Deck Power Level Thread

User avatar
pokken
Posts: 6276
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him

Post by pokken » 1 year ago

One thing I will say about this latest proposal is that a deck with the best possible cards will be better than a worse deck with the best commanders (past a certain point)

Five color cedh with horde of notions will beat try hard tymna decks mostly.

User avatar
BaronCappuccino
Posts: 246
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 1
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Quiet Corner

Post by BaronCappuccino » 1 year ago

The intent of my list wasn't so much to be the solution to the overarching issue of power level discussions, but more to get on a trajectory towards solving the previously mentioned issue of cramming every deck from precon to cEDH in the 5-10 slots, by making a precon 5. I thought that the most common power level ought to be a 5 on a scale of 1-10. My description of 1 was drawn from personal experience. I owned a cafe/gameshop from 2012 to 2017, and there was a very specific sort of commander deck that really ought not register on a scale. I don't know that any power level solution that reinvents the wheel will gain traction, but reforming the definition of the numbers stands a chance. If 5 is the average 75%er, so to speak, 10 is cEDH, and a precon is roughly a 3, it puts the most effort in the most needed areas. I don't think that decks operating worse than precons really need much in terms of powerlevel discussion. At some point, depowering hits a point of diminishing returns, because at some point, winning isn't even the point. I almost made precons 1. People playing Ladies Looking Left aren't too concerned if Dog Tribal wins on turn 18 or 24. They needn't be here. We should devote power level discussions to people trying for power levels.

User avatar
Treamayne
Posts: 591
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Treamayne » 1 year ago

Crazy Monkey wrote:
1 year ago
I remember the discussion last year on scale based on average MV and dollar value. I think this is probably the broadest universal method, but that it both encourages and suffers from power creep when there are impartial thresholds. As power creep raises the ceiling, does that mean that a criteria should update to follow it?
Also consider that budget/dollar value fluctuates with buyouts, speculation, etc. Also, players like me may have no idea what the dollar value of a deck is (not to mention the disparities between paper and digital) especially if the card(s) were acquired so long ago that even if you remember what you paid, it has no bearing on present value.

e.g. My Gaea's Cradle came from a Korean pack while I was stationed at Osan 99-01; I know its a money card now, but I effectively paid $3 and don't know the current value for FBB US Cradle. While that's an obvious money card, I recently learned that Cavern of Souls, a $2 rare when I picked it up as a niche tribal enhancer is now significantly expensive; and uncommons like Expedition Map or Reliquary Tower may be more expensive than I would expect.
BaronCappuccino wrote:
1 year ago
S tier commander
What is "S" tier?
V/R

Treamayne

User avatar
duducrash
Still Learning
Posts: 1198
Joined: 3 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Brazil

Post by duducrash » 1 year ago

BaronCappuccino wrote:
1 year ago
We could probably fill in the gaps on a 1-10:
10 - Best known commanders in the format, flawlessly constructed without any constraints.
9 - Best known commanders, slightly less than flawlessly constructed (financial constraints perhaps)
8 - Eminently playable commander (perhaps a known value engine) constructed without any constraints.
7 - Eminently playable commander, constructed with thematic or minor financial constraints (maybe no ABUR lands)
6 - Commander perhaps more gimmicky than good, but still offers much to build around, No constraints.
5 - Pattern becoming apparent - thematic or financial constraints.
4 - Precons that are generally thought of as good.
3 - Bad precons
2 - Intentionally poor novelty decks built for absurd reasons.
1 - Rubber banded, unsleeved trash from someone with no collection who doesn't know how to play.
This scale is weird to me. I feel it lacks depth. The way is it is put, two of the same commanders, would often be the same (or within 1 grade) of each other, when some builds can be WAY stronger than others

User avatar
Gentle Giant
It's all jank, always has been
Posts: 114
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Gentle Giant » 1 year ago

