I played 2 games of commander yesterday and won both of them. The first one was with a constructed deck (playing against other constructed decks), the second was with a precon (playing against other precons). Part way through the second game, the guy piloting the Saskia precon started targeting me with Saskia every time (previously he'd been doing it randomly), despite me having next to nothing on the battlefield while the other 2 players had quite a bit. He got me as low as 10 life before I managed to pull off a dragon mage attack with sangromancer on the field, skyrocked back up to 70+ life, and won the game a few turns later.
Afterwards he argued that he was right to target me with Saskia, since I did ultimately win the game. I would argue that you should target whoever is winning at the time, and not try too hard to predict who's going to be winning 4 turns down the line, especially when you're playing with precons that, for the most part, don't have any game-winning combos likely to come out of nowhere and win the game. On the other hand, I like to think I'm a pretty good commander player, so there is definitely some merit to focusing on me more than other players, generally-speaking.
I win quite a few games of commander. I don't keep stats on it or anything, but it's probably at least 60 or 70%, and most of those are 4 player games, and usually with a basically level playing field - I don't like winning simply because my deck has more powerful stuff in it, especially since I have a ton of money invested in my collection that most players can't compete with, and it would be way too easy to put together a powerful combo deck and stomp my LGS. Hence doing stuff like precon fights - but I still win a high percentage of those, even without knowing the cards in them very well. And I often try to pick one of the weaker precons, or even occasionally make impulsive moves that might be sub-optimal just to see if I can get myself out of them.
Which is kind of great, obviously, but there's still something about it that bothers me a bit. Theoretically, you'd think a meta should be able to focus players according to their threat level, and bring everyone around to a semi-even playing field of around a 25% winrate. But it seems like that's harder to do than it looks. Are my opponents supposed to pick on me, even when I have very little going on? I think if everyone was focusing on me even when I was behind, I'd be pretty unhappy, especially with something like precons where people are presumably pretty evenly matched in terms of deck power. But then, when people assess the threat of the table agnostic to the skills of the players piloting them, it seems like I usually win, so obviously I'm a bit biased.
For those in a similar situation as me - how do you feel about it? If people focus you, even when you're behind, because of your play skill, do you think that's reasonable? Do you do anything to try to keep your win rate more balanced on purpose - playing bad decks, making poorly-thought-out decisions, etc? And for people on the opposite side of the table, playing against someone who tends to win frequently because of play skill - how do you try to balance the tables?
I think the focussing is reasonable as long as they know what your decks are capable of. Let me give you an example with a player in my meta, let's call him B for a moment.
B is known to be a pretty damn good player, he's a judge so he knows the game well, and he builds a variety of decks, though his strong point is control. One of his most resilient decks is Wydwen, the Biting Gale. I have learned from experience to take it down the moment I can as it has a nasty habit of pulling a win from way behind. 5 life left, dead on the board, lowest amount of lands? Yeah, I'm still gonna smash against Wydwen because I know what it can do.
However, if he brings a new deck to the game, I'll instead opt for - as is normal - the strongest board position on the table. Get a feeling for what he's playing, cut him down if he grows too big, that kind of work. Then I can play accordingly in later games. Once the dust has settled, it's usually clear which of his decks need to be shot down on sight, and which ones of his can be dealt with in due time.
So if you get in the position of player B; then yes, it's fair if they'll focus fire on you. Especially if you often play the same decks. (Which, given your list of decks doesn't seem too plausible, but hey.)
I am, however, going to call a slight bit of BS on the "basically level playing field" with your win rate. Likely the individual power level of cards might be equal, but your decks are simply better constructed, more synergistic compared to what you're facing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Commander decks:
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras.
Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power.
Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza.
Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall.
Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana.
Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die.
Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
tbh a lot of people who I play with regularly will target my Sharuum deck as they know how good it is and Sharuum is broken as it is. I'm fine with being targeted/targeting whoever is the most powerful player at the table.
I am, however, going to call a slight bit of BS on the "basically level playing field" with your win rate. Likely the individual power level of cards might be equal, but your decks are simply better constructed, more synergistic compared to what you're facing.
That varies a lot depending on where I'm playing and what deck I'm playing. My decks do tend to be pretty synergistic, but I also eschew any form of infinite combo, a limitation my opponents are not bound by. And then there's decks like Phelddagrif that don't have any significant synergy in the strictest sense, but are built to win by playing effective multiplayer politics, and that deck wins a lot. There's definitely some opponents who have either badly-constructed decks with high budgets, and reasonably-synergistic decks with low budgets, but there's also been powerful expensive stuff and I still usually beat them. And none of that applies to precon commander, of course, where I still win a lot.
I definitely get focusing someone because you're familiar with his deck and you know what it's trying to do. In my case, though, I'm usually either playing a new deck (I've made quite a few I didn't put the list up for, even, and I'm working on more) or precons vs precons. And while my constructed decks are usually pretty good, they usually don't have any sudden "I win from behind" buttons.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
I think "perceived threat" levels versus "actual threat" levels are a very interesting part of Commander, that everyone should consider from the moment you sit down to play.
How often do I win?
How often do I create dominant boardstates?
How early do I typically pull ahead?
How competitively do I play compared to others in the group?
Things like that seem to be something a lot of people consider, especially when they've been playing with you long enough. Sometimes, depending on who you are and what you are to your group, your perceived threat level could be considerably higher than what you'd ever imagine yourself to be. Perceived threat levels are actually much more dangerous than actual threat levels because they do just as you've described; it gets you targeted from the start of the match.
Another problem with it, is that once you have it, it's nigh impossible to get rid of. No amount of, "okay guys, I'm playing a janky, just for fun deck. I don't expect to win", will get those who are biased against your perceived threat level to just leave you be. This is a situation that expands much further passed a game of cardboard. Who you are as a person can be indicative of how much a threat you "appear" to be in any sort of sporting (using that word loosely) event.
