will choose the latter - that's all that I meant by my example.

I can't really speak to some nebulous internally-quantifiable adjusting ratio of win%, because I never consider such. Futhering the spot removal example, my assessment goes something like this:
- Is there an obvious combo piece? If yes, that is the first to go
- Is there something restricting my ability to interact? If yes, then target that.
- If neither of the above are true - then target the item that is most relevant to my deck's plan.

That's it. I would expect that most non-uber-competitive (to use a derived term of yours) players with even basic threat assessment use a similar process. I may even venture to say that, outside of a cEDH crowd, your persepctive may be the outlier here, rather than mine.

I think we're forced to draw a nebulous line here, though. How much do you need to lower your win% before it becomes throwing the game? Would you not say that someone who is 90% to win the game, but then wipes their own board and then is 25% to win, has thrown the game - even though their win% is still technically average? I prefer my line, as it's very black and white. If you intentionally make a play that lowers your win% at all, you are throwing the game. I'm not too concerned with which manner you're doing so.

I think this just has to be an agree-to-disagree point. I don't see your point as being black-and-white at all. It seems far more gray than mine since it hinges on too many undefined quantities. It seems to make deductive leaps that may just be invalidated in upcoming turns. I can't convince myself to believe that "throwing the game" is anything less than making your position so untenable that victory is impossible. You seem to see it as more of a process of slowly eroding the board state or play position. Does that mean you "turn the switch" back and forth for every play? E.g. "Oh, that play was suboptimal - they are throwing the game. Ouch, that play reversed the previous, they are not throwing the game. Uh oh, throwing the game again. . . "
How is that not a gray area?

[DirkGently]

Can't you theoretically continually update your win% based on the latest possible information?

If you do this, then you are the first person I've met in nearly 30yrs of Magic that does so in multi-player casual.

I don't mean literally putting a number on it except as a thought experiment, but do you not have a general vibe for how likely you are to win the game? Surely you've felt "yeah, I think I've probably got this one" and then someone casts High Tide and you get a sinking feeling in your stomach. Just about everything that happens in a game, I'm usually thinking something like "uh oh, I think I'm in trouble now" or "okay, that's about what I expected" or "nice, I overestimated their position, looks like this will be easier than I thought", and adjusting my feeling of the game accordingly. When someone puts craterhoof behemoth on the stack, do you not "calibrate your percentages of likelihood to win" just because it's "per-card/per-stack"? Or am I not understanding what you mean?

To sum things up, my definition for "throwing the game": intentionally making a play you believe will result in a lower chance for you to win the game versus another line.

I'll admit I just don't think this way at all. Given two (or more) valid targets, where one may objectively be "more correct" (based on board state alone - without hidden information from anybody) and one that specifically further's my goals (based on board state and the hidden knowledge to which I have access) then I will choose the latter - that's all that I meant by my example.

Let's remove that "may" for the purposes of the hypothetical. Based on your knowledge and understanding of the hypothetical game state in which you are playing, you believe that one move gives you the best chance to win the game, and a different moves gives you the best chance to "do the thing". Which move are you picking?

I can't really speak to some nebulous internally-quantifiable adjusting ratio of win%, because I never consider such. Futhering the spot removal example, my assessment goes something like this:
- Is there an obvious combo piece? If yes, that is the first to go
- Is there something restricting my ability to interact? If yes, then target that.
- If neither of the above are true - then target the item that is most relevant to my deck's plan.

That's it. I would expect that most non-uber-competitive (to use a derived term of yours) players with even basic threat assessment use a similar process. I may even venture to say that, outside of a cEDH crowd, your persepctive may be the outlier here, rather than mine.

What you're describing is a heuristic, which sounds like it generally approximates the correct target. All of us use heuristics of some kind when making decisions, and it would be silly to fault someone for using a heuristic to accidentally arrive at a weak play. And as I said before, it will frequently be the case that making plays that enable you to "do the thing", and making plays that maximize your win%, will be the same - at least if you've constructed your deck well. So having consideration for "what is preventing me from 'doing the thing'" is a reasonable part of a simplified heuristic like this, as it will often lead you to a correct, or at least a reasonable, play.

But what I want to drill down on are situations where the goal of "doing the thing" and the goal of winning do not result in the same decision, and furthermore where you KNOW they don't result in the same decision.

I think we're forced to draw a nebulous line here, though. How much do you need to lower your win% before it becomes throwing the game? Would you not say that someone who is 90% to win the game, but then wipes their own board and then is 25% to win, has thrown the game - even though their win% is still technically average? I prefer my line, as it's very black and white. If you intentionally make a play that lowers your win% at all, you are throwing the game. I'm not too concerned with which manner you're doing so.

I think this just has to be an agree-to-disagree point. I don't see your point as being black-and-white at all. It seems far more gray than mine since it hinges on too many undefined quantities. It seems to make deductive leaps that may just be invalidated in upcoming turns. I can't convince myself to believe that "throwing the game" is anything less than making your position so untenable that victory is impossible. You seem to see it as more of a process of slowly eroding the board state or play position. Does that mean you "turn the switch" back and forth for every play? E.g. "Oh, that play was suboptimal - they are throwing the game. Ouch, that play reversed the previous, they are not throwing the game. Uh oh, throwing the game again. . . "
How is that not a gray area?

Throwing a game: To lose some competitive game intentionally

The line is intentionality. Making a play, no matter how suboptimal, is not throwing the game unless the player making it believed they had a better play but chose not to take it. Otherwise it's just good, old-fashioned sucking. That is a clear, black-and-white line.

If you knowingly choose a weaker target for your disenchant, and that causes you to lose the game, that means you threw the game. If you ultimately win, or if you lose but the decision was irrelevant, have you still thrown the game? In my opinion, yes - once it's thrown, it's thrown, and no amount of duct tape can put it back together again. Admittedly, the common definition of "throwing the game" does require actually losing the game at the end. However, by that definition, it is impossible to determine if someone has thrown the game until the game is over, no matter how hard they try to lose. Someone could literally Lightning Bolt themselves in the face at 2 life, but if all their opponents concede while it's on the stack, then they haven't thrown the game? That seems absurd to me. I don't think this definition is useful because it means that your opponents get to determine whether you've thrown the game or not, and I think throwing is a personal decision and not something another person can cause to happen, or un-happen.

EDIT: thinking about it again, I think the common definition (and presumably your definition, though I don't think you spelled it out) for "throwing the game" requires that your intention was to lose, not that you intentionally made a bad play knowing it might cause you to lose. Presumably when you disenchant the wrong target, you aren't doing so with the intent to lose, but just accepting the risk that it might cause you to lose. I still think the common definition kinda sucks since you can have the intention to lose, but still fail to lose, and I guess that wouldn't be throwing, but whatever - I'll concede this point and use more precise terminology going forward.

To bring us back to what makes the game enjoyable, though - I think intentionally making a play you believe is less optimal is selfish, to be honest. I said previously:

I don't feel it's properly "done the thing" unless there has been a legitimate opposing force.

And you agreed. Don't you think it undercuts the legitimacy of the opposition if they're focused primarily on accomplishing something unrelated to winning the game? Say you've got a new aggro deck, and you want to see if it can actually pile enough pressure on to be a threat against 120 enemy life, but instead of mounting a defense your opponents are trying to create the largest possible number of food tokens because that's "doing the thing" they wanted their deck to do? Would that not feel like you were denied your own opportunity to "do the thing", because your opponents were only interested in creating fun for themselves?

