I know what you mean. I feel the same way sometimes. Of course what really bothers me is one person in Play against. I like the guy usually. But I get so burned out playing against him.
I'm curious what bothers you about this person. I definitely notice that how anxious I get depends on who I'm playing against.
The last game I played with Athreos was against a guy I've run into a couple times who really bothers me. He's plenty friendly and everything, and a good sport, but every time I've bumped into him he's been playing an unabashed cEDH deck - in this case, some sort of storm Jhoira list that looks basically identical to this one: https://tappedout.net/mtg-decks/fast-mana-is-fair-and-balanced-jwc-storm-primer/. Not sure if he created it or if he's netdecking, but either way he doesn't give any kind of disclaimer about what he's playing, he just asks if we want to play a game. When I said I needed to leave soon, he said not to worry, that the game would be quick because of his deck.
Last time I bumped into him, me and my gf were trying to find additional players to bash precons (I had a box of them) and he said he had no interest in playing any decks except his own.
Basically I don't the sense he wants any challenge at all - he just wants to steamroll unsuspecting people all day, like he's totally oblivious to the idea that EDH involves a social contract and that most people aren't interested in games that end on turn 3-5. I don't mind as much for me, since I could smell what he was cooking a mile away. But for sure he's sat down next to newer players and done the same thing and doesn't seem to see anything wrong with it. I asked him why he bothers, why doesn't he find someone also interested in cEDH, and he said "well I didn't make you play the game".
Anyway, this sort of person bothers me and I get a lot more anxious about losing, and a lot more invested in taking him down a peg. Which is probably not a great reaction.
Yea the guy i play against has a few decks, all are (I'd say 70% is the lowest) Where as my highest is probably 50% (And that is questionable) Yet he doesn't seem to get that he is playing against people who don;t have decks that can stand up to him. He doesn't understand that when you have 3 people focusing you, you should not be winning 90% of the games you play. I get burned out because sometimes I don't have an option except play with him. So i have to suffer going against his decks.
What is even worse is some comment i get when i pull off a win in some miraculous (Yet infinite combo) way.
"Always happy when Adam loses"
People should not get to the point where they are so tired of you winning, they are glad when someone (ANYONE) beats you.
That is why i get burned out, he wins too often, regardless of how many people are ganging up on him.
If derevi did not have the "Put directly into play" or had a clause where you have to cast him to get the ETB trigger, He would be a lot more bearable. Thanks to this one player, i have DESTROYED people who play Derevi, I do not let up and I dominate them. Maybe they are not playing the same deck, but my PTSD kicks in and I kill them first. I see Derevi, i focus you first.
I guess I sort of see what people felt when i was playing arcum, but arcum started off as jank. No one else at my LGS played arcum and I was just wanting to build an artifact deck.
After a few weeks of 3v1, I started having consistent turn 4-5 wins. I took arcum apart because i got burned out of people complaining i kept winning. Now we complain someone else keeps winning but unlike me, he refuses to play a deck that is on our level.
If we built pods where everyone had the same level (or very similar level) of power in the deck, I doubt he would be in a pod ever.
I did once beat him 1v1, but he did not have the best start, and I exploded out of the gate with my dragon deck.
I can kind of relate. I love the brewing process and creating a meld of mechanisms that synergise and lead to different lines of play. And it frustrates me when that doesn't work out how I want it to. I feel like maybe it's a disconnect between the brewing process and the way the deck plays outside a vacuum - certainly seems to be, in my case. It's part of the reason I'm more interested in toolbox/quasi-control builds these days; there may not be a specific game plan or a win-con I set up every game, but I run enough answers to have stamina through a reasonable amount of problems.
This guy you talk about with the Jeleva deck would piss me off too, FWIW. And I would also try to take him down a peg or two, but ultimately it does seem like the best way to deal with him is just to not game with him, and leave pods that he joins, tell your friends how he games and such. That's neither here nor there in relation to the original topic, but his actions do move the goalposts for success with your brews. Certainly, I would try not to judge my decks in relation to his, considering Jeleva is known for being a strong cEDH deck.
Yeah, sounds like roughly the same thing. Definitely an annoying category of person.
Curiously I've never really been tempted to build a fast combo deck in commander. When I built arcum ages ago I studiously avoided any kind of combo so I could run him as a janky toolbox build. I think that urge got burnt out of my system before EDH when I was building terrible 60-card-casual decks. The two that come to mind being kiki-jiki, mirror breaker+intruder alarm, and the much lesser known but hilarious griffin canyon + land animation + creature type change.
I can kind of relate. I love the brewing process and creating a meld of mechanisms that synergise and lead to different lines of play. And it frustrates me when that doesn't work out how I want it to. I feel like maybe it's a disconnect between the brewing process and the way the deck plays outside a vacuum - certainly seems to be, in my case. It's part of the reason I'm more interested in toolbox/quasi-control builds these days; there may not be a specific game plan or a win-con I set up every game, but I run enough answers to have stamina through a reasonable amount of problems.
This guy you talk about with the Jeleva deck would piss me off too, FWIW. And I would also try to take him down a peg or two, but ultimately it does seem like the best way to deal with him is just to not game with him, and leave pods that he joins, tell your friends how he games and such. That's neither here nor there in relation to the original topic, but his actions do move the goalposts for success with your brews. Certainly, I would try not to judge my decks in relation to his, considering Jeleva is known for being a strong cEDH deck.
I've been thinking about the sorts of decks that I might try building to attempt to assuage my inner demons, and right now I'm thinking something along the lines of a proactive control deck. Extremely reactive control decks like Phelddagrif are really cool and unique strategically, and can definitely be fun, but they can also be kind of stressful since you're vulnerable in a lot of ways without a strong board presence, oftentimes I'm effectively policing the entire table, it's very difficult to play well, and also it almost always wins via people scooping because the games goes too long So I'm thinking maybe something life Raff Capashen that can play to the board while still keeping up answers to block stupid stuff, and wins on a reasonable time scale.
Not really a permanent fix, because I still love designing difficult to play, politic-heavy, reactive control builds, but it's still something worth experimenting with.
Of my decks, I think my athreos actually has an OK chance against cEDH since it can semi-reasonably kill someone as early as turn 3 (theoretical turn 2 with a god hand) with a little help from a co-conspirator (which ought to be easy to get when the other player is pulling some serious BS like that), but that requires a good draw which I didn't have, and cEDH guy had 4 mana on turn 1 because mana crypt is totally a boon to the format Anyway ofc I don't judge my decks based on how they perform in those scenarios, but it's still the sort of conflict that tends to stress me out. In retrospect I should have said "no thanks, I don't like playing against cEDH decks" but oh well. Heat of the moment. (btw it was jhoira not jeleva but who cares)
Yea Kiki is often paired with zealous conscripts in edh
I never planned for scrum to be that fast or deadly. It's kind of a
Tire vs nurture. Naturally it was meant to be fun jank. But they taught me to be merciless and so I was. When you have an army of flying blighteels coming at you turn 4 (yes an army. Not one) you know your opponent is not messing around. And you have to ask "am I the cause?"
