'Casual' versus 'Competitive' Commander

  • #1
    I'm going to be trying this sticky out as a potential fix for the continual resurgence of this debate in other threads. Basically, this is how the thread will work:
    • Any discussion of what constitutes casual or competitive EDH (including which label a certain card falls under), which is better, and so forth should be carried out in this thread.
    • In other threads, mention of this debate should be kept to a minimum. It's fine to say "I'm not going to play card X because our playgroup is casual" and such, but any more substantial diversions, should they occur, will be moved here.
    • It is perfectly okay to resurrect old arguments in this thread. Indeed, I suspect it is inevitable.
    Finally, we will be watching this thread closely for the flaring tempers that have characterised this discussion in the past. No further verbal warnings will be given.
    Last edited by Weebo: 3/20/2013 10:44:19 AM
    My sig broke.
  • #2
    I have to say that Commander/EDH should be kept casual. It is a game that was designed for fun, not to play competitively. I do not see a purpose in playing anything but casual for the format, because Wizards will never sanction the format, as they have declared recently at Gen-Con.

    Playing it competitively takes the fun out of the game.


    Currently Running:

    Nothing, I have just gotten back after a long hiatus, and am just now starting to rebuild my collection.
  • #3
    Nice theory. But....what the heck defines "casual" or competitive?

    Playing to win? Oh please. Even if winning isn't your only or major goal...you still want to win.

    Card choice? Don't think so. I'm not particularly competitive, but if I could, I'd play Gaea's Cradle in my Ulasht deck cause it's a really good card.

    Certain strategies? Possibly. Again, I'm not particularly competitive, but I'm going to blow up lands if I need to. I've got no problems using mill, discard, or control strategies to win. I won't use lock strategies, but that's only because I consider them duller than dirt.

    Defining what makes something competitive is royal pain.
  • #4
    Quote from Maya the Hunter
    Nice theory. But....what the heck defines "casual" or competitive?

    Playing to win? Oh please. Even if winning isn't your only or major goal...you still want to win.

    Card choice? Don't think so. I'm not particularly competitive, but if I could, I'd play Gaea's Cradle in my Ulasht deck cause it's a really good card.

    Certain strategies? Possibly. Again, I'm not particularly competitive, but I'm going to blow up lands if I need to. I've got no problems using mill, discard, or control strategies to win. I won't use lock strategies, but that's only because I consider them duller than dirt.

    Defining what makes something competitive is royal pain.

    Competitive is simple, you play to win prizes, and not to have fun. You cut out a lot of what the format was designed on when you play competitively. The insane moves and combos that take a game to set up are set aside for moves that are, for a lack of a better word, jerk-ish.

    But the argument could be made that in 1v1 games, there are not politics, and thus, the atmosphere is more competitive, whereas the multiplayer games have a friendlier atmosphere. Thus, it really comes down to a "How many players" aspect than a "Which deck to run" aspect.


    Currently Running:

    Nothing, I have just gotten back after a long hiatus, and am just now starting to rebuild my collection.
  • #5
    Alright, so now we have another issue.

    I don't consider 1 on 1 to be more competitive. In fact, I tend to be more relaxed because there's less to focus on, and fewer card interactions I have to worry about.

    About prizes....can't really comment on what that does. I have played in a EDH tournament before. Didn't win. But there wasn't a prize, and it was mostly for fun. I could see it being a problem, but, don't know.
  • #6
    I just got booted from a 4-man cockatrice match with my pestilence deck. That is nothing but casual. Is it just assumed that you shouldn't ever do anything in a game if you want to "stay casual"? And to make it great, it was the turn I was winning. I had both kills on the stack, and they booted me and started making fun of me as soon as I left.
    "I have seen the true path. I will not warm myself by the fire—I will become the flame."
    —Lim-Dûl, the Necromancer

    WUBRGtap symbolCheck out all my current decks and my Type4 Cube!UntapGRBUW
  • #7
    Quote from LimDul945
    I just got booted from a 4-man cockatrice match with my pestilence deck. That is nothing but casual. Is it just assumed that you shouldn't ever do anything in a game if you want to "stay casual"? And to make it great, it was the turn I was winning. I had both kills on the stack, and they booted me and started making fun of me as soon as I left.


    Did you go infinity? Otherwise that is lame. But welcome to the internet.

