Hey, I was thinking that since the term "optimized" has seemed to make its way into the EDH jargon it might be useful to have a tag as such for decks to allow people to indicate that a deck has some competitive leanings but is not full on CEDH (without having to put "75%" in the title somewhere and thus open up the discussions to what exact percentage it is haha).
If anyone knows to whom to make this sort of suggestion instead of a post let me know and I'll route that way, but might be useful discussion.
Apparently the source of this was a Command Zone podcast I guess, and they look pretty well thought out for the most part:
Jank: "Men in Chairs" tribal, "I just pulled stuff out of my trade binder" decks, obscure tribes and themes that really have nothing to do with power level. Vorthos decks, often.
Casual: About the level of the Precons, maybe including the Precons themselves. Slower, playing all of the Timmy cards, focused on having fun while winning rather than cutting cards to make sure you win.
Focused: More tuned decks. Probably still not getting to the level of "I need a fetch land for a specific dual and/or shock land", but people have begun lowering their mana curves and putting in more powerful effects like [[Cyclonic Rift]], not to mention begun cutting the excess cards that do cool stuff or are good, but don't actually help the deck win.
Optimized: Tuning to the max. Still some room for theme or cool deck ideas, but definitely focused on a way to win and how to get there as quickly as possible. Playing all of the reasonably expensive stuff that you should be if you're trying to win, and possibly dipping your toe into things that would get you shanked in most casual Commander circles--Mass Land Destruction, etc.
Competitive: Here, just look up the decklists themselves, it'll be easier. (Thanks for the real list, /u/jbmoskow)
I think that's fine. You're first three categories fit the 25%, 50%, 75% model and optimized seems like what I call 90%. Is it supposed to represent a level where you are building competitively but just not going for the top tier decks (something that in modern or standard is often called tier 2.5)? Or is it supposed to represent building a more casual idea competitively, like taking something that just doesn't have the potential to make it in cEDH but approaching building it as if it as if it did, min maxing and making it as cut throat as possible, with every choice made to maximize the chance of winning except for the initial choice of strategy?
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!
I think this is a good idea as well (at least, having a few thread tag options to describe your intended power level). These subjective tags never work since I could have a casual deck running Beta duals just because they're cards I already own and you think that simply the act of running duals makes it more competitive. But even though they won't ever prevent arguing over the competitive level, most of the time tags are helpful.
I think this is a good idea as well (at least, having a few thread tag options to describe your intended power level). These subjective tags never work since I could have a casual deck running Beta duals just because they're cards I already own and you think that simply the act of running duals makes it more competitive. But even though they won't ever prevent arguing over the competitive level, most of the time tags are helpful.
That's the issue I always run into with these classifications. My decks never fit comfortably into any of the given levels mostly by virtue of how long I've been playing, how invested I am, and playgroup specific deckbuilding choices. That's such a niche part of the playerbase that it's not really worth considering in these discussions, though. I agree that it's worthwhile for most of the people posting/browsing decklists - if the deck doesn't fit nicely into any tags, just skip the tag on that thread.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[Pr]Jaya | Estrid | A rotating cast of decks built out of my box.
Yeah I vote for these tags as well, they are very descriptive, and you have to understand that they'll be heaps of new players to commander over the coming years..decades, and the percentage terminology isn't very intuitive, leaving many not knowing what is being described with "75%".
In theory I support this concept, too. I think it'd be nice to have a couple of options to describe scale or intent of different builds.
That being said, the tag should in no way detract from an OP describing accurately the intent of their deck, whether it be in its current state or eventual intended state. Obviously the onus is on the individual to do this, but if said were to eventuate I would think it would be important to make this clear.
I have never felt that tags fit all that well. I have never considered my own decks to be competative, budget, or casual. Sure I don't play infinite combo, MLD, or stasis effects but the fact that I don't want to play Craterhoof Behemoth or Expropriate are not something I can express in a generic tag either.
In my mind, competitive is a tag that validly states that you are trying to go absolutely to the extreme of making the deck better at any cost. Tags of percentage don't contain any information like that. Something like Budget often dictates that suggesting cards that cost > $10 likely aren't an option and I think that is a valid tag as well.
