Is A Points System The Solution To Commander's Problems? | Magic: The Gathering
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 окт 2024
- Looking for the perfect storage solution for your Commander decks, Cube, or just some reusable gaming packs? From Podamajigs to Cubeamajigs, check out all the many things of Thingamajigs here: hitpointpress....
How To Build The Best Standard Magic: The Gathering Deck For $30 (and it's not red) - • How To Build The Best ...
This show is made in part due to Card Kingdom. You can help us out by visiting our affiliate link at www.CardKingdo...
Check out "Inflated Value" our $45 Creepy Balloon Man Build-Your-Own Precon Commander Deck: • "Inflated Value" Comma...
Is It Worth It To Buy Secret Lair Festival In Box | Mystery Booster 2: • Is It Worth It To Buy ...
#magicthegathering #mtgcommander #tolariancommunitycollege
This episode is brought to you thanks to our wonderful Patreon community. Join to support the show, or just Shuffle Up & Play with other awesome people on our Patron Discord by going to / tolariancommunitycollege
Are you looking to Shuffle Up & Play games of Magic: The Gathering over webcam? The "Looking For Game" section of our Patron Discord is 100% free and open to everyone: / discord
Music Courtesy Of:
"Vintage Education" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0
creativecommons...
Looking for the perfect storage solution for your Commander decks, Cube, or just some reusable gaming packs? From Podamajigs to Cubeamajigs, check out all the many things of Thingamajigs here: hitpointpress.com/collections/thingamajigs/?aff=62
The Cubeamajigs are really bad. Mine have fallen apart after 3 uses. They are flimsy and a D grade in my opinion. I dropped $400 on Podamajig and Cubeamajigs. The Podamajigs are fine, but do not buy the Cubeamajigs repack.
I still suspect that wizards of the Coast intention is to officially sell CDH precons. And that's why they want to get a handle on it. This well, Commander in general. Because, it seems to run rampant a lot lately. And it would be nice if they found a way to financially streamline CDH for the purposes of new players who actually want to get into it you know? And yes, I know that's got to be a challenge, considering the usual stuff that is implied in CDH. When at any cost, etc.
Only Problem i'm having is that Shipping would be about 2/3 of the Cubeamajigs Price
This feels like a solid structure. The depth and breadth of this system is impressive and descriptive. Damn well done Prof.
unban golos.
We also need to look at the pitfalls. With a range of 1-10 of possible points per card, it's harder to sum up the values in your head (too many cards and too many possible points). For online lists, this is easy. Decklist apps can calculate this no problem.
It becomes harder for people who don't keep online lists or don't pay attention to banlists.
The above are also true for the bracket system. For both, it'll come down to how many cards people need to pay attention to.
In general, the fewer "things" people need to keep in mind, the more receptive they will be of said system.
We also have to remember that Commander is a social game and it's really easy to have feel bads even when everyone in the pod adheres to the max point games. Let's say the pod only wants a 20 pointed game. If the sum of Thassa's Oracle and Demonic Consultation is 20, then all cards in the deck can be unpointed and this deck would be valid for a 20 pointed game. This is a cEDH combo and some people really don't like losing to it. Even if it happens in 1 game out of 50.
Also keep in mind, Thoracle alone doesn't win you a game. There's no need to point Thoracle but Thoracle with Demonic Consultation is strong.
The point system works for Canlander b/c it's a 1v1 so the game dynamics are different. Canlander can get away with not pointing lots of cards. Not sure the same can be said about EDH.
Just my two cents.
BOOOOOOOO
I love a point system but I would go further in fact. For me a 0 point shouldn't be the default for most cards. 0 should be reserved for basic lands and very bad cards so that a 0 point deck would be really rubish. Of course the scale would have to be wider which I think is more representative of the power level differences between cards (maybe 0-20). But yeah, I'm just a morron that doesn't know nothing about game design but the idea of playing 0 point decks in this system sounds super fun.
Wow, I actually just discussed this idea with folks at my LGS last night. Mostly in jest, but the prevailing thought was that it puts a lot of onus on the players to keep track of the point values of their deck, during and after construction. If the format managers changes point values frequently, it could be frustrating.
Still a better system than "everything is a 7", though.
The points system would be built into Moxfield and Archidekt in no time.
@pjg5102 Probably, but for those who don't use them or faithfully update their decklists it could still be an issue.
This isn't going to matter to most people though, it is for the more enfranchised.
Random people looking for a game won't need to know their point totals all the time, the main point is going to be having the pregame conversation.
"Hey, can I join your table?"
"Sure, got any particular point total in mind?"
"What are points?"
"Okay, well do you want a quick game or a longer game? Are you trying to do something cool?"
As with all things, COMMUNICATION is the key. Liars get a one and done and if they win first, just do as Sheldon would and continue the game with the rest of the table.
It would be a small adjustment and just become the norm. Once your deck is entered, the system could tell you what the point total is without further tracking.
Any point system won't work since every deck will be a 7 since that is what players say there deck is because they are lazy. This will push people out of playing the game. Casual commander needs the least amount of feedback.
It’s always a good day when the professor uploads
Daaaaaaw. Thanks.
On my birthday, no less!
@@TolarianCommunityCollege Now don't get a big head... That would make putting shirts on more difficult.
I kind of think the Brackets system is going to slip into a "points" system, just informally.
"It's a 2, but it includes two 4s, that juice it and are on theme."
"oh, alright; mine's a 2, but I have three 3s, so that roughly evens out."
I think "a single card makes a deck a 2 / 3 / 4" is obviously doomed to failure, and therefore unlikely to be Wizards final approach.
This is what I was thinking. You have the bracket system which is already associated with numbers and playgroups can enforce as loose or strict of a point system as possible. It works for both pick up games with “my deck is mostly a 2 with a single 4 card” or more formalized playgroups that play 250 points.