    I pretty much gave upon cockatrice. People bring turn 5 infinity combo auto win decks to games marked casual. Or join "competitive" labelled games and bitch about tier 1 generals. It lacks the social contract aspect of edh, which is a huge part in finding a group of like minds and having a fun game.
    _____________________________________________________________________
    Boolean Lobster: "w/e is legal is fair" is probably the defining mantra of "non-casual"
  • #8
    Of what social contract are you speaking? As far as social aspects of the game goes, the only "contract" I can imagine is that you should remain chivalrous to your opponent(s) at all times, regardless of playstyle or game-state. The problem isn't when people want to play "casual" or "competitive" EDH, its when people refuse to allow one or the other.

    To me, finding the right playgroup seems like the easy way out. Try to affect some opinions in your playgroup, push the envelope. If the people you play with are so immature as to exile you for playing cards they don't like, then that's just upsetting. This is just a game; whining about it is ridiculous.
    -This signature intentionally left blank to increase general intrigue and mystery-
  • #9
    Quote from cannon
    Of what social contract are you speaking?


    The creators of EDH envisioned it as a format that has a social contract, a gentlemen's agreement, besides the official rules.

    Quote from cannon
    Try to affect some opinions in your playgroup, push the envelope.


    Sure you can always try and maybe everybody likes it. But if it doesn't click, it can't be forced.

    Quote from cannon
    If the people you play with are so immature as to exile you for playing cards they don't like, then that's just upsetting. This is just a game; whining about it is ridiculous.


    What's upsetting about wanting to spend your free time in a way you enjoy? If you're disregarding other people in a social activity like Magic, then perhaps exile is the only solution.
    Last edited by TobyornotToby: 8/7/2011 11:15:47 AM
    Multi
    G Patron of the Orochi
    GU Vorel of the Hull Clade
    WBR Tariel, Reckoner of Souls
    R Fumiko the Lowblood
    GUR Maelstrom Wanderer
    GWUBR Sliver Overlord
    UBR Mishra, Artificer Prodigy
    R Joven
    WU Bruna, Light of Alabaster

    Theme
    GUWBR Reaper King - Scarecrows
    GW Krond the Dawn-Clad - Scales
    U Sakashima the Impostor - Masks
    WGURB Karona, False God - Beauties
    UB Ramirez DePietro - Pirates
    URG Riku of Two Reflections - Steampunk Amberground
  • #10
    Quote from TobyornotToby
    The creators of EDH envisioned it as a format that has a social contract, a gentlemen's agreement, besides the official rules.


    Fair, I was unaware of this, but if its a gentleman's agreement, I feel like I agree with it anyway.


    What's upsetting about wanting to spend your free time in a way you enjoy? If you're disregarding other people in a social activity like Magic, then perhaps exile is the only solution.


    It's upsetting to me that people wouldn't want to try to extend their tolerance to someone who's trying to have fun as well. I don't disagree that we should spend our free time enjoying ourselves, but I do feel that we're almost cheating ourselves if we refuse to enjoy experiences that are part of the game.

    Personally speaking, I'm mostly a Timmy player. I love big creatures with huge effects, but I've got a hint of Johnny. I love combos that give me a lot of creatures, especially ones that give me uncountably large numbers of creatures, and I don't feel that I should be ostracized for playing something that I think is fun, and still answerable.
    Additionally, I really find it refreshing to see other playstyles every time I play a game, and the more aggravating the playstyle is to the general public, the better challenge it poses for whatever deck I'm piloting. I won't go as far as to say that my thoughts on this are the end all be all, but I think this gentleman's agreement would be better supported by a higher level of tolerance than by some stubborn personal desires.

    I don't want to force others to play a certain way, I'd just like it if they allowed me the same treatment.

    On a side note, I'm not sure if it's clear, but I'm not trying to argue for competitive playing; I think that above all else, EDH is a relaxed format, that should be played with friends and without the pressure of competition. I just also think that as a relaxed format, the players shouldn't be so uptight about what they win against, or to what they lose.
    -This signature intentionally left blank to increase general intrigue and mystery-
  • #11
    Here is my two cents.

    I only play casually at home and have never played in a tournament. I have no standard or legacy legal decks. I only play with my friends. Slowly though out meta (thanks to one player) became more and more competitive. He switched to only building decks that would kill by turn 5. This in turn is causing some discontent to play his decks anymore.

    I started playing EDH with the precons w/ my meta and quickly grew to enjoy it as it allowed you to play those insanely ridiculous cards you never got to play with before. I enjoyed the fact that games did little really in the first 4 turns. I also enjoyed the fact that a game was so back and forth due to the effect just one of those massive cards can have. The fact that a game could take an hour+ was amazing to me.