I just don't see what these kind of tags would really give to readers.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have officially moved to MTGNexus. I just wanted to let people know as my response time to salvation decks being bumped is very hit or miss.
In my mind, competitive is a tag that validly states that you are trying to go absolutely to the extreme of making the deck better at any cost. Tags of percentage don't contain any information like that. Something like Budget often dictates that suggesting cards that cost > $10 likely aren't an option and I think that is a valid tag as well.
I just don't see what these kind of tags would really give to readers.
This is sort of valid. There's only so much information a tag with a single phrase or statement can convey. It's no substitute for actually reading a thread.
I have never felt that tags fit all that well. I have never considered my own decks to be competative, budget, or casual. Sure I don't play infinite combo, MLD, or stasis effects but the fact that I don't want to play Craterhoof Behemoth or Expropriate are not something I can express in a generic tag either.
In my mind, competitive is a tag that validly states that you are trying to go absolutely to the extreme of making the deck better at any cost. Tags of percentage don't contain any information like that. Something like Budget often dictates that suggesting cards that cost > $10 likely aren't an option and I think that is a valid tag as well.
I just don't see what these kind of tags would really give to readers.
If you build a tune deck with no budget but intentionally dont run certain cards, you might be a 75%er.
To get into the original tiers from the podcast, i think "jank" and "casual" are the two that are mostly meaningless, but I do think "focused" "optimized" and "competitive" have some value conceptually. Obviously we already have a competitive tag.
I see a clear distinction between CEDH decks and what I tend to build which I consider "optimized.' Coincidentally most of my friends and people I've enjoyed pickup games with are playing either focused or optimized decks; generally focused decks make budget concessions or are playing stuff to support a not great gameplan, and optimized decks are playing fewer bad cards with fewer budget concessions and so on.
The budget thing is obviously just a part of the spectrum--but I don't think of a budget concession as the same as "playing on a budget" (e.g. keep all cards under 10 or entire deck under 100) -- more like playing a strictly worse card to save some bucks (for something else) or keep the power level down. The most straightforward example I can think of is running Diabolic Tutor over Vampiric or Demonic.
It's not a clear cut but I do see the distinction between, and can generally put a deck in a category by looking at it.
In terms of what value it will add--here's an example of cards and suggestions you probably won't make to an "optimized" deckbuilder vs. a "competitive" deckbuider:
* You really need to get down to under 30 lands
* You should be running chain of vapor and mental misstep
* I think you need to get your curve down under 2
* I'm not sure you have enough mirage tutors in your deck
* How about adding an elvish spirit guide instead of a land?
* I think you could probably cut Austere Command - the game'll be over by the time it's relevant
etc. etc. There's a really obvious delineation between the two categories of decks and I think it's useful.
I would like the additional tags just because it lets me categorize my decks a bit better. Of the tags we have, competitive is the closest but that goes too far. As mentioned above, there are certain things competitive decks are trying to do that "75%" decks are not. In a realistic sense, I think there is a gray area between focused and optimized though where not everyone would define them the same way. I also don't think that is a major issue. At least some categorization let's people view the decks they want and get ideas for what they are trying to see even if the deck they are looking at isn't exactly as tuned as they think before looking at it.
In any case, I would like at least one of the tags to simply say that my decks are tuned, but I don't want to include MLD, or infinite combos, etc. However, based on the OP's definitions, these would be "Focused" whereas I consider them "Optimized" just because they are tuned as much as they can be without those types of cards.
I'll bring this up with the other moderators. As has been mentioned, the biggest reason we haven't done something like this in the past is that in a format like EDH, with a much wider range of deck levels, the tags are only as useful as the reason they were applied, which varies greatly from person to person. If we do add a more comprehensive tag system, I don't know that it will look exactly like what was describe in the OP, but we will look in to it.
We've added a few tags. It's not as wide as was originally conceived in this thread, but it should at least add an in between options as well as some specific deck types that are popular.
Though I would have preferred an actual name rather than just "75%", I do appreciate the additions. I am going to go through my lists and add the 75% tag to hopefully offer a bit of categorization to my lists.
Though I would have preferred an actual name rather than just "75%", I do appreciate the additions. I am going to go through my lists and add the 75% tag to hopefully offer a bit of categorization to my lists.