In my opinion, this isn't something you should complain about. It means that you, as a person, are viewed as strong and intellectual, capable of being a force to be reckoned with regardless of the environment. You're a high level threat in their minds, and that isn't likely to change. You embrace it and have fun being that powerful adversary they believe you to be... Or you let it get to you, feeling singled out until you decide not to play anymore.
It is very easy to get frustrated and salty when you perceive yourself being attacked when there is a more obvious target. It can be pretty infuriating if you allow it to be. Many times I have called someone out for targeting me unfairly only to win the game later and feel like a jerk.
I'd suggest taking it as an additional challenge instead. It's a compliment really if you think about it. Don't forget you are playing to have fun. Don't allow your ego to ruin that for yourself or the others at the table.
In my opinion, this isn't something you should complain about. It means that you, as a person, are viewed as strong and intellectual, capable of being a force to be reckoned with regardless of the environment. You're a high level threat in their minds, and that isn't likely to change. You embrace it and have fun being that powerful adversary they believe you to be... Or you let it get to you, feeling singled out until you decide not to play anymore.
That's actually not REALLY the problem. I rarely get targeted all that heavily - probably less heavily than I should be, hence my fairly high win%. Getting targeted with Saskia was mostly weird because previously in the game I'd been ahead and no one seemed too worried about it, and then when I was behind I started getting targeted. So it made me think about how heavily I SHOULD be targeted.
Also, for the people talking about targeting or being targeted because they have a powerful deck - that's not really what I'm talking about here. I'm talking purely play skill. How should tables handle someone who's able to win frequently by simply being good at the game? And yes I know this whole thread makes me look like a cocky ********.
Mostly I'm bemoaning that it seems to be difficult to find a balance. It's difficult to find a deck that gives me a reasonable chance to win without either winning "too" frequently (Phelddagrif) or just getting overpowered by other people playing powerful cards I can't interact with (Grenzo). And on the other side, I'm not sure how much preference I should be given when choosing targets, especially in a game where the decks are basically equal.
I build deck and play them with the intent to win the game. So people picking the person who they feel is the biggest threat at the table doesn't really bug me that much.
Dirk, I have the same exact problem as you. I've been playing this format for years and almost my entire collection is commander focused.
I want to state that complaining about winning too much might sound like a weird problem, but it is a serious issue. Commander is the one format where winning too much is a detriment.
Example of this issue:
One night at the LGS, one I've been playing at for years, I show up on a whim after work with no cards. A local asks me to play and thus I borrow one of his decks. Its 90% the Atraxa 4c pre-con deck.
In the two games I played that night I won both, the first due to my own advantages and the 2nd due to poor politics from the 3rd player. In theory I should loose with a deck weaker than the constructed decks I was playing against, but I pulled off both wins for a 100% win record that night.
Potential Cause of the issue:
My collection is entirely commander focused and I spend lots of time researching, building, and playing different decks. Its a case of 'what has been seen cannot be unseen.' If your local players aren't studying the format as much as you its easy to out pace them.
Potential Solutions:
I'm just watching the cursor blink here.
I think it could be a good idea to build a deck with intentionally poor choices. No removal, no threats, something of that nature? Construct a deck with a glaringly obvious weakness like a single card type?
You could also do the opposite, build a good deck and make horrible political decisions.
I personally hate budget decks, I wouldn't put that on anyone.
I win quite a few games of commander. I don't keep stats on it or anything, but it's probably at least 60 or 70%, and most of those are 4 player games, and usually with a basically level playing field - I don't like winning simply because my deck has more powerful stuff in it, especially since I have a ton of money invested in my collection that most players can't compete with, and it would be way too easy to put together a powerful combo deck and stomp my LGS. Hence doing stuff like precon fights - but I still win a high percentage of those, even without knowing the cards in them very well. And I often try to pick one of the weaker precons, or even occasionally make impulsive moves that might be sub-optimal just to see if I can get myself out of them.
Which is kind of great, obviously, but there's still something about it that bothers me a bit. Theoretically, you'd think a meta should be able to focus players according to their threat level, and bring everyone around to a semi-even playing field of around a 25% winrate. But it seems like that's harder to do than it looks. Are my opponents supposed to pick on me, even when I have very little going on? I think if everyone was focusing on me even when I was behind, I'd be pretty unhappy, especially with something like precons where people are presumably pretty evenly matched in terms of deck power. But then, when people assess the threat of the table agnostic to the skills of the players piloting them, it seems like I usually win, so obviously I'm a bit biased.
For those in a similar situation as me - how do you feel about it? If people focus you, even when you're behind, because of your play skill, do you think that's reasonable? Do you do anything to try to keep your win rate more balanced on purpose - playing bad decks, making poorly-thought-out decisions, etc? And for people on the opposite side of the table, playing against someone who tends to win frequently because of play skill - how do you try to balance the tables?
tldr: waah waah I win too much waah waah.
I've been there before, though I very much like building wonky decks that I'm not even sure would do anything, let alone win, which became the real problem for me. My fine tuned decks tend to win fairly easily, mostly because i'd had them forever and just made changes depending on the strategies or cards that I had a hard time dealing with. It eventually came to a point where those decks seemed to survive and/or answer everything that get's thrown at them. That makes people want to target me in most games, commander or not, and it almost starts to seem like less strategy and more a grudge they just can't let go of. It even came to a point where I decided to make a clone deck, nothing but clones and Twincast spells, and still won quite a bit. It's not my fault that you had Kiki-jiki on board and Zealous Conscripts in the grave when I drew Body Double, nor is it my fault you kept trying for that combo and having me win off it in one way or another. No point in targeting my Mirrorworks deck that just wants to see how many of them I can make in a game.