    Since that time we have now upgraded those decks and the clock has sped up a fair amount. I have noticed a lot more tension and bickering now since they were upgraded and sped up. When I am attacking with a 17/17 Mimeoplasm copy of a blightsteel or some other intense creature on turn 4 that feeling is now gone. Unfortunately it was necessary to do this or I wouldn't be able to survive. Thankfully you need a god hand for that so the games don't always go that way. A play like that crosses the line of casual for me.

    We have now started to build decks from the ground up and I hope things don't get to out there. I really enjoyed that "true casual" feeling I had when I started playing EDH. If decks start to regularly win by the 5th turn that really will suck the fun out of the format. At that point why not just go play legacy?
    My EDH decks:
    black mana green mana blue mana The Mimeoplasm blue mana green mana black mana
    black mana Maga, Traitor to Mortals black mana
    green mana white mana Rhys the Redeemed white mana green mana
    white mana black mana blue mana Merieke Ri Berit blue mana black mana white mana
    blue mana black mana red manaNekusar, the Mindrazer red mana black mana blue mana
    white mana black mana green mana blue mana red manaCromat Wurm Tribal red mana blue mana green mana black mana white mana
    white mana red manaGisela, Blade of Goldnight red mana white mana

    Looking for Green friendly EDH players/groups in the Toronto area. PM me if this is you.
  • #12
    Quote from cannon
    It's upsetting to me that people wouldn't want to try to extend their tolerance to someone who's trying to have fun as well. I don't disagree that we should spend our free time enjoying ourselves, but I do feel that we're almost cheating ourselves if we refuse to enjoy experiences that are part of the game.


    Am I cheating myself if I refuse to eat certain dishes that are part of the menu in a restaurant? People have different tastes, and not everyone likes everything. That's just how it is.

    Quote from cannon
    I don't feel that I should be ostracized for playing something that I think is fun, and still answerable.


    It's unfortunate and you're not at fault, but what it comes down to at the end of the day is that you can't impose yourself on others.

    Quote from cannon
    the better challenge it poses for whatever deck I'm piloting.


    That's coming from your Spike part though Wink
    (The 'answerable' part of the previous one too)

    Quote from cannon
    I think this gentleman's agreement would be better supported by a higher level of tolerance than by some stubborn personal desires.


    Of course that would be true in an ideal world, but that's just not reality

    Quote from cannon
    I don't want to force others to play a certain way, I'd just like it if they allowed me the same treatment.


    The subtle distinction is that they shouldn't tell you to play a certain way, but they can tell you to play a certain way when playing with them. You can play in a way that fits that group, or you can find another group that better suits your tastes. In the end, it's more fun if everyone has a playgroup that's on the same wavelength.

    Quote from ChefStiX
    We have now started to build decks from the ground up and I hope things don't get to out there. I really enjoyed that "true casual" feeling I had when I started playing EDH. If decks start to regularly win by the 5th turn that really will suck the fun out of the format. At that point why not just go play legacy?


    Tuned EDH decks can do that, so that's where the social contract comes in. If your playgroups likes less cutthroat games, it's up to the players to restrain themselves during deckbuilding. If everybody can build their deck in a pleasing way without it being too degenerate, you can have the games you enjoy.
    Last edited by TobyornotToby: 8/7/2011 12:55:58 PM
    Multi
    G Patron of the Orochi
    GU Vorel of the Hull Clade
    WBR Tariel, Reckoner of Souls
    R Fumiko the Lowblood
    GUR Maelstrom Wanderer
    GWUBR Sliver Overlord
    UBR Mishra, Artificer Prodigy
    R Joven
    WU Bruna, Light of Alabaster

    Theme
    GUWBR Reaper King - Scarecrows
    GW Krond the Dawn-Clad - Scales
    U Sakashima the Impostor - Masks
    WGURB Karona, False God - Beauties
    UB Ramirez DePietro - Pirates
    URG Riku of Two Reflections - Steampunk Amberground
  • #13
    Quote from TobyornotToby
    Am I cheating myself if I refuse to eat certain dishes that are part of the menu in a restaurant? People have different tastes, and not everyone likes everything. That's just how it is.


    Unless you're allergic, yes, you are cheating yourself of an experience. Now the analogy continues in that once you've tried something you may not like it and won't eat it again, but similarly you can come to like foods the same way you can come to enjoy playstyles. I didn't use to like mustard, and I didn't use to play with people who ran blue decks.