Yeah, one thing I think gets overlooked a lot with the bracket proposal is that it's not just a power ranking, it's also for play style. Armageddon isn't a bracket 4 card based on its power, it's up there because people hate playing against mass land destruction.
I like Prof's system for roughly ranking power, but I like the idea of the bracket system for a rough estimate of what I can expect to play against. I'm not gonna see any hard stax at a bracket 2 table, or whatever it ends up looking like. You could maybe 'cheese in' some really unfun cards to a 0-24 table, and while it may be an even game power wise it could be an absolute slog to get through.
Ultimately, there always has to be some kind of discussion. Whatever we eventually get, I think having a framework for that discussion is going to be much healthier for a lot of tables, and both brackets and point systems are good starting points.
@@dungeonmastermonkey therefore *LIKELY* to be Wizards final approach
Thing is, people already consider that a single card can increase the power-level of a deck.
Command Zone, Commander Quarters, Prof, Kenobi, Desolator and a dozen other MtG discussion/gameplay channels already have multiple videos on exactly that topic.
The day of the takeover announcement I had several thoughts about a points system. No clue about the one Canlander uses, but I figure it doesn't even have to be that complex. Treat it more like war games, where your table agrees on a point total.
The one thing I really want to stress that I agree with Gavin on is keeping things 1-4. If you give people a middle everybody will shoot for it and we have the, “My deck is a 7” conversation in a different flavor. Make people choose high or low.
nah
I'm not sure this make sense, the middle of the current system is 5/6 and no one ever lists there decks in either as either of those numbers.
Also unless Wizards ends up with a more nuanced system then currently proposed (which they probably will) the new system is also likely to end up as everyone defaulting to listing there deck as bracket 2.
@@GG-bw5qd You could be right but I think the logic still holds. As for 7 not being the middle it kinda is. Because as people said about reviews, anything 5 or below isn’t worth it on a rating scale. So you really have a 5 to 10 scale and 10 was CEDH. So your scale was just 5 to 9 and 7 hits the middle of that.
Hopefully this doesn’t mean "we dont print bracket 3-4 cards in Precons".
Don't worry, the next Trouble in Pairs and Dockside Extorsionist will be on bracket 1 (even tho they should be on 3-4) because they came in a precon.
It'd be too late for that anyways, they have Sol Ring in every existing precon already!
Don't worry, WotC didn't stop liking money. They will print bracket 4 worthy cards in precons, and call them bracket 1 until the warehouse is clear of them.
Considering most of the cards that would get points wouldn't be reprinted in a precon, there is no issue in printing a new top bracket in a precon. The whole "this one card will put your deck in a certain bracket regardless of the other cards" will never work, they'll see it soon enough and trash the idea, otherwise 80% of decks will be in the top tier and have wildly different power levels.
Yeah, if they follow the descriptive point system, you could afford to have one top tier card in each precon. The trick is designing the decks with only one...
I really like this concept of a point system. Being able to easily say how many points you have in a given deck and where your points are if your play group is curious is super useful and streamlines those discussions. I think even if it isn’t an official measurement something like this would be cool as a community maintained points list, (although that would be a lot of work) that can be used to easily discuss card and deck power for things like precons when they come out or deck techs, etc.
On the other hand, the bracket system completely avoids any discussions. If you see a player throwing down a card their deck isn't supposed to have according to their self-categorization, you know it immediately. Imo that makes it better.
It's funny cause before the ban announcement I was trying to put together a point system like this to mention to my playgroup to help experiment with decks building.
It'd be neat to see the community talk about this idea more and independently try it out imo
Oh boy I really love this. I think a point system like this really helps with those pregame convos. Going from "precon level" to "high power casual" (which is never consistent across players or groups) to " Ihave a 30 point deck" and "I have a 54 point deck, is that cool" feels really smooth.
You could totally have an online source where you plug in your list wnd it spits out your point total (maybe even highliting cards or combos that are outliers from your average point total)
Prof-
I know you said that this isn't a push to replace the ideas of tiers.... but you and your team have hit on the right solution:
Descriptive not restrictive! Brilliant. this is absolutely what they should do.
If they don't do this, then this plan is a good place for the community to retreat to if WOTC fails to come up with an idea as good.
and they could still create an app that scans your decklist and gives you a point summary.
this could really work.
I wish I could like this video more. rest assured, I've shared it.
I love the idea of decks having a point total but not having a cap on the number of points in a deck. "My deck is worth 287 points" vs "my deck is worth 544 points" clearly, concisely & most importantly OBJECTIVELY illustrates the card quality & power level of individual cards in a given deck.
The biggest issue with a point system like the prof outlined would just be the absolutely monstrous task of actually deciding which cards do and dont get point values. There would be an enormous list of cards which would get points assigned to them. You've got about a dozen fast mana pieces, 10 fetch lands, all the most efficient removal (force of will, swords, pongify, deadly rollick, etc), the best tutors (gamble, vamp tutor, enlightened, worldly, etc) which are just generically good cards in any format. Then there are all the 'uniquely' powerful cards which see the most play in commander like gaea's cradle, skullclamp, rhystic study, cyclonic rift, inventor's fair, memory jar, sensei's top, etc. If swords is the baseline for point value 1, then the list of cards which have point values would be hundreds of cards long. Keeping track of point values over time would be tedious, but I think the juice would be worth the squeeze.
I also think going into detail of 'thassa's oracle is a 2 on it's own but a 10 with tainted pact' would be far too complicated to keep track of, again for the sheer number of cards that are basically useless outside of a few infinite combos. Think Siona, captain of pyleas & Shielded by faith: both would probably have a point value of 0 on their own, but together you have infinite 1/1s.
Is it objective though ? Considering they the point value of cards will VARY over time ?