I build a lot of combo decks. It's not the same kind of combo, but still combo.
Yea Kiki is often paired with zealous conscripts in edh
Lol, yeah, I know.
Why do people keep explaining really basic deckbuilding advice to me in this thread? I know I'm not the MOST senior person here, but still, I've been neck-deep in EDH since 2009. I'm familiar with the combos even if I don't build them.
I never planned for scrum to be that fast or deadly. It's kind of a
Tire vs nurture. Naturally it was meant to be fun jank. But they taught me to be merciless and so I was. When you have an army of flying blighteels coming at you turn 4 (yes an army. Not one) you know your opponent is not messing around. And you have to ask "am I the cause?"
I build a lot of combo decks. It's not the same kind of combo, but still combo.
I don't have any problem with people playing combo or whatever if that's what their playgroup's power level is. As long as it's balanced and everyone's having fun, I'm not one to judge. Personally I prefer a slower meta, though.
Been said, but commander gets weird because many players aren't familiar with the idea of intentionally limiting power level. And honestly it rarely comes up in conversation, and when it does it tends to get bogged down in details of "this effect is ok, this effect isn't". It's natural to want to have the highest win% you can, and to build decks that help you do that, because winning is more fun than losing. Not everyone can easily reign in that urge.
Right now my main playgroup is sort of a garden of eden situation, where most of the players either aren't aware of how to make a powerful deck or can't afford it. Which is simultaneously great, because we don't need to argue about what's ok and what's not, but also bad because broken things do occasionally pop up and we haven't really had any discussions about those sorts of things to make it clear what the expectations are.
I've been thinking about the sorts of decks that I might try building to attempt to assuage my inner demons, and right now I'm thinking something along the lines of a proactive control deck. Extremely reactive control decks like Phelddagrif are really cool and unique strategically, and can definitely be fun, but they can also be kind of stressful since you're vulnerable in a lot of ways without a strong board presence, oftentimes I'm effectively policing the entire table, it's very difficult to play well, and also it almost always wins via people scooping because the games goes too long So I'm thinking maybe something life Raff Capashen that can play to the board while still keeping up answers to block stupid stuff, and wins on a reasonable time scale.
Not really a permanent fix, because I still love designing difficult to play, politic-heavy, reactive control builds, but it's still something worth experimenting with.
It's funny how control is commonly reduced to blue permission. It has many faces and many strategies. I also find passive control to be frustrating sometimes. When an aggro or combo player is fixed on dominating the table there really isn't much you can do, and policing the table is laborious.
It may not be a permanent fix, but sometimes shifting the way you think temporarily is enough to deter your frustration into the future. I say build Raff - I've seen some strong builds around him, he should be fun.
Of my decks, I think my athreos actually has an OK chance against cEDH since it can semi-reasonably kill someone as early as turn 3 (theoretical turn 2 with a god hand) with a little help from a co-conspirator (which ought to be easy to get when the other player is pulling some serious BS like that), but that requires a good draw which I didn't have, and cEDH guy had 4 mana on turn 1 because mana crypt is totally a boon to the format Rolleyes Anyway ofc I don't judge my decks based on how they perform in those scenarios, but it's still the sort of conflict that tends to stress me out. In retrospect I should have said "no thanks, I don't like playing against cEDH decks" but oh well. Heat of the moment. (btw it was jhoira not jeleva but who cares)
These conflicts stress me out, too. Problem is I also like a challenge . I have a couple of decks that potentially could go toe to toe with something competitive but I agree that it's not a good metric; as soon as it is, it changes what you're wanting the deck to be.
Jhoira, Jeleva, tomayto, tomato: both are known for degeneracy. I'd be aiming to target anyone who sits down to play against me with either one.
FWIW, the metric for a good game is not necessarily one I win, but one in which all contributors have a great time. The metric for my decks is generally evaluated over a couple of games. How well the cards synergise, how many lines of play I have, how fun it is to pilot and play against....generally synergy is the most crucial. It is also the metric most easily disrupted by interference from other decks, unfortunately. That might be where some of the frustration is coming from, simply because brewing is so far removed from actual play.
Yea Kiki is often paired with zealous conscripts in edh
Lol, yeah, I know.
Why do people keep explaining really basic deckbuilding advice to me in this thread? I know I'm not the MOST senior person here, but still, I've been neck-deep in EDH since 2009. I'm familiar with the combos even if I don't build them.
I never planned for scrum to be that fast or deadly. It's kind of a
Tire vs nurture. Naturally it was meant to be fun jank. But they taught me to be merciless and so I was. When you have an army of flying blighteels coming at you turn 4 (yes an army. Not one) you know your opponent is not messing around. And you have to ask "am I the cause?"
I build a lot of combo decks. It's not the same kind of combo, but still combo.
I don't have any problem with people playing combo or whatever if that's what their playgroup's power level is. As long as it's balanced and everyone's having fun, I'm not one to judge. Personally I prefer a slower meta, though.
Been said, but commander gets weird because many players aren't familiar with the idea of intentionally limiting power level. And honestly it rarely comes up in conversation, and when it does it tends to get bogged down in details of "this effect is ok, this effect isn't". It's natural to want to have the highest win% you can, and to build decks that help you do that, because winning is more fun than losing. Not everyone can easily reign in that urge.
Right now my main playgroup is sort of a garden of eden situation, where most of the players either aren't aware of how to make a powerful deck or can't afford it. Which is simultaneously great, because we don't need to argue about what's ok and what's not, but also bad because broken things do occasionally pop up and we haven't really had any discussions about those sorts of things to make it clear what the expectations are.
I wasn't giving deck building advice, you mention intruder alarm and i mention conscripts.
I find the most common topic is when one mentions a player in their group being an issue and they always say "talk to that player" I do talk to him. Not all of us (In fact most of us do not enjoy playing a guy who wins 90% of his games)
HOWEVER, that is also an issue, as he wins so many games, people challenge him in hopes they can beat him, so it is not like i can exclude him. (And i have beaten him a few times)
Personally i would prefer to not play him so I don't have to play a deck and use EVERY resource i have to win. I would rather play in a pod where it is a lot better balance in terms of power. I mean i could sell my decks and build one massive $10000.00 deck but i do not wnat to do that (Currently my most expensive deck is my dragon deck which runs all ten duals, Shocks and fetches. (Along with utility) making the mana base alone well over 5k (probably closer to six, maybe even seven but doubtful it is that high, even if the entire land base is in pristine NM condition)
But just because my deck is expensive does not mean it will win. In fact in terms of power, it is probably my least powerful deck as it has 0 combos. It is simply battlecruiser.