    It's unfortunate and you're not at fault, but what it comes down to at the end of the day is that you can't impose yourself on others.


    This I think gets down to something more along the lines of "the needs of the many outweigh those of the few," but that's a little drastic for a card game, don't you think?


    That's coming from your Spike part though Wink


    I won't admit to playing to win, but I'll say that I enjoy games more when I can see my deck work optimally Wink


    Of course that would be true in an ideal world, but that's just not reality


    We live in the "best of all possible worlds." I should hope if that world strays from the ideals we seek, we can put forth effort to affect change.


    The subtle distinction is that they shouldn't tell you to play a certain way, but they can tell you to play a certain way when playing with them. You can play in a way that fits that group, or you can find another group that better suits your tastes. In the end, it's more fun if everyone has a playgroup that's on the same wavelength.


    So they can, but shouldn't tell me to play a certain way, supposedly with an implied threat of exclusion from the group. I can't deny that life is easier when people around you agree with you at every turn, but I won't say that's something of which I'm in search. I'm not looking for players who will argue with me, I'd just rather have people around who have different thoughts; I don't need another me to hang out with, I'm already with me all the time Slant

    I know it's idealistic, but I don't see why it's wrong to strive for that scenario. I don't want a playgroup that plays disgusting Hermit decks or lame decks based solely around Lightning Reaver. I want to be able to sit down, and expect the unexpectable. I want to never know what's coming next, and the chances of having a less homogenized playgroup are increased when players are more okay with any strategy.

    Thinking about it separately, I'm not entirely sure my argument belongs in this debate. I'm all for casual play, but I just wish that people would take casual games less seriously; even just take card games less seriously. So what if player X combos off, or blows up the world. If the game is over, start another game, don't let it get to you; it's not like we're playing for ante, right?
    -This signature intentionally left blank to increase general intrigue and mystery-
  • #14
    Fun, casual, and competitive are all terms that get tossed around, like there was a set definition for each, when they are completely subjective. I find it fun being challenged when I play, setting my play and deckbuilding skills against the rest of the table. Turn 4 combos are fine since, it was either a lucky draw, or the table wasn't prepared. I actually enjoy losing, as I tend to either learn what cards are inefficient for my deck, or how I should play out next game. And even if someone does end up winning early, why do you stress so much? You're supposed to be having fun, so why not just shuffle up for another game? Seems like the "casual" players take this format far more seriously than the competitive players do
  • #15
    I think this argument is pointless and always has been. This type of thing is always based upon your group and meta. If you in a tournament this its up to how much you want to win.
    But that's as far as this goes. The majority of what has been said and will be said is bias opinions and nothing more.







    Quote from trancekat
    Here's how you win with Battle of Wits.

    Have it on the field, as well as Opalescence. Proceed to beat face with your Battle of Wits, prefferably with Quietus Spike
  • #16
    Quote from cannon
    Unless you're allergic, yes, you are cheating yourself of an experience. Now the analogy continues in that once you've tried something you may not like it and won't eat it again, but similarly you can come to like foods the same way you can come to enjoy playstyles. I didn't use to like mustard, and I didn't use to play with people who ran blue decks.


    Certainly, you should try out new stuff, and things can grow on you. But if they really don't like it, you shouldn't order it for them.

    Quote from cannon
    This I think gets down to something more along the lines of "the needs of the many outweigh those of the few," but that's a little drastic for a card game, don't you think?


    Not really. Those many can play a game without the few. The few can't play a game without the many. That's why the many are in power.

    Quote from cannon
    I won't admit to playing to win, but I'll say that I enjoy games more when I can see my deck work optimally Wink


    Sure, Spike is not about winning, Spike is about challenge, proving himself, growing and improving. 'Winning' is just a confirmation of that =p

    Quote from cannon
    We live in the "best of all possible worlds." I should hope if that world strays from the ideals we seek, we can put forth effort to affect change.


    We can, but we can't change everything. I would love to be able to not need sleep. Imagine if you have 24 hours every day, I could do so much more. But that's just doesn't work.

    Quote from cannon
    I want to be able to sit down, and expect the unexpectable. I want to never know what's coming next, and the chances of having a less homogenized playgroup are increased when players are more okay with any strategy.


    That sounds a bit like one of the subsets of Timmy. What I'm saying is, this attitude is just one of many, you can't expect others to have or develop it too.

    Quote from cannon
    I'm all for casual play, but I just wish that people would take casual games less seriously; even just take card games less seriously. So what if player X combos off, or blows up the world. If the game is over, start another game, don't let it get to you; it's not like we're playing for ante, right?