A game where everyone is playing to win - making the plays they believe give them the best chance for victory - creates an environment that gives meaning to the silly little achievements we want our decks to accomplish (doing the thing), where everyone can trust their opponents to mount a legitimate opposition that gives weight to what happens. Making intentionally suboptimal plays breaks that contract and leaves everyone's achievements ringing hollow. Legitimate competition isn't the only thing required to make a game enjoyable of course, and people do enjoy the game without it, but I strongly believe that it's the best way to enjoy any competitive game.

[yeti1069]

To bring us back to what makes the game enjoyable, though - I think intentionally making a play you believe is less optimal is selfish, to be honest. I said previously:

I stopped reading most of this debate a while back, but skimming, this bit jumped out at me as being ridiculous.

I know that I, and both several people that I have played with, as well as some posters on these boards, have attested to, for example, tutor for not the game-winning piece, but something else, so as to not prematurely end a game (whether too early, or in the midst of some good back-and-forth). How is that selfish?

I will at times not play a board wipe, or another very disruptive spell in order to let the game go on a while. I'll hold back a bit at times if I feel like I've been overwhelming the table.

[slimytrout]

I might have missed something since I certainly started skimming this discussion at a certain point, but it sort of feels like folks are just arguing on behalf of different player psychographics and expecting to convince each other? That is to say:

*There are some people on this thread/planet who are T*mmies, who derive satisfaction from experiencing things (typically exciting or unusual things) during a game of magic. A pure T*mmy does not need competitiveness to enjoy Magic -- if everyone at the table gets to "go off" and the decks interact with each other in an interesting way, it doesn't matter to them if one player deliberately held back from a winning line because cool things were happening.

*There are some people who are J*nnies, who derive satisfaction from expressing themselves. A pure J*nny does want to win, but on their own terms -- for example, if their goal is to win without ever attacking, then they might hold back even if they accidentally ended up in a position where they could swing for lethal. It probably doesn't matter much to them if other players are playing to win or just to have fun.

*There are some people who are Spikes, who derive satisfaction from competing with others. A pure Spike will honestly probably not be playing casual commander, but if they somehow ended up in that position they would be focussing on cutting deals that advantage them, performing accurate threat assessment, and doing everything possible to win the game. Obviously it matters a great dealt to them whether other players are trying their hardest -- if they end up winning after one player made a deliberately suboptimal decision, they will consider it a hollow victory.

I feel like most of the arguments being advanced fall into one of these categories, and I just don't know if anyone is ever going to convince someone else to switch psychographics -- it's kinda just how your brain is wired and/or how you've experienced mtg in the past.

[DirkGently]

I stopped reading most of this debate a while back, but skimming, this bit jumped out at me as being ridiculous.

I know that I, and both several people that I have played with, as well as some posters on these boards, have attested to, for example, tutor for not the game-winning piece, but something else, so as to not prematurely end a game (whether too early, or in the midst of some good back-and-forth). How is that selfish?

I should have been more specific - Treamayne and I were talking in the context of prioritizing plays to "do the thing" for oneself rather than to win. I think making intentionally suboptimal plays for that reason is selfish.

Making intentionally suboptimal plays to "not prematurely end a game"/"let the game go on for a while"/"avoid overwhelming the table" is patronizing and insulting, not selfish.

If you are finding combo wins too early, don't play combos or don't play tutors. If you're overwhelming the table, play a lower-powered deck. If you make a mistake and play too powerful a deck, just end the game quickly so you can pick a more appropriate deck for the next game.

I will at times not play a board wipe, or another very disruptive spell in order to let the game go on a while. I'll hold back a bit at times if I feel like I've been overwhelming the table.

Did your parents ever let you win at board games? Mine did. Sure, it was fun for me to win - until I found out what they were doing. Then it soured every past game and made me suspicious of every game afterwards.

Just play honestly.

I might have missed something since I certainly started skimming this discussion at a certain point, but it sort of feels like folks are just arguing on behalf of different player psychographics and expecting to convince each other? That is to say:

*There are some people on this thread/planet who are T*mmies, who derive satisfaction from experiencing things (typically exciting or unusual things) during a game of magic. A pure T*mmy does not need competitiveness to enjoy Magic -- if everyone at the table gets to "go off" and the decks interact with each other in an interesting way, it doesn't matter to them if one player deliberately held back from a winning line because cool things were happening.

*There are some people who are J*nnies, who derive satisfaction from expressing themselves. A pure J*nny does want to win, but on their own terms -- for example, if their goal is to win without ever attacking, then they might hold back even if they accidentally ended up in a position where they could swing for lethal. It probably doesn't matter much to them if other players are playing to win or just to have fun.

*There are some people who are Spikes, who derive satisfaction from competing with others. A pure Spike will honestly probably not be playing casual commander, but if they somehow ended up in that position they would be focussing on cutting deals that advantage them, performing accurate threat assessment, and doing everything possible to win the game. Obviously it matters a great dealt to them whether other players are trying their hardest -- if they end up winning after one player made a deliberately suboptimal decision, they will consider it a hollow victory.

I feel like most of the arguments being advanced fall into one of these categories, and I just don't know if anyone is ever going to convince someone else to switch psychographics -- it's kinda just how your brain is wired and/or how you've experienced mtg in the past.

Player psychographics are pseudoscientific at best so I'm not thrilled about arguing down this line. What most people enjoy about a game of magic isn't simple enough to fit into one of three buckets.

No one disagrees that different players may have different things they enjoy in the game, but virtually everyone wants those things within the same context - a competitive game with legitimate opposition.

If "Timmy" only wants to see exciting things and doesn't care whatsoever that the game is competitive, then why not just institute a rule where nobody is allowed to win, and we can durdle as long as we want? Because if there's no risk of failure, the "exciting things" aren't exciting anymore. It's like playing a video game with invincibility turned on. Yes, you'd like to complete the super hard quest while taking zero damage - that would feel extremely badass. But it loses all context if there's no risk of failure. Similarly, "Johnny" pulling off his silly wincon is meaningless if there was nobody trying to stop him. Otherwise he could just goldfish it to get the same thrill - which he probably doesn't.

Now, to be fair, human brains are squishy, and there's a lot of room in between the ideal game where everyone is always playing to win, and the sandbox game where there is literally no opposition from anyone and all players are essentially goldfishing with each other. In practice I think many, possibly most, commander players have some degree of tolerance for intentional misplays before the whole thing starts to ring hollow for them. Some players may even tolerate a sandbox game every once in a while. But that's only insofar as those demigames can be imagined as legitimate. Sure, you only succeeded in winning/"doing the thing" because another player held back, but it still MOSTLY feels real. You haven't put on full invincibility, you've just given yourself a few extra medpacks. If you don't think too hard about it, you can still trick your brain into feeling that same sense of accomplishment - more or less.

I've got a radical idea though - how about instead of trying to coddle each other in order to simulate a hollow facsimile of a proper, well-balanced game, we put in a bit of effort and try to create those games for real? That way, when you pull off something exciting, or you accomplish a silly plan, or you win, it doesn't just kinda-sorta-feel legitimate - it actually is?