I then pull out a combo deck and everyone complains. (Seriously, bugger off, i do not win nearly as often as Evil adam, yet for some reason when i win by infinite combo you claim it is unfair. In most cases i get it, all the work you did to that point became meaningless. But the same could be said about dropping a players life down to single digits, and then they gain 100 life in a single turn. All the work you did to that point, meaningless. You chip away at someones health and then they play phenax and have a few big guys and mill you out, all the work you did, meaningless. They play an "I win now" card Same result.
So i combo out, but they complain about that. Meanwhile the guy who is playing (Low end) CEDH against people running no more than a few hundred bucks in their best decks (Like running a mana crypt or grim monolith, you know, their deck is nothing until you get to the big money cards.) are forced to play against them. My dragon deck is FAR from competitive, even though i have a VERY expensive mana base. It is just feels like i put too much money into a game when i have a deck i want to try out and I have to play it against a CEDH deck. I get burned out most nights.
I don't have any problem with people playing combo or whatever if that's what their playgroup's power level is. As long as it's balanced and everyone's having fun, I'm not one to judge. Personally I prefer a slower meta, though.
Been said, but commander gets weird because many players aren't familiar with the idea of intentionally limiting power level. And honestly it rarely comes up in conversation, and when it does it tends to get bogged down in details of "this effect is ok, this effect isn't". It's natural to want to have the highest win% you can, and to build decks that help you do that, because winning is more fun than losing. Not everyone can easily reign in that urge.
Right now my main playgroup is sort of a garden of eden situation, where most of the players either aren't aware of how to make a powerful deck or can't afford it. Which is simultaneously great, because we don't need to argue about what's ok and what's not, but also bad because broken things do occasionally pop up and we haven't really had any discussions about those sorts of things to make it clear what the expectations are.
After the recent string of posts, I see where I missed the point (or at least I think I see it).
At the end of the day, it's basically still a "social contract" problem. The reason why I (and some other people I guess) keep reverting to "deckbuilding solutions" that you find irrelevant is because that is pretty much the "single-person" solution to the problem. Without citing specific examples this time (and chances are you already know) is that one basically has to adapt to any given situation and learn to appreciate the situation if you want to "solve" the situation. Build decks of every caliber and learn to enjoy every possible situation, be it the most casual timmy beatdowns, the most convoluted johnny combos or the most spike matches and even harder than all of them, learn to extract enjoyment in the unfortunate case they clash. Deckbuilding-wise it traslates to "build everything, build diversity".
The reason why we fall back to the "single-person" solution is because short of saying "Get the playgroup to engage in a serious, detailed discussion about setting power levels", there probably isn't an actual "multi-people" solution for these cases. The whole "garden of eden" situation you described is the natural, much, much-slower process of the same thing.
So from this chain of recent activity I conclude that your problem amounts to "Why do "newer/unaware" players who experiment like I do not adopt the same same conscious intentional limiter levels like I do?" and then you already answered it with "because people like to win" and you are frustrated that these "new/unaware" players are evolving to "competitive players" instead of "creative players".
Then there's the issue of "competitive players" evolving further to "just for the win" people who purposely choose to play with the creative/newbie groups simply for their desire to win (because it's too much work to win at cEDH, the curve steepens dramatically there) and the "creatively competitive people" who enjoy the toughness of the cEDH curve the same way they enjoyed the initial difficulty curve of the creative/newbie groups when they were part of the group proper, but might choose to dabble in the weaker groups for inspiration anyway.
Either way, fact remains most players are aligned to to "strive to improve and become more competitive" than the "consciously limit my power levels because I just enjoy playing around" and even those who don't mind the later are more attuned to the former because its more likely their friends are aligned to that (since most people are aligned to the first, again). If you're frustrated that the people are turning out like that after spending so long in the "Garden of Eden", then short of proposing the accelerated direct discussion to identify what type of players they are, there isn't really one, it's just the natural slow cycle of generating (mostly striving to be competitive) players. The "Garden of Eden" may be an "ideal" (or close to it) playgroup for creative players like you, but that's mainly because newer players have to experiment like creative players, so the Garden isn't actually a playgroup OF creative players.
an additional issue is that even if they build more decks, they are not creative, i will admit, not every deck i build is creative, but i try to be on most. The decks i see others play (Those who win a lot) don't have creative decks. Its all invested into win more, which is boring. Plus i can probably find all of their decklists on tapped out, multiple times.
I mean Arcades, mg LGS had 5 decks the night he was released (out if 9 people there that night, meaning over half were playing arcades, all of them differed by less than 10 cards.
That is why i mean by not being creative. Tell me, when is the last time you saw someone build Atraxa voltron (Completely ignoring the proliferate ability)? Or a ruhan deck that donates Propaganda effects so he can aim? Or an arcum deck that wins by attacking rather than locking down the board (My deck was able to lock down the board, but swinging with blightseels (Yes multiple) was my usual win con. Or a sliver hivelord that ran only 3 other slivers.
I wasn't giving deck building advice, you mention intruder alarm and i mention conscripts.
I guess I don't understand why, though. Everyone knows about kiki-conscripts (at the time I made my kiki deck, conscripts wouldn't be printed for another 7 years, and pestermite for another 3 - it was a standard legal deck). Deckbuilding specifically was more targeted at other people - mostly I just mean that people seem to have a tendency to explain really basic stuff to me on this thread like I'm just now learning commander.
Anyway I do get the issue with certain people ruining metas, but that's not actually the problem I have. The guy I mentioned I've only played against a couple times in the many years I've been playing EDH in the Seattle area. As much as I find the way he plays to be annoying and a bit pathetic, I don't have much reason to care. If I see him again I'll probably just decline to play him.
After the recent string of posts, I see where I missed the point (or at least I think I see it).
At the end of the day, it's basically still a "social contract" problem. The reason why I (and some other people I guess) keep reverting to "deckbuilding solutions" that you find irrelevant is because that is pretty much the "single-person" solution to the problem. Without citing specific examples this time (and chances are you already know) is that one basically has to adapt to any given situation and learn to appreciate the situation if you want to "solve" the situation. Build decks of every caliber and learn to enjoy every possible situation, be it the most casual timmy beatdowns, the most convoluted johnny combos or the most spike matches and even harder than all of them, learn to extract enjoyment in the unfortunate case they clash. Deckbuilding-wise it traslates to "build everything, build diversity".
