When I read some posts here, particularly casual, I see people mention percentages. So I'll see someone say, "my X deck is only 85%" or "his/her deck is only 60%"
Percentage of what? Optimized for that Commander? Foiled out? Win/loss ratio? Fun factor? I have no clue what this is about. Can someone enlighten me?
Jason Alt at GatheringMagic came up with the concept of a 75% EDH deck. Basically a deck that is strong but not oppressive, consciously compromising on some card choices and not running certain strategies in order to create a more balanced and fun game experience. It is very subjective what that means and I have seen people referring to vastly different decks as 75%, but the rough consensus is, I think, that a 100% is a no holds barred deck that plays the best possible strategy and the best cards that are available for its commander, possibly including generally frowned upon strategies like mass land destruction, hard locks and infinity combos. But as with everything pertaining to EDH, there is no ultimate consensus here.
Riku of Two Reflections - Copy, then copy again | Shattergang Brothers - Token Sac&Recur | Gahiji, Honored One - Multiple attack steps | Karametra, God of Harvests - Landfall, Creaturefall, Shroud | Ruhan of the Fomori - Stop hitting yourself | Zurgo Helmsmasher - Equipment&Wraths | Crosis, the Purger - Dragon Tribal Reanimator | Derevi, Empyrial Tactician - No stax, just tap and untap fun | Anafenza, the Foremost - Enduring Ideal Enchantress | Sharuum, the Hegemon - Sphinx Tribal Control | Noyan Dar - Spellslinger | The Mimeoplasm - Counterpalooza
Lists can be found here.
Still convinced the guy on Beseech the Queen is wearing a Mitra-type hat. Wake up sheeple!
Exact definitions vary. For example, some would say a jhoira of the ghitu deck with obliterate, ulamog, the infinite gyre, fetches, mana crypt etc is 100% because it's an optimized Jhoira deck, although others would say it isn't because jhoira isn't considered a top-tier competitive commander (and so no version of Jhoira could be 100%).
Great question. I found an article here that does a great job of explaining what a "75%" deck means.
When I see that, I take it to mean that the deck is built to be interactive, have the ability to win, and is able to scale in power level to its opponents. Generally a deck that I consider 75% does not run fully optimized cards for a multiplayer commander setting, but about 75% of the cards that I'd expect in a fully-optimized list.
With my understanding, I'd consider any other percentage to mean the strength of the card choices when compared to a fully-optimized decklist.
Often it's not even a conscious choice. Your Commander dictates certain synergies and thus cards. So I'll almost always try and make a deck as best as it could possibly be given the Commander and strategy of the deck, but it wouldn't be considered a top tier deck, so falls under the realm of 75%.
To my mind, a lot of the time it's subjective. Some of the time it isn't, of course. For a deck like Derevi, or Zur, or Narset, or any deck aiming to be seriously competitive, the percentage is a pretty clear indication of competitive nature. For a lot of other commanders there's enough versatility to build in different directions and still have a strong deck. In these instances, the percentage means less, and is probably more of an indication that the deck might be more of a 'goodstuff' build, replete with format staples that are strong in their own right. Which to my mind doesn't necessarily mean its the absolute best card for the slot.
TL;DR - percentage means a lot less for commanders that aren't tier 1 or 2 competitive IMO.
Seems silly to give % for how optimized your deck is. I mean when it comes to EDH i never feel a deck can be 100% complete. (Though my dragon deck is pretty much there)
Anyway i only use % for aspects of the deck (like color spread, or how finished the deck is) never for optimization.
Seems silly to give % for how optimized your deck is. I mean when it comes to EDH i never feel a deck can be 100% complete. (Though my dragon deck is pretty much there)
Anyway i only use % for aspects of the deck (like color spread, or how finished the deck is) never for optimization.
My impression is that most people use this concept to express that their decks are not meant to be fully optimized in terms of raw power, but geared towards fun gameplay with a broad range of skill levels e.g. by eschewing fast combo wins in favor of longer, more interactive games. So, instead of aiming to build a deck that is the most efficient, fastest killing machine possible, they want to build a deck whose power level is on that sweet spot where, if played tight and with good draws, it can win against a fully optimized "100%" deck, while also being able to have more relaxed games with even more casual decks, without having to pull all of its punches.
In other words: A 100% deck aims for maximum power and efficiency, even though it may be impossible get there. A 75% (or whatever) has a different goal, and is willing to give up "25% of power" (again, what this means is very subjective) in order to gain other benefits (i.e. more fun during gameplay). This balancing between power level and other factors can of course itself be subject to optimization.
So: even 75% (85% or whatever) decks can be optimized in the sense that they are finely tuned to hold this balance where they can meaningfully interact with a broad range of decks and players while still being fun for everyone involved. At least, that's what I am trying to do with my decks.
Riku of Two Reflections - Copy, then copy again | Shattergang Brothers - Token Sac&Recur | Gahiji, Honored One - Multiple attack steps | Karametra, God of Harvests - Landfall, Creaturefall, Shroud | Ruhan of the Fomori - Stop hitting yourself | Zurgo Helmsmasher - Equipment&Wraths | Crosis, the Purger - Dragon Tribal Reanimator | Derevi, Empyrial Tactician - No stax, just tap and untap fun | Anafenza, the Foremost - Enduring Ideal Enchantress | Sharuum, the Hegemon - Sphinx Tribal Control | Noyan Dar - Spellslinger | The Mimeoplasm - Counterpalooza
Lists can be found here.
Still convinced the guy on Beseech the Queen is wearing a Mitra-type hat. Wake up sheeple!