BaronCappuccino wrote:
1 year ago
The intent of my list wasn't so much to be the solution to the overarching issue of power level discussions, but more to get on a trajectory towards solving the previously mentioned issue of cramming every deck from precon to cEDH in the 5-10 slots, by making a precon 5. I thought that the most common power level ought to be a 5 on a scale of 1-10.
I understand your goal, but I'm denoting issues with the execution. What is the point of making a scale with more range denoted for above precon strength, if those freed up spaces are not helpful in having that discussion? Where on this scale do players, for example, start including infinite/game-ending combos? Again, you implicitly assume that people build towards one archetype for a commander, and that the 99 is implied, but it's not that simple. You mention general community consensus, but aside from pulling a list from either EDHREC or the cEDH database, there is no consensus (and the EDHrec one is also very contentious, whereas only a small segment of the community builds towards cEDH).
BaronCappuccino wrote:
1 year ago
My description of 1 was drawn from personal experience. I owned a cafe/gameshop from 2012 to 2017, and there was a very specific sort of commander deck that really ought not register on a scale. I don't know that any power level solution that reinvents the wheel will gain traction, but reforming the definition of the numbers stands a chance. If 5 is the average 75%er, so to speak, 10 is cEDH, and a precon is roughly a 3, it puts the most effort in the most needed areas. I don't think that decks operating worse than precons really need much in terms of powerlevel discussion. At some point, depowering hits a point of diminishing returns, because at some point, winning isn't even the point. I almost made precons 1. People playing Ladies Looking Left aren't too concerned if Dog Tribal wins on turn 18 or 24. They needn't be here. We should devote power level discussions to people trying for power levels.
If you've seen these kinds of decks, wouldn't you agree that their fun is also better had with decks that don't stomp theirs into the ground? Below precon level isn't immediately all 'ladies looking left' decks, that is an overgeneralization/stereotype. If I'd play my Rograkh & Yoshimaru list, I'd rather play with decks of similar power level. I don't expect to have a 25% chance of winning, but I also don't want it to be zero. (and I would destroy a ladies looking left deck probably). But is that deck at 'bad precon' level? Hard to tell.

So yes, the range needed to describe below precon can perhaps be smaller, but a) you didn't address my point about disrespectful language, an b) even those decks want a fair fight. Saying that 'they don't need to be accounted for' is again disrespectful to that segment of play.

Again, I'm not saying what you're trying to do shouldn't be done, I'm just pointing out issues/unnecessarily negative descriptors.
Remember: not everyone is intent on 'growing as a player', analysing their meta and adapting to it, etc. For some people, Magic is just another board game.

Decklists:
A boy and his dog: an adventure (Rograkh & Yoshimaru) | Storytelling, Jank, Cute
Averna, Roulette Croupier: Cascade Chaos | Cascade, Chaos, Group Choices
The Ur-Dragon Tribal Tribal | Randomized Batches, Diverse, Quirky
Zirda, Patron Goddess of Trash Artisanry | Trash for Treasure, Artifact Aristocrats, low-powered

User avatar
BaronCappuccino
Posts: 246
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 1
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Quiet Corner

Post by BaronCappuccino » 1 year ago

When I'm playing a batch of games, the only thing I care about is that all the decks are winning or effectively winning (IE: stax/control) around the same turn number. That's probably the baseline metric almost everyone cares about, and it's a number everyone can come up with, not off of feelings, but experience (even if that's just goldfishing for a new deck). For pick up groups at game shops, that might be as far as things can get. Using my signature deck for example, I might say, simply, "I assemble the Voltron turn five and start eliminating players". If I were feeling especially Commandery that session, I could add, "But I've no means to clear the whole table simultaneously". Others do likewise. On a certain level, that's what it's all about. How much will the worst deck have done before the best deck wins? That pins a number to each of our decks, which is something the playerbase has demonstrated it wants to do. I understand the flaws in a number system based on feelings. Why not use the only number we derive from facts? "I start killing players on turn 5". "I combo out on turn 4". "I don't win till turn 6, but you won't be doing anything after turn 4". A 5 and two 4s. I don't think people's pet restrictions, IE: no stax, no land destruction, no infinites, need to be accounted for in power level discussions. Like vegans and crossfitters, people with said personal rule 0 additions will absolutely tell everyone.

kirkusjones
Disciple of Dumb
Posts: 736
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by kirkusjones » 1 year ago

BaronCappuccino wrote:
1 year ago
I don't think people's pet restrictions, IE: no stax, no land destruction, no infinites, need to be accounted for in power level discussions. Like vegans and crossfitters, people with said personal rule 0 additions will absolutely tell everyone.
Well done.

User avatar
Gentle Giant
It's all jank, always has been
Posts: 114
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Gentle Giant » 1 year ago

BaronCappuccino wrote:
1 year ago
When I'm playing a batch of games, the only thing I care about is that all the decks are winning or effectively winning (IE: stax/control) around the same turn number. That's probably the baseline metric almost everyone cares about, and it's a number everyone can come up with, not off of feelings, but experience (even if that's just goldfishing for a new deck). For pick up groups at game shops, that might be as far as things can get. Using my signature deck for example, I might say, simply, "I assemble the Voltron turn five and start eliminating players". If I were feeling especially Commandery that session, I could add, "But I've no means to clear the whole table simultaneously". Others do likewise. On a certain level, that's what it's all about. How much will the worst deck have done before the best deck wins? That pins a number to each of our decks, which is something the playerbase has demonstrated it wants to do. I understand the flaws in a number system based on feelings. Why not use the only number we derive from facts? "I start killing players on turn 5". "I combo out on turn 4". "I don't win till turn 6, but you won't be doing anything after turn 4". A 5 and two 4s. I don't think people's pet restrictions, IE: no stax, no land destruction, no infinites, need to be accounted for in power level discussions. Like vegans and crossfitters, people with said personal rule 0 additions will absolutely tell everyone.
I do think a reverse scale like turn-to-effectively-win-in-a-vacuum is better than a fixed scale. There's less information, sure, but it's likelier that what's shared is not subject to bias. Consistency then becomes an important marker though, with cEDH representing high consistency & low turn-count. After all, if the average is turn 5, but the standard deviation is something like 2 turns, then the average doesn't say a whole lot.

