The classic framing of the prisoner dilemma has only two courses or action. Co-operate or deflect.
EDH group mechanics are WAY WAY WAY more complicated.
I rarely see craw_wurm.dec and I rarely see "win on turn 3".dec usually it's a gradient and interpersonal skills play a HUGE role.
+1 to this,
where does one draw the line between co-operation and deflection?
It's like trying to write the English language using binary, It dosen't work and that is because Group play dynamics have lots of subtle adjustments and compromises that you can't divide it into, say left or right.
I'm thinking that the OP just wanted to show off his knowledge of Economics, just to appear smart or to bewilder us all. Either that or he just rehashed what has been said a trillion times and everyone is going to react the same ways in these situations and give him the same recommendations.
Simplified: Enough baggering and enjoy your game/find ways to enjoy your game already and stop whining about what is wrong with it. The solutions are simple.
/endrant
inb4 computer tech says something about ASCII, because of my binary to English analogy
You'd think from reading these threads that there was no such thing as casual games as long as someone at the table is even remotely trying to win eventually.
Magic is a competition. Casual is competitive. The true difference between sitting at someones house or a game store is not budget, or card choice, but the fact that its not a PTQ or testing for that. Its casual because you can relax. The opposite of casual is not competitive, the opposite of casual is professional.
That's not exactly the case. How about this instead;
Players who play casually having an understanding that the games were supposed to stay casual, but rather had friends who decided to become competitive without informing the casual players.
I have no problem with competitive magic. 60 card competitive is awesome, and I love the hell out of winning in four turns or less in that format. Competitive EDH is just fine too, if that's what you want to play. It isn't what I want to play every single game, but hell, I'll sit down and play a competitive game from time to time and be happy with it, win or lose. This isn't about complaining about competitive players ruining the format Massive Marc, it's about competitive players only wanting to play competitively, and then blameshifting it to the casual players when they, the casual players, get tired of the competitive play. The street goes both ways; if I give in and play competitively to sate the need of my friend to have those sorts of games, he should give in and sate my need for a casual game every now and again too.
com·pet·i·tive
/kəmˈpɛtɪtɪv/ Show Spelled[kuhm-pet-i-tiv] Show IPA
adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, involving, or decided by competition: competitive sports; a competitive examination.
2.
well suited for competition; having a feature that makes for successful competition: a competitive price.
3.
having a strong desire to compete or to succeed.
4.
useful to a competitor; giving a competitor an advantage: He was careful not to divulge competitive information about his invention.
cas·u·al
/ˈkæʒuəl/ Show Spelled[kazh-oo-uhl] Show IPA
adjective
1.
happening by chance; fortuitous: a casual meeting.
2.
without definite or serious intention; careless or offhand; passing: a casual remark.
3.
seeming or tending to be indifferent to what is happening; apathetic; unconcerned: a casual, nonchalant air.
4.
appropriate for wear or use on informal occasions; not dressy: casual clothes; casual wear.
5.
irregular; occasional: a casual visitor.
Compare the two in the context of MTG/EDH and you see that the "Casual" players simply don't like that someone has/can have an "advantage" over them. Whether it be, financially, skill oriented or anything else, casual believe the playing field should ALWAYS be even (hence dumbing down decks). This is all under the guise of fun, but really, it's an defense mechanism against someone that has something you don't.
I don't need the field to be even. Let's dial this back a bit, because I feel like we're confused where each other are coming from;
Someone has to win, somehow. In a casual or competitive game, someone has to win. I don't need definitions ripped off of dictionary.com thrown in my face to understand that concept, nor do I appreciate you seeming to take it to that level, as it is borderline insulting.
My idea of a casual game isn't a game where everyone is frollicking along, holding hands, playing group hugs, with free love and peace symbols. Play tough creatures, play tough games, but don't combo out, don't end the game before it had a chance to get started, don't treat this like an extreme, competitive, over in sixty seconds game.
Of course someone has to win, and usually it'll be amazingly so, but like football, another game I really enjoy, the best games are never the ones where one team completely smashes the other team. The best games are the neck and neck games, where right up until the buzzer sounds you have no idea who is going to win, where it could go either way and you are right on the edge of your seat screaming at your television as though the players or the coach can somehow magically hear you.
Bottom line, I don't care what sort of cards you have in your deck, if you have access to more expensive cards than I do, or better cards, or whatever. I honestly do not care. What I do care about is the tempo of the game; are we enjoying it, playing it out and seeing where we can go with it, or are you simply playing to see how badly you can beat me, because I honestly don't find any gratification in that sort of attitude.