To sum it up, target me all you want when I'm playing an actual deck, but when I'm trying to pilot a gimmick that I'm not even sure will function let alone win, keep off.
Dirk, I have the same exact problem as you. I've been playing this format for years and almost my entire collection is commander focused.
I want to state that complaining about winning too much might sound like a weird problem, but it is a serious issue. Commander is the one format where winning too much is a detriment.
Example of this issue:
One night at the LGS, one I've been playing at for years, I show up on a whim after work with no cards. A local asks me to play and thus I borrow one of his decks. Its 90% the Atraxa 4c pre-con deck.
In the two games I played that night I won both, the first due to my own advantages and the 2nd due to poor politics from the 3rd player. In theory I should loose with a deck weaker than the constructed decks I was playing against, but I pulled off both wins for a 100% win record that night.
Potential Cause of the issue:
My collection is entirely commander focused and I spend lots of time researching, building, and playing different decks. Its a case of 'what has been seen cannot be unseen.' If your local players aren't studying the format as much as you its easy to out pace them.
Potential Solutions:
I'm just watching the cursor blink here.
I think it could be a good idea to build a deck with intentionally poor choices. No removal, no threats, something of that nature? Construct a deck with a glaringly obvious weakness like a single card type?
You could also do the opposite, build a good deck and make horrible political decisions.
I personally hate budget decks, I wouldn't put that on anyone.
I think another part of the issue is that I'm such a control player at heart. Not having any answers for something would probably make me hate playing the deck. When I was playing my Grenzo deck I found it pretty frustrating to play because it has basically no answers (although I guess it can grab potentially anything off the top of an enemy deck, but the other players weren't playing much control either).
Maybe an interesting way to go with a constructed deck would be to take, say, my phelddagrif deck, and just start removing control pieces. Still leave in answers to everything, but just reduce the numbers, while increasing the numbers of lands, so I have to rely more and more on Phelddy politics, choosing the targets for my removal very carefully. Not sure if I should leave in draw engines like LFTL or if that would go against the spirit of the challenge.
Unfortunately it'd probably suck for the sorts of games I keep getting stuck in at my LGS's league - 3 player games where one guy is playing an obnoxious "competitive" deck and the other player's deck is fairly low power, so it just turns into a dumb 1v1 match where I'm forced to come out swinging with my control pieces to stop the game from ending immediately and the third player just derps.
Playing suboptimally on purpose isn't really an option for me. The suboptimal plays I will occasionally make is basically just playing quickly and not taking back bad moves. Playing badly politically isn't something I'd do on purpose, since politics are what I find to be the most fun part of commander (and the biggest difference play-wise compared to limited, my other love).
I think the ideal solution for me would be to have a deck that's challenging to win with, but not one that simply can't beat certain things. I do like the idea of the land-heavy phelddagrif deck. Maybe do sort of a limbo challenge - how low (of nonlands) can you go?
I'm on the other side of the coin. My wife wins regularly. Not just MTG, but most games we play. She'll often even set herself an arbitrary goal of 'winning without doing X' and still win. Honestly, it got to the point where I really had to do a HUGE mental shift of what I wanted to achieve while playing games against her with our friends. So now, with MTG, I focus more on piloting my deck to the best of my abilities, and analysing the engine I'm running for any loss of momentum, rather than winning itself - I'd rather lose a game knowing that my build works well and I piloted well than win a game through sheer dumb luck or everyone else mana screwed.
As far as targetting these sort of people - well, IMO it doesn't tend to get you very far. It makes your actions extremely predictable by the rest of the table, which sets you up to fail. And it's putting a mental bias on yourself - instead of targetting the ACTUAL most viable threat on the table, you've given yourself a filter of the PERCIEVED most viable threat on the table. There are times when taking someone out like that will win you a game. But then with EDH, the goal is more everyone having fun, so if you're hating someone out of the game, to me that's a tainted victory.
I've talked to my wife about it before - honestly, we've had arguments about it, as I've been a sore loser in the past, and that's hard to admit but goddamn it's the truth. Her answer to my question of 'how do you win so often?' is simply, I plan ahead and make sure I'm making the best decisions towards a win each time I play. She's bored unless she does anything but this. And I wouldn't have it any other way now. I have to game hard to beat her, and that helps me raise the bar, in terms of play strategy and deckbuilding. I don't immediately target her, but I am aware of the fact that whenever I game with her she is a considerable threat at the table. But I no longer let it upset me if she wins every game we play in a night.
I don't know if this answers any of your speculation, but that's my two cents anyhow.
I'm on the other side of the coin. My wife wins regularly. Not just MTG, but most games we play. She'll often even set herself an arbitrary goal of 'winning without doing X' and still win. Honestly, it got to the point where I really had to do a HUGE mental shift of what I wanted to achieve while playing games against her with our friends. So now, with MTG, I focus more on piloting my deck to the best of my abilities, and analysing the engine I'm running for any loss of momentum, rather than winning itself - I'd rather lose a game knowing that my build works well and I piloted well than win a game through sheer dumb luck or everyone else mana screwed.
As far as targetting these sort of people - well, IMO it doesn't tend to get you very far. It makes your actions extremely predictable by the rest of the table, which sets you up to fail. And it's putting a mental bias on yourself - instead of targetting the ACTUAL most viable threat on the table, you've given yourself a filter of the PERCIEVED most viable threat on the table. There are times when taking someone out like that will win you a game. But then with EDH, the goal is more everyone having fun, so if you're hating someone out of the game, to me that's a tainted victory.