It really isn't objective. Giving cards numbers doesn't account for just the sheer vastness of the card pool available in Commander.
Well done, Prof! Being able to simply say "It's a 42 point deck" is much more plain and clear than everyone saying "It's a 7".
we did it!
No, not really. The only thing that matters in this regard is that everyone know on which basis you make your evaluation.
@@VolkbrechtI think I agree with what you're saying in that it's about having a scale that everyone agrees upon. Prof described a more granular way of that basis that we make our evaluations on; instead of each group being forced to Rule0 and therefore having unique rules there are guidelines. If a group wants to Rule0 then they have that option, but this gives everyone a standard that they can rely on. Adoption is key, of course. No system works without adoption.
This is genius. I feel free to build under this system, and I don't feel like my current decks are being restricted. They just have an actual power level that means the same thing among all players.
Awesome to see this, I've been banging this exact drum for the past couple of weeks. That being said, for this to work, pointing the fewest number of cards possible is crucial to the system's success. Simplicity is key, people need to be able to fully digest this system without a point reference on hand at all times. So that being said, things like the fetchlands really aren't appropriate to point.
I prefer this system. My first thought seeing the 4 tier system from WotC was "Well now I can't put that vampiric tutor I pulled in anything but my strongest decks." Having 1 powerful card does not turn my 98 other cards of bulk into a top tier deck.
My only suggestion would be to do away with the 5 tier meta-system. I suspect a 58 and 45 are going to be a lot more competitive than a 75 and 99. We all have to do the math on what our 'raw' number is so lets just represent our decks that way. I have no problem saying 'my deck is a 46, so I'm happy to play with anything in the 30-60 range' in rule 0 conversation.
Thank you!
Finally somebody with a brain.
And not just that. I would also be fine to play my 50 against a 150.
Just let the points decide on it's own.
There's a reason Armageddon is a tier 4 card that sees almost no play in cEDH.
I have been seeing this complaint pop up over and over and WotC literally addressed it in the announcement of the system. Just say "oh my deck is a 4, but without Vampiric Tutor its a 2, I just pulled one and wanted to use it, is that cool?"
People are really overthinking the whole bracket system, it's not supposed to be a format split it's a way to make rule 0 conversations easier to approach for pickups. Instead of just hoping your power levels match up or going through "are extra turns okay? Are 2 card infinites fine? What about tutors? How fast can our mana be? Is stax fine?" You can say "oh we're playing with tier 2 decks" and based on that you can tell what's a reasonable expectation of what people aren't okay with
@@UniGya Idk, the way I and a lot of my play group builds decks, this doesn't really work. We all have decks that can't win before turn 6 or even 8, but include 1 or a few top tier cards. I won't be upset if the 4 tier WotC system gets added, but it just won't be useful to my play group. I see a point system like Prof describes as a good way of determining power levels among decks built from years of collecting cards and rebuilding decks.
@@UniGyawizards fix to the tier system of a single card gets a lot messier with more card. Deck’s a one, but i have tutor, fabricate and mox opal. Ok, but it’s a skeleton deck, pretty sure those 3’s and 4’s aren’t pulling it up beyond top level one. The pointed bracket let’s you say “yeah, it’s a one.” and be done with the conversation. And when they tutor, you know they probably got Skeletal swarming or that land for the drop they missed. If they go on to play dark ritual into living death, you call them out on it.
My initial thoughts are: yes, but it would take a lot of work. Unless you have a dedicated team going through old cards and every new card released to assign a number value to it, with possible number changes based on community feedback, it would prove to be next to worthless.
Not to mention the constant re-evaluation that would need to take place for so many old cards with each new release
I mean you would probably only care for known 'powerful' cards. As for the new ones, they already do this for Arena, so besides the initial effort this shouldn't be hard to maintain at all.
I can make a bracket level 2 deck and with 100% certainty beat my buddy’s deck which would be considered bracket 4. It’s about synergy, not about the bracket level cards you use. Synergy is the most important thing😊
Point systems could be great for veteran players, but what about a new player? MTG is already a game with high barriers of entry and edh being the format where you just make a deck minus the banned cards and play is part of why it's so popular. But if a player now needs to make a deck and cross reference this other list and count up points then find a playgroup within the same point range it adds another layer of complexity to a game already hard to get into
Most players already use deckbuilding sites like Moxfield or Archidekt anyway. If a Points system took off, those sites could be updated to simply tell you your deck's Points value for you. And there's nothing stopping players from still playing their decks against each other even if their bracket/range doesn't match up exactly. This system supplements and simplifies the pre-game conversation, it doesn't remove it.
Don't we already have the same problem with the old tiered system? A new player might sit down at a table and be asked if their deck is a level 7 and have no idea on how to answer that or even figure out what level their upgraded precon or homebrewed deck is. New players will encounter difficulties with any system on account of being new to the game. Given time they'll learn and adjust to any system, and a point system seems to me to be the most intuitive to learn and easy to implement with deck building websites.
"What tier is your deck in" already imposes the same issue. In fact, this is inherent to noncompetitive formats as a whole. Asking a new player "on a scale of 1-10 how powerful is your deck" is ridiculous. They have no context for that question. Creating a specific list of pointed cards can help with that ambiguity
I think you could also educate folks using the precons. Put the point value on the side (as of date) and can send them to a website to learn more, where they can auto fill their new precon and start to edit it.
The current system is so opaque and vague that it's impossible to know what's what without months of gameplay and reading. A system like this can at least be a jumping off point for starting to understand the game, teaching why certain cards are powerful and easing the learning curve.
It's not the same 4 tiers as just point ranges and remembering the point range. Yes most people use tools but not all. Beginners just build so having to worry about some cards instead of counting all the points is a huge difference.
this is a great start! i think the viability of a system like this depends on whether you can upload your decklist to an online calculator. if it comes down to you counting up the points yourself, then it'll probly feel complex and confusing, especially if we consider card values as subject to change
Having a combo be apart of a group point system makes sense. It’s upfront and gives the other players a heads up there’s an instant win combo, if the deck happens to have one.