EDIT: Also, to be fair, I did say I would play more competitive games, all I was asking for was some balance, and I wasn't even asking you, Massive Marc, for that balance, it was an in the air sort of thing to my own playgroup. But whatever.
Yeah, let's segregate people depending on how they enjoy the game. Segregation has worked so well in the past.
Comparing this to the segregation of blacks is incorrect. I would think it to be more like homophobic straight guys going into gay bars. Sure the straight guy might think it is fun to go around calling everyone in there a ***. Yeah the homosexual males in the bar may team up on them to try and force them out. But do you really think that homophobic guys should be allowed in a gay bar just to insult gay men? No. I don't think anyone other than people who enjoy bashing gay people will disagree with that.
Also outside of the comparison there are degrees of competitiveness.
Comparing this to the segregation of blacks is incorrect. I would think it to be more like homophobic straight guys going into gay bars. Sure the straight guy might think it is fun to go around calling everyone in there a ***. Yeah the homosexual males in the bar may team up on them to try and force them out. But do you really think that homophobic guys should be allowed in a gay bar just to insult gay men? No. I don't think anyone other than people who enjoy bashing gay people will disagree with that.
Also outside of the comparison there are degrees of competitiveness.
Actually, I wasn't comparing it to that, I was just saying that segretating groups hasn't worked well in the past, and there's no reason for it here.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Amazing Avy & Sig by mchief111 @ Rising Studios [4/22/11]
Well by the above definitions, and by the basic concept of casual, if you are a casual player you play for fun, not to win, and don't really care about losing.
But... apparently you do care that you are not winning, so that makes you a competitive player that is losing.
To this, I say work on your deck, work on your game play, maybe try a different deck.
I have been trying to get my Uril deck to work for months, I suck at playing voltron, its not my style, but if I play a slow control into combo, I do pretty well. (slow as in 40 turns, not combo out on turn 5)
As for the competitive players, they pretty much play the same cards, its pretty easy to hose them, things that shut down tutors, graveyard exile, etc. Its rock/paper/scissors sometimes you got to change things up.
Well by the above definitions, and by the basic concept of casual, if you are a casual player you play for fun, not to win, and don't really care about losing.
But... apparently you do care that you are not winning, so that makes you a competitive player that is losing.
To this, I say work on your deck, work on your game play, maybe try a different deck.
I have been trying to get my Uril deck to work for months, I suck at playing voltron, its not my style, but if I play a slow control into combo, I do pretty well. (slow as in 40 turns, not combo out on turn 5)
As for the competitive players, they pretty much play the same cards, its pretty easy to hose them, things that shut down tutors, graveyard exile, etc. Its rock/paper/scissors sometimes you got to change things up.
...
Again, I don't feel like this accurately conveys what this is about. It isn't about losing, or having a poorly constructed deck, it is about the tempo of the game. Read: How fast did the game end?
Blah, I'm done trying to explain my point of view. The thing is winning is fun, I love to win as much as anyone, I just don't always want to see a game end as quickly as it started to do it. Sometimes the social nature of simply playing a game and talking about plays and moves and strategies is more fun than sitting down and then two minutes later saying "good game."
I play in a very competitive playgroup. We have 3 or 4 combo decks, mass LD, ramp, the whole nine yards. We have games end on turn 3 when somebody animates a Worldgorger, and we have games with that same deck that go on for 2 or 3 hours or more because the combo player couldn't resolve one of his combos. If a game ends in 3 turns, shuffle up and play another game. Every game does not end on turn 3 or 4, I don't care how good your combo is. Quit being bitter about "tempo" and just play another hand. If you're playing with strangers, better be prepared for the worst. If not, don't get upset when one of them combo's out on turn 4.
Again, I don't feel like this accurately conveys what this is about. It isn't about losing, or having a poorly constructed deck, it is about the tempo of the game. Read: How fast did the game end?
Blah, I'm done trying to explain my point of view. The thing is winning is fun, I love to win as much as anyone, I just don't always want to see a game end as quickly as it started to do it. Sometimes the social nature of simply playing a game and talking about plays and moves and strategies is more fun than sitting down and then two minutes later saying "good game."
I think most people can agree on this. In addition, I really hate games that last forever, (unless those games turn out to be really epic and interesting for some reason or another.) I think a game should end within 10 - 14 turns on average. Some might disagree. But I would really hate this format, if I had to play a bunch of Craw Wurms to make everyone happy. (or just a bunch of less than stellar cards.) It's a teetering act that is respective to each playgroup. Besides, in my experience, there aren't too many decks that streamline combos anywhere before turn 8, at least in my meta. For those who have decks that do that, trust me, they will be short lived as you can only play a high speed deck like that for so long before 1) They get bored of the deck. 2) Everyone hates playing them.