I've talked to my wife about it before - honestly, we've had arguments about it, as I've been a sore loser in the past, and that's hard to admit but goddamn it's the truth. Her answer to my question of 'how do you win so often?' is simply, I plan ahead and make sure I'm making the best decisions towards a win each time I play. She's bored unless she does anything but this. And I wouldn't have it any other way now. I have to game hard to beat her, and that helps me raise the bar, in terms of play strategy and deckbuilding. I don't immediately target her, but I am aware of the fact that whenever I game with her she is a considerable threat at the table. But I no longer let it upset me if she wins every game we play in a night.
I don't know if this answers any of your speculation, but that's my two cents anyhow.
That's actually really interesting, thanks for the input.
I think part of the thing is how much of a gulf there can be in playing abilities, especially in commander since I personally think, as an avid limited player, that multiplayer commander might be the most skill-intensive format of magic, because it has so many elements that simply don't exist in other formats. I think lots of people who are good or even great at other formats can have a hard time in commander because they're not taking advantage of the political aspects. All that to say - I think that's part of why some people are able to win such a high percentage of commander games.
I do think there's at least a reasonable level of "well, everything on the table is pretty much equal, so I'm going after X because they've won a lot of games recently". I also think it's kind of silly to target someone when they're already way way behind, even if they're a good player (unless you're the one in the lead, of course).
Personally I have a hard time losing, which I think is partly because it doesn't happen super often. Even if I handle it well publicly, I tend to turn it over and over in my head to try to think of where I might have made a mistake. Which is part of why I enjoy precon fights a little more - at least then it's a little easier to say "well, that deck was a piece of crap" if I wasn't responsible for building it.
Out of curiosity, what sorts of things does your win set as her challenges to win with?
If he knows that you often win, and you were playing a deck that suits your style and can come from behind, while the deck that was currently "winning" was something he could deal with, he was right. If I'm running mono black, I'm gonna try to kill the enchantress or artifact deck before focusing on the creature deck, because I can come back against the creature deck even if they're in a better position than the other two. Its not whose ahead that matters, but who is in the best position to beat YOU. If I'm running lots of artifact hate, the artifact deck should usually take me out before focusing on the mono black deck, even if mono black has the better board and more life. If I'm running Ruric Thar, spell slinger should handle my deck before worrying about most other decks.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
That's actually really interesting, thanks for the input.
I think part of the thing is how much of a gulf there can be in playing abilities, especially in commander since I personally think, as an avid limited player, that multiplayer commander might be the most skill-intensive format of magic, because it has so many elements that simply don't exist in other formats. I think lots of people who are good or even great at other formats can have a hard time in commander because they're not taking advantage of the political aspects. All that to say - I think that's part of why some people are able to win such a high percentage of commander games.
I do think there's at least a reasonable level of "well, everything on the table is pretty much equal, so I'm going after X because they've won a lot of games recently". I also think it's kind of silly to target someone when they're already way way behind, even if they're a good player (unless you're the one in the lead, of course).
Personally I have a hard time losing, which I think is partly because it doesn't happen super often. Even if I handle it well publicly, I tend to turn it over and over in my head to try to think of where I might have made a mistake. Which is part of why I enjoy precon fights a little more - at least then it's a little easier to say "well, that deck was a piece of crap" if I wasn't responsible for building it.
Hey no problem, glad it made sense! It took me a long time to admit that I was a sore loser, and that my wife is simply better at gaming than I am. And funnily enough, once I'd kind of let it go, I actually improved a lot.
I personally think part of the reason this iteration of Magic is so difficult is because of the pseudo-political aspect of the game. Whether you play it that way or not it exists, and people do have hidden biases, sometimes hidden to themselves. This is part of why it can be hard to see the faults in your own deckbuilding or strategy. Specifically strategy I should think. You like to think you're making the right decisions, but everyone values cards differently, and everyone ranks other players differently.
I think the reason my wife is so good at this game (and this is going to sound stupid) is that she is borderline telepathic. Not in a literal sense, she can't read minds, but she is extremely good at assessing people's impulses, conversations and body language in order to gauge what they really think. In application to gaming, this gives her an insurmountable edge in a lot of areas. We don't play a lot of multiplayer EDH, so usually I'm tasked with beating a mastermind, so I just go in guns blazing and burn straight for the finish line, because there is no fooling her; I've caught hell for lying to her enough times to know. My guess is that people who are enough like her to assess someone else's situation across the table, and with a good enough knowledge of the cards they are likely to see in relation to that extra information, are well equipped to plan ahead.
I guess that sounds of like mumbo jumbo, but it honestly is really impressive to see my wife play games somedays. We stopped playing Canasta (her favourite traditional card game) simply because she is absolutely, supremely unbeatable.
Personally I have a hard time losing, which I think is partly because it doesn't happen super often. Even if I handle it well publicly, I tend to turn it over and over in my head to try to think of where I might have made a mistake. Which is part of why I enjoy precon fights a little more - at least then it's a little easier to say "well, that deck was a piece of crap" if I wasn't responsible for building it.
This is something I used to do a lot. It's obviously not a bad thing for you, you have a good success rate. I used to lose a lot, and really start to feel terrible about it. I'd blame anything else, plan to spend a LOT of money to upgrade my decks, and after a bit of soul searching, realised I was getting inside my own head. I was letting myself get into a negative headspace and allowing myself to be predictable in my play. So I learnt how to build decks pretty well, and I am MUCH better now at getting perspective mid game in order to keep myself on track and respond in appropriate ways, both socially and in game play. It's made a better player and much less of a jerk to play against.
If he knows that you often win, and you were playing a deck that suits your style and can come from behind, while the deck that was currently "winning" was something he could deal with, he was right. If I'm running mono black, I'm gonna try to kill the enchantress or artifact deck before focusing on the creature deck, because I can come back against the creature deck even if they're in a better position than the other two. Its not whose ahead that matters, but who is in the best position to beat YOU. If I'm running lots of artifact hate, the artifact deck should usually take me out before focusing on the mono black deck, even if mono black has the better board and more life. If I'm running Ruric Thar, spell slinger should handle my deck before worrying about most other decks.