[Treamayne]

I feel like most of the arguments being advanced fall into one of these categories, and I just don't know if anyone is ever going to convince someone else to switch psychographics -- it's kinda just how your brain is wired and/or how you've experienced mtg in the past.

I can't speak to Dirk's motives, but I am not trying to convince DG (or anybody) to change their view. This is where it started, for me:

SPOILER

Show

Hide

I don't mind discussing this if you really want to understand. However:

Would the game be equally enjoyable if your opponents never played any cards? If their entire deck was basic lands with The Prismatic Piper as commander?

This kind of absurd oversimplification implies you don't really want to understand. You want to mock anybody with a different outlook or opinion.

Maybe I've been assuming a position that you don't have, so I'll clarify mine

I neither want nor expect anybody's opinion or playstyle to change - but I do hope to help some hardline competitive "play to win" people to, at least, understand those of us on the other side of the fence-turned-chasm that is a part of the casual-competitive debate.

Does that make sense to anybody other than me?

I don't mean literally putting a number on it except as a thought experiment, but do you not have a general vibe for how likely you are to win the game?

Nope. At least not until near the end of the game. Last turn or two - maybe. I just don't think about it - for or against. I think about what threats are showing, what they might indicate, what resources I have available and what my next turn might look like. In some situations, I may consider what I need to draw into or dig for.

Just about everything that happens in a game,<snip> do you not "calibrate your percentages of likelihood to win" just because it's "per-card/per-stack"? Or am I not understanding what you mean?

Big splashy plays, maybe. Indicators of a two or three card combo, I'll call out to make sure anybody unfamiliar with it knows there is a possible combo imminent. Otherwise, no - I am not evaluating the game's end state until that end state is on the horizon.
As for what I meant, I was trying to clarify your earlier discorse because it did sounded like you are re-evaluating the order of player threat/position for most cards and game actions. I was stating that I do not operate that way (except the previously mentioned splash plays/combo warnings).

Based on your knowledge and understanding of the hypothetical game state in which you are playing, you believe that one move gives you the best chance to win the game, and a different moves gives you the best chance to "do the thing". Which move are you picking?

That is far too generic for any reasonable answer. It is situation dependant. I can provide some examples - with the caveat that these examples are, to me, only recognizable in hindsight as to thier effect on the game's final outcome.

SPOILER

Show

Hide

Given this deck:

SPOILER

Show

Hide

Example 1: WIth Krovikan Mist (3/3), Toothy, Imaginary Friend (5/5) and some other illusion I don't remember, an opponent cast Garruk, Caller of Beasts and +1ed. The most likely optimal play would have been to Phyrexian Splicer flying onto Toothy and kill it dead. I felt it reasonable that preventing the next turn's -3 was sufficient and instead advanced my board state. I sent Krovikan Mist at Garruk, sent Toothy at the creatureless (nominally) weakest player and Moonblade Shinobi'd Toothy for the draw and the illusion token. (The other players also did not finish Garruk off, who went on to "doubling season proliferate" and got 2 or 3 free creatures before Garruk was killed off)
Example 2: I'd cast Spark Double targeting Toothy, Imaginary Friend and planning to Crystal Shard Toothy before my next turn (getting draw and an equal amount of counters on not-Toothy), but an opponent with Avacyn, Angel of Hope overextended (tapped out to counter a different player trying to exile her - IIRC it was a GAAIV deck) and I had the opportunity to shard their Avacyn instead allowing the active player to WoG.

Are those the types of situations you meant?

But what I want to drill down on are situations where the goal of "doing the thing" and the goal of winning do not result in the same decision, and furthermore where you KNOW they don't result in the same decision.

You seem to want me to make your point for you. I'm sorry, but I cannot do that. As mentioned above, I rarely notice if any given decision is this kind of dichotomy. I won't repeat the previous post you quoted - but that is the extent of my most common assessment. I don't go through that process then think "is there a different play that yields a better chance of winning?" because I don';t care about that. Threat, combo, goal. Done. The example above shows that when I am setting up a goal, if a play presents itself I may take it - but I am not actively searching for "the better play." Sorry.

Someone could literally Lightning Bolt themselves in the face at 2 life, but if all their opponents concede while it's on the stack, then they haven't thrown the game? That seems absurd to me.

Is this another example of hyperbole-for-effect? Because it feels like mocking (though your previous posts indicate you may not have meant it that way). Do you realize these unrealistic scenarios weaken every argument based upon them?

EDIT: thinking about it again, I think the common definition (and presumably your definition, though I don't think you spelled it out) for "throwing the game" requires that your intention was to lose, not that you intentionally made a bad play knowing it might cause you to lose. Presumably when you disenchant the wrong target, you aren't doing so with the intent to lose, but just accepting the risk that it might cause you to lose. I still think the common definition kinda sucks since you can have the intention to lose, but still fail to lose, and I guess that wouldn't be throwing, but whatever - I'll concede this point and use more precise terminology going forward.

This seems like we are closer here at understanding each other's position. I also beleive that throwing a game requires the intention to do so. Though I'm not sure how or why somebody intends to lose. The closest personal example I can think of is active non-concession (briefly, a few games where one player "combos" in a way that will take multiple turns to close out the game. Usually the other players will concede. I will not concede, but I do play as little as possible, as quickly as possible to keep time on my MTGO clock just to watch them struggle with clicking though hundreds of triggers before their time runs out).

But I will point out that "wrong target" might be how you see it, but not how I (and presumably many others) see it. Just because I chose a valid target that might not have been the, subjectively, best target - does not make my choice the wrong target.

if they're focused primarily on accomplishing something unrelated to winning the game?

I'm guessing you hate gray areas. Why do you assume a deck's goal has to be "unrelated to winning" simply if it is not played in a competitive style. As a reminder, here is what I said (assuming you are referencing the same snippit of conversation):

SPOILER

Show

Hide

However, the difference (to me) is that I am basing my decisions in what helps me "do the thing" and doing the thing may or may not result in me winning. I don't care if I win - I care if I had fun.

Please note I never said the goal (or "thing") was unrelated to winning - only that in playing toward my goal may not result in winning and I don't care if it does or does not.
Take, for example, the previously referenced deck. Most Toothy decks want to "draw tons and Voltron Toothy for a commander damage win" and I thought - "that's lame and overdone - how can I use Toothy differently" and so I conceived Illusion Tribal and focused on bouncing Toothy as my draw engine.
How is that "unrelated to winning?"

A game where everyone is playing to win - making the plays they believe give them the best chance for victory - creates an environment that gives meaning to the silly little achievements we want our decks to accomplish (doing the thing), where everyone can trust their opponents to mount a legitimate opposition that gives weight to what happens. Making intentionally suboptimal plays breaks that contract and leaves everyone's achievements ringing hollow. Legitimate competition isn't the only thing required to make a game enjoyable of course, and people do enjoy the game without it, but I strongly believe that it's the best way to enjoy any competitive game.

I can see why you feel this way - but it is still applying an assumption that is not universally applicable (bolded above). I simply don't evaluate each play on a scale of "chance of victory." It's not in my crosscheck, and it's not how I approach a game. I'm not "Making intentionally suboptimal plays" because I am also not trying to identify a theoretical optimal play. I don't expect you to change your drive for finding optimal plays as often as possible, but please don't apply an A/B false dichotomy to a situation that for many players is a an X,Y,Z axis of possiblities.