Separating play preferences from deck strength is definitely true. That's why I like the two axes scale I posted and the stuff @Treamayne came up with from the other thread: for rule 0, the conversation is broader than deck strength alone. I mentioned infinites as they're a common way to take out an entire table at once, instead of something like your Voltron deck example.
Remember: not everyone is intent on 'growing as a player', analysing their meta and adapting to it, etc. For some people, Magic is just another board game.

Decklists:
A boy and his dog: an adventure (Rograkh & Yoshimaru) | Storytelling, Jank, Cute
Averna, Roulette Croupier: Cascade Chaos | Cascade, Chaos, Group Choices
The Ur-Dragon Tribal Tribal | Randomized Batches, Diverse, Quirky
Zirda, Patron Goddess of Trash Artisanry | Trash for Treasure, Artifact Aristocrats, low-powered

User avatar
BaronCappuccino
Posts: 246
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 1
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Quiet Corner

Post by BaronCappuccino » 1 year ago

Gentle Giant wrote:
1 year ago
I do think a reverse scale like turn-to-effectively-win-in-a-vacuum is better than a fixed scale. There's less information, sure, but it's likelier that what's shared is not subject to bias. Consistency then becomes an important marker though, with cEDH representing high consistency & low turn-count. After all, if the average is turn 5, but the standard deviation is something like 2 turns, then the average doesn't say a whole lot.

Separating play preferences from deck strength is definitely true. That's why I like the two axes scale I posted and the stuff @Treamayne came up with from the other thread: for rule 0, the conversation is broader than deck strength alone. I mentioned infinites as they're a common way to take out an entire table at once, instead of something like your Voltron deck example.
"No impact, high power casual -- it's a Voltron deck that starts trying to kill players on turn five" is probably about as explicit as things can get, and is a hybrid of the two ideas. Any confusion due to the lack of a shared EDH vocabulary due to not everyone being familiar with the chart is clarified with specifics. That said, I think things could work just fine if we only used the blocked out deck genres: cEDH, High Power Casual, Tolerant Casual, and Casual. "I'm high power casual", once a shared understanding becomes the norm, should suffice for all intents and purposes.

User avatar
Treamayne
Posts: 591
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Treamayne » 1 year ago

BaronCappuccino wrote:
1 year ago

"No impact, high power casual -- it's a Voltron deck that starts trying to kill players on turn five" is probably about as explicit as things can get, and is a hybrid of the two ideas. Any confusion due to the lack of a shared EDH vocabulary due to not everyone being familiar with the chart is clarified with specifics. That said, I think things could work just fine if we only used the blocked out deck genres: cEDH, High Power Casual, Tolerant Casual, and Casual. "I'm high power casual", once a shared understanding becomes the norm, should suffice for all intents and purposes.
I think the "two word summary" could have merit if it catches on, but I don't understand your use of "casual" in your examples. Logic says casual is a playing style, but context makes it sound like you are using it as a deck archetype.

Maybe if is worked like Fieldmist Borderpost and friends - something like:

DeckstylePlaystyle
OptimizedUnfettered
TunedCompetitive
Mid-RangeSkilled
BalancedExperienced
On HandSocial


So, for example, somebody might have "Tuned Feather for a Skilled game."

Of course some level of common definition would have to become commonly understood for whatever "categories" are used.

Example:
Unfettered - Anything goes in all respects
Tuned - Improved manabase, streamlined curve, uses goodstuff and tutors
Experienced - Play to win, but social group enjoyment is more important than individual achievement. Avoid lines of play that can be considered anti-social such as Durdle Turns, Stax, MLD, Inf Combos, etc.
V/R

Treamayne

User avatar
BaronCappuccino
Posts: 246
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 1
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Quiet Corner

Post by BaronCappuccino » 1 year ago

I was going off the large embedded EDH chart on page one.

User avatar
pokken
Posts: 6276
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him

Post by pokken » 1 year ago

I had a small brainchild on this topic I thought I'd share. It connects with the critical turn concept.