Well, we were all playing precons so honestly I doubt he (or I) knew what was in the deck. I had, iirc just my commander (yidris) on the board. Another guy playing the BW deck had 5 zombies or something, that 4/6 flyer that recurs enchantments, and I think his commander out. The guy playing the artifact deck had a bunch of artifacts and some flyers. In fairness, the BW player seemed like the newest guy so I was going kinda easy on him too, especially since the BW deck kinda sucks. He did have like 40-50 life though.
Anyway, the incident with Saskia wasn't so much about that game specifically or even threat assessment in general, so much as how much hate should be thrown at commander players who win frequently through better play, whether those players should try to gimp themselves to win less frequently, and how to do that without ruining the fun of the game.
Out of curiosity, what sorts of things does your win set as her challenges to win with?
Ok so outside of Magic, probably the two biggest games we play with our friends are Carcassonne and Smallworld. Maybe Discworld too, but that game is too chaotic to know what's going on.
Anyhow, Carcassonne, she set herself a goal to win without placing farmers. Which, if you know the game is pretty tough. She won.
Smallworld, she's set herself the goal of winning without changing races and won.
Discworld she usually just wins because no one else knows what's happening.
EDH: She'll usually set herself a particular win con. Her favourite deck is Trostani, Selesnya's Voice and she will set herself a goal of at least one PW ulti followed by a win, and she'll usually get it. Not quite as impressive as her non MTG win cons but she sets out with a plan in mind and usually achieves it.
If you actually do have a 60% win rate in your meta, then focusing on you is absolutely the correct thing to do for your opponents. It's the only strategy that gives them a reasonable chance at winning.
If he knows that you often win, and you were playing a deck that suits your style and can come from behind, while the deck that was currently "winning" was something he could deal with, he was right. If I'm running mono black, I'm gonna try to kill the enchantress or artifact deck before focusing on the creature deck, because I can come back against the creature deck even if they're in a better position than the other two. Its not whose ahead that matters, but who is in the best position to beat YOU. If I'm running lots of artifact hate, the artifact deck should usually take me out before focusing on the mono black deck, even if mono black has the better board and more life. If I'm running Ruric Thar, spell slinger should handle my deck before worrying about most other decks.
This.
I target the deck which I'm most fragile to, most heavily. Next, the whole, "cards in hand vs. Cards in play" aspect. My LGS had a very good Riku player. His board presence was that of a mouse. It was all hand sculpting. Next, it sounds like the opponent quality is below you. They only see what's in front of their face. And lastly, they may conform do a "different EDH" than you (battlecruiser vs 'competitive').
Your posts in this thread are really cool to read, a sort of 'faith in humanity' restored moment. I've been a sore loser before as well. My reason is that when you get used to winning sometimes you make excuses or get salty when you loose. I feel ashamed about it and its not often that I act that way but it does happen. Youre not the only one and I find it inspiring that you admitted it and moved past it.
Frankly I think your story is why Saskia is by far the worst precon general; he's the opposite of political. I played that same deck and opted for Tymna and Tana because they're much less confrontational.
Generally speaking, though, I think it's reasonable to target the better player to *some* extent.
Relating to plushpenguin's comment, I also wish people would be much more mindful of card advantage and deck type rather than just board state. I know a guy who likes control-combo Sharuum, and I hate playing in any game with him that contains new or inexperienced players because they always target the one with the more dangerous board state (me) and let him combo off because they don't know Sharuum well enough. Now there's something to be said for appearing non-threatening, but certain archetypes (poor, poor aggro) are much worse at this than, say, control, and when a new player ignores the control player's hand size and targets me then there's no way I can win.
This is why EDH is a social game - threat assessment is not restricted to only the board state. Honestly speaking a player with a higher win percentage is not really that much different than that player with the empty board, waits for everyone to exhaust resources, whips out an infinite combo in a turn and wins. Yes, you don't run infinite combos, but your win percentage in practice makes you no less dangerous than that player when it comes to player threat assessment. Every time you win, especially with the same deck, you add an unspecified quantity of "known for danger" into your "player profile".
If your playgroup is nice, then when you change decks they would be less "targetive" for a few games. If you win those games, well sad to say you just aggravated your profile to "dangerous regardless of what deck he/she plays". You can go all out to say that you didn't even modify a precon to "EDHSLAYER VER 7.0" that you usually do and/or that you simply are a better player, it doesn't change the profiling, because what wins (more) is usually what is better and as pessimistic as it sounds, "society" reacts by targeting what is better and no reason can stave that off, for it is mainly (or solely) the practical end (winning) that evokes the reactions.
Dirk, I believe that building decks with deliberate handicaps (similar to what toctheyounger's wife does) is an excellent idea. In fact, it's actually what I do in Commander.
To give you a little backstory about myself, I have the kind of personality that really enjoys tuning decks. I spend tons of time researching how to improve my Commander deck (I only have one) and experimenting with what I learn. I'm also a fairly competitive player; I always play to win. Because of these two qualities, I naturally have a tendency to build powerful decks that shouldn't ever really exist in Commander. Since I can't change these two qualities, the way I prevent myself from building broken decks in Commander is by imposing deckbuilding restrictions upon myself. By doing so, I prevent my deck from winning too easily. This makes Commander an interesting challenge for me. The more difficult it is for me to win, the more I enjoy the game and the more I can grow as a player and deckbuilder.
