For the record, I'm not concerned about winning myself. I play for the social aspect as well. I just thought the notion of 'solving' a format like EDH was an intriguing one and it contributes to how I plan my decks, given my meta plays all sorts of different variants of commander with different numbers of players and decks each time. I thereby seek for myself well-rounded, capable, flexible, and interactive decks.
Funnily enough, my choices don't tend to prefer that which is 'highly likely to win' because my primary preference isn't about winning, but not getting bored. I *hate* straightforward decks that have only one plan and just work in one single direction. I like a deck that I can choose to play in about 3 different ways or more every game to equal effective odds at success, so that rules out a lot of commanders for me. Narset? Powerful but boring. Prossh? Yawwwwn. Anything voltron? - how about never!
That's why I like Maelstrom Wanderer so much - I took it apart and rebuilt it 3 times over the years. It's not very consistent (by design, it has few tutors, doesn't even run Tooth and Nail for example), it doesn't necessarily run all of the same cards the most competitively oriented ones do (No Sunder or Jokulhaups, no extra turn cards)
In addition, one of my other weird goals is playgroup-considerate for both friendly and roundabout-competitive purposes. I don't want to play decks that win more than 50% of the games I play them in.
I actually aim for making decks only capable of winning games 1/3rd-1/4th of the time even as I play them as well as I can.
The format is solved just not in the traditional sense. Its by means of the social contract. What you speak of when building your decks and how often you want to win and what you choose not include are through the social contract. If you didn't abide by that, your decks would gravitate naturally towards being more consistent and strong, but you find that aspect "boring", which is why you place handicaps on your decks. Its also not just you, there are plenty of others that behave in a similar manner in order to achieve that desired result of social optimization.
EDH on the microcosm is solved mechanically, solved socially in the macrocosm. The only time the later half really falters is when the players are in a competitive environment but not necessarily with competitive decks.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The format is solved just not in the traditional sense. Its by means of the social contract. What you speak of when building your decks and how often you want to win and what you choose not include are through the social contract. If you didn't abide by that, your decks would gravitate naturally towards being more consistent and strong, but you find that aspect "boring", which is why you place handicaps on your decks. Its also not just you, there are plenty of others that behave in a similar manner in order to achieve that desired result of social optimization.