Thanks
No problem! It unfortunately came down to whether we wanted a "better" sounding name, or if we wanted something with a more universally accepted meaning, and because we want the tags to be a bit more universal, we ended up going with the second option to make the tag itself more useful.
Though I would have preferred an actual name rather than just "75%", I do appreciate the additions. I am going to go through my lists and add the 75% tag to hopefully offer a bit of categorization to my lists.
No problem! It unfortunately came down to whether we wanted a "better" sounding name, or if we wanted something with a more universally accepted meaning, and because we want the tags to be a bit more universal, we ended up going with the second option to make the tag itself more useful.
We also didn't want to create confusion with the tags. To one person "optimized" and "competitive" are largely the same while to another they might be completely different tiers. 75% felt safe because that is a widely accepted terminology around the internet.
I certainly understand the reasoning behind it. It's just that "75%" feels a bit bland. That isn't on the mods though; this just happens to be a somewhat well understood existing term so it makes sense to use it here. And something is better than nothing in this regard.
I think this is a good idea as well (at least, having a few thread tag options to describe your intended power level). These subjective tags never work since I could have a casual deck running Beta duals just because they're cards I already own and you think that simply the act of running duals makes it more competitive. But even though they won't ever prevent arguing over the competitive level, most of the time tags are helpful.
Part of the problem is "What is optimized?" Like, my Muldrotha, the Gravetide runs Hermit Druid. She does not run Laboratory Maniac; further, about half the lands are basic. So, that's not optimized; I'm just using Hermit Druid to fill up the graveyard, and even doing so fairly. That doesn't mean she doesn't use it well; any permanent the Druid mills out is basically a card in my hand (with the obvious caveat that if I play, say, Phyrexian Delver, that's the only creature I get this turn, and only on my turn).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
To be completely honest I hate the term "75%" because to most of the human race, and you have to understand that Commander is going to be about new players over the coming years, looking to use the forums for help and understanding, that it just comes across that decks are 75% complete.
Like literally most people are going to read it as decks are not finished. 3/4 of the deck is completed, please help me with the other 1/4.
I definitely think that the tags have to be descriptive. 75% assumes way too much knowledge of the term, which most players in the future will be confused over. It's really important to not make assumptions that because you know a term, means that everybody will know a term.
At least if its human readable, then there is less room for the obvious mistake that most people will make thinking it's only 75% complete lists.
I REALLY like Pokken original post on the descriptors. I even think the term "Jank" should be included, so that people know they can put fun lists up.
I think these tags are actually descriptive enough (certainly better than 75%) but... I find that over time you'll see your deck (and often our playgroup) will move up the chain.
I have my Deveri, Bird tribal deck post that I have maintained over a number of years. that starts off kind of Jank but quickly becomes Casual and now I would consider it Focused just like all my other lists as that is my deck building style, although on the lower end of focused.
I think well trying to put things into defined categories is human nature and also wrong since everything is a spectrum.
I think as self-identification these are good categories still. Perhaps Jank should be "for fun" since "jank" is very magic terminology new players won't understand, casual is I am trying to win but don't care if I don't rather than true for fun.
I've noticed that most of the decks that have pinned their threads as [Competitive] are not really true, as this tag now assumes cEDH. I think before people tagged these when the were either 75% or a few that are true cEDH.
But if you were to go through them you'll find that most of the threads tagged as [Competitive] are really just 75%.
Great decision, though. I completely avoided deck tags because the extremely high variance made them meaningless. Now that there's more of a middle ground and more options I think they'll generally be more useful.
Why not put a sticky in the decklist forums that briefly describe what each tag means? Not only would that just be generally useful for everyone, but it would allow the use of something besides [75%] for non-competitive optimized decks or whatever you want to call them because you could add something like "also known as 75% decks" to the description. Aesthetics matter!
Kinda disappointed to see the amount of support for the idea. Frankly definitions of decks are dependent on metas and a group's definition of what it means to be competitive, etc. etc. etc. It's just going to add confusion in the end. I agree with darrenhabib that most decks with the Competitive tag in their title currently aren't even "competitive" by many Standards. But are they competitive to those people? Frankly the entire issue with this power level crap is that it completely misses the point of the format and it doesn't need propagated.
If anyone knows to whom to make this sort of suggestion instead of a post let me know and I'll route that way, but might be useful discussion.
