|
5 months ago ::
Jan 04, 2013 - 1:01PM
#41
|
Date Joined:
Dec 10, 2006
|
Meh, personally, as was with the thread I created a while ago, I like competitive EDH. Sadly, and I openly admit this, comp EDH is a pay to win for cards.
That said, there should be a best of forum for decks, as in decks-to-beat.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 05, 2013 - 1:00PM
#42
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2006
|
It's time to give it up. Saying EDH is created as a casual format is the silliest thing I've ever heard. I'd be willing to bet every aspect of magic/format was created as a casual format. I think what you mean to say is that EDH was created as a social format. So then what defines social? Sharing a game with another(others)? So if there's any bar that we hold EDH/Commander to it should be that of social interaction. Most games by their nature are based on social interaction. Try and think of one board game that isn't. There is alot of "creativity" in a Rafiq deck. The strategies may all be similar, but how you get there can be very different. You've listed that there's all these Rafiq decks that make use of the Exalted guys. Yea, I've seen that one. Heck...I've built that one. What's funny is I wouldn't even consider it the most successful Rafiq deck I've put together. I've seen a Rafiq deck that worked almost entirely out of Voltron. I've seen a Rafiq deck that worked entirely on controlling the game for 3 or 4 turns with inevitability rather than one big Voltron move. I've seen several variations of Rafiq Infect decks. That's just 3. Do they have alot of the same cards? Sure! But only so much in that nearly every green deck plays Eternal Witness  . There is still freedom do whatever you want with your decklist and how you play. Maybe Rafiq is your general because you like playing Bant. Rafiq gives you a strong general for that because when the time is right Rafiq can get you that extra mile without necessarily being a build around general. Does that mean people won't build around him? Surely not, have you seen this guy...he's ridiculous. One of the best build around generals available. Especially in Bant! Bottom line is we're at a very confusing time for this format. With wizards "pushing" it, there's alot more visibility of the format. With visibility comes more players. With more players comes more growth. Growth is usually a good thing, but we must also take into account the growing pains. Just because EDH is played at a level that isn't just kitchen tables anymore doesn't mean that you can't still enjoy it that way. But it also means that you shouldn't rag on someone just because they don't play the same way as you. If we really want this to succeed on a social level without being selfish, we must allow the format to breathe and to grow. We can all follow it or we can drop off whenever we feel the need. Come back anytime. Or make the next great kitchen table format. But I know this, I can play Standard magic at a game shop just as much as I can play Standard magic at my kitchen table. Rules enforcement/prize support will vary of course but it doesn't mean I enjoy playing standard any less at either of those places. Furthermore I'm a Spike. I will always be a Spike. It's silly for me to hate any other player types. It's silly for you to hate me because of my player type. We all came to this game for different reasons. My favorite format has been EDH since I started playing it back in 2007. I took a break from playing competitive level magic from 2005-2011. But that doesn't mean that I didn't take all my skills as a deck builder and a player with me when I played EDH casually. I've had some very unfun decks to play against in Braids, Cabal Minion  and Edric, Spymaster of Trest  . But I've also made some very fun decks in Kresh the Bloodbraided  and Trostani, Selesnya's Voice  . I love this format because even for me, it can be anything at anytime I need it. Maybe it's that I'm getting older and mellowing out a bit but I think as folks grow they'll learn that there's more to being a Spike than just winning. There's more to Timmy than just big plays. There's more to Johnny than just showing his Creativity. Or maybe as you get older you take on more of each of the other psychographics, I don't know. I just don't believe that you can't have fun just because someone is competitive.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 05, 2013 - 2:28PM
#43
|
Date Joined:
Aug 18, 2007
|
I think what you mean to say is that EDH was created as a social format. So then what defines social? Sharing a game with another(others)?
This is a good difference to me from just saying it is "casual." Casual means there aren't prizes and a hard rules enforcement. Saying it is "social" gives it the added aspect of caring what the other players think. I can play casual with strangers where we miss triggers and either go back and correct the effect or just remake a decision. That's fine. Social games though involve playing with the opponents to the enjoyment of all playing. If it is understood that the players want a slower game with bigger plays and effects, then it will be so. That is when the single combo deck that wins in 3-4 turns seems out of place and brings negativity to that game or gaming group. It isn't that player's fault entirely, so much as the group as a whole not abiding by the agreement, spoken or not, to play slower decks. Then again, the social group might say "come one, come all, bring what you have and prepare for the worst!" and there will be hard-lock control decks, instant win combo decks, and durdling development decks that don't do much for the first dozen turns and then become monsters.