The reason why we fall back to the "single-person" solution is because short of saying "Get the playgroup to engage in a serious, detailed discussion about setting power levels", there probably isn't an actual "multi-people" solution for these cases. The whole "garden of eden" situation you described is the natural, much, much-slower process of the same thing.
So from this chain of recent activity I conclude that your problem amounts to "Why do "newer/unaware" players who experiment like I do not adopt the same same conscious intentional limiter levels like I do?" and then you already answered it with "because people like to win" and you are frustrated that these "new/unaware" players are evolving to "competitive players" instead of "creative players".
Then there's the issue of "competitive players" evolving further to "just for the win" people who purposely choose to play with the creative/newbie groups simply for their desire to win (because it's too much work to win at cEDH, the curve steepens dramatically there) and the "creatively competitive people" who enjoy the toughness of the cEDH curve the same way they enjoyed the initial difficulty curve of the creative/newbie groups when they were part of the group proper, but might choose to dabble in the weaker groups for inspiration anyway.
Either way, fact remains most players are aligned to to "strive to improve and become more competitive" than the "consciously limit my power levels because I just enjoy playing around" and even those who don't mind the later are more attuned to the former because its more likely their friends are aligned to that (since most people are aligned to the first, again). If you're frustrated that the people are turning out like that after spending so long in the "Garden of Eden", then short of proposing the accelerated direct discussion to identify what type of players they are, there isn't really one, it's just the natural slow cycle of generating (mostly striving to be competitive) players. The "Garden of Eden" may be an "ideal" (or close to it) playgroup for creative players like you, but that's mainly because newer players have to experiment like creative players, so the Garden isn't actually a playgroup OF creative players.
The guy who was trying to trick people into playing casual decks vs his cEDH bull***** isn't actually a real problem for me. As I said to Gashnaw, I've almost never seen him. He's most just indicative of the problem I have with how I behave myself in those circumstances - when he started comboing his command with words of wind+mana crypt+ornithopter I got huffy and asked him angrily why he didn't want to find someone else who actually wanted to play cEDH. Which is a fair question I think, but I was actually angry and that's kind of a stupid reaction. I already knew what kind of deck it was going to be and I played anyway. I still think he's wrong and a prick, but that doesn't mean I'm not also wrong. also I just don't like feeling like a bad sport.
There's a few people who play moderately-competitive decks at my LGS but it's usually within reasonable levels. Usually stuff similar to mine power-wise, where it's a well-constructed, high-budget version of a non-competitive idea (i.e. recently played against a fairly strong atraxa superfriends list - not going to combo win on turn 3 or anything, but still pretty threatening for a casual table - obviously my decks are (hopefully) a little more original but whatever). I don't mind there being some discrepancy in power levels, that's why threat assessment exists. Makes it easier to get everyone to gang up on them.
Occasionally someone will blindside me with some bull***** (recently had someone go infinite with DEN + drake while I was playing my "sequence" deck (I have to cast spells in an order dictated by a random pile of cards with various conditions on them...it sounds dumb in retrospect) which I thought was pretty lame and I also reacted kind of badly) but usually things tend to be within competitive levels that I'm fine with. Some people are becoming a little more competitive, but they're still very far away from cEDH and have openly told me they don't wish to get much closer, and other people are limited by budget. While things could theoretically get worse, I don't see any current problems with my playgroup. And I've been to multiple other groups that mostly fit within my range of acceptability.
So I can see where you got the impression that I'm complaining about power discrepancy, but that's not actually the problem either. The core of the problem is that I feel like I can get overanxious about the results of the game, causing me to be a bad sport, in multiple EDH scenarios - one of which is when I play against someone with an uncreative, high-powered deck that wins in a way I feel is unearned, and another is when I'm playing a deck that I have significant attachment to. Power level discrepancies can bring out my anxiety and anger, but I need to solve the anxiety, not the discrepancies.
And while I do agree that some people have trouble with the idea of limiting their power, I don't see that as a problem in our EDH group - or even in many of the groups in my city. But I'm sympathetic to those who do have those woes.
an additional issue is that even if they build more decks, they are not creative, i will admit, not every deck i build is creative, but i try to be on most. The decks i see others play (Those who win a lot) don't have creative decks. Its all invested into win more, which is boring. Plus i can probably find all of their decklists on tapped out, multiple times.
I mean Arcades, mg LGS had 5 decks the night he was released (out if 9 people there that night, meaning over half were playing arcades, all of them differed by less than 10 cards.
That is why i mean by not being creative. Tell me, when is the last time you saw someone build Atraxa voltron (Completely ignoring the proliferate ability)? Or a ruhan deck that donates Propaganda effects so he can aim? Or an arcum deck that wins by attacking rather than locking down the board (My deck was able to lock down the board, but swinging with blightseels (Yes multiple) was my usual win con. Or a sliver hivelord that ran only 3 other slivers.
5 out of 9 is pretty ridiculous. Although really I'm impressed that high of a percentage of your group can get a deck together that quickly. At my LGS some people have been playing the same deck for the better part of a year.
That said, I don't buy the idea that creative equals crappy. Donating propaganda is funny but that is beyond awful for a game plan. And making atraxa voltron doesn't strike me as creative or interesting. Imo creativity isn't about attaching random strategies to commanders that don't synergize with it in any particular way - it's about finding something different but still makes sense - like zur rebels (which I haven't built but is a super fun idea).
So I can see where you got the impression that I'm complaining about power discrepancy, but that's not actually the problem either. The core of the problem is that I feel like I can get overanxious about the results of the game, causing me to be a bad sport, in multiple EDH scenarios - one of which is when I play against someone with an uncreative, high-powered deck that wins in a way I feel is unearned, and another is when I'm playing a deck that I have significant attachment to. Power level discrepancies can bring out my anxiety and anger, but I need to solve the anxiety, not the discrepancies.
I think we've reached the end of our discussion, since we've effectively ruled out both deckbuilding and the social environment as well (or rather, we've come to the agreement we'll accept the status quo of the environment as a default factor but its solution is not the exact formula)... which leaves your own anxiety management.
Well, I can only offer some scraps of advice here (nor do I claim to be an expert, explicit disclaimer because this is technically not an issue related to MTG anymore) - do you react similarly in other activities/situations that don't involve the game? Since we've considered the causes to be an irrelevant factor, but the key issue is that you express yourself too... eagerly (I can't think of the exact word, excuse me) when something that upsets you happens in a game (you've hinted even perfectly acceptable in theory/hindsight moves that shortchanged yourself had you reacting poorly).