Just please recognize that we don't see things in the same light, and that is okay. If that ruins your fun for the game, then we shouldn't play together - that is also okay. Our styles may be incompatible, but that does not make either of us "right" or "wrong" - just different. To paraphrase one of my favorite essays from Altered Perceptions*:

I made a comment on Twitter not long ago that I was an "odd duck," .... A friend of mine replied, "You're not an odd duck, you're a normal platypus." I think I'm going to roll with that. So the next time someone wants ...or does something else you can't understand but that doesn't actually hurt you, please try to remember that it's a big ecosystem. We have room for ducks and platypi.
Everybody loves a semi-aquatic egg-laying mammal of action, right?

SPOILER

Show

Hide

Altered Perceptions is a for-charity indie-go-go release to benefit Mental Health Awareness. Authors were allowed to submit whatever they wanted (usually draft or deleted scenes) along with an essay on how Mental Health Issues have touched their lives. The submissions were mostly good - but the essays were phenomenal.
Highly recommended. Excerpt and Contents:

SPOILER

Show

Hide

Introduction by Dan Wells:

When my brother Rob and I were little, I used to play a game I called "See How Easy It Is to Bug Him?" This is the kind of thing that older brothers do. The game was simpler than you probably think: just go into a public place and attract attention. That's literally all it took. There we'd be, waiting for the bus or walking through a store or even just sitting in our front yard, and I'd start to sing really loudly or stand on one foot or whatever, and someone would turn their head to see what was happening, and Rob would fly into a rage. Why was I singing? Couldn't I see that everyone was looking at us? Didn't all that attention bother me? What was my stupid problem anyway? And I would laugh and laugh and laugh, and then the next day, when his guard was down, I'd do it again. Every day for years and years.

And then a few decades later he was diagnosed with a severe anxiety disorder, and suddenly it wasn't so funny anymore.

(Well, still kind of funny—he is my little brother, after all—just less funny.)

Looking back at Rob's life it's easy to see the seeds of anxiety in a hundred little tics and behaviors that we always just chalked up to him being the world's youngest curmudgeon. He was the only seven-year-old I've ever met who would yell at other kids to get off his lawn. He wasn't humorless—he was always up for whatever wacky new scheme we concocted—but he was private. He wanted to be wacky on his own terms, in a quiet room, where the only noise was his own. Hindsight also makes it easy to spot the quirks that would eventually develop into full-blown depression, and if I squint my eyes a bit I can see in his younger perfectionism the ominous shadow of what is now a crippling case of OCD: not the "group my M&Ms by color" kind of OCD, but the real OCD, the "my mind is not my own" OCD that makes him try to break his own hands or throw himself down the stairs. None of what he did as a child was a quantifiable, diagnosable disorder; none of it was the kind of behavior a wiser eye might have looked at and said "that child has dark things in his future." Not every shy, awkward kid grows up to have a mental disorder, and thank goodness, because that would be all of us. But some of them do. Some moles are just moles, but some moles are cancer.

Contents:

- Shannon Hale
- Seanan McGuire
- Mary Robinette Kowal
- Jessica Day George
- Howard Tayler
- Sandra Tayler
- Bree Despain
- Lauren Oliver
- Jaquelin Novak
- Larry Correia
- Shawn Speakman
- Annette Lyon
- S J Kincaid
- J Scott Savage
- Robison Wells
- Dan Wells
- Louisa Perkins
- Nancy Campbell Allen
- Sara Zarr
- Aprilynne Pike
- Kiersten White
- Brodi Ashton
- Josi Kilpack
- Brandon Mull
- Jennifer Moore
- Sarah M. Eden
- Erin Bowman
- John C. Wright
- Claudia Gray
- Brandon Sanderson

Thank you very much.

[Dragonlover]

This feels like a hell of a lot of words being used to arrive at the point of "build casually, play competitively".

For myself, all my decks are optimised to one degree or another within my own deck building parameters for them. At the table though? I'll play as no holds barred as possible. For example, due to various mental health related reasons, my wife hates games with Possibility Storm, so even if its the optimal play I won't play it. It stays in the deck it's in because I don't always play with them in the pod. Sometimes if someone in the pods having a rough day, be it IRL %$#%$#% or just an evening of %$#% draws, I'll hold fire on them for a turn or so, let their deck so the thing, even if it's suboptimal for my 25% of the game board. Why? Because I'm lucky enough to be friends with the people I play EDH with as opposed to a constant rotation of randoms, and I want my mates to enjoy their single night of cardboard singing this week.

As to the original question posed in the thread, we scoop at sorcery speed. If I ever had to scoop pre combat, I'd allow damage triggers from attacks off my ghost for that turn.

Dragonlover

[yeti1069]

I stopped reading most of this debate a while back, but skimming, this bit jumped out at me as being ridiculous.

I know that I, and both several people that I have played with, as well as some posters on these boards, have attested to, for example, tutor for not the game-winning piece, but something else, so as to not prematurely end a game (whether too early, or in the midst of some good back-and-forth). How is that selfish?

I should have been more specific - Treamayne and I were talking in the context of prioritizing plays to "do the thing" for oneself rather than to win. I think making intentionally suboptimal plays for that reason is selfish.

Making intentionally suboptimal plays to "not prematurely end a game"/"let the game go on for a while"/"avoid overwhelming the table" is patronizing and insulting, not selfish.

If you are finding combo wins too early, don't play combos or don't play tutors. If you're overwhelming the table, play a lower-powered deck. If you make a mistake and play too powerful a deck, just end the game quickly so you can pick a more appropriate deck for the next game.

Just play honestly.

Few people I've played with at non-cEDH tables have felt this way. I have often played with people who will tutor for a non-game-winning card when there's the possibility of winning due to it feeling too early in the game for that. I'll note that the idea of just closing the game quickly and moving on to the next with a weaker deck really only applies if you play with a regular group--if you're playing pick-up games at a store or on spelltable, there may not be a next game with those players, and either way that can lead to bad feelings. I can't tell you how many games I've had, from both sides, where someone comboing off or overwhelming the table early has resulted in a lot of salt. Players don't like to feel like they didn't have a chance, so leaving open that chance at times will result in a more enjoyable experience for everyone.

"Just play honestly" in part implies that everyone is playing exclusively to win (and play optimally), yet that isn't the case for a lot of players. Some aren't playing to win at all (and I can't stand playing with them), while others are playing to win, but not trying hard for it, or taking their time to get there.

I'm also not talking about letting them win--I can make suboptimal choices and still win, potentially. It's just leaving the game open for the fight. As for dropping tutors and combos, or playing weaker decks, again, outside of a dedicated group it can be hard to match power levels across multiple games. If I fully tune-down my decks and end up at a table where everyone is playing stronger stuff, then I may not get to enjoy the game. It's easier to have the option, but not use it, than to need it, but not have it. That said, I have taken most tutors out of most of my decks, and have cut most/all combos (and combos can only be comprised of independently synergistic pieces). My Sefris deck, for instance, runs Reveillark, Karmic Guide, Viscera Seer, and Yawgmoth, because all are great in the deck, but it's rare for me to assemble the combo. Part of that is due to having only a couple of tutors in the deck, and often going for something that isn't these, but also because I will hold back on a piece if the table isn't playing for combo wins.