As best I've been able to gather, most 75% decks are thoughtfully constructed form over function decks - they value theme and concept, and the artificial restrictions imposed on their construction keep them from winning as much as they could. This is the only way I can build 75% decks. I like to think my 75% decks are 100% 75% decks - they're the best they're going to be given the artificial constraints imposed while brewing. Unoptimized decks limited by one's collection and inexperience are something else entirely. 75% and 100% decks are goals - anything else is a work in progress.
Another arbitrary measure of a deck's supposed strengths in a vacuum for an unpredictable format where nothing is guaranteed, which assumes three other players are playing equally and predictably to a deck's benefit, not taking into account politics or numerous other factors that separate EDH/Commander from solved 60-card constructed formats. eg. bullcrap, just like the "Tier" lists.
Another arbitrary measure of a deck's supposed strengths in a vacuum for an unpredictable format where nothing is guaranteed, which assumes three other players are playing equally and predictably to a deck's benefit, not taking into account politics or numerous other factors that separate EDH/Commander from solved 60-card constructed formats. eg. bullcrap, just like the "Tier" lists.
I mean, I don't think it's meant to be precise. I think it's most commonly used as a measure of how competitive someone thinks it is, or which punches they're pulling. I.e. even if the deck has a horrible win % and isn't actually very good, if it's running MLD, stax, and infinite combos, it's still a high %.
Another arbitrary measure of a deck's supposed strengths in a vacuum for an unpredictable format where nothing is guaranteed, which assumes three other players are playing equally and predictably to a deck's benefit, not taking into account politics or numerous other factors that separate EDH/Commander from solved 60-card constructed formats. eg. bullcrap, just like the "Tier" lists.
I mean, I don't think it's meant to be precise. I think it's most commonly used as a measure of how competitive someone thinks it is, or which punches they're pulling. I.e. even if the deck has a horrible win % and isn't actually very good, if it's running MLD, stax, and infinite combos, it's still a high %.
I agree with both of these assessments. It's a very subjective assessment, just like talking tiers. And it's very meta-dependent. I guess its just a yardstick for commonly strong cards, builds and synergies. But I don't think either percentages or tiers are anything to be considered gospel truth, or anything reliable enough to set your watch to.
The percent is a state of mind, not a quantifiable metric. I think tiers are fairly quantifiable over time. Given enough data, a tier list can back up its claims, and is subject to change over time. 100% vs 75% is more of a train of thought when you decide to build a Commander deck. It's the difference between a well built Derevi stax vs a well built Derevi bird tribal. To garner a percent title, the key is being well built, as any other definition of 75% lumps in lazy deck building which is a whole different dynamic.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Percentage of what? Optimized for that Commander? Foiled out? Win/loss ratio? Fun factor? I have no clue what this is about. Can someone enlighten me?
EDIT: Here is an article about the concept: http://www.gatheringmagic.com/jasonalt-071615-the-origins-of-75/
Edit2: Maybe this one is better: http://www.gatheringmagic.com/jasonalt-021314-building-a-75-commander-deck/
Tamanoa - Welcome to the Jungle
Lists can be found here.
Exact definitions vary. For example, some would say a jhoira of the ghitu deck with obliterate, ulamog, the infinite gyre, fetches, mana crypt etc is 100% because it's an optimized Jhoira deck, although others would say it isn't because jhoira isn't considered a top-tier competitive commander (and so no version of Jhoira could be 100%).
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
When I see that, I take it to mean that the deck is built to be interactive, have the ability to win, and is able to scale in power level to its opponents. Generally a deck that I consider 75% does not run fully optimized cards for a multiplayer commander setting, but about 75% of the cards that I'd expect in a fully-optimized list.
With my understanding, I'd consider any other percentage to mean the strength of the card choices when compared to a fully-optimized decklist.
Currently Playing:
Multiplayer EDH Lists (click italics for a link to the thread!)
[Primer] Lord of Tresserhorn - Don't Tell Me What I Can't Do[Primer] Roon of the Hidden Realm - Rhino Blink
5 Color Tribal Guide (Slivers, Atogs, Allies, Spirits)
Also Playing (most decklists can be found on my profile)
MarathGeistKamahlGrenzoBolasThassaGitrog
PiratesZurVial Smasher&ThrasiosYennettJhoira(cEDH)Strix(Pauper)
Legacy: Maverick
Modern:
Melira PodRIP 1/19/15GWHatebearsNiv-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
TL;DR - percentage means a lot less for commanders that aren't tier 1 or 2 competitive IMO.
It's almost like they're trying to define a delta from established deck lists.
Anyway i only use % for aspects of the deck (like color spread, or how finished the deck is) never for optimization.
UB Vela the Night-Clad BUDecklist
WBG Ghave, Guru of Spores GBW
WUBRGThe Ur-DragonWUBRGDecklist
In other words: A 100% deck aims for maximum power and efficiency, even though it may be impossible get there. A 75% (or whatever) has a different goal, and is willing to give up "25% of power" (again, what this means is very subjective) in order to gain other benefits (i.e. more fun during gameplay). This balancing between power level and other factors can of course itself be subject to optimization.
So: even 75% (85% or whatever) decks can be optimized in the sense that they are finely tuned to hold this balance where they can meaningfully interact with a broad range of decks and players while still being fun for everyone involved. At least, that's what I am trying to do with my decks.
Tamanoa - Welcome to the Jungle
Lists can be found here.
(Also known as Xenphire)
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 agree with both of these assessments. It's a very subjective assessment, just like talking tiers. And it's very meta-dependent. I guess its just a yardstick for commonly strong cards, builds and synergies. But I don't think either percentages or tiers are anything to be considered gospel truth, or anything reliable enough to set your watch to.