Let's be reasonable, there is a limit to how streamlined combo decks can be, but let's not exagerrate either.
You know what's funny? At least with Standard and other competitive formats, you know what you're getting into and everyone understands what the goal is.
It's like on Adventure Time, when Finn and Jake played Card Wars and Jake got really competitive.
Like I said earlier, when you play with your playgroup, casual is fine. Play soft or no combo or whatever. When you go to a LGS or play with stangers that are not part or your group, be prepared to face a competitive player. My LGS is almost an hour away, if I'm driving that far to play, I'm going to play my better stuff. If I want to test or just have a fun "casual" game, I'll save the gas and play at home with my group.
Again, I don't feel like this accurately conveys what this is about. It isn't about losing, or having a poorly constructed deck, it is about the tempo of the game. Read: How fast did the game end?
Blah, I'm done trying to explain my point of view. The thing is winning is fun, I love to win as much as anyone, I just don't always want to see a game end as quickly as it started to do it. Sometimes the social nature of simply playing a game and talking about plays and moves and strategies is more fun than sitting down and then two minutes later saying "good game."
So,
It's not winning or losing.
It's not deck construction.
It's about the arbitrary time you think a game should take to complete. (this ties into deck construction btw)
but what I believe you're really saying, and going back to my last post, is that the tempo of a game should be at a pace you feel you can compete at or else it wouldn't matter. Again, someone having an advantage over you (faster deck) is something you can't bare to deal with , so you label yourself "casual" in attempt to meet like minded people. That's fine but the problem arises when the like minded people begin to have an emotional investment in their play style and attack other people for not adhering to theirs.
The real answer is to compromise by playing for 2nd place. That way the competitive player gets his elite win that he craves, meanwhile the casual get to play out a game more to there liking. And everyone wins.
But I would really hate this format, if I had to play a bunch of Craw Wurms to make everyone happy.
Is it ironic that I'm at my happiest right after killing someone with a Craw Wurm? or a Whispering Shade? Or a Viashino Cutthroat? Demoralizing it must be! Ashamed you have become!
The real answer is to compromise by playing for 2nd place. That way the competitive player gets his elite win that he craves, meanwhile the casual get to play out a game more to there liking. And everyone wins.
As a "competitive" player, I guess that's what I would classify myslef as, I honestly would have no problem with this. I'd feel kind of silly explaining to someone watching, that the game was already over, but nonetheless, I think this is a fine solution. As far as the OP, it's seems like they are saying the equivilent of "Lets play Chess without the Queen or the Rooks, I hate losing to those powerful pieces."
Is it ironic that I'm at my happiest right after killing someone with a Craw Wurm? or a Whispering Shade? Or a Viashino Cutthroat? Demoralizing it must be! Ashamed you have become!
I applaud you good sir! Now go kill the other 2 opponents
So,
It's not winning or losing.
It's not deck construction.
It's about the arbitrary time you think a game should take to complete. (this ties into deck construction btw)
but what I believe you're really saying, and going back to my last post, is that the tempo of a game should be at a pace you feel you can compete at or else it wouldn't matter. Again, someone having an advantage over you (faster deck) is something you can't bare to deal with , so you label yourself "casual" in attempt to meet like minded people. That's fine but the problem arises when the like minded people begin to have an emotional investment in their play style and attack other people for not adhering to theirs.
First of all tempo, or length of a game is not arbitrary at all. Short games allow you to see the fewest amount of things inside of your deck come out into play. Longer games allow you to experiment more with the things you've placed in the deck. Further, in the shorter games you are more likely to pull off similar moves each game, and longer ones again allow for more experimentation.
It has nothing to do with what level I can compete at, and everything to do with what I find enjoyment from. Quit trying to skew what I am saying.
Clearly you and I don't play the same way, which I might add is completely okay, not everyone is going to want the same thing and I respect your desire to have faster, more competitive games, but yeah, we will label each other differently. We won't play the same sort of people, and we won't play the same kind of games. What I don't understand is why you feel the need to attack someone on the basis of what they view a good game as. And I do take what you say as a personal attack; you are insinuating that I can't compete if the game is played in a certain way. This is completely baseless and untrue; I have and do compete at fast paced games. It isn't hard, throw down Rafiq, tutor out a few weapons or enchantments, maybe slap down Finest Hour, chamber a round and fire. I can kill two players in one blow with commander damage in a matter of turns if I felt like it.
The point is that I don't. I'm not trying to sit here and argue with you about what constitutes a good game for everyone, just for myself.