Doesnt Arena use a points system for matchmaking under the hood already? They just havent chosen to be transparent with that system. Would be easy enough to just take that system public and implement a new ranking specific to commander format.
It's been reverse engineered, not sure about the newest sets but we know the value of each card from MKM and before
Haven't played in a while, but I think they go by rank first and win-percentage second.
They do, and in the stream about the bracket system they revealed that Brawl brackets decks into four tiers (based on the points) already.
Now, does a strict points-based system work? Based on the big difference in power level I see (and that's ignoring minmaxing attempts, because minmaxing will always exist with any system), I doubt it...
You have to reevaluate cards for a four player game, but that would be a decent starting point
Didnt know commander had problems
How I envy you.
only thassa's oracle not banned yet
Commander does have a problem, it has Wizard's of the Coast as a parents and now, guardian.
If you just play with your friends, it doesn't really. But if you play at your LGS or cons, I could see it for sure.
It will soon with wotc in charge
The problem I can see with this is that individually categorizing every card is going to be an absolutely enormous task, and one that needs to be constantly updated.
Especially if there's some sort of "combo" score, are the format panel going to consider every interaction with every card in a new set for each of the 30000 other magic cards and assign "combo" point values accordingly?
I like the idea, but I feel this is fundamentally unworkable, sadly.
difficult to implement in actual scale like most ideals unfortunately
Since most cards would be 0 points you could mostly ignore cards until they started causing problems. There would still be a fair amount of work categorizing all the know power cards, but you wouldn't need to look at everything
Been saying this since the RC fall out. Been playing Canlander for a while and the points system is a perfect guideline for decks and power levels. We need a system like this for commander.
then play canadian highlander? changing this for commander would just make this a new format not commander
@@josephmoffett8459just no? lol
You understood the diffrence right?
Canadian Highlander has a max of 10 points per deck.
Commander is just to vagly describe where you stand.
We litterally do this already by calling decks a 10,5 or 7. Now people would just not be able to spout random nonesense all the time and ACTUALLY have a reason for that tier.
@@josephmoffett8459 I think the profs idea of a point system with out of 100+ points and defining the brackets by numbers of points as he outlined is a great idea. I love playing commander as well I thinks there’s a lot of merits to the system the prof described.
While I find it very interesting to find more ways to standardize a power level system is that there are way, way, WAY too have variables. Single cards having a certain value to them doesn't work across the board, as many become much more powerful when combined with other cards of lower power as well. There's no real way to account for every combination possible and really this would break down to signing a standard value to rocks and lands, since they are the most universally utilitarian.
The BIGGEST variable that can't be accounted for, even though this tries to, is emotional. Players are simply unable to be reasoned with when it comes to deck power. I entered a pod wanting to play 7-8 and I decided to play the Hakbal precon with only one addition, spelunking. I figured there's no way Hakbal is an actual 7, but it's what I wanted to play And I'm okay trying to punch up from time to time.
After a decent start what was by no means insane, one of the players cursed me out, called me slurs and quit aggressively. No amount of explanation or discussion calmed them down.
That is by no means a rare experience and is the same in person or online. There's simply no system that will actually stop people from thinking they're supposed to win and everyone who beats them it's playing an overpowered deck.
By far the best solution I've seen so far. Well done sir!
This is such an amazing idea and something I discussed with my friends when the tier systems were announced, we actually came to a similar conclusion and it feels like the correct path moving forward, I´m glad the professor is putting it out there and hopefully it can be adapted!
I feel like everyone is going to treat this bracket system like a ban list.
yeah, pretty much.
it pretty much is though.
Maybe if people don't have any experience with real banlists in card games.
probably not lol 😂.
@@keldone3186 I've already heard it happen
I play mid level casual, and the cedh table needed a 4th, so, we played decks down at my level. Then I had to go roll for a DnD one shot coming up and told them "thanks. Yall can do your thing now." (I know all these guys. None of us are randoms) they were deciding what to play and a guy mentioned the one ring. We started joking about tiers. Then talking about how they couldn't even sit at a table I'd be at. if we went with tiers, even with their "mid decks," they would never be allowed to play with me.
We play all the time. On dnd night, they're one of 2 tables. And I'm at dnd for my kid every week. The way it is now, we decide if we want to play with each other. Our decks don't.
I've given a good amount of thought to a EDH points-list and genuinely think you've hit it out of the park. Thank you for reading my mind and making this video
I think a point system would encourage min/maxing instead of creative building. I think the bracket system as a support tool for newer players is enough. Experienced players don't need any tools/ brackets as they know power levels. Pubstompers also should not cause any changes as there is no defense against this and it will always happen.
it's smogon. think of pokemon metagaming and smogon tier system
I disagree. I think I would min max more under a tiered system.
Min/maxing IS creativity.
I have so much to say about this. I’m a Magic enjoyer and love your content, many of your videos have been a balm during peak COVID as a healthcare worker. So thank you.
I feel a tiered numerical system, a point system, is honestly the best way to move forward. No upper limit for the points either. My idea, like your own, is having cards getting a value assigned on a scale of 1-11, with tiers to match. Tier 11 is high powered CEDH cards and staples, such as certain tutors, free spells, and Thoracle combos (to name a few). I think this will make pregame convos in EDH nights at LGS easier to have, allow local groups to moderate and amend themselves, and for stores to be able to easily say “it’s tier 10+ EDH tonight” and everyone knows what it means or say “only tier 5 tonight” or add whatever other modifier.