    It can be a bit like having your plate taken away halfway through dinner. Yeah sure I can order the same thing tomorrow but I wanted to finish this one. In my case it's even worse as I like to save the best stuff for last so it really screws up my meal =p

    Quote from beanman1000
    And even if someone does end up winning early, why do you stress so much? You're supposed to be having fun, so why not just shuffle up for another game? Seems like the "casual" players take this format far more seriously than the competitive players do


    Not necessarily, just listen to the competitives stressing out when someone mentions 'group hug', 'chaos' or 'house rules' =p
    Last edited by TobyornotToby: 8/7/2011 6:04:34 PM
    Multi
    G Patron of the Orochi
    GU Vorel of the Hull Clade
    WBR Tariel, Reckoner of Souls
    R Fumiko the Lowblood
    GUR Maelstrom Wanderer
    GWUBR Sliver Overlord
    UBR Mishra, Artificer Prodigy
    R Joven
    WU Bruna, Light of Alabaster

    Theme
    GUWBR Reaper King - Scarecrows
    GW Krond the Dawn-Clad - Scales
    U Sakashima the Impostor - Masks
    WGURB Karona, False God - Beauties
    UB Ramirez DePietro - Pirates
    URG Riku of Two Reflections - Steampunk Amberground
  • #17
    Quote from TobyornotToby
    Not really. Those many can play a game without the few. The few can't play a game without the many. That's why the many are in power.


    Sounds like the many is a spiteful group. I'll reiterate, it's just a game.


    We can, but we can't change everything. I would love to be able to not need sleep. Imagine if you have 24 hours every day, I could do so much more. But that's just doesn't work.

    It can be a bit like having your plate taken away halfway through dinner. Yeah sure I can order the same thing tomorrow but I wanted to finish this one. In my case it's even worse as I like to save the best stuff for last so it really screws up my meal =p


    I lumped these together because they're weaker analogies. Yes it'd be great to not have to sleep, but its biologically impossible. It is not biologically impossible to learn to tolerate something someone else does in a card game.

    As for the plate being taken away, its not that you can order again tomorrow, you can order again immediately. If the game is over early, it's not like you have to pack up and leave, just start another game, no delay and things can go differently. The bottom line is that things don't always go your way. The game won't always get to turn 15; player X will get that god hand once in a while and the game will be over before you know it. This shouldn't hinder our ability to enjoy ourselves.
    I've mentioned it before in other threads, but in these social situations, whether or not you're playing with likeminded people, you can only truly control the actions of one person. Another deck may be an indirect cause of your ire, but if you remain upset and take action to remove that player from the group, it's all on you. I can't say it enough, it's a game, have fun, get over it. If you're really not having fun, maybe take a step back and consider why it seems so necessary to get upset over the way someone else plays the game.

    I'm not going to change the way your group plays, it's unreasonable to think that I can. If you've implemented soft bans on card X or combo Y, so be it, that's your choice, but I think you're missing out on a subset of people that can improve your gaming experience. Just for my information though, if I'm a subset of Timmy that likes the unexpected, what subgroup of players are those who huddle together in cliques and only play a certain way? Just so we can avoid each other, and nip these conflicts in the bud before they happen.
    -This signature intentionally left blank to increase general intrigue and mystery-
  • #18
    Quote from cannon

    I'm not going to change the way your group plays, it's unreasonable to think that I can. If you've implemented soft bans on card X or combo Y, so be it, that's your choice, but I think you're missing out on a subset of people that can improve your gaming experience.


    I think what you are not understanding is that many people don't see making more highly tuned decks, becoming more cuthroat or hardcore is not an improvement. A lot of people want to just chill and turn fatties side ways and not have the game suddenly end in what they feel is an anti climatic, uninteresting, boring way such as combos tend to make some people feel.

    I think everyone striving to make the game fun for the others is the best way to run a meta, be it cutthroat or casual. When someone joins a group that has a vastly different idea then the rest of them it will cause some friction. In which cause he needs to adapt to that group or find another one he likes better. You can't force a square peg into a round hole.
    _____________________________________________________________________
    Boolean Lobster: "w/e is legal is fair" is probably the defining mantra of "non-casual"
  • #19
    I think you're getting the wrong impression of me. I'm against "fine-tuning" decks. I love the unexpected plays of a deck that's sort of thrown together, and I love the aspect of EDH that has me always making changes to my decks. I just also happen to appreciate that Magic is a complex game that's been developed for more than 15 years and that by choosing not to play certain cards means I'm missing out on part of that experience.