And your last statement? It goes both ways! I know plenty of "competitive" players who get all up in arms about people who want a more casual game, because god forbid they have to take out some of their insane combos or god forbid they can't do this or that. You yourself seem hellbent here, and it leads me to believe that you are just as emotionally invested in a stronger gameplay style as I am in a more social one. And I will restate this until I am blue in the face; I have no problem playing competitively. None whatsoever. Sometimes. All I am saying is that I would enjoy the chance to play more social games from time to time. I don't want every single game to be about winning as fast as possible. That's all I am saying. I enjoy the game both ways, I just tend to enjoy social games more than competitive ones, but this doesn't somehow translate into an inability to deal with more competitive games, or an inability to buy more expensive cards or somehow play at a higher level; I do all of those things.
My initial post was simply about how the game has changed since my friend's and I started playing EDH.
The problem with EDH is essentially the same problem that this game has always had: Neckbeards. They ruin everything. They build turn 2-5 combo decks in casual formats, they never shower, and they scare all the girls away from the card shops. Neckbeards!
That reminds me of this one time when I went to store with my bf and there was these three guys. They've been showing up to FNM for a couple of weeks now, these guys reeked but most of us were polite and didn't say much of it.
Then one day one of the kid players who was pretty funny just flat out told them they stunk and they were jerks. All three of these guys literally ran inside the restroom and starting crying together. It was the most hilarious thing I've ever witnessed in all my time playing MTG.
---
I'll say this about EDH, I've played against casual decks and really efficient ones in 1v1. I don't begrudge them for using tuned decks I have one too, I just know when to use it in the right environment. That's why I always ask if they're playing casual decks or more efficient ones and I'll change up depending. One of the important lessons I learned playing this game is to have casual decks with you for all popular formats.
It's incisive of you to use the Prisoner's Dilemma to explain this EDH phenomenon. You're forgetting one, very important thing, though: counteracting this very strong force of upward mobility in deck power is the equally strong force of discouragement of those decks by people in the metagame, and that includes this forum.
The paradox here is that, by saying this, I don't intend on popping a bubble that will make everyone stop arguing about this; in fact, I'm probably on the side of discouragement myself. I actually think that this argument must go on to keep power creepers in check. There will be no end to this argument because the banlist will never be expanded to the extent the OP wants it to be (as well it shouldn't be). People will play the way they want to play regardless of what gets banned; people only respect the current banlist because they figure others do. I'm sure that, if the banlist does expand to the aforementioned extent, there'll be an offshoot EDH rules system that brings us back roughly to where we are now, possibly minus Kokusho. Right now, we're at the optimal point of casual fairness, and it's because of this ongoing dispute. As long as the dispute goes on, people will be encouraged to scale back their big, bad decks and 'play nice,' as it were. This, of course, will vary with each person's predilection to cooperation. The dispute will flare up from time to time (as it has been flaring up in the past week or so), and it'll recede, and it'll re-flare up again. That's fine. There's no definitive end to the argument.
2UURRniv mizzet, the firemind endless fiery mind wheels of death 3WRjor kadeen, the prevailer weenies and extra combat forever 3RRzirilan of the claw dragons and damage doublers 4:SymRG::SymRG:wort, the raidmother burn is now EDH viable 2WUkangee, aerie keeper birds 1UBRjeleva, nephalia's scourge spellslinger/storm
here are the mana costs of generals i no longer play: 2BR3BB3UBG4UB:SymUB::SymUB:2URRG3WWU2UU2GGUUBGG
@op I don't know how to say this without coming off as a dick but I'm going to try. Vanilla wow was an awesome game I loved it I don't know if you played wow ever but it was great. What made it great was that everyone sucked at it. It was undiscovered it was new it was fun even the first expansion was fun after that it turned into a mcdonalized hunk of junk. When commander started it was like vanilla wow none of legacy/ compeitive players really played and if they did it was with crap they had laying in a binder becuase no one played. Your first few comments are wrong. My circle is competitve we have fun we don't get bored and none of us has any desire to play casually it's not fun for us. Guess what we don't like throwing down over a thousand dollers on a bunch of 4 sets of crap in someones standard/ legacy net deck to play vs a bunch of other net decks it's not fun. Commander is not baleneced but we get to at least personalize are decks without it being just "bad". Never rraeing the same card twice and having 100 cards sign me up. I've played casually years ago it was fun, I play compeitivly now it's still fun... Edh is now huge it appeals to all sorts of players and levels of competitivesness like you said the only way to keep any sort of real balence is by talking to the people you play with .