I also think this would make the banlist different too, not a lot, but a little. Many of the creatures banned (Golos, Nadu, Braids, etc) banned outright could still be banned as commander, but be assigned a value in the 99.
The tiers are also 11, so that way very high powered decks and players can say “let’s crank this up to 11!” A la spinal tap.
I love the idea of a tier system, as in healthcare we have MANY tiers, and by hearing what tier someone is at with a disease, we instantly know what to expect.
Those are just my thoughts, thanks again prof, I hope we can play one day!
I think this would hypothetically work better than the almost Smogon-like system they seem to be suggesting, but it would definitely be a lot of work to get rolling and spinning. Even still, i like the idea, definitely worth trying at a table
as always, this type of conversation sounds great until people start talking about the whole breadth of what commander is and about how to incorporate player behaviour into the mix
imagine a youtube channel starting a "optimizing for 0 power" series, and all of a sudden we have a bunch of cards and combos that if put together become value 4's or 6's making the format a nightmare to keep up with
I feel that the idea of the bracket system sounds a bit easier to talk about with playgroups, as describing your deck tends to work better than the whole "has power lvl x"
as an example, I consider my strongest deck a 5. It's a graveyard deck, that uses tymaret ability to kill my opponents, likes to play big creatures that benefit from things dieing, while avoiding the meta picks with 2 exceptions being sollen simulacron and blood artist
It's easier to imagine what my deck does by a description than by saying "it has 6 points"
I think the power ranking works if people are honest with it, it would be really easy to lie and go "Oh i forgot I put rhystic study in this deck!"
I don't mean to just slap down your arguement. But I believe that any system fails with false data.
Then they forfeit or they immediately exile and draw a new card, especially if it was an honest mistake. Police your table, not the entire playerbase.
While I think this can be true and is true even now with the current system. This system prof proposes just helps to make the conversation more accurate and will help those who are less disingenuous to have a closer deck level and hopefully more fun.
@@KevinBrady253 This is what happened at my Commander Night, someone forgot they still had Mana crypt in one of their decks until they shuffled up. So he was like "If I pull it, it'll just exile it and draw again". Also the same where I remembered my Themberchaud deck still had Dockside in it...but nobody at the table was running any artifact heavy decks so they just shrugged and said "eh, seems fine..." especially because being mono-red group slug I had no real way of flickering it.
"I forgot Rhystic Study was in my deck" isn't a lie exclusive to the proposed power rank system. I could just as easily call a deck a 7 and then "forget" about Rhystic.
If someone's willingly being dishonest about the strength of their deck in a casual game then they're not conducive to having fun anyway.
I like this a lot. A bonus to this system is how easy it would be to communicate if your deck is at the top or bottom of a tier.
So Commander becomes Canadian Highlander basically 😂
Would that be so bad? ;p
The point system of Canadian Highlander is far from perfect. So, I think it would not be a good solution.
@@joeferreti9442 “Not perfect” doesn’t automatically mean “bad.”
Glad to hear more discussion on the point system.
I mentioned it in my comment on your previous video discussing the WoTC brackets.
Points can work in both ways, BOTH descriptive and restrictive when necessary for Commander, and cEDH
For casual tables, it can be simply descriptive. to give a rough estimation of "power" of a deck, a la the 1-10 power scale we have been using, but with a bit more specificity towards cards within the deck. (regardless, either method do miss subtleties within synergies or efficiencies of decks that just have "power cards" simply to make a bad commander work for instance, however this issue was discussed towards the end of the video)
For tournament and challenge play, the point system can be another creative outlet for restriction, e.g. this tournament can be for 50 point or lower decks, or tier 2 or lower.
They should do it just like warhammer give each card a power point level and the league or play group can just say we play 1000 point game power point max.
Thank you so much for this video! This idea of point system and different brackets was the first one that came to mind after the commander revamp announcement. It might be complicated at first (with all the balancing), but I think it is worth it.
Friendly reminder there's nothing stopping you from once again ignoring WotC's decisions and Rule 0-ing with your play group.
True! However, this requires everyone in the playgroup being on board as well as brings up the difficulty of what to do what you get games at events or your local game store.
The system is an elegant idea. This may not solve all issues, but it does offer a way to alleviate the pressure. Good job, Prof!
Something I've learned... Solving problems that don't exist creates problems.
This is exactly what I have been proposing with my play group. I am on board!
the 4 tier system is better because it is simpler for the casual player
"you guys play commander, what tier of decks?"
easy to communicate
points system are too much math and hassle involved for deckbuilding
there is a reason no one plays canadian points, you dont find people that bothered to do the points
we already have a points system: dollar point system (how much $ your deck costs...)
You can not be serious...
First of all: You can put the points ON the precon as you sell them.
second: i build like 4h to 4 days on my decks that little basic math will not change ANYTHING besides making you smarter as it seems and i can still play my decks at every table without dismissing this shitty braket every time.
Just one example of my weakest deck.
Golems.
I still run Urbog in it, but just because some Golems cost more the freaking 9 mana.
It's not even close to op and the deck will never compete at a tier 4 Bracket table.
Just cos i have 1-4 single cards in my deck with tier 4, it does not mean it's a good deck!
Just one of the MANY reasons this bracket shit does not work.
The Points system would in this case.
And the only hindrance here is you being lazy or to stupid to do math.
Sry dude... but thats no argument 😂.
oh and btw.
NOBODY forces casuals to actually use the system.
It's about making a system that actually HELPS the format. Not destroys it.
Ha! I just did my video talking about thr bracket system, so it's veey nice to your vidoe on this and hear your thoughts.
The answer is no.
ok time to watch
Time to help normalise Stax and LD in higher bracket commander games Proff. Don't let us down.
solution is very simple - level of the deck is based on the market value of included cards
Tell me you’re butt-hurt without telling me you’re butt-hurt. Some of us started playing before the Commander boom and own cards on the Reserve List that exploded in price.