I'd say that most people I have played with would feel unsatisfied/salty at a game that ended within the first 4-5 turns, and many would start to check out of a game that goes beyond an hour-and-a-half/two hours. That means having wincons available can be useful for when the game is stretching on too long and needs to end, but deploying them early is going to just lead to salt. I had a game with my Smeagol deck a couple weeks ago with a lot of back and forth, and no clear archenemy, but the store was closing soon, so I when I cast a tutor, I announced that it seemed like it was time to end the game, got a combo piece, and went off. Everyone felt good about it, because it was a game well-fought, not a blowout.


I will at times not play a board wipe, or another very disruptive spell in order to let the game go on a while. I'll hold back a bit at times if I feel like I've been overwhelming the table.

Did your parents ever let you win at board games? Mine did. Sure, it was fun for me to win - until I found out what they were doing. Then it soured every past game and made me suspicious of every game afterwards.

I think you've got some of your own hang-ups to work through here. I get it. I feel the same way about my dad sharing "facts" or "info" with me, and that spills over into other interactions (I do really appreciate having the vast stores of all of human knowledge available for reference in an instant).

[Dunadain]

Maybe I should start a new thread for this, but I'm curios @DirkGently how far does this go? Modern UB mill plays Hedron Crab and Ruin Crab. An inside joke with the deck is to attack with the crabs when you don't think you need them untapped and they won't die in combat. It's hard to call this anything besides an intentionally suboptimal play, but the margin is so small that many people do it anyways because it's fun. Even "spikes" (I agree that the 3 types of players is a load of bologna) will do this. Heck, I've done it with money on the line (not much, but still).

For the record, I'm mostly on your side, I want my opponents to try to win, and if you ever find yourself holding back in a game, then you probably shouldn't have played that deck. However, surely you can see that their is a line here, and different people are going to draw it a different points. You keep using a reductio ad absurdum, but your argument is equally ridiculous if you take it to the other extreme. Would you get mad at me if I swung my Ruin Crab at you on t2 on an open board? It COULD matter, but it probably won't and it's funny imo.

Heck, resigning to a storm player going off is also suboptimal.

[PrimevalCommander]

In reference to sub-optimal play patterns. I have a relatively powerful deck with several tutors and several creature combo lines. Very rarely to I ever tutor combo pieces directly with the intent to combo off early or mid game. Even Survival of the Fittest opening hand will typically search for a bit of ramp or card draw. Everyone who knows the deck knows the combo pieces are included. No one gets angry when I tutor up a Luminous Broodmoth for value instead of Karmic GuideReveillark. 1/2 my playgroup hates easy combo, the other 1/2 can't get enough of them. But I fall into the "less combo is better" half, so I play accordingly. I purposefully tutor around combo pieces because I want to do other things. Combo cards like Saffi Eriksdotter and Altar of Dementia are in there. But the cards are so impactful to my strategy I couldn't remove them. One thing I do is I do not play any creature sac outlets without a restriction. No Viscera Seer or Yahenni, Undying Partisan types to at least limit my ability to chain tutor Survival of the Fittest or Recruiter of the Guard loops for a combo. If I naturally draw into a combo, I'll fire off in this deck though. It usually happens later in the game.

My most notable bad play I made recently. I had naya blink with Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker + Felidar Guardian in play. Chose not to initiate Felidar because I did NOT want the deck to be known for this combo, but those two cards individually do so much for the deck that I want them to be included. **Felidar will get the axe soon though**. Instead I killed 1 player another way and passed the turn. Last player untaps and Insurrections my field, winning the game. Much laughs were had about that and it turned a potential anticlimactic finish into the play of the day. No one was mad, and the game was more memorable for it. Having that combo in there at all bugs me, but the cards are so good individually in a blink deck. I can probably find a replacement to Felidar at some point.

Not everyone feels the burning urge to always go for the throat 100% of every matchup. Sometimes if my best bud is on a 4 game winning streak, I will focus on him so someone else can win. Sometimes it's me, sometimes not, but regardless of threat assessment, it's time someone else won a game. Maybe that is optimal thinking, but not usually. Sometimes my brother is struggling and I won't counter his high-value engine piece. This is to my disadvantage, but I want him to have fun because he is new. He doesn't need to know I could have countered it, and I don't usually tell him I could.

...also, don't spite scoop. It is bad form. It happens to everyone occasionally, but no one wants a reputation for it. One guy maybe 10 years ago not got the nickname "SCOOPER" because he would do so most every game it wasn't going his way.

[DirkGently]

I neither want nor expect anybody's opinion or playstyle to change - but I do hope to help some hardline competitive "play to win" people to, at least, understand those of us on the other side of the fence-turned-chasm that is a part of the casual-competitive debate.

Does that make sense to anybody other than me?

We've established that a person being "competitive" means that they're invested in winning the game. That is not a necessary prerequisite for someone to care about the game maintaining its integrity. I posit that nearly everyone cares about the game maintaining its integrity to some degree, it's just that some people have a greater tolerance for intentional misplays before the game starts to feel unsatisfying. Hence my examples with opponents doing essentially nothing - everyone can probably agree that those sorts of games would be unsatisfying, even if they "did the thing". So we agree that some level of competition is necessary, we're just haggling over how much competition is necessary.

I don't mean literally putting a number on it except as a thought experiment, but do you not have a general vibe for how likely you are to win the game?

Nope. At least not until near the end of the game. Last turn or two - maybe. I just don't think about it - for or against. I think about what threats are showing, what they might indicate, what resources I have available and what my next turn might look like. In some situations, I may consider what I need to draw into or dig for.

I honestly find that very hard to believe. When you've got a massive board advantage, no part of you is thinking "I think I'm likely to win this game"?

I guess it doesn't really matter, I just find it very weird. How do you know who to target if you have no idea who is the biggest threat to win the game?

As for what I meant, I was trying to clarify your earlier discorse because it did sounded like you are re-evaluating the order of player threat/position for most cards and game actions. I was stating that I do not operate that way (except the previously mentioned splash plays/combo warnings).

The original point I was making doesn't really require that you personally are updating your estimation of the chance to win the game - it's only necessary that each player has a % chance to win the game. Of course actually calculating it would be extremely difficult, but we're in hypothetical land so we don't need to worry about the details. It's sufficient to establish that you have a % chance based on playing optimally, and making suboptimal plays lowers that chance.

Based on your knowledge and understanding of the hypothetical game state in which you are playing, you believe that one move gives you the best chance to win the game, and a different moves gives you the best chance to "do the thing". Which move are you picking?

That is far too generic for any reasonable answer. It is situation dependant. I can provide some examples - with the caveat that these examples are, to me, only recognizable in hindsight as to thier effect on the game's final outcome.

SPOILER

Show

Hide

Given this deck:

SPOILER

Show

Hide

U Toothy Snow Illusions_Nexus.jpg

Example 1: WIth Krovikan Mist (3/3), Toothy, Imaginary Friend (5/5) and some other illusion I don't remember, an opponent cast Garruk, Caller of Beasts and +1ed. The most likely optimal play would have been to Phyrexian Splicer flying onto Toothy and kill it dead. I felt it reasonable that preventing the next turn's -3 was sufficient and instead advanced my board state. I sent Krovikan Mist at Garruk, sent Toothy at the creatureless (nominally) weakest player and Moonblade Shinobi'd Toothy for the draw and the illusion token. (The other players also did not finish Garruk off, who went on to "doubling season proliferate" and got 2 or 3 free creatures before Garruk was killed off)
Example 2: I'd cast Spark Double targeting Toothy, Imaginary Friend and planning to Crystal Shard Toothy before my next turn (getting draw and an equal amount of counters on not-Toothy), but an opponent with Avacyn, Angel of Hope overextended (tapped out to counter a different player trying to exile her - IIRC it was a GAAIV deck) and I had the opportunity to shard their Avacyn instead allowing the active player to WoG.