So the two types of decks I am typically concerned with are what I call tryhard decks and cedh decks. I'll digress a moment to say that I get that tryhard is a bit pejorative -- it's on purpose and you'll note most of my decks fall in this category.

Tryhard decks go hard but are typically trying to synergize with their commander and usually have a later critical turn than cedh because they usually have fewer tutors and less of the best ramp to make room for synergy. The reason I'm a little negative about this category of deck is that it's where most of the power level misunderstandings happen - people like me enjoy tuning their decks and revving their engines and we almost always end up playing a little better cards than your average player.

This is the mythical "7-8" deck that usually has a tuned curve and powerful win conditions but loses some games to worse decks because of the social aspect of commander. Then because they lose some games these players feel justified in punching down a little.

I can empathize with this a bit because even when I play weaker decks I play pretty tight and people know it. So if I want to win in a playgroup over time once people get to know me I usually need to be going just a little harder.

Anyway, that said, the epiphany I had was that another way to look at the cedh vs tryhard decks is to compare decks across formats. Legacy, vintage, modern, standard all have different critical turns and average curves because of the card pool. And fundamentally that is what is happening in casual vs tryhard vs cedh. The card pool is different for a variety of reasons (budget, feelbads, trends, etc.).

I think that an understanding of the implied card pool of your community can be used to understand a lot about the critical turn of that community and what decks should be played for maximum fun.

Your additions to the card pool shape your meta too over time. If you start running a ton of graveyard shenanigans because they're a soft spot in your community card pool then expect people to start running more grave hate over time. And of course this idea extends to other concepts.

When someone speeds up the game by busting out the Chrome Mox it pushes things in a direction. This goes to the next point is that because there are so many cards in commander you can use shortcuts to think about the meta -- the presence of bellweather cards like Craterhoof Behemoth, Force of Will and Chrome Mox can tell you a lot really fast about a meta

If Thassa's Oracle or Underworld Breach combos start showing up in a tryhard meta it's time to look out.

User avatar
PrimevalCommander
Posts: 872
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by PrimevalCommander » 1 year ago

What do you call a deck that is casual-tier, but jams several 2-card infinite combos as their only way to win? Or an all-in voltron deck with nothing but ramp and pump for an obviously dangerous commander (Atarka, World Render / Ulamog, the Ceaseless Hunger)?

These are some of the decks I play against. Pretty easy for a tuned list with interaction to roll right over them, but drop to casual and slack of on your removal package and start losing to cheese combos out of nowhere in do-nothing decks or one-shot commander damage from glass cannon Voltron. Just an odd place to be when well built decks played correctly have a large power discrepancy, but my key turn is still between 8 and 10 since I limit my combos and tutors. My opponents are playing casual decks with a key turn around 12-14 unless they tutor/draw into the combo and I lose on turn 6-7. Wild variance, but keep a Beast Within on tap for their combo piece and coast to victory largely unscathed.

More rhetorical than anything, because I have already made my choice. I'm playing my tuned lists in an effort to manipulate my opponents into building more resilient and consistent decks. Not catching on yet, but time will tell. I did try taking it easy early when I started playing with these guys, and that's when I started losing to casual decks sporting Mycosynth Lattice combos, Dramatic Reversal combos, Scepter of Dominance + Basalt Monolith infinite mana, and others.

To the post above, I have the deepest collection of anyone around me. So I can field the most tuned lists. The issue lies in my opponents (one player in particular) who values Forsaken Monument as another way to go infinite with Basalt Monolith MORE than something like Fact or Fiction to keep their hand full, has never considered Return of the Wildspeaker in his Ghalta, Primal Hunger deck and generally ignores card draw all together. It's painful to watch half the table go to top-deck mode while I've got a full grip and just running the table because they don't have good deck building practices. I mention the word "Draw" about 5-10 times every time we play hoping one day it will catch on :)

User avatar
pokken
Posts: 6276
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him

Post by pokken » 1 year ago

PrimevalCommander wrote:
1 year ago
What do you call a deck that is casual-tier, but jams several 2-card infinite combos as their only way to win? Or an all-in voltron deck with nothing but ramp and pump for an obviously dangerous commander (Atarka, World Render / Ulamog, the Ceaseless Hunger)?
A hunting license ;)

more seriously, untuned combo decks that just play powerful wincons are, in my mind, not that different from tryhard decks. They're basically the natural predators of casual metas -- people presuming on the casual ethos and playing above the power level win conditions they know people won't interact with.

If everyone is playing those, it's a different and confusing story. In my experience it's usually a couple meta busters doing that kinda thing. Bringing a Craterhoof Behemoth to a Glorious Anthem party is similar conceptually to bringing a Chrome Mox -- you're saying I want to play faster than you by playing better cards that are not in the implied card pool (but also maybe "I would like us all to play a little faster"). But if everyone is doing it and the meta is stalled out there playing roulette, that's ducking weird.