@@crawdaddy2004 You definitely sound like the butt-hurt one. The thing they suggested obviously figures that the more powerful cards are the more expensive ones. If decks go against each other that cost about the same, theoretically they should be around a more similar level than one that includes many expensive cards.
@@Boyzby I have a Beta Circle of Protection: Red. I have an Unlimited Llanowar Elves. These versions are no more powerful than ones you can find for 10 cents.
yes because the Wheel of Fortune I bought for $20 twelve years ago totally makes my cycling deck into tier 5
@@Darmanimon can play Magus of the wheel instead
I love this, Prof!
A thought I had for the existing 4 point scale is that you do a grading average: "My deck contains 3 level 4 cards, but the average is a 1.9 between the entire nonbasic land cards."
I like that this system doesn't require there to be a point value for every card. It's a lot easier to figure out 10 cards than 100. It also addresses the Sol Ring thing - where it is a powerful card but everyone has it, so it sort of evens itself out. Good system, Prof.
I don't normally click on videos where the title can be answered with a single word and I already know what it is, but I made an exception for you, prof.
7:02 sorry second comment, this sounds like Battletech which uses a similar idea to balance games so you can play whatever you want but the other people know about how strong to with each other there system works really well
The fun fact is that i've litteraly been thinking the same exact thing.
The point system gives you a more accurate power level than simply saying "My deck is a bracket 3 but has x2 cards that are in bracket 4".
Instead you would have an ammount of points that will give you a much more accurate idea on what to expect on a specific table.
Very happy to see someone proposing this, let's hope WOTC will give this a try :)
Was thinking of this very thing when they brought up the tier system initially. I think it has the best balance providing a nice power gauge for decks without being too tedious.
Honestly this has to be one of the best solutions I've heard, and people saying that it makes it hard for beginners need to understand that this may be confusing at first but can quickly be learned. (even better if they added to precon boxes the power level and key card values).
Just consider how many years of "my deck is a 7" you've had where nobody agrees what "7" actually means.
or
"Atraxa is KOS" well not if the total power is 20 and the person runs atraxa for the colors. this can help justify threats. it helps prevent both over and under estimation of a decks power
Sadly there is no perfect solution, but this has to be the closest we'd get. the only issue is how cards are rated (but that was going to be an issue either way)
As the premiere points based ban system community shill, I support this video.
I was singing the praises of Can-Lander last week. Great idea here, 100% behind this and hope it'll get considered.
This is pretty much exactly what I was thinking as well. The brackets alone won't work, and points alone won't work, but together give you a much better idea of what you get yourself into. It might even make sense to break the brackets into low/middle/high so you can join a pod and say "I have a low power 4" deck and if everyone else has a "high power 3" you're still close enough to feel comfortable that the game won't be lopsided
I very much appreciate this video and I hope that the folks at WotC take it into consideration. I've been telling everyone I can about the Canadian Highlander point system as a good framework to use for powerlevel discussions since I found out about it (on Shuffle Up and Play)! Thank you, Prof, for always being an advocate for the game.
i really like this idea. not only would does it leave you feeling free to play basically whatever you want, I think this could help define what is cedh to the people that don't play cedh.
Awesome Video, Prof. Really great way to lay it all out. I know WotC mentioned they were worried a points system would be too complex for new players, but I agree with what you say about having an accurate system being so much more important. Furthermore, it’s OKAY that a points system be something that only more enfranchised players use. New players are going to be absorbing so much and facing all kinds of decks anyway. Then when they begin to understand “hey, that deck is way more powerful” then they can be directed to the system.
I don’t think it’s overly complicated to say “hey, plop your deck into this online tool to get an accurate power level”. Because it’s not something anyone NEEDS to do to make a deck. It’s something extra you do if finding that balanced game is important to you. Also very easy for an LGS to print out a poster that shows what cards are pointed where for quick reference at a store.
Another good thing about an accurate point system is that it would allow deck builders to keep their decks on the level they want.
For example I attempt to keep all my decks at a certain power level but it's hard to evaluate if they are actually balanced or if some have climbed higher over the years of upgrading.
I love that idea! "The Professor-Point-System". I can see a future where the system becomes common and many player use it.
I like the mantra of descriptive over restrictive! I’d love to be able to tell my table mates what type of deck I plan on presenting so they can adequately prepare before hand.
One caveat I see with the point system is that there are some incredible, novel, and very broken combos made from innocuous cards, and so it can become difficult to know exactly how to score each card.
Instead, I was thinking about scoring a deck based on two numbers: 1) the minimum number of non-land cards that you need to create your most powerful combo and 2) the earliest turn you can theoretically achieve it (fast mana).
Then you can use that as a ratio to explain how powerful your deck can be, e.g, “I have a 5/3 deck” (by turn 3 I can play 5 cards) or “I have a 5/7 deck” (it would take 7 turns to achieve a 5 card combo). Of course, there can be many more combos, but the surprises are what’s most fun for me about the format!
Maybe a 5/5 deck is like a typical precon?
I want to stress that I don't expect the prof to have an answer for all of these, but I think it's a good idea for us to consider how we can answer some of the questions below (just trying to generate discussion here):
Who gets do decide the point value of cards?
How can we agree on the point value of those cards?
How will the list of cards and their point values be updated/maintained?
What kind of experience are you trying to curate by evaluating points in a deck?
With this being more of a casual format than a competitive one, how do we come to terms with each other about the kinds of games we want commander to be? And does this point system help us have that discussion about it?
The nuanced aspect of the point system is one of the most important things that's been brought up. Some cards on their own are relatively benign, and don't win games on their own or even with a plethora of other cards but with specific cards turn into an instant win such as Thoracle. I feel like input from CEDH based off of powerful combos would be the easiest approach to start basing your decisions off of, because the most powerful plays and combos are going to guide you towards what the less powerful ones look like and are.