    I mean, I guess I can see your point, there's almost 12000 cards in Magic. Not running land destruction probably narrows that to at least 11800, right? Building 100 card highland decks is tough, so any help is appreciated :P.

    As for making the game fun for everyone, I agree that's a wonderful goal. But I still believe that the fun that everyone has as a group starts with the individual. If you're not having fun because someone did something you don't like, you can blame them, but it's your reaction and your predispositions that are making you upset.

    And it's not quite as simple as fitting a square peg in a round hole; if it were that easy, you could just shave off the corners and he'd fit right in. Instead we have to consider the square's feeling, and the fact that adding a new variable inevitably will complicate the pre-established system of holes that each peg can fit in. Having a player join a group permanently is complicated, no doubt; I think it's made easier when the group is flexible enough to at least allow anything that comes its way.

    On a side note, I am completely lost as to how combos are anticlimactic. The very nature of combo is to build toward an extreme outcome, it's almost the very definition of climax, so to me, if the group finds combos boring, I think they're might just be a small misunderstanding.
    I'd also like to discuss when synergy becomes combo. I run Mizzet and I fill it with cards like Mindmoil and Teferi's Puzzle Box, which I consider synergistic. Combine them all with Thought Reflection, and I've killed more than four players in a turn, for the win. Did I combo off, or was it just good synergy?

    EDIT: So for real discussion, I am very interested in what tuning a deck involves. My best guess is the addition of any number of tutors, and the best mana base money can buy. Is there something else to it? Does running cards like Consecrated Sphinx and Avenger of Zendikar over Mind Unbound and Liege of the Tangle count as tuning your deck?
    Last edited by cannon: 8/7/2011 8:28:16 PM
    -This signature intentionally left blank to increase general intrigue and mystery-
  • #20
    Quote from cannon

    I'd also like to discuss when synergy becomes combo. I run Mizzet and I fill it with cards like Mindmoil and Teferi's Puzzle Box, which I consider synergistic. Combine them all with Thought Reflection, and I've killed more than four players in a turn, for the win. Did I combo off, or was it just good synergy?


    Good synergy, I would have no issue with dying this way. When people talk about combo most the time they mean instantly winning combos.


    EDIT: So for real discussion, I am very interested in what tuning a deck involves. My best guess is the addition of any number of tutors, and the best mana base money can buy. Is there something else to it?


    It is a bit more complex and meta specific then that. But that is the easiest and most effective way to start yet. Too me what you described is what edh is all about. Crazy plays with cards outside the normal that synergize to be lethal.

    Niv-miz + curiosity however is kinda lame and boring.

    Does running cards like Consecrated Sphinx and Avenger of Zendikar over Mind Unbound and Liege of the Tangle count as tuning your deck?


    Sure. But that is not what people are referring to in general. They more mean turning your deck into a consistent winning machine by turn X. For most people dying to the same 2-3 tutored up cards by turn 6 is pretty annoying and boring. It does not add to the game or make it interesting. Unless that is how your group rolls. But I guess I don't see the point in that, you could just play 60 card constructed if you want games over so fast with the same cards every time. But to each there own.
    _____________________________________________________________________
    Boolean Lobster: "w/e is legal is fair" is probably the defining mantra of "non-casual"
  • #21
    Quote from Tantarus
    Sure. But that is not what people are referring to in general. They more mean turning your deck into a consistent winning machine by turn X. For most people dying to the same 2-3 tutored up cards by turn 6 is pretty annoying and boring. It does not add to the game or make it interesting. Unless that is how your group rolls. But I guess I don't see the point in that, you could just play 60 card constructed if you want games over so fast with the same cards every time. But to each there own.


    You know, I've said this same thing to several playgroups I've been in throughout the recent years. I recently finished a Ghave deck, that I felt needed the tutor help to get the pieces it needs. Almost every card in the deck goes well with at least 5 other cards, but I wanted some assurance that I'd be able to get my Ashnod's Altar if I wanted it or needed it. The deck still only runs maybe five tutors, not counting ramp cards, but that probably about five times as many tutors as I normally run. Similarly, I run a lot of tutors in Ruhan, but that's only for equipment, and I felt it was on theme. Outside of those, I don't run maybe more than one or two tutors in any deck, regardless of color, just because I get so mad when games go the same way every time. To echo your sentiment, if I wanted a guarantee that I'd see the same cards over and over again, I'd play a 60 card deck that allows four of each card.