If you crave those old commander games that you used to play then make every other week silly deck week or something like that. If no one wants to play well much like wow you can play the new game and try to enjoy it or you can remeber how cool vanilla wow was and not play at all. Some good things don't last but this "new" game is pretty fun if you find the right table and in magic yoy can have vanilla wow games just ask people if they say no then I'm sorry your just kinda screwed and like you said three ïs no way to fix it. There is no problem with competitive players if they all quit you still don't get to play becuae they don't want to play casually and won't. So like most people said talk to your boys maybe you can get that old time feeling maybe you can't that's life adapt or move on. Most the time I play my compeitive deck at lgs but I play my powered down decks at my buddies house if we feel
Like swapping things up I'm lucky enough to play with friends. Friends who share expectations and think similar things are fun if your not that lucky I'm sorry but it may not be a problem you can fix if your the minority.
You know what? I have a solution. How about using some verbal secret tech? The folks in the business call it "Communication."
A new player comes into your store and asks if he can play a game of EDH. You reply, "Sure, but just so you know, we're casual group of players, so we don't play infinite combos or mass land destruction. If your deck has those, we'd ask that you either take them out, use one of our decks, or use another of your decks that doesn't. If that doesn't work for you, that's fine, there's another group that plays competitive on X night at X time."
/thread
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Amazing Avy & Sig by mchief111 @ Rising Studios [4/22/11]
yeah that's it: ultracompetitive players kill EDH. EDH is a format for timmies, not for spikes. spikes have their standard, legacy, vintage and every other format were you must win asap playing always the same cards. EDH is for timmies (and non-competitive johnny) because it's the only format where you can play long games, personalize your deck and play different cards in every game. so i don't understand why spikes have to ruin this with their decks built for winning on turn 6 with the same combo instead of playing that f****ng combo in other faster formats.
Sorry us spikes like to personalize are decks and have fun too it's not your format and if me playing with other spikes at the table next to you bothers you I don't know what to say. If spike want t play with you I suggest using the secret tech mentioned above
You know what? I have a solution. How about using some verbal secret tech? The folks in the business call it "Communication."
A new player comes into your store and asks if he can play a game of EDH. You reply, "Sure, but just so you know, we're casual group of players, so we don't play infinite combos or mass land destruction. If your deck has those, we'd ask that you either take them out, use one of our decks, or use another of your decks that doesn't. If that doesn't work for you, that's fine, there's another group that plays competitive on X night at X time."
/thread
EDH/Commander: A casual format for casual players!
Your first thought is to break it? Then get mad when nobody else likes your stupidity? This doesn't make sense. At all. They advertised this format as casual FROM THE BEGINNING. All players should ALWAYS be under the assumption that a casual format is casual. We shouldn't HAVE to tell them that a casual format group is casual. That is the baseline.
Problem is that every player by definition is at least a little spike, I mean, everyone wants to win right? Even if it's with big derps or unusual combos.
Besides, aren't Johnnies the ones who like to use unusual and not frequently used combos, (not necessarily always the case.....but still.) You will never see a Teysa, Orzhov Scion + Darkest Hour + Altar of Dementia combo in Legacy, because frankly it isn't good/consistant enough to win games in that format. However, you will see odd combos all the time in this format, that is one of it's perks: Playing with unusual combos or finding interesting combinations we have never seen before.
+1 to this,
where does one draw the line between co-operation and deflection?
It's like trying to write the English language using binary, It dosen't work and that is because Group play dynamics have lots of subtle adjustments and compromises that you can't divide it into, say left or right.
I'm thinking that the OP just wanted to show off his knowledge of Economics, just to appear smart or to bewilder us all. Either that or he just rehashed what has been said a trillion times and everyone is going to react the same ways in these situations and give him the same recommendations.
Simplified: Enough baggering and enjoy your game/find ways to enjoy your game already and stop whining about what is wrong with it. The solutions are simple.
/endrant
inb4 computer tech says something about ASCII, because of my binary to English analogy
Arahbo, Kitty Kat Beatdown Decklist
Mizzix of the Izmagnus Decklist
Breya, Etherium Shaper
Yuriko, the Tiger's Shadow Decklist
My Current Set Cube Lists:
Kamigawa Re-Experience
Ravnica, City of Guilds Re-Experience
Alara Re-Experience
Magic is a competition. Casual is competitive. The true difference between sitting at someones house or a game store is not budget, or card choice, but the fact that its not a PTQ or testing for that. Its casual because you can relax. The opposite of casual is not competitive, the opposite of casual is professional.
com·pet·i·tive
/kəmˈpɛtɪtɪv/ Show Spelled[kuhm-pet-i-tiv] Show IPA
adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, involving, or decided by competition: competitive sports; a competitive examination.