I like the idea of a point system in part because it doesn't shy away from the fact that there are a number of relatively cheap but ubiquitous cards in the format (Sol Ring, Swords to Plowshares, Arcane Signet, etc.). The burden would be on the players to accurately tally their point values. I also like the idea of synergy/combo points that make cards worth more when paired together. To avoid double-dipping with overlapping combos I really like the idea that the Professor proposed where the card becomes a higher point value when certain other cards are present, rather than adding points for each certain combo.
For enfranchised players who love discussing the subtle differences between power levels 7 and 8, I'm sure they'd almost all be willing (and excited) to tally up points for their decks to share with others. Players who aren't terminally online would have no idea this is going on until someone asks them the point value of their deck at FNM. If websites like Archidekt and Deckstats calculated the points for you (including combos) then it would really help to facilitate this more granular system.
One big issue is determining actual point values and synergy point values. How should they be determined and who determines them? We can factor in salt scores as calculated by EDHrec and the combos on Commander Spellbook, but I don't think leaving it to Reddit or even content creators like those on the CAG would be correct. Every card legal in EDH would need at least a brief explanation to justify the points, even if it's a baseline 0 card just to ensure things aren't overlooked. But the journey always starts with one step, and it could be worth doing, I'm just not sure what would be the best way to go about it.
This concept is really solid. It would make the rule 0 conversation WAY MORE easier and accurate. It would make possible for playgroups to define a tier and everyone would use their deckbuilding skills to fit into the defined tier.
This isn't easy at all. To build with brackets, all I have to do is exclude everything my targeted power level isn't supposed to have, then just do what I want. With a point system, I'd constantly have to mind the total.
At the start i was kind of skeptical because I thought the points system would really only affect high level gameplay, but I think the system you came up with is honestly the best I’ve heard to help lower level players describe their decks while not affecting the higher level cedh
I took inspiration from a YT short from another magic creator, where they suggested instead of a power tier system the best way to judge decks is to ask what turn they plan on winning with their decks. I've modified that to a simple 2-3 part question:
1. On average what turn does your deck win?
2. Give me a quick summary of the game plan for the deck? (Is it a stax deck, combat, combo, voltron, etc...)
3. If you had 1 devastating interaction, how many turns would that delay you from winning?
Takes longer than just spitting out a number to judge power, but honestly it get's you way more meaningful insight into potential match ups.
Have you tried that out at an LGS or magicon? I really wonder how many players can answer those question decently accurate.
I personally would find question 1 and 3 fairly hard to answer, since our playgroup never tracked the turn number and since we play a fair amount of interaction the variance can be very high. My point is, for that to work players need to know their deck well enough and ideally also track the number of turns to give a good answer to those questions.
I was just searching for this yesterday! Tysm Prof.
Here's one observation I have about both systems:
A bracket system has the caveat of maybe being able to punch above or below your current bracket, such that two decks that are a 3 might be on opposite ends of the spectrum ("lower" 3 vs a "higher" 3). This is probably fine for bracket 3, but it would show up in bracket 1 and 2 discussions, if players suggest that their deck is bracket 2.
A point system also has the issue of maybe having a total of 40-50 points because you run a couple of tutors for innocuous cards that happen to go infinite with your commander. Suddenly decks in the 25-49 range are outclassing the same decks that just have a lot of card advantage (skull clamp) or fast mana (sol ring + mana vault/dark ritual) but low consistency.
Overall, Brackets serve as a way to discuss "where" your deck sits in terms of card quality. It won't be perfect, but it's a starting point for rule zero, as opposed to a fast and hard guideline.
This is exactly what I've been advocating for for weeks now but even simpler. One list. One point per card. One score.
Quit trying to measure immeasurable factors and make a system to measure general card quality of a deck which you can actually quantify.
This system is a great idea. I know what it's like for people to think that just because I have a "hot" or cEDH staple being played, doesn't mean the entire deck is that competitive. I hope more comes from The Professor's template so that us non-tournament players can enjoy and apply among friends and local pods.
This is actually a super good idea, I love the idea of a general point system universal like with can land but NOT restrictive
This is precisely what I had in mind! So awesome to see you have the same idea... then you can absolutely abolish the ban list entirely (or almost entirely, Nadu is still a dumb card). Assigning a point value to 2-300 cards, then you could have "Power level 1" tournaments. Cards will emerge that are particularly powerful in their tier, card value will bounce up and down. It will be GREAT! And, you can STILL have a rule 0 conversation... "Hey, I only brought a 4, can I still play?" I love this so much, I really hope WOTC goes "That Prof guy is pretty smart, we should just take everything he says and put it in to practice immediately!"
As a fan of canadian highlander i love the point system, it would be very interesting to see the creativity from people if command had a limit as well
I like this idea, I posted an idea similar to this on Pleasant Kenobi's channel about a week ago when he gave his thought about the bracket system. The only difference was I think every card should have a point minimum of 1, with the exception of basic lands they are a 0. Staples that are printed into every precon such as Sol Ring are on the lower end because they generally are accessible to every entry level player and don't require more than a basic investment into the format (i.e. buying a precon). Below I will repost the comment I left on Kenobi's channel.
I think what the format needs is a kind of hybrid of the Canadian points system and this new tier idea. Assign a point value to every card from 1-4, a deck can have any number of points but the tier level of your deck is determined by the point total. Then all players have to do is add up the total points of their deck and then each deck falls within a tier range, something like: tier 1 = total points less than 80, tier 2 = points less than 150, tier 3 = points less than 220, and tier 4 = points 220+ ( these numbers are basic calculations on if every card in your deck was a 1, 2, 3, or 4 and only running basic lands).