Apparently the source of this was a Command Zone podcast I guess, and they look pretty well thought out for the most part:
The tiers were as follows:
Sources:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDVrAb_GfxU
https://www.reddit.com/r/EDH/comments/8xsql3/this_last_weeks_command_zone_on_tiers_of_decks/
Jank: "Men in Chairs" tribal, "I just pulled stuff out of my trade binder" decks, obscure tribes and themes that really have nothing to do with power level. Vorthos decks, often.
Casual: About the level of the Precons, maybe including the Precons themselves. Slower, playing all of the Timmy cards, focused on having fun while winning rather than cutting cards to make sure you win.
Focused: More tuned decks. Probably still not getting to the level of "I need a fetch land for a specific dual and/or shock land", but people have begun lowering their mana curves and putting in more powerful effects like [[Cyclonic Rift]], not to mention begun cutting the excess cards that do cool stuff or are good, but don't actually help the deck win.
Optimized: Tuning to the max. Still some room for theme or cool deck ideas, but definitely focused on a way to win and how to get there as quickly as possible. Playing all of the reasonably expensive stuff that you should be if you're trying to win, and possibly dipping your toe into things that would get you shanked in most casual Commander circles--Mass Land Destruction, etc.
Competitive: Here, just look up the decklists themselves, it'll be easier. (Thanks for the real list, /u/jbmoskow)
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
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!
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Niv-Mizzet Reborn
Feather, the Redeemed
Estrid, the Masked
Teshar
Tymna/Ravos
Najeela, Blade-Blossom
Firesong & Sunspeaker
Zur the Enchanter
Lazav, the Multifarious
Ishai+Reyhan
Click images for decks->
-Prime Speaker Vannifar
---------------------Will & Rowan Kenrith
That being said, the tag should in no way detract from an OP describing accurately the intent of their deck, whether it be in its current state or eventual intended state. Obviously the onus is on the individual to do this, but if said were to eventuate I would think it would be important to make this clear.
In my mind, competitive is a tag that validly states that you are trying to go absolutely to the extreme of making the deck better at any cost. Tags of percentage don't contain any information like that. Something like Budget often dictates that suggesting cards that cost > $10 likely aren't an option and I think that is a valid tag as well.
I just don't see what these kind of tags would really give to readers.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
This is sort of valid. There's only so much information a tag with a single phrase or statement can convey. It's no substitute for actually reading a thread.
If you build a tune deck with no budget but intentionally dont run certain cards, you might be a 75%er.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
I see a clear distinction between CEDH decks and what I tend to build which I consider "optimized.' Coincidentally most of my friends and people I've enjoyed pickup games with are playing either focused or optimized decks; generally focused decks make budget concessions or are playing stuff to support a not great gameplan, and optimized decks are playing fewer bad cards with fewer budget concessions and so on.
The budget thing is obviously just a part of the spectrum--but I don't think of a budget concession as the same as "playing on a budget" (e.g. keep all cards under 10 or entire deck under 100) -- more like playing a strictly worse card to save some bucks (for something else) or keep the power level down. The most straightforward example I can think of is running Diabolic Tutor over Vampiric or Demonic.
It's not a clear cut but I do see the distinction between, and can generally put a deck in a category by looking at it.
In terms of what value it will add--here's an example of cards and suggestions you probably won't make to an "optimized" deckbuilder vs. a "competitive" deckbuider:
* You really need to get down to under 30 lands
* You should be running chain of vapor and mental misstep
* I think you need to get your curve down under 2
* I'm not sure you have enough mirage tutors in your deck
* How about adding an elvish spirit guide instead of a land?
* I think you could probably cut Austere Command - the game'll be over by the time it's relevant
etc. etc. There's a really obvious delineation between the two categories of decks and I think it's useful.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
In any case, I would like at least one of the tags to simply say that my decks are tuned, but I don't want to include MLD, or infinite combos, etc. However, based on the OP's definitions, these would be "Focused" whereas I consider them "Optimized" just because they are tuned as much as they can be without those types of cards.