Saying the format is "casual" and expecting that to mean the same thing to everyone is not fair. Saying it is "social" implies that the people matter, and it breaks down when the people are not communicative of what they want for a fun game. The people play, and if they cannot play nicely and play together, they end up not playing, which ruins the format. Casual is relaxed rules and interraction that has nothing to do with the power-level of the deck, and social is that the people playing communicate and play as a group.
Not to say that a large meta won't have some social breakdowns; my group has players I don't like playing with, and I'm sure there are those that don't like my habit of ruining a single person's win condition to keep the game going. In the end though, we all get along, play different decks to even it out, and almost always have fun. When we don't, the guy that broke the game's fun factor recognizes it and changes decks or whatever, or we all agree that that player cannot be allowed to get away with it again.
And, being a longtime fan of anti-instant-win combos and other annoying decks, I made a New Year's resolution to play infinite comboes and voltron decks and do all the stuff I dislike just to do something different. It has already helped me to appreciate how others play and to lighten my negative feelings on the matter, and I think that is a good development in a social format.
My latest deck: a Rafiq  variation, with maybe 25-30 cards or so that are in all Rafiq decks, I'm sure, but with other stuff that I have yet to see used. So there you go: high power, but not cookie-cutter. My next build: Scion of the ur-Dragon  , with comboes and voltron potential for a high-strength multiplayer deck.
Its a different feeling to utilize the power and cheesiness I usually disdain, but then again, I'm finding that there is skill needed to build a deck right, and then play it correctly, to accomplish what so many opponents learn to fear. It gives me more respect for players I always thought were just too lazy to make a "fun" deck and so made a mindless winner. It isn't just that easy, at least not to do so with originality.
If I'm right, I'm right. If I'm wrong, I still believe I'm right. Think of it as religion. dubito ergo sum.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 05, 2013 - 2:43PM
#44
|
|
|
Here's a good example of what social means. We had a three man game the other day... all RUG decks. It was my animar and riku decks and a third guys maelstrom wanderer.
I played animar got a good draw and could have wiped out the riku player (the only threat to me) but instead made my play with overwhelming stampede and split the damage up to give the other guys a chance to do something cool, rather than winning somewhat prematurely.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 05, 2013 - 2:52PM
#45
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2006
|
Hmm I'd like to add what social means especially for our group.
It's the way we talk to each other. We talk as friends. We don't get along all the time, and there's certainly times when someone is frustrated and that can get awkward. But we're all mostly adults and we treat it as a game when we're playing. If I lose, yea that's frustrating but I'll try harder next time. Maybe I got lazy instead of taking a mulligan properly.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 05, 2013 - 3:42PM
#46
|
Date Joined:
Nov 27, 2011
|
Social games though involve playing with the opponents to the enjoyment of all playing.
I think this is probably the biggest separation. In general you'll be playing EDH with the other players, not against them like you would in a competitive/tournament setting. The way I see it, the quality of a deck isn't in how "good" it is so much as how well it fits your playgroup. If that group is very competitive, maybe a turn 3 combo deck is exactly right, but that is going to be the exception rather than the norm.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 05, 2013 - 5:30PM
#47
|
Date Joined:
Feb 11, 2007
|
It just a question of priorities. To varying degrees, everyone cares about winning, and everyone cares about other people and what they think.
In a competitive environment, winning is supposed to be of higher importance.
In a social/casual environment it's the other way around.
But that's just the order of priorities. Everyone who enjoys either or both environments cares about both things.
The nature of multiplayer magic though, means that you really do stop having interesting interactive games if you put too much distance between your desire to win and your desire to please others. Combo is always always always the best way to win multiplayer games, and disruptive cards just clutter up your deck and make you less efficient. And given that there are usually no multiplayer tournaments to incentivize winning at all costs...there's just no reason to sacrifice the enjoyability of your games for a higher win rate.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 07, 2013 - 7:18AM
#48
|
Date Joined:
Jun 29, 2011
|
It just a question of priorities. To varying degrees, everyone cares about winning, and everyone cares about other people and what they think. In a competitive environment, winning is supposed to be of higher importance. In a social/casual environment it's the other way around. But that's just the order of priorities. Everyone who enjoys either or both environments cares about both things. The nature of multiplayer magic though, means that you really do stop having interesting interactive games if you put too much distance between your desire to win and your desire to please others. Combo is always always always the best way to win multiplayer games, and disruptive cards just clutter up your deck and make you less efficient. And given that there are usually no multiplayer tournaments to incentivize winning at all costs...there's just no reason to sacrifice the enjoyability of your games for a higher win rate.
I think you and I have the same viewpoint. I really enjoy the swingy, up-and-down, unpredictable nature that the best EDH games can provide. With one exception, I build my decks for fun and interactivity, but I play to win in that social, friendly context.
|
|
|