Currently, I'm playing with a 4 color deck that can only win the game after assembling an intricate 17 card combo. It's a favorite at my LGS. In addition to being novel, my opponents enjoy trying to disassemble it as much as I do trying to piece it all together. It's become a fun puzzle for everyone involved because of how elaborate it is. Perhaps you can do the same Dirk? Since ordinary Commander has become too easy for you, why not graduate to the next level by handicapping yourself so you can grow even more as a player?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Afterwards he argued that he was right to target me with Saskia, since I did ultimately win the game. I would argue that you should target whoever is winning at the time, and not try too hard to predict who's going to be winning 4 turns down the line, especially when you're playing with precons that, for the most part, don't have any game-winning combos likely to come out of nowhere and win the game. On the other hand, I like to think I'm a pretty good commander player, so there is definitely some merit to focusing on me more than other players, generally-speaking.
I win quite a few games of commander. I don't keep stats on it or anything, but it's probably at least 60 or 70%, and most of those are 4 player games, and usually with a basically level playing field - I don't like winning simply because my deck has more powerful stuff in it, especially since I have a ton of money invested in my collection that most players can't compete with, and it would be way too easy to put together a powerful combo deck and stomp my LGS. Hence doing stuff like precon fights - but I still win a high percentage of those, even without knowing the cards in them very well. And I often try to pick one of the weaker precons, or even occasionally make impulsive moves that might be sub-optimal just to see if I can get myself out of them.
Which is kind of great, obviously, but there's still something about it that bothers me a bit. Theoretically, you'd think a meta should be able to focus players according to their threat level, and bring everyone around to a semi-even playing field of around a 25% winrate. But it seems like that's harder to do than it looks. Are my opponents supposed to pick on me, even when I have very little going on? I think if everyone was focusing on me even when I was behind, I'd be pretty unhappy, especially with something like precons where people are presumably pretty evenly matched in terms of deck power. But then, when people assess the threat of the table agnostic to the skills of the players piloting them, it seems like I usually win, so obviously I'm a bit biased.
For those in a similar situation as me - how do you feel about it? If people focus you, even when you're behind, because of your play skill, do you think that's reasonable? Do you do anything to try to keep your win rate more balanced on purpose - playing bad decks, making poorly-thought-out decisions, etc? And for people on the opposite side of the table, playing against someone who tends to win frequently because of play skill - how do you try to balance the tables?
tldr: waah waah I win too much waah waah.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
B is known to be a pretty damn good player, he's a judge so he knows the game well, and he builds a variety of decks, though his strong point is control. One of his most resilient decks is Wydwen, the Biting Gale. I have learned from experience to take it down the moment I can as it has a nasty habit of pulling a win from way behind. 5 life left, dead on the board, lowest amount of lands? Yeah, I'm still gonna smash against Wydwen because I know what it can do.
However, if he brings a new deck to the game, I'll instead opt for - as is normal - the strongest board position on the table. Get a feeling for what he's playing, cut him down if he grows too big, that kind of work. Then I can play accordingly in later games. Once the dust has settled, it's usually clear which of his decks need to be shot down on sight, and which ones of his can be dealt with in due time.
So if you get in the position of player B; then yes, it's fair if they'll focus fire on you. Especially if you often play the same decks. (Which, given your list of decks doesn't seem too plausible, but hey.)
I am, however, going to call a slight bit of BS on the "basically level playing field" with your win rate. Likely the individual power level of cards might be equal, but your decks are simply better constructed, more synergistic compared to what you're facing.
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras.
Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power.
Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza.
Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall.
Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana.
Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die.
Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
I definitely get focusing someone because you're familiar with his deck and you know what it's trying to do. In my case, though, I'm usually either playing a new deck (I've made quite a few I didn't put the list up for, even, and I'm working on more) or precons vs precons. And while my constructed decks are usually pretty good, they usually don't have any sudden "I win from behind" buttons.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
How often do I win?
How often do I create dominant boardstates?
How early do I typically pull ahead?
How competitively do I play compared to others in the group?
Things like that seem to be something a lot of people consider, especially when they've been playing with you long enough. Sometimes, depending on who you are and what you are to your group, your perceived threat level could be considerably higher than what you'd ever imagine yourself to be. Perceived threat levels are actually much more dangerous than actual threat levels because they do just as you've described; it gets you targeted from the start of the match.
Another problem with it, is that once you have it, it's nigh impossible to get rid of. No amount of, "okay guys, I'm playing a janky, just for fun deck. I don't expect to win", will get those who are biased against your perceived threat level to just leave you be. This is a situation that expands much further passed a game of cardboard. Who you are as a person can be indicative of how much a threat you "appear" to be in any sort of sporting (using that word loosely) event.
In my opinion, this isn't something you should complain about. It means that you, as a person, are viewed as strong and intellectual, capable of being a force to be reckoned with regardless of the environment. You're a high level threat in their minds, and that isn't likely to change. You embrace it and have fun being that powerful adversary they believe you to be... Or you let it get to you, feeling singled out until you decide not to play anymore.
I'd suggest taking it as an additional challenge instead. It's a compliment really if you think about it. Don't forget you are playing to have fun. Don't allow your ego to ruin that for yourself or the others at the table.
Also, for the people talking about targeting or being targeted because they have a powerful deck - that's not really what I'm talking about here. I'm talking purely play skill. How should tables handle someone who's able to win frequently by simply being good at the game? And yes I know this whole thread makes me look like a cocky ********.
Mostly I'm bemoaning that it seems to be difficult to find a balance. It's difficult to find a deck that gives me a reasonable chance to win without either winning "too" frequently (Phelddagrif) or just getting overpowered by other people playing powerful cards I can't interact with (Grenzo). And on the other side, I'm not sure how much preference I should be given when choosing targets, especially in a game where the decks are basically equal.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
I want to state that complaining about winning too much might sound like a weird problem, but it is a serious issue. Commander is the one format where winning too much is a detriment.
Example of this issue:
One night at the LGS, one I've been playing at for years, I show up on a whim after work with no cards. A local asks me to play and thus I borrow one of his decks. Its 90% the Atraxa 4c pre-con deck.