    I'm still a little confused about my Niv-Mizzet example. Those player's lost instantly, all I had to do was play a spell and the whole thing started. Do people only get upset when player's play all the combo cards in one turn?

    Anyway, I'm glad we seem to be more on the same level than previously thought. After all, this is the internet, so it's very important that people here agree with me :p
    -This signature intentionally left blank to increase general intrigue and mystery-
  • #22
    Tuning a deck involves cutting the excess, and adding stuff that help promote the gameplan. In many cases, this means tutors.

    ---------
    Since I now have a thread to discuss this in:

    Moon Effects (Blood Moon, Magus of the Moon) are casual. Easily destroyed disruption is fair game to a color that needs all the help it can get. If you complain that you can't play your answers because of it, just remember: Wizards wanted Nonbasic to be a drawback; run more basics.
    Tantarus: It didn't make the gaka greifer level, so it should be fine


    EDH:
    RNorin the WaryR
    GUEdric, Spymaster of TrestUG

    Duel Commander:
    WUGeist of Saint TraftUW
    BGSkullbriar, the Walking GraveGB
    BUGDamia, Sage of StoneGUB


    Chruch of the Wary
  • #23
    Quote from cannon
    Sounds like the many is a spiteful group. I'll reiterate, it's just a game.


    It's not spiteful, it's nothing personal. If one of my friends likes to watch paint dry as a hobby, good for him, great guy, but I still fail to see why we're doing wrong if we refuse to do that with him.

    And it's not just a game. It's our free time. And time is one of the most valuable resources we have.

    Quote from cannon
    It is not biologically impossible to learn to tolerate something someone else does in a card game.


    Again, it's about free time. You can make them tolerate something, but you can't make them enjoy it. I want to spend my free time doing things I enjoy, not doing things I can tolerate.

    Quote from cannon
    As for the plate being taken away, its not that you can order again tomorrow, you can order again immediately. If the game is over early, it's not like you have to pack up and leave, just start another game, no delay and things can go differently.


    Yeah that one was weak, the eating order part of it might be better. I was just about to get to the meat, but then it was taken away. If I reorder, I first have to eat the potatoes again. Again this is a waste of time issue. I'd rather have most games get to the meat.

    Now what "the meat of the game" is, that's where people have different opinions.

    Quote from cannon
    Another deck may be an indirect cause of your ire, but if you remain upset and take action to remove that player from the group, it's all on you.


    Oh yes if it's a 1vs1 issue you have no foundation for your complaints. My stance is for when it's about a Group vs 1 issue, 1vs1 is more complicated.

    Quote from cannon
    I can't say it enough, it's a game, have fun, get over it. If you're really not having fun, maybe take a step back and consider why it seems so necessary to get upset over the way someone else plays the game.


    Because my time is precious and I want to enjoy it.

    Quote from cannon
    Just for my information though, if I'm a subset of Timmy that likes the unexpected, what subgroup of players are those who huddle together in cliques and only play a certain way? Just so we can avoid each other, and nip these conflicts in the bud before they happen.


    Likely also Timmies, the Power Gamers, Social Gamers, maybe Adrenalin Gamers. You're sounding a bit like the Diversity Gamer and Adrenalin Gamer =)

    Although of course, tournament spikes fit that description as well.

    Quote from cannon
    And it's not quite as simple as fitting a square peg in a round hole; if it were that easy, you could just shave off the corners and he'd fit right in. Instead we have to consider the square's feeling, and the fact that adding a new variable inevitably will complicate the pre-established system of holes that each peg can fit in. Having a player join a group permanently is complicated, no doubt; I think it's made easier when the group is flexible enough to at least allow anything that comes its way.


    Like-minded people group together, that's how we work. You can't ask everyone to like all kinds of music. People will like to listen to their taste of music together with like-minded others.

    You want everyone to be like you; open-minded, flexible, etc. That's just like how a casual player wants everyone to be casual.

    Quote from cannon
    On a side note, I am completely lost as to how combos are anticlimactic. The very nature of combo is to build toward an extreme outcome, it's almost the very definition of climax, so to me, if the group finds combos boring, I think they're might just be a small misunderstanding.
    I'd also like to discuss when synergy becomes combo. I run Mizzet and I fill it with cards like Mindmoil and Teferi's Puzzle Box, which I consider synergistic. Combine them all with Thought Reflection, and I've killed more than four players in a turn, for the win. Did I combo off, or was it just good synergy?