Are those the types of situations you meant?

Not as written, no. In both cases it sounds from your description like you thought you were taking the correct line, and maybe have been wrong (though it's not clear if that's true either?).

If you're making a good-faith effort to make your best move, there's no issue.

A clear example that fits the criteria would be if you have lethal on board, and choose not to take it because you want to win in the way your deck is "supposed" to.

An example that involves the prodigal disenchant would be if a powerful opponent was being held down by a Winter Orb, but the winter orb was also preventing you from "doing the thing" you want your deck to do. You choose to disenchant the winter orb, even though you know it will likely result in the powerful opponent winning (for sake of argument, while the winter orb is up, the game is pretty balanced).

You seem to want me to make your point for you. I'm sorry, but I cannot do that. As mentioned above, I rarely notice if any given decision is this kind of dichotomy. I won't repeat the previous post you quoted - but that is the extent of my most common assessment. I don't go through that process then think "is there a different play that yields a better chance of winning?" because I don';t care about that. Threat, combo, goal. Done. The example above shows that when I am setting up a goal, if a play presents itself I may take it - but I am not actively searching for "the better play." Sorry.

To me that just sounds like you're using an oversimplified heuristic. Not that you're intentionally taking the weaker line.

Someone could literally Lightning Bolt themselves in the face at 2 life, but if all their opponents concede while it's on the stack, then they haven't thrown the game? That seems absurd to me.

Is this another example of hyperbole-for-effect? Because it feels like mocking (though your previous posts indicate you may not have meant it that way). Do you realize these unrealistic scenarios weaken every argument based upon them?

What? I'm not even arguing with you in that paragraph - I'm arguing with the dictionary definition of "throwing the game", which as written would not include absurd cases such as the one I outlined, even though I think most people would agree that bolting yourself for lethal is "throwing the game", even if your opponents concede.

I find it massively vexing that you take these arguments so personally. The argument structure is pretty simple - the dictionary (or you as the case may be) make an assertion - i.e. "throwing the game requires actually losing the game". I test that assertion by examining an extreme example, where it should be more obvious whether the assertion holds or not. If the assertion is true, it should hold true even in the extreme case. If it doesn't, then we can examine why it doesn't hold true in those examples, and potentially revise the assertion.

I.e. you posit "competition is not necessary for me to enjoy a game"
I test the assertion in an extreme example - i.e. "could you enjoy a game with zero competition?"
If you say yes, I could, then congrats, your assertion holds true (though I may find that hard to believe). If you say no, then clearly the assertion is inaccurate in some way, and it should be revised. i.e. "some competition is necessary for me to enjoy a game, but it doesn't need to be particularly stiff competition".

I really don't understand how you could perceive this as "mocking".

This seems like we are closer here at understanding each other's position. I also beleive that throwing a game requires the intention to do so. Though I'm not sure how or why somebody intends to lose. The closest personal example I can think of is active non-concession (briefly, a few games where one player "combos" in a way that will take multiple turns to close out the game. Usually the other players will concede. I will not concede, but I do play as little as possible, as quickly as possible to keep time on my MTGO clock just to watch them struggle with clicking though hundreds of triggers before their time runs out).

To be clear, when you stated your definition for throwing the game, you said:

To me, "throwing a game" is intentionally making plays that either 1) make it so that I cannot win - or - 2) help ensure somebody else is more likely to win.

Which says nothing about an intention to lose.

But I will avoid using the phrase "throwing the game" since I don't think there's much point in arguing about the definition, and use precise language - i.e. intentionally making a less optimal play. That should make it easier to stay on the same wavelength.

But I will point out that "wrong target" might be how you see it, but not how I (and presumably many others) see it. Just because I chose a valid target that might not have been the, subjectively, best target - does not make my choice the wrong target.

There does exist a "correct target", but failing to choose it doesn't mean you intentionally misplayed. From what you've said, it sounds like you're just using a bad heuristic. There's no issue with that - everyone misplays.

I'm guessing you hate gray areas. Why do you assume a deck's goal has to be "unrelated to winning" simply if it is not played in a competitive style.

I don't assume that, I'm just using an example where it happens to be true.

As a reminder, here is what I said (assuming you are referencing the same snippit of conversation):

SPOILER

Show

Hide

However, the difference (to me) is that I am basing my decisions in what helps me "do the thing" and doing the thing may or may not result in me winning. I don't care if I win - I care if I had fun.

Please note I never said the goal (or "thing") was unrelated to winning - only that in playing toward my goal may not result in winning and I don't care if it does or does not.
Take, for example, the previously referenced deck. Most Toothy decks want to "draw tons and Voltron Toothy for a commander damage win" and I thought - "that's lame and overdone - how can I use Toothy differently" and so I conceived Illusion Tribal and focused on bouncing Toothy as my draw engine.
How is that "unrelated to winning?"

I'm only talking about play, not about deck construction. Build those funky brews. FFS, I had a deck that revolved around exploiting Sorrow's Path.

If you're focusing on achieving your deck's goal as a heuristic to win the game, there's no issue there. It's only an issue if you're choosing to focus on the deck's goal instead of winning when you believe they would follow different plays.

I can see why you feel this way - but it is still applying an assumption that is not universally applicable (bolded above). I simply don't evaluate each play on a scale of "chance of victory." It's not in my crosscheck, and it's not how I approach a game.

I think you're getting a little hung up on this idea of calculating your chance to win. I don't literally mean doing that. A perfect player would use that method - take every piece of known information, calculate the chance to win after making whichever plays are available, and following the play that gives the highest chance. But nobody is a perfect player, and that's obviously impractical to do literally, at least the vast majority of the time. In reality we're usually using heuristics and vibes to approximate the optimal plays, which will inevitably result in mistakes. That's not a problem. The only problem is when you're intentionally making mistakes.

I'm not "Making intentionally suboptimal plays" because I am also not trying to identify a theoretical optimal play. I don't expect you to change your drive for finding optimal plays as often as possible, but please don't apply an A/B false dichotomy to a situation that for many players is a an X,Y,Z axis of possiblities.

If you aren't aware of (what you believe to be) a better play, then there's no harm.

Don't get hung up on a literal "optimal play". Nobody is making perfectly optimal plays, not in a format as complex as commander. We're just making better and worse plays.

This feels like a hell of a lot of words being used to arrive at the point of "build casually, play competitively".

I'm only talking about playing, not building. Build however you want.

But yeah, play competitively.

As to the original question posed in the thread, we scoop at sorcery speed. If I ever had to scoop pre combat, I'd allow damage triggers from attacks off my ghost for that turn.

Dragonlover

That wasn't the question though.