In a meta of all roulette decks, I think bringing a removal heavy tuned deck is an interesting scenario. I think it can be being a poopy pants but it can also be a calculated attempt to influence a meta by adding cards to the card pool.

I think like everything it depends on the situation and whether people are having a good time. :)

User avatar
PrimevalCommander
Posts: 872
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by PrimevalCommander » 1 year ago

pokken wrote:
1 year ago
more seriously, untuned combo decks that just play powerful wincons are, in my mind, not that different from tryhard decks. They're basically the natural predators of casual metas -- people presuming on the casual ethos and playing above the power level win conditions they know people won't interact with.

If everyone is playing those, it's a different and confusing story. In my experience it's usually a couple meta busters doing that kinda thing. Bringing a Craterhoof Behemoth to a Glorious Anthem party is similar conceptually to bringing a Chrome Mox -- you're saying I want to play faster than you by playing better cards that are not in the implied card pool (but also maybe "I would like us all to play a little faster"). But if everyone is doing it and the meta is stalled out there playing roulette, that's ducking weird.

In a meta of all roulette decks, I think bringing a removal heavy tuned deck is an interesting scenario. I think it can be being a poopy pants but it can also be a calculated attempt to influence a meta by adding cards to the card pool.
It is definitely an odd meta. Ran into these guys early 2021 and there seems to be a short list of players that kind of cycle in and out of the meta. It is a weird situation, and "roulette" decks are common, but not exclusive. There are other deck types, but there is an obvious trend to combo-finish.

I think we are viewing this situation similarly, where facing fast-combo, even in slow decks, requires a somewhat higher power deck to answer. That is where I have fallen. I build my decks to perform well against pretty much any non-cedh opponent I face, and my decks are doing just that. Well maybe not against stax and MLD :smirk:. It is nice to see my decks meta-jump like this and still do well, but the feast/famine for my opponents can be painful to watch.

Learning the meta now, I can play some more casual decks in certain pods. I'm hoping to at least get the couple regular guys thinking further than ramp and win-cons and into draw and synergy. I probably have to build a bit more relationship before they let me give them targeted advice on their decks. Deckbuilding is a very personal thing, and even my best friend recommends a card, I only consider it if it meets my idea for the deck.

User avatar
BaronCappuccino
Posts: 246
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 1
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Quiet Corner

Post by BaronCappuccino » 1 year ago

PrimevalCommander wrote:
1 year ago
Or an all-in voltron deck with nothing but ramp and pump for an obviously dangerous commander (Atarka, World Render / Ulamog, the Ceaseless Hunger)?
I categorise said decks under the same tier as Kaalia of the Vast. They're gatekeeping newb-killers. They're not hard to beat, but doing so requires a different mindset than most Commander players start with. Decks like Kaalia and Jhoira 1.0 were the first decks I encountered that were built top down with a gameplan, and an inevitability that you weren't going to overcome just having fun. It was a Jhoira deck that knocked me to my senses not long after getting started, and disavowed me of the notion that you can play anything you want in Commander. At the time, I thought Kaalia and Jhoira were 10s (or would have if I used numbers then). Now my playgroup is nothing but real 7s and 8s, and I'm still stuck in a mindset of one dimensional scrub-killers. One day.

User avatar
Rumpy5897
Tuner of Jank
Posts: 1854
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Rumpy5897 » 1 year ago

The discussion continues highlighting that leaving anything to subjective interpretation in power level talk makes it useless. May I remind you that some Discord dweller thought his turn three Feather was a seven as well.

I'm still of the opinion that the only way forward is to find easy objective measures that capture deck performance. The one we have for now is the critical turn, as brought up earlier. If one would want to introduce a second axis, counting interaction density in the deck seems like the way to go. This is not quite as straightforward to define, as there's some fuzziness as to what exactly counts as interaction. Do protection spells count? How do we correct for repeated removal out of the command zone? Still, that's about as close as we could get to adding a second dimension to the one empirical measure that works, crudely mirroring that subjective 2D chart from earlier.

One could argue that anything with a meaningful amount of dependence on its commander is a glass cannon. After all, that's an easily exposed piece of soft underbelly that can be attacked and the deck's performance wildly impeded. That said, I can understand how going for a glass cannon in the conventional sense of the word where all of the deck's eggs are in one clearly unprotected Beast Withinable basket is a bit of a feel-bad/predatory move. My go-to example for that sort of thing is Defense of the Heart. If I got to rip it, it was not through my masterful play, but rather because the opposition had a board yet nobody coughed up a Disenchant. That said, if the group actually adds a bit of interaction, the glass cannon can hopefully adapt as well and more interesting games can be had.
 