This would give people a nice jumping off point to say my deck has 170 points, and then you discuss how you want it to win, including discussing a few key things like if your deck can one shot someone (i.e. Blightsteel Colossus), or i run a combo that requires X amount of cards to pull off things like that. Also state what's not in your deck, like I'm playing mono black life gain/drain but i don't have the sanguine bond/exquisite blood combo in any form.
This, so much this! Ive also had this idea and proposed it to the rules committee on one of their streams. Their response was they considered it 9-10 years ago but ultimately thought it was too complex for the average player. I'm not sure that I agree with them and if nothing comes of this I've considered pointing cards myself and making this a system/format myself. We've got a combo website, we've got salt scores, we have tiers of cEDH decks already, we know what cards are and are not powerful. We likely play an insanely complex boardstate every game. This can work.
Man, this reminds me of calculating thermodynamic properties with the Joback group contribution method. You even move to the more complicated interaction effects like the UNIFAC method.
I opened this video ready to tear it up cause I didn’t I really didn’t like the idea of a points system and didn’t think it would work. But honestly I really like your idea and you addressed all the problems I had with it. Except the difficulty of using it, which the bracket system also doesn’t really address. Or anything other system tbh
Point values of cards could of course be adjusted over time. Also instead of saying my deck is a 7 to my pod I could say my deck is 83 points and then they could adjust or say no to playing against that if needed. Tolarian Commander sounds like a great idea to me😉
As a veteran MTG player who returned to the game, I've been seeking this type of quantitative and granular system since day 1 of playing EDH (~2 years ago). There are so many decklist tools like Moxfield and Archidekt that could utilize a standard classification from WotC. The tier bands make a ton of sense on how to account for the "I have an ancient tomb in this subpar deck" and if the bands are intentional and granular, it's easy to see if you're at a table with slightly varying bands if some decks are like "just barely a 4 when I'm playing a high 3" where it's still fair play.
MTG players have a terrible time self governing and this is the best way to make the game fun. I understand the critique of "well now I have to track all my decklists" but I think people who go to casual EDH nights who are more concerned about "the gathering" aspect will take the time and care to ensure that 1) they are honest about their own deck(s), 2) hopefully bring a wide variety of power levels to game nights (within their means) and 3) care about fair play for the whole table.
Thank you Prof!
I think this is an EXCELLENT idea! But I do think it'd also take some testing, as you said. But being able to play with my friends and they go "oh these decks are about an 80" would be very useful.
If I could give this 10 thumbs up, I would. This seems like 100% the right track to be pursuing for evaluating Commander deck power levels. I hope WoTC watches this and takes it to heart.
I like it! The way you've presented it also maps nicely to a tiered system, though I think 5 should be considered a minimum number of tiers. Points would also be an added dimension for people looking to upgrade their decks. There could be a points search in Scryfall to aid in this goal. The trickiest part is assigning point totals to 20K+ cards and tweaking the points based on interactions with other cards.
I like a ranking system like this over having your deck level be determined by just 1 card. Great idea!
Great idea this point system. I would love to see this come to fruition.
3:22 thank you please make more videos discussing other alternatives
I’ve thought about this since the concept of brackets got announced and also came to the conclusion a point system could work for Commander.
The most casual of casual kitchen table players wouldn’t care about a system no matter which we choose, and jank decks will be almost certainly below whatever the point limit is, so reaching from cEDH to ultra kitchen table isn’t an issue
With the proliferation of excellent decklist websites and search engines, it is extremely easy to know how many points any card, and also your deck, would be worth and if it’s legal, so there is no math level barrier here
And a point system is the most suited to represent “vaguely token related pile of cards that happens to have Anointed Procession in it” or a Feather or Yuriko deck, where the deck can be extremely powerful, halfway to cEDH, with a pile of bulk, which the 1 to 10 and the incoming bracket system seems to have trouble to accurately identify as their real power level once the deck is played.
Those are the biggest points I have identified. I haven’t watched the video yet so maybe Prof will share some of those as well
I really like this notion. It would solve numerous issues that come up at rule zero. And it would be accessible for new and experienced players- presuming they can count 😅
there are card that could be zero alone and 10 with its pairs --like worldgorger dragon. it's a Zero, but it may be a 10, when reanimated with aura (animate dead etc.)
a "36" become basiclly anything
This is exactly how I feel about a bracket system, including the Sol Ring conundrum. You can't discount the power of a card based "Sol-y" on its ubiquitous nature. My edit to this system is to average the cards in the deck. At or below 100 is the bottom "Fair Magic" tier, then 101- 200 for a "Casual" tier, 201-300 "Competitive" tier, and then a 301-400+ "Grudge" tier. Taking an average also allows you to soft-ban problematic cards. With a normal max of 10, a card like Mana Crypt or Jewled Lotus would be graded at 50. Such a value automatically moves decks with these cards to higher tiers because they skew the average so much. An average score also allows you to put a Thassa's Oracle and the other combo pieces at 10. No one combo card would move your deck's level as with a straight score, but putting the combos together would rapidly move the average. This forgoes having to calculate if you've made a combo or not and have to change the card values, simplifying the build.
A solid proposal and one I find myself returning to frequently.
Though implied, I would make explicit that players should present their cards with point values before starting a game, like in Canadian Highlander. Otherwise, an optimized deck within a tier could run roughshod over an unoptimized deck in the same tier.
One unmentioned benefit of this point system is the option for a player with a favorite deck to easily power it up and down, depending on the power of the play group, with a handful of tiered sideboard cards.
I love this idea! The individual card points don’t have to be perfect either, just ballpark since it is the total sum that matters.
I loved that, I might try that with my playgroup.
I believe it's tough for the first time, assign points to everything though
remember playing commander in 2016 ? that was nice
i thought this was going to be a stupid idea, but i'm pleasantly surprised at how good and encompassing it is without feeling so overbearing