In fairness though, we are all human, when I get blindsided with similar situations, I cannot claim to be a saint. You're clearly conscious of the image you're portraying, but perhaps (emphasis on perhaps, I do not know you personally well enough to make accurate guesses) you're not invested enough in maintaining that image as compared to... the game itself (or at least the games when you are playing something that you are invested in). It's not going to be easy, but maybe you should place that as your first priority and investment regardless of the game you're playing? You've cited examples where the same nonsense has happened but you were capable of restrain because your investment levels were not high (which in a roundabout means you've actually successfully placed your own image above the game before).
Ironically enough to some extent I actually use focusing on the game to hide my saltiness - internally I'm already seawater because the main combo/strategy I'm gunning for is already practically impossible to assemble, but because of my deckbuilding process (yes all that gibberish in my first few posts here) permits for the less desirable backups to feasibly manifest, I keep a poker face and/or play fakeouts to not divulge any information/misdirect information. In a most ironic way, my desire to win keeps me from being a bad sport for a good number of time. It's not foolproof either, it doesn't really protect from cases like a player concentrating his focus on me, but force of habit (from all that misdirection) will have me "goading/convincing" (terms varies on situation) each and every player on the table to try to turn the favor instead of lashing out at a player.
Most people are rational enough to never carry their vindictiveness over to following games (although being less favored is a natural human inclination) without an obvious logical reason (100% cEDH Derevi is playing archenemy against 3 precons every game for sure). If a single person has an attitude problem and is always displays vindictive behavior in their games, then it is honestly their problem to solve and any help you can possibly give is probably the same as of me here trying to figure out your situation here (not implying you're bad, just pointing out all behavioral problems mild or serious go through this awkward identification process regardless).
You know what, I'll be blunt, if you can't trust yourself to keep your... responses in check, entrust it to someone else to remind you. Ideally it would be someone who can identify it before you... explode, but even if they could only tell you "calm down" immediately after the fact (and please don't snap back at them if you have a tendency to do that), it's a step forward. Ideally I would recommend to play with a playgroup capable of applying this with each other, because if the entire group knows each other's "tendencies", they tend to care enough for the "welfare" of the person to try to assist that person and won't let the occasional outburst and/or sulkiness (which I'm prone to, but that's a milder problem) paint as bad image of the person since it's a known factor already.
I probably used a dozen words awkwardly and inaccurately (I'm terrible at finding words to phrase these situations), so don't take them at face value too much. But really, this needs your self-control and/or the people around you to help you. Words from forums posts won't magically regulate anxiety and impulse responses. I've seen cases that just blow up because the person simply doesn't have the environment that can help (your issue would be hopeless if the entire environment is nothing but vindictive people beating each other up for an extreme example), but after all that detour posts in every direction I think I could have made I think you do at least have a plausible chance of developing that environment (and there's a chance it's already there and just needs some asking to trigger).
@Dirk
To be fair, Atraxa voltron is not really crappy. In the big pictre, she is still a 4/4 for four, with Flying, Deathtouch, Lifelink and Vigilance. Already she starts off as a big creature.
So I can see where you got the impression that I'm complaining about power discrepancy, but that's not actually the problem either. The core of the problem is that I feel like I can get overanxious about the results of the game, causing me to be a bad sport, in multiple EDH scenarios - one of which is when I play against someone with an uncreative, high-powered deck that wins in a way I feel is unearned, and another is when I'm playing a deck that I have significant attachment to. Power level discrepancies can bring out my anxiety and anger, but I need to solve the anxiety, not the discrepancies.
I don't really have a fix, but I can relate. It frustrates me because it doesn't seem fair in a format where social contracts are important. If you win a straight up arm wrestle, I'll tell you I had fun. If you combo off, I'll say gg, but it'll be grudging and I'll suggest that next time you bring a deck that scales to the rest of the group instead of handing beatings downwards. That's how it seems to me, a lot of the time - some people just enjoy being bullies. I'll call this sort of person a dick. There are, however, some out there that just....don't get it, and think everyone enjoys having their ass handed to them in an unfair fight. I'll try and illuminate them gently. Either way in both of those situations I think the frustration is justified. I mostly play online, where anyone can build any deck they like, so there's a lot of degeneracy.
There's one specific card I see a lot of that's really starting to frustrate me - I've been a good sport about it, but it's an immediate kill switch, and I don't like that, so I can see myself ranting at someone eventually; Aetherflux Reservoir. Being able to nullify what my deck can do simply by gaining more than ten life is galling.
I dunno, I think maybe the fix is to take a step back and see the bigger picture - in these games, anything you can do to fight back you should consider a win, and you definitely shouldn't take it personally - either for your sake of the sake of your build. The fault lies with the person who threw the social aspect of EDH to the wayside.
I wish I could help more. I'm in, I think, a unique position in that every deck in my meta, no matter who plays or owns it, was brewed by me. I built every deck in the whole meta. Decks that win, that lose, that get taken apart after two sessions, that have lasted for years ... all brewed by me.
So whether I win or lose, I am happy, so long as I get to see a deck I built work.
(Disclaimer: I do sometimes build decks for my somewhat Spikey daughter. Her decks are built with her in mind, and I often dislike them. But they win.)
Perhaps a break with a Commander cube might shake things up enough to let you get some perspective on a given deck?
@Dirk
To be fair, Atraxa voltron is not really crappy. In the big pictre, she is still a 4/4 for four, with Flying, Deathtouch, Lifelink and Vigilance. Already she starts off as a big creature.
Come on, man, I was just complaining about you explaining stuff to me like I'm an idiot. I get that Atraxa is a passable voltron, but it's not exactly the incarnation of creativity - which was my main complaint, and I think pretty clear from what I said. But also, yes, I think voltron is fundamentally a weak strategy in addition to being uninteresting.
I wish I could help more. I'm in, I think, a unique position in that every deck in my meta, no matter who plays or owns it, was brewed by me. I built every deck in the whole meta. Decks that win, that lose, that get taken apart after two sessions, that have lasted for years ... all brewed by me.
So whether I win or lose, I am happy, so long as I get to see a deck I built work.
(Disclaimer: I do sometimes build decks for my somewhat Spikey daughter. Her decks are built with her in mind, and I often dislike them. But they win.)
Perhaps a break with a Commander cube might shake things up enough to let you get some perspective on a given deck?
Are you talking about randomly-constructed commander decks for yourself, or an actual cube draft situation with all players involved? I don't think I could talk my local meta into such a thing (cube), unfortunately, although it would be cool. I could ask around and test the waters.
Yea the guy i play against has a few decks, all are (I'd say 70% is the lowest) Where as my highest is probably 50% (And that is questionable) Yet he doesn't seem to get that he is playing against people who don;t have decks that can stand up to him. He doesn't understand that when you have 3 people focusing you, you should not be winning 90% of the games you play. I get burned out because sometimes I don't have an option except play with him. So i have to suffer going against his decks.