EDH Primers (click me!)
Deck is Kill Club
Show
Hide

User avatar
Gentle Giant
It's all jank, always has been
Posts: 114
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Gentle Giant » 1 year ago

pokken wrote:
1 year ago
Anyway, that said, the epiphany I had was that another way to look at the cedh vs tryhard decks is to compare decks across formats. Legacy, vintage, modern, standard all have different critical turns and average curves because of the card pool. And fundamentally that is what is happening in casual vs tryhard vs cedh. The card pool is different for a variety of reasons (budget, feelbads, trends, etc.).

I think that an understanding of the implied card pool of your community can be used to understand a lot about the critical turn of that community and what decks should be played for maximum fun.

Your additions to the card pool shape your meta too over time. If you start running a ton of graveyard shenanigans because they're a soft spot in your community card pool then expect people to start running more grave hate over time. And of course this idea extends to other concepts.

When someone speeds up the game by busting out the Chrome Mox it pushes things in a direction. This goes to the next point is that because there are so many cards in commander you can use shortcuts to think about the meta -- the presence of bellweather cards like Craterhoof Behemoth, Force of Will and Chrome Mox can tell you a lot really fast about a meta

If Thassa's Oracle or Underworld Breach combos start showing up in a tryhard meta it's time to look out.
This puts into words quite nicely the reason I'm less interested in higher powered play: lack of deckbuilding freedom, or at least the matter of viable freedom within the context of one's playgroup. I'll add some of my own brainchildren of the last couple of months (still aiming to make a write-up for it!)

The way I see how we play this game is at two stages, deckbuilding and actual play. All players have different preferences during both these stages: I like the insane freedom I have in building whatever I can think of, no matter how crazy, due to my playgroups building at a sub/average precon level. However, I'm not 100% free: building strong decks with strong cards is not an option (or at least, I'll hardly be able to play it). I have no issues with that, as my fun in deckbuilding comes from using the large catalogue of existing cards: my usable card pool is larger than a high powered player.
A higher powered player might have different feelings during the deckbuilding stage: they might love the fact that the viable cardpool is smaller, because making the right cuts and building the right lines of play into the deck is more interesting to them. Using a card they've never used before or in new ways is not the goal: making a deck with strong lines of play is. The reverse could also be true, that a player's deckbuilding fun and playing fun are at odds: they want to be able to use wacky low-powered cards, but can't due to their gameplay fun being impinged on due to the playgroup context requiring more impactful cards.

During actual play, both I and the higher powered player could still derive satisfaction from the same things, e.g. participating in the game, having impact, etc. But we come from different angles. The both of us have engineered our decks in such a way to achieve the in-game fun, but the context that our decks play in (i.e. the playgroup) and our own deckbuilding intentions determined our viable cardpool.

To tie this to the topic just a bit more: although the idea of the kind of card pool that's viable for your playgroup isn't a good clean way of identifying deck strength before a game, it is useful during the first stage of gameplay, namely deckbuilding. And it can be a place where tensions between players already come into play (as perceived card pool viability differs).

P.S. I find it interesting that a small card pool is often automatically weaker in competitive play (i.e. vintage is the strongest due to card pool size), whereas if we look at EDH, the small pool of truly viable cards is rather slim. I guess it mostly comes down not to quantity, bit just the tally of how many broken cards are in said pool :P
Remember: not everyone is intent on 'growing as a player', analysing their meta and adapting to it, etc. For some people, Magic is just another board game.

Decklists:
A boy and his dog: an adventure (Rograkh & Yoshimaru) | Storytelling, Jank, Cute
Averna, Roulette Croupier: Cascade Chaos | Cascade, Chaos, Group Choices
The Ur-Dragon Tribal Tribal | Randomized Batches, Diverse, Quirky
Zirda, Patron Goddess of Trash Artisanry | Trash for Treasure, Artifact Aristocrats, low-powered

User avatar
BaronCappuccino
Posts: 246
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 1
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Quiet Corner

Post by BaronCappuccino » 1 year ago

I think it's Canadian Highlander that assigns a point value to cards worth assigning point values to. While it's not guaranteed that a deck running the most efficient tutors, ramp, draw and removal (probably the four categories we could assign points to) is a better deck than one that isn't (I had a very expensive but very bad black deck that ran all the notorious staxy cards from ages past that could never seal a win with them), it's a metric we could quantify. We'd only need assign values to staples and so called auto includes - the sort of cards that only the spirit of commander and a sense of theme might preclude the inclusion of. When the list is compiled, you'd just tally your inclusion score and get a value.