2.
well suited for competition; having a feature that makes for successful competition: a competitive price.
3.
having a strong desire to compete or to succeed.
4.
useful to a competitor; giving a competitor an advantage: He was careful not to divulge competitive information about his invention.
cas·u·al
/ˈkæʒuəl/ Show Spelled[kazh-oo-uhl] Show IPA
adjective
1.
happening by chance; fortuitous: a casual meeting.
2.
without definite or serious intention; careless or offhand; passing: a casual remark.
3.
seeming or tending to be indifferent to what is happening; apathetic; unconcerned: a casual, nonchalant air.
4.
appropriate for wear or use on informal occasions; not dressy: casual clothes; casual wear.
5.
irregular; occasional: a casual visitor.
Compare the two in the context of MTG/EDH and you see that the "Casual" players simply don't like that someone has/can have an "advantage" over them. Whether it be, financially, skill oriented or anything else, casual believe the playing field should ALWAYS be even (hence dumbing down decks). This is all under the guise of fun, but really, it's an defense mechanism against someone that has something you don't.
Someone has to win, somehow. In a casual or competitive game, someone has to win. I don't need definitions ripped off of dictionary.com thrown in my face to understand that concept, nor do I appreciate you seeming to take it to that level, as it is borderline insulting.
My idea of a casual game isn't a game where everyone is frollicking along, holding hands, playing group hugs, with free love and peace symbols. Play tough creatures, play tough games, but don't combo out, don't end the game before it had a chance to get started, don't treat this like an extreme, competitive, over in sixty seconds game.
Of course someone has to win, and usually it'll be amazingly so, but like football, another game I really enjoy, the best games are never the ones where one team completely smashes the other team. The best games are the neck and neck games, where right up until the buzzer sounds you have no idea who is going to win, where it could go either way and you are right on the edge of your seat screaming at your television as though the players or the coach can somehow magically hear you.
Bottom line, I don't care what sort of cards you have in your deck, if you have access to more expensive cards than I do, or better cards, or whatever. I honestly do not care. What I do care about is the tempo of the game; are we enjoying it, playing it out and seeing where we can go with it, or are you simply playing to see how badly you can beat me, because I honestly don't find any gratification in that sort of attitude.
EDIT: Also, to be fair, I did say I would play more competitive games, all I was asking for was some balance, and I wasn't even asking you, Massive Marc, for that balance, it was an in the air sort of thing to my own playgroup. But whatever.
Comparing this to the segregation of blacks is incorrect. I would think it to be more like homophobic straight guys going into gay bars. Sure the straight guy might think it is fun to go around calling everyone in there a ***. Yeah the homosexual males in the bar may team up on them to try and force them out. But do you really think that homophobic guys should be allowed in a gay bar just to insult gay men? No. I don't think anyone other than people who enjoy bashing gay people will disagree with that.
Also outside of the comparison there are degrees of competitiveness.
Mono-Black Oona, Queen of the Fae
Athreos, God of Passage
Actually, I wasn't comparing it to that, I was just saying that segretating groups hasn't worked well in the past, and there's no reason for it here.
But... apparently you do care that you are not winning, so that makes you a competitive player that is losing.
To this, I say work on your deck, work on your game play, maybe try a different deck.
I have been trying to get my Uril deck to work for months, I suck at playing voltron, its not my style, but if I play a slow control into combo, I do pretty well. (slow as in 40 turns, not combo out on turn 5)
As for the competitive players, they pretty much play the same cards, its pretty easy to hose them, things that shut down tutors, graveyard exile, etc. Its rock/paper/scissors sometimes you got to change things up.
...
Azusa - Derevi - Glissa - Mizzix - Sharuum - Wanderer - Wort
Again, I don't feel like this accurately conveys what this is about. It isn't about losing, or having a poorly constructed deck, it is about the tempo of the game. Read: How fast did the game end?
Blah, I'm done trying to explain my point of view. The thing is winning is fun, I love to win as much as anyone, I just don't always want to see a game end as quickly as it started to do it. Sometimes the social nature of simply playing a game and talking about plays and moves and strategies is more fun than sitting down and then two minutes later saying "good game."
I think most people can agree on this. In addition, I really hate games that last forever, (unless those games turn out to be really epic and interesting for some reason or another.) I think a game should end within 10 - 14 turns on average. Some might disagree. But I would really hate this format, if I had to play a bunch of Craw Wurms to make everyone happy. (or just a bunch of less than stellar cards.) It's a teetering act that is respective to each playgroup. Besides, in my experience, there aren't too many decks that streamline combos anywhere before turn 8, at least in my meta. For those who have decks that do that, trust me, they will be short lived as you can only play a high speed deck like that for so long before 1) They get bored of the deck. 2) Everyone hates playing them.