In the two games I played that night I won both, the first due to my own advantages and the 2nd due to poor politics from the 3rd player. In theory I should loose with a deck weaker than the constructed decks I was playing against, but I pulled off both wins for a 100% win record that night.
Potential Cause of the issue:
My collection is entirely commander focused and I spend lots of time researching, building, and playing different decks. Its a case of 'what has been seen cannot be unseen.' If your local players aren't studying the format as much as you its easy to out pace them.
Potential Solutions:
I'm just watching the cursor blink here.
I think it could be a good idea to build a deck with intentionally poor choices. No removal, no threats, something of that nature? Construct a deck with a glaringly obvious weakness like a single card type?
You could also do the opposite, build a good deck and make horrible political decisions.
I personally hate budget decks, I wouldn't put that on anyone.
GWUBAtraxa, Praetor's Voice PrimerGWUB
GWURoon Bant Blink WhateverGWU
BRGLord Windgrace LandsBRG
I've been there before, though I very much like building wonky decks that I'm not even sure would do anything, let alone win, which became the real problem for me. My fine tuned decks tend to win fairly easily, mostly because i'd had them forever and just made changes depending on the strategies or cards that I had a hard time dealing with. It eventually came to a point where those decks seemed to survive and/or answer everything that get's thrown at them. That makes people want to target me in most games, commander or not, and it almost starts to seem like less strategy and more a grudge they just can't let go of. It even came to a point where I decided to make a clone deck, nothing but clones and Twincast spells, and still won quite a bit. It's not my fault that you had Kiki-jiki on board and Zealous Conscripts in the grave when I drew Body Double, nor is it my fault you kept trying for that combo and having me win off it in one way or another. No point in targeting my Mirrorworks deck that just wants to see how many of them I can make in a game.
To sum it up, target me all you want when I'm playing an actual deck, but when I'm trying to pilot a gimmick that I'm not even sure will function let alone win, keep off.
WBG Karador, Ghost Chieftain
B Toshiro Umezawa
BG Pharika, God of Affliction - Necromancy and Politics
WWW The Church of Heliod
WBR Zurgo, Helmsmasher
RG Wort, the Raidmother
UBR Jeleva, Nephalia's Scourge
UG Vorel of the Hull Clade
Maybe an interesting way to go with a constructed deck would be to take, say, my phelddagrif deck, and just start removing control pieces. Still leave in answers to everything, but just reduce the numbers, while increasing the numbers of lands, so I have to rely more and more on Phelddy politics, choosing the targets for my removal very carefully. Not sure if I should leave in draw engines like LFTL or if that would go against the spirit of the challenge.
Unfortunately it'd probably suck for the sorts of games I keep getting stuck in at my LGS's league - 3 player games where one guy is playing an obnoxious "competitive" deck and the other player's deck is fairly low power, so it just turns into a dumb 1v1 match where I'm forced to come out swinging with my control pieces to stop the game from ending immediately and the third player just derps.
Playing suboptimally on purpose isn't really an option for me. The suboptimal plays I will occasionally make is basically just playing quickly and not taking back bad moves. Playing badly politically isn't something I'd do on purpose, since politics are what I find to be the most fun part of commander (and the biggest difference play-wise compared to limited, my other love).
I think the ideal solution for me would be to have a deck that's challenging to win with, but not one that simply can't beat certain things. I do like the idea of the land-heavy phelddagrif deck. Maybe do sort of a limbo challenge - how low (of nonlands) can you go?
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
As far as targetting these sort of people - well, IMO it doesn't tend to get you very far. It makes your actions extremely predictable by the rest of the table, which sets you up to fail. And it's putting a mental bias on yourself - instead of targetting the ACTUAL most viable threat on the table, you've given yourself a filter of the PERCIEVED most viable threat on the table. There are times when taking someone out like that will win you a game. But then with EDH, the goal is more everyone having fun, so if you're hating someone out of the game, to me that's a tainted victory.
I've talked to my wife about it before - honestly, we've had arguments about it, as I've been a sore loser in the past, and that's hard to admit but goddamn it's the truth. Her answer to my question of 'how do you win so often?' is simply, I plan ahead and make sure I'm making the best decisions towards a win each time I play. She's bored unless she does anything but this. And I wouldn't have it any other way now. I have to game hard to beat her, and that helps me raise the bar, in terms of play strategy and deckbuilding. I don't immediately target her, but I am aware of the fact that whenever I game with her she is a considerable threat at the table. But I no longer let it upset me if she wins every game we play in a night.
I don't know if this answers any of your speculation, but that's my two cents anyhow.
I think part of the thing is how much of a gulf there can be in playing abilities, especially in commander since I personally think, as an avid limited player, that multiplayer commander might be the most skill-intensive format of magic, because it has so many elements that simply don't exist in other formats. I think lots of people who are good or even great at other formats can have a hard time in commander because they're not taking advantage of the political aspects. All that to say - I think that's part of why some people are able to win such a high percentage of commander games.
I do think there's at least a reasonable level of "well, everything on the table is pretty much equal, so I'm going after X because they've won a lot of games recently". I also think it's kind of silly to target someone when they're already way way behind, even if they're a good player (unless you're the one in the lead, of course).
Personally I have a hard time losing, which I think is partly because it doesn't happen super often. Even if I handle it well publicly, I tend to turn it over and over in my head to try to think of where I might have made a mistake. Which is part of why I enjoy precon fights a little more - at least then it's a little easier to say "well, that deck was a piece of crap" if I wasn't responsible for building it.
Out of curiosity, what sorts of things does your win set as her challenges to win with?
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Hey no problem, glad it made sense! It took me a long time to admit that I was a sore loser, and that my wife is simply better at gaming than I am. And funnily enough, once I'd kind of let it go, I actually improved a lot.