User avatar
pokken
Posts: 6276
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him

Post by pokken » 1 year ago

Gentle Giant wrote:
1 year ago

P.S. I find it interesting that a small card pool is often automatically weaker in competitive play (i.e. vintage is the strongest due to card pool size), whereas if we look at EDH, the small pool of truly viable cards is rather slim. I guess it mostly comes down not to quantity, bit just the tally of how many broken cards are in said pool :P
The interesting bit here is that much like edh, every format has a card pool and a playable card pool.

In a super casual group the card pool is gigantic but doesn't include Craterhoof Behemoth. Cards are removed from the card pool by being too good instead of not good enough.

In formats like vintage, cedh, modern and standard the playable card cool percentage is inverse to the size of the format; the bigger the card pool the more egregious the power disparity between the best and worst cards, so a smaller percentage of the pool sees play.

In casual play at lower power levels the gating criteria for "playable" card pool is being interesting and not too strong as opposed to being strong enough to compete.

Interesting stuff :)

User avatar
OneOfThoseBeebles
Posts: 7
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Contact:

Post by OneOfThoseBeebles » 1 year ago

Hey there. I'm the guy who made that subjective chart on page 1. I'd like to add to this conversation if you don't mind ;).
The discussion continues highlighting that leaving anything to subjective interpretation in power level talk makes it useless.
This greatly depends on your views on what a power level tool is and what it should do. If your presumption is that a power level tool should allow the user to assign some objective truth about the power of their deck through a number, then yes. I personally think this is not feasible for our context. In my view, being able to assign a power level number to your deck and have it be understood everywhere you go without further explanation is an unrealistic dream scenario. Be prepared to create a test that approaches IQ-test levels of complexity to get that kind of result, measuring a multitude of expressions of power combined into one coefficient. Ain't nobody got time for that. The person who's come closest to that that I'm aware of is disciple of the vault. I believe their formula also has a calculator now somewhere.

On the other end, If you assume that a power level tool merely exist to help people align on their (subjective) expectations about a game so that it can increase their odds of having a good time, then facilitating subjective assessment becomes its main purpose. Then the subjective expectations are the primary facts that the tool should help expose. And the power level tool becomes a means to make it easier for the group to share and align on their subjective expectations of the game. At least enough for them to commit to that game experience upfront. In that use case it's also very valuable that the metrics used are unambiguous, and you still also need to assess your decks to a degree, but it doesn't have to be free of subjective interpretation in my experience. It just has to be clear enough for people to be able to, within a limited amount of time, get in the same ballpark.

Given the tools we have, I personally do not believe it is useful to share or ask for a power level number in a pre-game talk unless everyone knows and uses the same system. I think you're much better off asking and sharing information that tells you how a deck will impact gameplay and what the players' drivers are for playing EDH. My model that was shared on page 1 wasn't made to facilitate this type alignment (It's too complicated for that. Check its goals in the linked primer) but my latest effort is. It removes a lot of complexity from the model. You can find that version in this reddit post.
Last edited by OneOfThoseBeebles 1 year ago, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
pokken
Posts: 6276
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him

Post by pokken » 1 year ago

Rumpy5897 wrote:
1 year ago
The discussion continues highlighting that leaving anything to subjective interpretation in power level talk makes it useless.

I'm still of the opinion that the only way forward is to find easy objective measures that capture deck performance. The one we have for now is the critical turn, as brought up earlier. If one would want to introduce a second axis, counting interaction density in the deck seems like the way to go. interesting games can be had.
I don't like interaction quotient because it's difficult to define. And it gives one dimensional combo decks an "advantage" to game the system. Playing a hexproof commander for example is not interaction but it acts like it. Too many angles.

If people can be honest about their critical turn that's good enough for me. I wish we had a simulator that could play games against non interacting opponents and see how fast it wins but figuring out how to play combos makes it prohibitive (and brings you back to the problem you and I had of identifying all the interactions in the original power level estimator).

Even critical turn can game the system when a deck depends on theft to win. For example a deck with only clones and theft has no critical turn really independent of a meta, but is also often dominant because taking away resources while getting them is very powerful. But I think that's kind of a rule proving exception tbh. There aren't that many ways to game critical turn.

The problem is getting the idea of critical turn socialized.

Interesting critical turn is one of the defining features of other formats. If you've ever read Patrick Chapin he talks about it a lot.

User avatar
Gentle Giant
It's all jank, always has been
Posts: 114
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Gentle Giant » 1 year ago

Hey @OneOfThoseBeebles, nice of you to pop in!

I hope I didn't give the idea that I shared your initial graph as a pregame conversation tool (I've read your stuff and shared it knowing that). This topic started out as describing one's power level, something which quickly became clear isn't so easy :P but I your chart seemed like a goodk discussion piece for it.