Few people I've played with at non-cEDH tables have felt this way. I have often played with people who will tutor for a non-game-winning card when there's the possibility of winning due to it feeling too early in the game for that. I'll note that the idea of just closing the game quickly and moving on to the next with a weaker deck really only applies if you play with a regular group--if you're playing pick-up games at a store or on spelltable, there may not be a next game with those players, and either way that can lead to bad feelings. I can't tell you how many games I've had, from both sides, where someone comboing off or overwhelming the table early has resulted in a lot of salt. Players don't like to feel like they didn't have a chance, so leaving open that chance at times will result in a more enjoyable experience for everyone.

Most times when I play pickup games, the pod stays together for multiple games unless people have to leave. I guess that might vary if it's a structured event of some kind. No idea how spelltable works.

Of course people don't want to get steamrolled, but the solution is to accurately match power levels. Otherwise you're basically racing against their go-karts with your formula 1 car, and pumping the breaks to make them "feel" like they're competing. That's not a satisfying way to race and it's not a satisfying way to play. Instead, talk to your opponents and work it out.

"Just play honestly" in part implies that everyone is playing exclusively to win (and play optimally), yet that isn't the case for a lot of players. Some aren't playing to win at all (and I can't stand playing with them), while others are playing to win, but not trying hard for it, or taking their time to get there.

Everyone's purpose for playing can be whatever they want. I'm only saying people should make what-they-believe are the best moves as a matter of procedure. Intentionally misplaying is dishonest imo.

I'm also not talking about letting them win--I can make suboptimal choices and still win, potentially. It's just leaving the game open for the fight.

It's a matter of degrees. I think most everyone would agree that playing against opponents who are literally making zero effort to win would be unsatisfying. Playing against opponents who are only intentionally misplaying a little bit is only a little bit unsatisfying.

But I do think it's a bit of a pandora's box - once someone's aware that you're intentionally misplaying at all, it's going to taint all their future accomplishments while playing against you.

As for dropping tutors and combos, or playing weaker decks, again, outside of a dedicated group it can be hard to match power levels across multiple games. If I fully tune-down my decks and end up at a table where everyone is playing stronger stuff, then I may not get to enjoy the game. It's easier to have the option, but not use it, than to need it, but not have it. That said, I have taken most tutors out of most of my decks, and have cut most/all combos (and combos can only be comprised of independently synergistic pieces). My Sefris deck, for instance, runs Reveillark, Karmic Guide, Viscera Seer, and Yawgmoth, because all are great in the deck, but it's rare for me to assemble the combo. Part of that is due to having only a couple of tutors in the deck, and often going for something that isn't these, but also because I will hold back on a piece if the table isn't playing for combo wins.

I think the best way to build a deck that has satisfying games across a wide band of power levels is to run a lot of interaction, because interaction is only as good as the things you're stopping with it.

By all means have powerful decks for when your opponents are playing powerful decks. You don't need to cut all the tutors and combos out of every deck. Just don't play the high-powered decks when it's not appropriate.

Perfectly matching power levels is hard, of course, but given the balancing nature of the format I really don't think it's that hard to get "close enough". Maybe someone has an uphill battle and someone else is the clear and present threat - that's okay. Everyone can target the latter to bring them down, and the former gets to feel all-the-more proud if they do manage to win. As long as people are making a good faith effort to find similar power levels I don't think it's too hard. Most of the time you can get a pretty good bead just from looking at the commanders.

I'd say that most people I have played with would feel unsatisfied/salty at a game that ended within the first 4-5 turns, and many would start to check out of a game that goes beyond an hour-and-a-half/two hours. That means having wincons available can be useful for when the game is stretching on too long and needs to end, but deploying them early is going to just lead to salt. I had a game with my Smeagol deck a couple weeks ago with a lot of back and forth, and no clear archenemy, but the store was closing soon, so I when I cast a tutor, I announced that it seemed like it was time to end the game, got a combo piece, and went off. Everyone felt good about it, because it was a game well-fought, not a blowout.

Everyone wants a good, well-fought game. What you're doing, though, is creating a simulacra of one.

I think you've got some of your own hang-ups to work through here. I get it. I feel the same way about my dad sharing "facts" or "info" with me, and that spills over into other interactions (I do really appreciate having the vast stores of all of human knowledge available for reference in an instant).

Nah not really. I'm not even sure my parents did let me win, and if they did it was so long ago I barely remember it. It was more illustrative than literally true.

One thing we did do, my mom would play boggle against me and I'd be considered victorious if I got at least half as many words as she did. I think this works okay. As long as the handicap is established in advance, and then everyone is playing to win within that framework, it's all good.

Maybe I should start a new thread for this, but I'm curios @DirkGently how far does this go? Modern UB mill plays Hedron Crab and Ruin Crab. An inside joke with the deck is to attack with the crabs when you don't think you need them untapped and they won't die in combat. It's hard to call this anything besides an intentionally suboptimal play, but the margin is so small that many people do it anyways because it's fun. Even "spikes" (I agree that the 3 types of players is a load of bologna) will do this. Heck, I've done it with money on the line (not much, but still).

For the record, I'm mostly on your side, I want my opponents to try to win, and if you ever find yourself holding back in a game, then you probably shouldn't have played that deck. However, surely you can see that their is a line here, and different people are going to draw it a different points. You keep using a reductio ad absurdum, but your argument is equally ridiculous if you take it to the other extreme. Would you get mad at me if I swung my Ruin Crab at you on t2 on an open board? It COULD matter, but it probably won't and it's funny imo.

Heck, resigning to a storm player going off is also suboptimal.

Interesting question. I do think it all exists on a continuum, and a very small misplay makes the game very slightly less satisfying. At the sort of level you're talking about, it's probably too small to make much appreciable difference (assuming that the assumption that you won't need it as a blocker is reasonable, idk %$#% about modern). I also think that the blatantness of it works in its favor. When you suspect your opponent has chosen not to tutor a win when they could have, that's going to make you question the legitimacy of all your accomplishments against them. When someone does a silly meme move, I don't think you're going to worry that they might be coddling you. You might be slightly annoyed that they're not taking the game seriously, but I don't think you'd worry about it extending beyond the extremely visible circumstance.

I do also think 1v1, especially in a tournament setting, is a bit of a different beast. Commander is 100% for enjoyment, whereas tournaments there's the element of stakes. If I think my opponent is intentionally misplaying, to a certain extent, I'm thinking "well, the game has become less satisfying, but I do want to win prizes, so..." It's also less of a cultural thing. Hardly anyone is out there entering modern tournaments in order to help their opponents win. In commander, intentionally misplaying is a lot more common.

Personally I will scoop against a storm player in commander, especially if I think they're pubstomping, to intentionally make the game less satisfying for them (so long as I'm reasonably confident that they've won). "Oh, you wanted to play a tiered storm deck against a bunch of jank so you could go off unopposed? Well enjoy doing it to an empty table, jackass."

But if you're talking about modern storm, I assume time is part of the reason to scoop. I've scooped draft games because I'm pretty sure I've lost game 1, and if I want to win the match we need to finish 2 more games. Lose the battle to win the war.

@PrimevalCommander It sounds like your opponents have a high tolerance for intentional misplays. But I think they'd enjoy the game more if, instead of holding yourself back, you cut the things you feel you need to hold back.

It's like the go-karts and the formula car example. Maybe your friends are okay with you slamming the brakes on your formula car whenever you get too far ahead of their go-karts. But I think they'd have more fun if you were also in a go-kart and racing as fast as you could.