What is even worse is some comment i get when i pull off a win in some miraculous (Yet infinite combo) way.
"Always happy when Adam loses"
People should not get to the point where they are so tired of you winning, they are glad when someone (ANYONE) beats you.
That is why i get burned out, he wins too often, regardless of how many people are ganging up on him.
If derevi did not have the "Put directly into play" or had a clause where you have to cast him to get the ETB trigger, He would be a lot more bearable. Thanks to this one player, i have DESTROYED people who play Derevi, I do not let up and I dominate them. Maybe they are not playing the same deck, but my PTSD kicks in and I kill them first. I see Derevi, i focus you first.
I guess I sort of see what people felt when i was playing arcum, but arcum started off as jank. No one else at my LGS played arcum and I was just wanting to build an artifact deck.
After a few weeks of 3v1, I started having consistent turn 4-5 wins. I took arcum apart because i got burned out of people complaining i kept winning. Now we complain someone else keeps winning but unlike me, he refuses to play a deck that is on our level.
If we built pods where everyone had the same level (or very similar level) of power in the deck, I doubt he would be in a pod ever.
I did once beat him 1v1, but he did not have the best start, and I exploded out of the gate with my dragon deck.
UB Vela the Night-Clad BUDecklist
WBG Ghave, Guru of Spores GBW
WUBRGThe Ur-DragonWUBRGDecklist
This guy you talk about with the Jeleva deck would piss me off too, FWIW. And I would also try to take him down a peg or two, but ultimately it does seem like the best way to deal with him is just to not game with him, and leave pods that he joins, tell your friends how he games and such. That's neither here nor there in relation to the original topic, but his actions do move the goalposts for success with your brews. Certainly, I would try not to judge my decks in relation to his, considering Jeleva is known for being a strong cEDH deck.
Yeah, sounds like roughly the same thing. Definitely an annoying category of person.
Curiously I've never really been tempted to build a fast combo deck in commander. When I built arcum ages ago I studiously avoided any kind of combo so I could run him as a janky toolbox build. I think that urge got burnt out of my system before EDH when I was building terrible 60-card-casual decks. The two that come to mind being kiki-jiki, mirror breaker+intruder alarm, and the much lesser known but hilarious griffin canyon + land animation + creature type change. I've been thinking about the sorts of decks that I might try building to attempt to assuage my inner demons, and right now I'm thinking something along the lines of a proactive control deck. Extremely reactive control decks like Phelddagrif are really cool and unique strategically, and can definitely be fun, but they can also be kind of stressful since you're vulnerable in a lot of ways without a strong board presence, oftentimes I'm effectively policing the entire table, it's very difficult to play well, and also it almost always wins via people scooping because the games goes too long So I'm thinking maybe something life Raff Capashen that can play to the board while still keeping up answers to block stupid stuff, and wins on a reasonable time scale.
Not really a permanent fix, because I still love designing difficult to play, politic-heavy, reactive control builds, but it's still something worth experimenting with.
Of my decks, I think my athreos actually has an OK chance against cEDH since it can semi-reasonably kill someone as early as turn 3 (theoretical turn 2 with a god hand) with a little help from a co-conspirator (which ought to be easy to get when the other player is pulling some serious BS like that), but that requires a good draw which I didn't have, and cEDH guy had 4 mana on turn 1 because mana crypt is totally a boon to the format Anyway ofc I don't judge my decks based on how they perform in those scenarios, but it's still the sort of conflict that tends to stress me out. In retrospect I should have said "no thanks, I don't like playing against cEDH decks" but oh well. Heat of the moment. (btw it was jhoira not jeleva but who cares)
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
Yea Kiki is often paired with zealous conscripts in edh
I never planned for scrum to be that fast or deadly. It's kind of a
Tire vs nurture. Naturally it was meant to be fun jank. But they taught me to be merciless and so I was. When you have an army of flying blighteels coming at you turn 4 (yes an army. Not one) you know your opponent is not messing around. And you have to ask "am I the cause?"
I build a lot of combo decks. It's not the same kind of combo, but still combo.
UB Vela the Night-Clad BUDecklist
WBG Ghave, Guru of Spores GBW
WUBRGThe Ur-DragonWUBRGDecklist
Why do people keep explaining really basic deckbuilding advice to me in this thread? I know I'm not the MOST senior person here, but still, I've been neck-deep in EDH since 2009. I'm familiar with the combos even if I don't build them. I don't have any problem with people playing combo or whatever if that's what their playgroup's power level is. As long as it's balanced and everyone's having fun, I'm not one to judge. Personally I prefer a slower meta, though.
Been said, but commander gets weird because many players aren't familiar with the idea of intentionally limiting power level. And honestly it rarely comes up in conversation, and when it does it tends to get bogged down in details of "this effect is ok, this effect isn't". It's natural to want to have the highest win% you can, and to build decks that help you do that, because winning is more fun than losing. Not everyone can easily reign in that urge.
Right now my main playgroup is sort of a garden of eden situation, where most of the players either aren't aware of how to make a powerful deck or can't afford it. Which is simultaneously great, because we don't need to argue about what's ok and what's not, but also bad because broken things do occasionally pop up and we haven't really had any discussions about those sorts of things to make it clear what the expectations are.
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
It's funny how control is commonly reduced to blue permission. It has many faces and many strategies. I also find passive control to be frustrating sometimes. When an aggro or combo player is fixed on dominating the table there really isn't much you can do, and policing the table is laborious.
It may not be a permanent fix, but sometimes shifting the way you think temporarily is enough to deter your frustration into the future. I say build Raff - I've seen some strong builds around him, he should be fun.
These conflicts stress me out, too. Problem is I also like a challenge . I have a couple of decks that potentially could go toe to toe with something competitive but I agree that it's not a good metric; as soon as it is, it changes what you're wanting the deck to be.
Jhoira, Jeleva, tomayto, tomato: both are known for degeneracy. I'd be aiming to target anyone who sits down to play against me with either one.
FWIW, the metric for a good game is not necessarily one I win, but one in which all contributors have a great time. The metric for my decks is generally evaluated over a couple of games. How well the cards synergise, how many lines of play I have, how fun it is to pilot and play against....generally synergy is the most crucial. It is also the metric most easily disrupted by interference from other decks, unfortunately. That might be where some of the frustration is coming from, simply because brewing is so far removed from actual play.
I wasn't giving deck building advice, you mention intruder alarm and i mention conscripts.