I like your chart as a way to subjectively try to describe the game dynamic you're aiming to go for. It stimulates reflection on a couple of angles that impact how a play experience comes about and what one's part within it is.

What I would like to add to it is not just a deck descriptor, but a player descriptor too. In line with what I wrote earlier, I think we tend to forget to see both sides of the coin. We focus on what we build, but forget that we're also playing the damn thing: how we approach a game as a player (i.e. what do I find fun about playing) impacts the game, and thus it's gameplay, quite a lot too. If you've got some time, perhaps check out the case study that is @DirkGently's playgroup and his struggles there (in the off-topic chat topic here I'm the commander sub-forum).
Remember: not everyone is intent on 'growing as a player', analysing their meta and adapting to it, etc. For some people, Magic is just another board game.

Decklists:
A boy and his dog: an adventure (Rograkh & Yoshimaru) | Storytelling, Jank, Cute
Averna, Roulette Croupier: Cascade Chaos | Cascade, Chaos, Group Choices
The Ur-Dragon Tribal Tribal | Randomized Batches, Diverse, Quirky
Zirda, Patron Goddess of Trash Artisanry | Trash for Treasure, Artifact Aristocrats, low-powered

User avatar
Rumpy5897
Tuner of Jank
Posts: 1854
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Rumpy5897 » 1 year ago

OneOfThoseBeebles wrote:
1 year ago
Hey there. I'm the guy who made that subjective chart on page 1. I'd like to add to this conversation if you don't mind ;).
The discussion continues highlighting that leaving anything to subjective interpretation in power level talk makes it useless.
This greatly depends on your views on what a power level tool is and what it should do. If your presumption is that a power level tool should allow the user to assign some objective truth about the power of their deck through a number, then yes. I personally think this is not feasible for our context. In my view, being able to assign a power level number to your deck and have it be understood everywhere you go without further explanation is an unrealistic dream scenario. Be prepared to create a test that approaches IQ-test levels of complexity to get that kind of result, measuring a multitude of expressions of power combined into one coefficient. Ain't nobody got time for that. The person who's come closest to that that I'm aware of is disciple of the vault. I believe their formula also as a calculator now somewhere.

On the other end, If you assume that a power level tool merely exist to help people align on their (subjective) expectations about a game so that it can increase their odds of having a good time, then facilitating subjective assessment is not just unwanted, it becomes its main purpose. Then the subjective expectations are the primary facts that the tool should help expose. And the power level tool becomes a means to make it easier for the group to share and align on their subjective expectations of the game. At least enough for them to commit to that game experience upfront. In that use case it's also very valuable that the metrics used are unambiguous, and you still also need to assess your decks to a degree, but it doesn't have to be free of subjective interpretation in my experience. It just has to be clear enough for people to be able to, within a limited amount of time, get in the same ballpark.

Given the tools we have, I personally do not believe it is useful to share or ask for a power level number in a pre-game talk unless everyone knows and uses the same system. I think you're much better off asking and sharing information that tells you how a deck will impact gameplay and what the players' drivers are for playing EDH. My model that was shared on page 1 wasn't made to facilitate this type alignment (It's too complicated for that. Check its goals in the linked primer) but my latest effort is. It removes a lot of complexity from the main model. You can find that version in this reddit post.
Welcome to the forums. As you hopefully saw from my post, I generally agree with your axes, but I think they need to be addressed clearer in a pragmatic real-world setting, particularly the one we know works. Your chart has stars out of five, which is the same exact mental pitfall as the sevens. Your power axis uses a very similar binning to popular and useless "out of ten" models proposed by known content creators. For version three, consider just deferring to critical turn with even less faff? The interaction axis remains rather nebulous, as already admitted and subsequently further backed up, so that's gonna be harder to deal with.

The formula you linked seems interesting, and corrects for a number of things that have been brought up when trying to quantify a deck's power. I ran my sig link decks through it and more less agree with the order, there are two decks I'd switch around but it didn't get them that wrong. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, I might actually link this from my various write-ups
 
EDH Primers (click me!)
Deck is Kill Club
Show
Hide

User avatar
OneOfThoseBeebles
Posts: 7
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Contact:

Post by OneOfThoseBeebles » 1 year ago

Thanks @Gentle Giant. No your intentions were clear :). Don't worry about it. I just liked the thread and wanted to say something. Thanks also for seeing value in my efforts and using it as a conversation piece. I appreciate that!

Incorporating the player variable hasn't been a thing I personally have considered, but of course it has a big impact on the experience. Only my "main driver" gauges touch on that a little bit, but I can image what you are thinking of...

I'll try to find that case study. Sounds interesting!

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Commander”