    The problem with combos, from a casual perspective, if that they have little buildup, ebb and flow, interactions, tension arcs. The struggle they like is spread over multiple turns, with cards and targets coming and going. Combo is *POOF*. There's no journey, just an end.
    Last edited by TobyornotToby: 8/7/2011 9:11:50 PM
    Multi
    G Patron of the Orochi
    GU Vorel of the Hull Clade
    WBR Tariel, Reckoner of Souls
    R Fumiko the Lowblood
    GUR Maelstrom Wanderer
    GWUBR Sliver Overlord
    UBR Mishra, Artificer Prodigy
    R Joven
    WU Bruna, Light of Alabaster

    Theme
    GUWBR Reaper King - Scarecrows
    GW Krond the Dawn-Clad - Scales
    U Sakashima the Impostor - Masks
    WGURB Karona, False God - Beauties
    UB Ramirez DePietro - Pirates
    URG Riku of Two Reflections - Steampunk Amberground
  • #25
    Quote from cannon


    Having a player join a group permanently is complicated, no doubt; I think it's made easier when the group is flexible enough to at least allow anything that comes its way.



    Actually it is easier if the new player is flexible enough to adjust to the group. Many less people have to adjust viewpoints and opinions. What incentive is there for a group to all have to play in a style they don't enjoy to let just one person join?


    Quote from cannon


    I'm still a little confused about my Niv-Mizzet example. Those player's lost instantly, all I had to do was play a spell and the whole thing started. Do people only get upset when player's play all the combo cards in one turn?



    I can't say it better then Tobyornottoby stated it here.

    Quote from TobyornotToby

    The problem with combos, from a casual perspective, if that they have little buildup, ebb and flow, interactions, tension arcs. The struggle they like is spread over multiple turns, with cards and targets coming and going. Combo is *POOF*. There's no journey, just an end.
    _____________________________________________________________________
    Boolean Lobster: "w/e is legal is fair" is probably the defining mantra of "non-casual"
  • #26
    Quote from TobyornotToby

    Like-minded people group together, that's how we work. You can't ask everyone to like all kinds of music. People will like to listen to their taste of music together with like-minded others.

    You want everyone to be like you; open-minded, flexible, etc. That's just like how a casual player wants everyone to be casual.


    I think the subtle difference here is that I can't understand why there's so much conflict, when everyone likes Magic: the Gathering. I'm not trying to advocate for the tournament level, Spike players who build decks that have a target and don't miss, save for an earthquake. I'm trying to advocate the open-minded player that can enjoy his free time playing the game he loves, however it happens.

    Actually it is easier if the new player is flexible enough to adjust to the group. Many less people have to adjust viewpoints and opinions. What incentive is there for a group to all have to play in a style they don't enjoy to let just one person join?


    I'm not talking about adjusting for every new player. If the group simply adopts a flexible mindset once, its done, and any new play immediately fits in. As for incentive, if you're satisfied with your playgroup, then there is no incentive to add or remove a player. Part of the joy I derive from EDH is constantly playing with new people. I don't play online so this is a bit more difficult, but I'll harken back to the old saying, "variety is the spice of life." So, I guess, its back to a case by case basis. If you've got a good 4-7 person playgroup, and you're all satisfied and you know each other well, I see no reason why you all would extend to include another person. Just trust me, it sucks to be that other person.

    There's some disconnect here, clearly; maybe I haven't played against the cutthroat players you've seen, maybe I'm just lacking in experience, but in the experience I've had, those people who run those decks are no less obnoxious than those who run some ridiculous five card combo. I guess, for me its not the play, its the player that always gets to me. I don't care what funny word your card sounds like, I don't want to hear about this awesome time you blew up some permanent that one you the game, and I certainly don't want to smell you. Like you said, it's my free time, and I prefer to spend it with polite people that play Magic: the Gathering. I guess that's the simple disconnect; in my mind, most Magic players, myself included from time to time, are obnoxious, so I guess I stopped caring about what they're playing and instead, I just despise what they're saying, or in some cases, what they've been eating recently.

    That's enough about the general MTG public though. I'm curious more about specific cases. So, example: I show up to your playgroup, sit down with my Riku deck, and by luck of the draw, I win the game with Intruder Alarm/Kiki-Jiki. What's your move?
    Last edited by cannon: 8/7/2011 9:37:32 PM
    -This signature intentionally left blank to increase general intrigue and mystery-
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.
Posts Quoted:
Reply
Clear All Quotes