Let's be reasonable, there is a limit to how streamlined combo decks can be, but let's not exagerrate either.
Arahbo, Kitty Kat Beatdown Decklist
Mizzix of the Izmagnus Decklist
Breya, Etherium Shaper
Yuriko, the Tiger's Shadow Decklist
My Current Set Cube Lists:
Kamigawa Re-Experience
Ravnica, City of Guilds Re-Experience
Alara Re-Experience
It's like on Adventure Time, when Finn and Jake played Card Wars and Jake got really competitive.
So,
It's not winning or losing.
It's not deck construction.
It's about the arbitrary time you think a game should take to complete. (this ties into deck construction btw)
but what I believe you're really saying, and going back to my last post, is that the tempo of a game should be at a pace you feel you can compete at or else it wouldn't matter. Again, someone having an advantage over you (faster deck) is something you can't bare to deal with , so you label yourself "casual" in attempt to meet like minded people. That's fine but the problem arises when the like minded people begin to have an emotional investment in their play style and attack other people for not adhering to theirs.
Is it ironic that I'm at my happiest right after killing someone with a Craw Wurm? or a Whispering Shade? Or a Viashino Cutthroat? Demoralizing it must be! Ashamed you have become!
As a "competitive" player, I guess that's what I would classify myslef as, I honestly would have no problem with this. I'd feel kind of silly explaining to someone watching, that the game was already over, but nonetheless, I think this is a fine solution. As far as the OP, it's seems like they are saying the equivilent of "Lets play Chess without the Queen or the Rooks, I hate losing to those powerful pieces."
I applaud you good sir! Now go kill the other 2 opponents
Arahbo, Kitty Kat Beatdown Decklist
Mizzix of the Izmagnus Decklist
Breya, Etherium Shaper
Yuriko, the Tiger's Shadow Decklist
My Current Set Cube Lists:
Kamigawa Re-Experience
Ravnica, City of Guilds Re-Experience
Alara Re-Experience
First of all tempo, or length of a game is not arbitrary at all. Short games allow you to see the fewest amount of things inside of your deck come out into play. Longer games allow you to experiment more with the things you've placed in the deck. Further, in the shorter games you are more likely to pull off similar moves each game, and longer ones again allow for more experimentation.
It has nothing to do with what level I can compete at, and everything to do with what I find enjoyment from. Quit trying to skew what I am saying.
Clearly you and I don't play the same way, which I might add is completely okay, not everyone is going to want the same thing and I respect your desire to have faster, more competitive games, but yeah, we will label each other differently. We won't play the same sort of people, and we won't play the same kind of games. What I don't understand is why you feel the need to attack someone on the basis of what they view a good game as. And I do take what you say as a personal attack; you are insinuating that I can't compete if the game is played in a certain way. This is completely baseless and untrue; I have and do compete at fast paced games. It isn't hard, throw down Rafiq, tutor out a few weapons or enchantments, maybe slap down Finest Hour, chamber a round and fire. I can kill two players in one blow with commander damage in a matter of turns if I felt like it.
The point is that I don't. I'm not trying to sit here and argue with you about what constitutes a good game for everyone, just for myself.
And your last statement? It goes both ways! I know plenty of "competitive" players who get all up in arms about people who want a more casual game, because god forbid they have to take out some of their insane combos or god forbid they can't do this or that. You yourself seem hellbent here, and it leads me to believe that you are just as emotionally invested in a stronger gameplay style as I am in a more social one. And I will restate this until I am blue in the face; I have no problem playing competitively. None whatsoever. Sometimes. All I am saying is that I would enjoy the chance to play more social games from time to time. I don't want every single game to be about winning as fast as possible. That's all I am saying. I enjoy the game both ways, I just tend to enjoy social games more than competitive ones, but this doesn't somehow translate into an inability to deal with more competitive games, or an inability to buy more expensive cards or somehow play at a higher level; I do all of those things.
My initial post was simply about how the game has changed since my friend's and I started playing EDH.
That reminds me of this one time when I went to store with my bf and there was these three guys. They've been showing up to FNM for a couple of weeks now, these guys reeked but most of us were polite and didn't say much of it.
Then one day one of the kid players who was pretty funny just flat out told them they stunk and they were jerks. All three of these guys literally ran inside the restroom and starting crying together. It was the most hilarious thing I've ever witnessed in all my time playing MTG.