I find the most common topic is when one mentions a player in their group being an issue and they always say "talk to that player" I do talk to him. Not all of us (In fact most of us do not enjoy playing a guy who wins 90% of his games)
HOWEVER, that is also an issue, as he wins so many games, people challenge him in hopes they can beat him, so it is not like i can exclude him. (And i have beaten him a few times)
Personally i would prefer to not play him so I don't have to play a deck and use EVERY resource i have to win. I would rather play in a pod where it is a lot better balance in terms of power. I mean i could sell my decks and build one massive $10000.00 deck but i do not wnat to do that (Currently my most expensive deck is my dragon deck which runs all ten duals, Shocks and fetches. (Along with utility) making the mana base alone well over 5k (probably closer to six, maybe even seven but doubtful it is that high, even if the entire land base is in pristine NM condition)
But just because my deck is expensive does not mean it will win. In fact in terms of power, it is probably my least powerful deck as it has 0 combos. It is simply battlecruiser.
I then pull out a combo deck and everyone complains. (Seriously, bugger off, i do not win nearly as often as Evil adam, yet for some reason when i win by infinite combo you claim it is unfair. In most cases i get it, all the work you did to that point became meaningless. But the same could be said about dropping a players life down to single digits, and then they gain 100 life in a single turn. All the work you did to that point, meaningless. You chip away at someones health and then they play phenax and have a few big guys and mill you out, all the work you did, meaningless. They play an "I win now" card Same result.
So i combo out, but they complain about that. Meanwhile the guy who is playing (Low end) CEDH against people running no more than a few hundred bucks in their best decks (Like running a mana crypt or grim monolith, you know, their deck is nothing until you get to the big money cards.) are forced to play against them. My dragon deck is FAR from competitive, even though i have a VERY expensive mana base. It is just feels like i put too much money into a game when i have a deck i want to try out and I have to play it against a CEDH deck. I get burned out most nights.
UB Vela the Night-Clad BUDecklist
WBG Ghave, Guru of Spores GBW
WUBRGThe Ur-DragonWUBRGDecklist
After the recent string of posts, I see where I missed the point (or at least I think I see it).
At the end of the day, it's basically still a "social contract" problem. The reason why I (and some other people I guess) keep reverting to "deckbuilding solutions" that you find irrelevant is because that is pretty much the "single-person" solution to the problem. Without citing specific examples this time (and chances are you already know) is that one basically has to adapt to any given situation and learn to appreciate the situation if you want to "solve" the situation. Build decks of every caliber and learn to enjoy every possible situation, be it the most casual timmy beatdowns, the most convoluted johnny combos or the most spike matches and even harder than all of them, learn to extract enjoyment in the unfortunate case they clash. Deckbuilding-wise it traslates to "build everything, build diversity".
The reason why we fall back to the "single-person" solution is because short of saying "Get the playgroup to engage in a serious, detailed discussion about setting power levels", there probably isn't an actual "multi-people" solution for these cases. The whole "garden of eden" situation you described is the natural, much, much-slower process of the same thing.
So from this chain of recent activity I conclude that your problem amounts to "Why do "newer/unaware" players who experiment like I do not adopt the same same conscious intentional limiter levels like I do?" and then you already answered it with "because people like to win" and you are frustrated that these "new/unaware" players are evolving to "competitive players" instead of "creative players".
Then there's the issue of "competitive players" evolving further to "just for the win" people who purposely choose to play with the creative/newbie groups simply for their desire to win (because it's too much work to win at cEDH, the curve steepens dramatically there) and the "creatively competitive people" who enjoy the toughness of the cEDH curve the same way they enjoyed the initial difficulty curve of the creative/newbie groups when they were part of the group proper, but might choose to dabble in the weaker groups for inspiration anyway.
Either way, fact remains most players are aligned to to "strive to improve and become more competitive" than the "consciously limit my power levels because I just enjoy playing around" and even those who don't mind the later are more attuned to the former because its more likely their friends are aligned to that (since most people are aligned to the first, again). If you're frustrated that the people are turning out like that after spending so long in the "Garden of Eden", then short of proposing the accelerated direct discussion to identify what type of players they are, there isn't really one, it's just the natural slow cycle of generating (mostly striving to be competitive) players. The "Garden of Eden" may be an "ideal" (or close to it) playgroup for creative players like you, but that's mainly because newer players have to experiment like creative players, so the Garden isn't actually a playgroup OF creative players.
I mean Arcades, mg LGS had 5 decks the night he was released (out if 9 people there that night, meaning over half were playing arcades, all of them differed by less than 10 cards.
That is why i mean by not being creative. Tell me, when is the last time you saw someone build Atraxa voltron (Completely ignoring the proliferate ability)? Or a ruhan deck that donates Propaganda effects so he can aim? Or an arcum deck that wins by attacking rather than locking down the board (My deck was able to lock down the board, but swinging with blightseels (Yes multiple) was my usual win con. Or a sliver hivelord that ran only 3 other slivers.
UB Vela the Night-Clad BUDecklist
WBG Ghave, Guru of Spores GBW
WUBRGThe Ur-DragonWUBRGDecklist
Anyway I do get the issue with certain people ruining metas, but that's not actually the problem I have. The guy I mentioned I've only played against a couple times in the many years I've been playing EDH in the Seattle area. As much as I find the way he plays to be annoying and a bit pathetic, I don't have much reason to care. If I see him again I'll probably just decline to play him.
The guy who was trying to trick people into playing casual decks vs his cEDH bull***** isn't actually a real problem for me. As I said to Gashnaw, I've almost never seen him. He's most just indicative of the problem I have with how I behave myself in those circumstances - when he started comboing his command with words of wind+mana crypt+ornithopter I got huffy and asked him angrily why he didn't want to find someone else who actually wanted to play cEDH. Which is a fair question I think, but I was actually angry and that's kind of a stupid reaction. I already knew what kind of deck it was going to be and I played anyway. I still think he's wrong and a prick, but that doesn't mean I'm not also wrong. also I just don't like feeling like a bad sport.
There's a few people who play moderately-competitive decks at my LGS but it's usually within reasonable levels. Usually stuff similar to mine power-wise, where it's a well-constructed, high-budget version of a non-competitive idea (i.e. recently played against a fairly strong atraxa superfriends list - not going to combo win on turn 3 or anything, but still pretty threatening for a casual table - obviously my decks are (hopefully) a little more original but whatever). I don't mind there being some discrepancy in power levels, that's why threat assessment exists. Makes it easier to get everyone to gang up on them.
Occasionally someone will blindside me with some bull***** (recently had someone go infinite with DEN + drake while I was playing my "sequence" deck (I have to cast spells in an order dictated by a random pile of cards with various conditions on them...it sounds dumb in retrospect) which I thought was pretty lame and I also reacted kind of badly) but usually things tend to be within competitive levels that I'm fine with. Some people are becoming a little more competitive, but they're still very far away from cEDH and have openly told me they don't wish to get much closer, and other people are limited by budget. While things could theoretically get worse, I don't see any current problems with my playgroup. And I've been to multiple other groups that mostly fit within my range of acceptability.