But the cards are so impactful to my strategy I couldn't remove them.

I don't get this. It's easy. Just take the cards out of your deck.

Not everyone feels the burning urge to always go for the throat 100% of every matchup.

Sigh...I'll say it again. I'm not talking about being super invested in who wins the game. You can play for whatever reason you want. Playing to win is a matter of procedure, just like following the rules. I don't have a burning desire to follow the rules. I just do it because that's what your supposed to do when you're playing magic.

[Treamayne]

I'm sorry for the delayed response. I had a number of things to do this weekend that kept me away from the computer, However, I also wanted to try thinking of a way to say what I felt needed to be said without giving offense. I feel the best I can do is to provide feedback and hope you will receive it in the intended context - non-accusatory feedback to consider. I'm sorry if I cause offense as well.

I think you are conflating opinion and fact.

I am unsure if this is unintentional or just an effect of your inherent confidence in your beliefs. It is possible that it is a lack of understanding for groups and thought-patterns that are outside of your "normal."

Examples:

SPOILER

Show

Hide

So we agree that some level of competition is necessary,

This is opinion. We've beaten this horse to death, so I won't delve too far down the rabbit hole. Necessary, to me, is the "opinion" word here. I agree that by the terms we defined over the last page of conversation means that competition is inherent to the game (just as dice are "necessary" to play craps - because that is the basic rules of the game structure), however, the implication with the way you use it implies "necessary to the player." If I am wrong in your implication, then I apologize. If that is what you are implying, then just know that this is not a fact - not all players find competition to be a necessary component of games - including MtG.

It's sufficient to establish that you have a % chance based on playing optimally, and making suboptimal plays lowers that chance.

This is also opinion, not fact. Notionally, if destroying X increases a player's chance of winning by 5% and destroying Y increases their chance only 3% - making the second choice has not lowered anything. It may not have been as large an increase as possible, but it also has not "lowered that chance."

once someone's aware that you're intentionally misplaying at all, it's going to taint all their future accomplishments while playing against you.

This is also opinion, or your perception. I doubt most players even notice an intentional misplay. Of those that do, I posit it is a small percentage for whom this "taints" anything. Other posts in this thread indicate the same - and also show some players commiserate with your position and do find that their enjoyment of the game has been lessened through intentionally poor play.

Either way, it's a far cry from a universal effect of the "intentional misplay" cause.

Everyone wants a good, well-fought game.

Another opinion stated as fact.

That is not a necessary prerequisite for someone to care about the game maintaining its integrity. I posit that nearly everyone cares about the game maintaining its integrity to some degree, it's just that some people have a greater tolerance for intentional misplays before the game starts to feel unsatisfying.

I posit that, even if your hypothesis is technically true ("some degree" is essentially impossible to disprove, since a notional 0.1% still technically meets your hypothesis) there is a not-insignificant percentage of players (including me) that never consider game integrity in any situation short of your extreme hypotheticals. Yes, a lightning bolt to yourself at two life would make almost anybody consider that the player was "conceding" without using that phrase. However, if their position were that precarious, I don't know that it could be called throwing a game either.

I honestly find that very hard to believe. When you've got a massive board advantage, no part of you is thinking "I think I'm likely to win this game"?

I'm guessing you typed this part of the reply before reading further (the next paragraph) to the point where I said:

I am not evaluating the game's end state until that end state is on the horizon.

If my board state advantage is that great, then I would posit that the game's end is "on the horizon." But it would be situation dependant. Recent example:

SPOILER

Show

Hide

Playing Garza Zol, Plague Queen's Proliferating Vampires, I realized that I could use my newly drawn Chandra's Ignition to kill all currently fielded flying blockers and give Garza enough counters to one-shot opponents. Barring removal, I could start closing out the game - so this is an example of a point at which I started evalutating if I would win. Up to this point, I was just focusing on maintaingin my baord, identifying threats and getting counters on manasources and vampire to proliferate. All actions the deck is designed to do, actions that lead to both the deck's goals and possibly winning - but I was not actively considering the end of the game.

How do you know who to target if you have no idea who is the biggest threat to win the game?

This is a false dichotomy, implying the only reason to target a player/action is because it is a threat to winning the game.
Asked and answered previously.

Because it feels like mocking (though your previous posts indicate you may not have meant it that way).

I find it massively vexing that you take these arguments so personally.

I'm not taking it personally. I even said so in the section you quoted. I responded to this section only because you previously said:

What is it with this thread? It seems like I can't say anything without someone reading offense into it.

So I was trying to show you where and why you may have been unintentionally offensive. I thought you had meant that you wanted to understand why people react to your comments the way they do. Well, in this case, the way you present the "lightning bolt" scenario implies that you think I am either stupid enough to do such a thing, or stupid enough to beleive that such an action does not indicate a player is throwing a game. Both implications feel like I am being mocked - though I recognized (and mentioned) that I did not think it was your intent to mock.

I'm sorry for trying to help where assistance may not be wanted.

I test the assertion in an extreme example - i.e. "could you enjoy a game with zero competition?"
If you say yes, I could, then congrats, your assertion holds true (though I may find that hard to believe). If you say no, then clearly the assertion is inaccurate in some way, and it should be revised. i.e. "some competition is necessary for me to enjoy a game, but it doesn't need to be particularly stiff competition".

An extreme example that has such a low possibility of actually happeneing isn't a "test" of anything. But if the question is simply "can I enjoy zero competition?" - then yes. As previously mentioned, well over 90% of my games for the last few years have been goldfishing decks on MTGO. No opponents - just playtests. That is usually more enjoyable than most three or four player tables with randoms. *Note: if you include playing Shandalar in the total games in the last few years, those percentages change (assuming you consider the AI of Shandalar to be an "opponent" that provides "competition.") I've played a lot of Shandalar since I discovered some fans had fixed it to work on modern operating systems and updated it with cards through SOI.

I think you're getting a little hung up on this idea of calculating your chance to win.

Me? I only added it to the discussion because you repeatedly mentioned "win%," so I felt it was an important component to you. I was just trting to address your requirements. I'm sorry.

Of course people don't want to get steamrolled, but the solution is to accurately match power levels.

Please tell me if you can find a way to accomplish this in an environment where every game is three random opponents and you can't have a pre-game "rule 0" converation with any of them - beyond asking in the game notes: Casual (or some other more-definitive descriptor(s)).

######

TLDR Recap of this digression so far:
- Competition - the act of two or more decks interacting with each other - is inherent to the game. For some players, the quality of those interaction descisions affects their enjoyment of the game (low threshold for intentional misplays - regardless of motive), for other players, the motive for a game action that can be viewed as a "misplay" is more important (e.g. takeing an action to further a deck's goal is less "offensive" than making a "spite play"). For still other players, the "optimality" of plays isn't even noticed, with the possible exception of the most extreme examples.
- Being "given the victory" through a player intentionally throwing a game is usually considered a bad thing by most (?) players, but (ironically) conceding isn't considered throwing a game (even though it is essentially the same result).
- For some players, playing competitively is as important as the competition inherent in the game itself; for other players "playing competitvely" is considered a detriment to the game when that competitive drive leads one player to pursue their enjoyment at the expense of one or more other players in the game. Most players are likely to be near the middle of this continuum.