---
I'll say this about EDH, I've played against casual decks and really efficient ones in 1v1. I don't begrudge them for using tuned decks I have one too, I just know when to use it in the right environment. That's why I always ask if they're playing casual decks or more efficient ones and I'll change up depending. One of the important lessons I learned playing this game is to have casual decks with you for all popular formats.
RDW
Zoo
CoCo Elves
The paradox here is that, by saying this, I don't intend on popping a bubble that will make everyone stop arguing about this; in fact, I'm probably on the side of discouragement myself. I actually think that this argument must go on to keep power creepers in check. There will be no end to this argument because the banlist will never be expanded to the extent the OP wants it to be (as well it shouldn't be). People will play the way they want to play regardless of what gets banned; people only respect the current banlist because they figure others do. I'm sure that, if the banlist does expand to the aforementioned extent, there'll be an offshoot EDH rules system that brings us back roughly to where we are now, possibly minus Kokusho. Right now, we're at the optimal point of casual fairness, and it's because of this ongoing dispute. As long as the dispute goes on, people will be encouraged to scale back their big, bad decks and 'play nice,' as it were. This, of course, will vary with each person's predilection to cooperation. The dispute will flare up from time to time (as it has been flaring up in the past week or so), and it'll recede, and it'll re-flare up again. That's fine. There's no definitive end to the argument.
3WR jor kadeen, the prevailer weenies and extra combat forever
3RR zirilan of the claw dragons and damage doublers
4:SymRG::SymRG: wort, the raidmother burn is now EDH viable
2WU kangee, aerie keeper birds
1UBR jeleva, nephalia's scourge spellslinger/storm
here are the mana costs of generals i no longer play: 2BR3BB3UBG4UB:SymUB::SymUB:2URRG3WWU2UU2GGUUBGG
3UWR numot, the devastator of [the spirit of edh]
If you crave those old commander games that you used to play then make every other week silly deck week or something like that. If no one wants to play well much like wow you can play the new game and try to enjoy it or you can remeber how cool vanilla wow was and not play at all. Some good things don't last but this "new" game is pretty fun if you find the right table and in magic yoy can have vanilla wow games just ask people if they say no then I'm sorry your just kinda screwed and like you said three ïs no way to fix it. There is no problem with competitive players if they all quit you still don't get to play becuae they don't want to play casually and won't. So like most people said talk to your boys maybe you can get that old time feeling maybe you can't that's life adapt or move on. Most the time I play my compeitive deck at lgs but I play my powered down decks at my buddies house if we feel
Like swapping things up I'm lucky enough to play with friends. Friends who share expectations and think similar things are fun if your not that lucky I'm sorry but it may not be a problem you can fix if your the minority.
Damia http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=410191
DDFT Legacyhttp://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=505247
Domain Zoo http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=10212429#post10212429
A new player comes into your store and asks if he can play a game of EDH. You reply, "Sure, but just so you know, we're casual group of players, so we don't play infinite combos or mass land destruction. If your deck has those, we'd ask that you either take them out, use one of our decks, or use another of your decks that doesn't. If that doesn't work for you, that's fine, there's another group that plays competitive on X night at X time."
/thread
Sorry us spikes like to personalize are decks and have fun too it's not your format and if me playing with other spikes at the table next to you bothers you I don't know what to say. If spike want t play with you I suggest using the secret tech mentioned above
Damia http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=410191
DDFT Legacyhttp://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=505247
Domain Zoo http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=10212429#post10212429
EDH/Commander: A casual format for casual players!
Your first thought is to break it? Then get mad when nobody else likes your stupidity? This doesn't make sense. At all. They advertised this format as casual FROM THE BEGINNING. All players should ALWAYS be under the assumption that a casual format is casual. We shouldn't HAVE to tell them that a casual format group is casual. That is the baseline.
EDH is a CASUAL format. Get with the program, or GTFO.
Besides, aren't Johnnies the ones who like to use unusual and not frequently used combos, (not necessarily always the case.....but still.) You will never see a Teysa, Orzhov Scion + Darkest Hour + Altar of Dementia combo in Legacy, because frankly it isn't good/consistant enough to win games in that format. However, you will see odd combos all the time in this format, that is one of it's perks: Playing with unusual combos or finding interesting combinations we have never seen before.
Arahbo, Kitty Kat Beatdown Decklist
Mizzix of the Izmagnus Decklist
Breya, Etherium Shaper
Yuriko, the Tiger's Shadow Decklist
My Current Set Cube Lists:
Kamigawa Re-Experience
Ravnica, City of Guilds Re-Experience
Alara Re-Experience