So I can see where you got the impression that I'm complaining about power discrepancy, but that's not actually the problem either. The core of the problem is that I feel like I can get overanxious about the results of the game, causing me to be a bad sport, in multiple EDH scenarios - one of which is when I play against someone with an uncreative, high-powered deck that wins in a way I feel is unearned, and another is when I'm playing a deck that I have significant attachment to. Power level discrepancies can bring out my anxiety and anger, but I need to solve the anxiety, not the discrepancies.
And while I do agree that some people have trouble with the idea of limiting their power, I don't see that as a problem in our EDH group - or even in many of the groups in my city. But I'm sympathetic to those who do have those woes. 5 out of 9 is pretty ridiculous. Although really I'm impressed that high of a percentage of your group can get a deck together that quickly. At my LGS some people have been playing the same deck for the better part of a year.
That said, I don't buy the idea that creative equals crappy. Donating propaganda is funny but that is beyond awful for a game plan. And making atraxa voltron doesn't strike me as creative or interesting. Imo creativity isn't about attaching random strategies to commanders that don't synergize with it in any particular way - it's about finding something different but still makes sense - like zur rebels (which I haven't built but is a super fun idea).
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 think we've reached the end of our discussion, since we've effectively ruled out both deckbuilding and the social environment as well (or rather, we've come to the agreement we'll accept the status quo of the environment as a default factor but its solution is not the exact formula)... which leaves your own anxiety management.
Well, I can only offer some scraps of advice here (nor do I claim to be an expert, explicit disclaimer because this is technically not an issue related to MTG anymore) - do you react similarly in other activities/situations that don't involve the game? Since we've considered the causes to be an irrelevant factor, but the key issue is that you express yourself too... eagerly (I can't think of the exact word, excuse me) when something that upsets you happens in a game (you've hinted even perfectly acceptable in theory/hindsight moves that shortchanged yourself had you reacting poorly).
In fairness though, we are all human, when I get blindsided with similar situations, I cannot claim to be a saint. You're clearly conscious of the image you're portraying, but perhaps (emphasis on perhaps, I do not know you personally well enough to make accurate guesses) you're not invested enough in maintaining that image as compared to... the game itself (or at least the games when you are playing something that you are invested in). It's not going to be easy, but maybe you should place that as your first priority and investment regardless of the game you're playing? You've cited examples where the same nonsense has happened but you were capable of restrain because your investment levels were not high (which in a roundabout means you've actually successfully placed your own image above the game before).
Ironically enough to some extent I actually use focusing on the game to hide my saltiness - internally I'm already seawater because the main combo/strategy I'm gunning for is already practically impossible to assemble, but because of my deckbuilding process (yes all that gibberish in my first few posts here) permits for the less desirable backups to feasibly manifest, I keep a poker face and/or play fakeouts to not divulge any information/misdirect information. In a most ironic way, my desire to win keeps me from being a bad sport for a good number of time. It's not foolproof either, it doesn't really protect from cases like a player concentrating his focus on me, but force of habit (from all that misdirection) will have me "goading/convincing" (terms varies on situation) each and every player on the table to try to turn the favor instead of lashing out at a player.
Most people are rational enough to never carry their vindictiveness over to following games (although being less favored is a natural human inclination) without an obvious logical reason (100% cEDH Derevi is playing archenemy against 3 precons every game for sure). If a single person has an attitude problem and is always displays vindictive behavior in their games, then it is honestly their problem to solve and any help you can possibly give is probably the same as of me here trying to figure out your situation here (not implying you're bad, just pointing out all behavioral problems mild or serious go through this awkward identification process regardless).
You know what, I'll be blunt, if you can't trust yourself to keep your... responses in check, entrust it to someone else to remind you. Ideally it would be someone who can identify it before you... explode, but even if they could only tell you "calm down" immediately after the fact (and please don't snap back at them if you have a tendency to do that), it's a step forward. Ideally I would recommend to play with a playgroup capable of applying this with each other, because if the entire group knows each other's "tendencies", they tend to care enough for the "welfare" of the person to try to assist that person and won't let the occasional outburst and/or sulkiness (which I'm prone to, but that's a milder problem) paint as bad image of the person since it's a known factor already.
I probably used a dozen words awkwardly and inaccurately (I'm terrible at finding words to phrase these situations), so don't take them at face value too much. But really, this needs your self-control and/or the people around you to help you. Words from forums posts won't magically regulate anxiety and impulse responses. I've seen cases that just blow up because the person simply doesn't have the environment that can help (your issue would be hopeless if the entire environment is nothing but vindictive people beating each other up for an extreme example), but after all that detour posts in every direction I think I could have made I think you do at least have a plausible chance of developing that environment (and there's a chance it's already there and just needs some asking to trigger).
To be fair, Atraxa voltron is not really crappy. In the big pictre, she is still a 4/4 for four, with Flying, Deathtouch, Lifelink and Vigilance. Already she starts off as a big creature.
UB Vela the Night-Clad BUDecklist
WBG Ghave, Guru of Spores GBW
WUBRGThe Ur-DragonWUBRGDecklist
I don't really have a fix, but I can relate. It frustrates me because it doesn't seem fair in a format where social contracts are important. If you win a straight up arm wrestle, I'll tell you I had fun. If you combo off, I'll say gg, but it'll be grudging and I'll suggest that next time you bring a deck that scales to the rest of the group instead of handing beatings downwards. That's how it seems to me, a lot of the time - some people just enjoy being bullies. I'll call this sort of person a dick. There are, however, some out there that just....don't get it, and think everyone enjoys having their ass handed to them in an unfair fight. I'll try and illuminate them gently. Either way in both of those situations I think the frustration is justified. I mostly play online, where anyone can build any deck they like, so there's a lot of degeneracy.
There's one specific card I see a lot of that's really starting to frustrate me - I've been a good sport about it, but it's an immediate kill switch, and I don't like that, so I can see myself ranting at someone eventually; Aetherflux Reservoir. Being able to nullify what my deck can do simply by gaining more than ten life is galling.
I dunno, I think maybe the fix is to take a step back and see the bigger picture - in these games, anything you can do to fight back you should consider a win, and you definitely shouldn't take it personally - either for your sake of the sake of your build. The fault lies with the person who threw the social aspect of EDH to the wayside.
So whether I win or lose, I am happy, so long as I get to see a deck I built work.
(Disclaimer: I do sometimes build decks for my somewhat Spikey daughter. Her decks are built with her in mind, and I often dislike them. But they win.)
Perhaps a break with a Commander cube might shake things up enough to let you get some perspective on a given deck?
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