I personally think part of the reason this iteration of Magic is so difficult is because of the pseudo-political aspect of the game. Whether you play it that way or not it exists, and people do have hidden biases, sometimes hidden to themselves. This is part of why it can be hard to see the faults in your own deckbuilding or strategy. Specifically strategy I should think. You like to think you're making the right decisions, but everyone values cards differently, and everyone ranks other players differently.
I think the reason my wife is so good at this game (and this is going to sound stupid) is that she is borderline telepathic. Not in a literal sense, she can't read minds, but she is extremely good at assessing people's impulses, conversations and body language in order to gauge what they really think. In application to gaming, this gives her an insurmountable edge in a lot of areas. We don't play a lot of multiplayer EDH, so usually I'm tasked with beating a mastermind, so I just go in guns blazing and burn straight for the finish line, because there is no fooling her; I've caught hell for lying to her enough times to know. My guess is that people who are enough like her to assess someone else's situation across the table, and with a good enough knowledge of the cards they are likely to see in relation to that extra information, are well equipped to plan ahead.
I guess that sounds of like mumbo jumbo, but it honestly is really impressive to see my wife play games somedays. We stopped playing Canasta (her favourite traditional card game) simply because she is absolutely, supremely unbeatable.
This is something I used to do a lot. It's obviously not a bad thing for you, you have a good success rate. I used to lose a lot, and really start to feel terrible about it. I'd blame anything else, plan to spend a LOT of money to upgrade my decks, and after a bit of soul searching, realised I was getting inside my own head. I was letting myself get into a negative headspace and allowing myself to be predictable in my play. So I learnt how to build decks pretty well, and I am MUCH better now at getting perspective mid game in order to keep myself on track and respond in appropriate ways, both socially and in game play. It's made a better player and much less of a jerk to play against.
Anyway, the incident with Saskia wasn't so much about that game specifically or even threat assessment in general, so much as how much hate should be thrown at commander players who win frequently through better play, whether those players should try to gimp themselves to win less frequently, and how to do that without ruining the fun of the game.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
Ok so outside of Magic, probably the two biggest games we play with our friends are Carcassonne and Smallworld. Maybe Discworld too, but that game is too chaotic to know what's going on.
Anyhow, Carcassonne, she set herself a goal to win without placing farmers. Which, if you know the game is pretty tough. She won.
Smallworld, she's set herself the goal of winning without changing races and won.
Discworld she usually just wins because no one else knows what's happening.
EDH: She'll usually set herself a particular win con. Her favourite deck is Trostani, Selesnya's Voice and she will set herself a goal of at least one PW ulti followed by a win, and she'll usually get it. Not quite as impressive as her non MTG win cons but she sets out with a plan in mind and usually achieves it.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
This.
I target the deck which I'm most fragile to, most heavily. Next, the whole, "cards in hand vs. Cards in play" aspect. My LGS had a very good Riku player. His board presence was that of a mouse. It was all hand sculpting. Next, it sounds like the opponent quality is below you. They only see what's in front of their face. And lastly, they may conform do a "different EDH" than you (battlecruiser vs 'competitive').
The Unidentified Fantastic Flying Girl.
EDH
Xenagos, the God of Stompy
The Gitrog Monster: Oppressive Value.
Marchesa, Marionette Master - Undying Robots
Yuriko, the Hydra Omnivore
I make dolls as a hobby.
GWUBAtraxa, Praetor's Voice PrimerGWUB
GWURoon Bant Blink WhateverGWU
BRGLord Windgrace LandsBRG
Generally speaking, though, I think it's reasonable to target the better player to *some* extent.
Relating to plushpenguin's comment, I also wish people would be much more mindful of card advantage and deck type rather than just board state. I know a guy who likes control-combo Sharuum, and I hate playing in any game with him that contains new or inexperienced players because they always target the one with the more dangerous board state (me) and let him combo off because they don't know Sharuum well enough. Now there's something to be said for appearing non-threatening, but certain archetypes (poor, poor aggro) are much worse at this than, say, control, and when a new player ignores the control player's hand size and targets me then there's no way I can win.
- Rabid Wombat
If your playgroup is nice, then when you change decks they would be less "targetive" for a few games. If you win those games, well sad to say you just aggravated your profile to "dangerous regardless of what deck he/she plays". You can go all out to say that you didn't even modify a precon to "EDHSLAYER VER 7.0" that you usually do and/or that you simply are a better player, it doesn't change the profiling, because what wins (more) is usually what is better and as pessimistic as it sounds, "society" reacts by targeting what is better and no reason can stave that off, for it is mainly (or solely) the practical end (winning) that evokes the reactions.
It's basically Tall Poppy Syndrome.
To give you a little backstory about myself, I have the kind of personality that really enjoys tuning decks. I spend tons of time researching how to improve my Commander deck (I only have one) and experimenting with what I learn. I'm also a fairly competitive player; I always play to win. Because of these two qualities, I naturally have a tendency to build powerful decks that shouldn't ever really exist in Commander. Since I can't change these two qualities, the way I prevent myself from building broken decks in Commander is by imposing deckbuilding restrictions upon myself. By doing so, I prevent my deck from winning too easily. This makes Commander an interesting challenge for me. The more difficult it is for me to win, the more I enjoy the game and the more I can grow as a player and deckbuilder.
Currently, I'm playing with a 4 color deck that can only win the game after assembling an intricate 17 card combo. It's a favorite at my LGS. In addition to being novel, my opponents enjoy trying to disassemble it as much as I do trying to piece it all together. It's become a fun puzzle for everyone involved because of how elaborate it is. Perhaps you can do the same Dirk? Since ordinary Commander has become too easy for you, why not graduate to the next level by handicapping yourself so you can grow even more as a player?
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!