My Helpdesk
[Pr] Marath | [Pr] Lovisa | Jodah | Saskia | Najeela | Yisan | Lord Windgrace | Atraxa | Meren | Gisa and Geralf
My Helpdesk
[Pr] Marath | [Pr] Lovisa | Jodah | Saskia | Najeela | Yisan | Lord Windgrace | Atraxa | Meren | Gisa and Geralf
Thanks
My Helpdesk
[Pr] Marath | [Pr] Lovisa | Jodah | Saskia | Najeela | Yisan | Lord Windgrace | Atraxa | Meren | Gisa and Geralf
We also didn't want to create confusion with the tags. To one person "optimized" and "competitive" are largely the same while to another they might be completely different tiers. 75% felt safe because that is a widely accepted terminology around the internet.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Part of the problem is "What is optimized?" Like, my Muldrotha, the Gravetide runs Hermit Druid. She does not run Laboratory Maniac; further, about half the lands are basic. So, that's not optimized; I'm just using Hermit Druid to fill up the graveyard, and even doing so fairly. That doesn't mean she doesn't use it well; any permanent the Druid mills out is basically a card in my hand (with the obvious caveat that if I play, say, Phyrexian Delver, that's the only creature I get this turn, and only on my turn).
On phasing:
I know, intention looks like a pretty damn nebulous concept. But it’s right there, at the core of it all, determining the ‘percentage’ anyway.
What is a given player hoping to achieve, or get out of playing their deck. That’s it, really. What kind of EDH experience do they enjoy.
Like literally most people are going to read it as decks are not finished. 3/4 of the deck is completed, please help me with the other 1/4.
I definitely think that the tags have to be descriptive. 75% assumes way too much knowledge of the term, which most players in the future will be confused over. It's really important to not make assumptions that because you know a term, means that everybody will know a term.
At least if its human readable, then there is less room for the obvious mistake that most people will make thinking it's only 75% complete lists.
I REALLY like Pokken original post on the descriptors. I even think the term "Jank" should be included, so that people know they can put fun lists up.
Niv-Mizzet Reborn
Feather, the Redeemed
Estrid, the Masked
Teshar
Tymna/Ravos
Najeela, Blade-Blossom
Firesong & Sunspeaker
Zur the Enchanter
Lazav, the Multifarious
Ishai+Reyhan
Click images for decks->
-Prime Speaker Vannifar
---------------------Will & Rowan Kenrith
Either way I am happy to at least have a little more differentiation between full on competitive and strong decks, any way it is sliced.
Thanks Mods for being so responsive!
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
I have my Deveri, Bird tribal deck post that I have maintained over a number of years. that starts off kind of Jank but quickly becomes Casual and now I would consider it Focused just like all my other lists as that is my deck building style, although on the lower end of focused.
I think well trying to put things into defined categories is human nature and also wrong since everything is a spectrum.
I think as self-identification these are good categories still. Perhaps Jank should be "for fun" since "jank" is very magic terminology new players won't understand, casual is I am trying to win but don't care if I don't rather than true for fun.
Pioneer:UR Pheonix
Modern:U Mono U Tron
EDH
GB Glissa, the traitor: Army of Cans
UW Dragonlord Ojutai: Dragonlord NOjutai
UWGDerevi, Empyrial Tactician "you cannot fight the storm"
R Zirilan of the claw. The solution to every problem is dragons
UB Etrata, the Silencer Cloning assassination
Peasant cube: Cards I own
But if you were to go through them you'll find that most of the threads tagged as [Competitive] are really just 75%.
Niv-Mizzet Reborn
Feather, the Redeemed
Estrid, the Masked
Teshar
Tymna/Ravos
Najeela, Blade-Blossom
Firesong & Sunspeaker
Zur the Enchanter
Lazav, the Multifarious
Ishai+Reyhan
Click images for decks->
-Prime Speaker Vannifar
---------------------Will & Rowan Kenrith
Great decision, though. I completely avoided deck tags because the extremely high variance made them meaningless. Now that there's more of a middle ground and more options I think they'll generally be more useful.
Why not put a sticky in the decklist forums that briefly describe what each tag means? Not only would that just be generally useful for everyone, but it would allow the use of something besides [75%] for non-competitive optimized decks or whatever you want to call them because you could add something like "also known as 75% decks" to the description. Aesthetics matter!
[Primer] Erebos, God of the Dead
HONK HONK
(Also known as Xenphire)