A Commander League for Everyone.

[Morganator 2.0]

A friend of mine who works at our local game store wants to make a multiplayer Commander League and has asked for my help in running it. The catch? He wants it to be a league for everyone. Not just competitive players, not just casual players, everyone.

Naturally I'm going to run my idea past a bunch of strangers on the internet before presenting it to the LGS.

The basic premise is that each deck that shows up to the league gets a rank, and each deck can only go up against decks within one rank of itself. So a B-rank deck can go against an A-rank deck or a C-rank deck, but a C-rank deck will never go up against an A-rank.

Here's the classifications for the ranks.

Rank A: The best of the best. These are the cEDH decks. Consistent combos, strong stax, and powerful interaction all make their way here.

Rank B: These are the high-powered decks. They're not as fast or as consistent as Rank A, but they can still do amazing things.

Rank C: Stronger casual decks end up here. Their games aren't fast, but individual card power is high.

Rank D: Your "average" casual decks end up here. Due to things like budget restrictions, using a weaker commander, or the player choosing to not play stronger.

Rank E: Low-power decks. Commander pre-cons would be rank E.

The deck's rank also isn't set in stone. I'm good with statistics (I don't know if I ever mentioned that) so I can see when a deck is winning more or less than what is expected. The issue is going to be short-term decks. Not everyone keeps their decks intact, so we'll need to be very good at giving decks an adequate placement to start with.

Give me your criticisms. What do you think could go wrong with this system?

[Red_Wyrm]

How does the deck get assigned its rank? Do a team of "experts" go over a deck list and determine the rank, concluding that the deck belongs in say Rank B or does the player come to the LGS and say, after looking at the descriptions of each class and decide, "My deck kicks some butt, but it isn't cEDH, so it is Rank B," when in reality, they have only ever played against Rank D and E decks and it is a Rank C+ at best?

Also say I only brought my Rank B deck, but no one else has Rank B, can I choose to go up to Rank A, if my opponents are okay with it, similarly can I move to Rank C if my opponents are aware and okay with this?

I don't particularly see how this is much different than ranking the decks on a 1-10 scale with premades being centered around 2-3 and cEDH decks being 9-10, with most casual decks being 6-7, maybe 8.

[CleanBelwas]

Seems to me like a great idea. You've already identified the biggest potential issue in my opinion: actually making sure the decks ranks are accurate.

This will likely either mean trusting people to rank their deck appropriately or someone has to put a lot of work in ranking everyone's decks ahead of the event.

If you feel like you can get around this issue then it sounds like great fun.

The only other real issue I could foresee is ensuring that their are enough people in each rank for everyone to get the games in they want. Of course, this is meta dependant. You'll know better than anyone if your LGS has enough interest to make sure everyone is getting the games they want at the level they want to play at.

Sounds like a lot of fun though. I hope it all goes well for you man. Let us know how it goes.

[Morganator 2.0]

How does the deck get assigned its rank? Do a team of "experts" go over a deck list and determine the rank, concluding that the deck belongs in say Rank B

Yeah, that's it. It will be myself and two other people that grade the decks. Three seems like a good number. Because I did that huge power analysis a while back, I already know who to include. If it's a deck we're not familiar with we'll do a quick look through to see what it's like.

Also say I only brought my Rank B deck, but no one else has Rank B, can I choose to go up to Rank A, if my opponents are okay with it, similarly can I move to Rank C if my opponents are aware and okay with this?

Fortunately, people have multiple decks, and I've added a little leeway so that if one deck happens to be an odd-one-out, it can hop into a lower rank. So a rank A deck can go with 3 rank B decks, but a rank B won't go with 3 rank A's. That would probably be too much for one deck to handle.

It shouldn't be a problem.

[ApothecaryGeist]

Are there prizes on the line?


My LGS did a formal league with prizes a while back.  It became degenerate.  Prizes attract the cEDH folks.  cEDH folks tend to scare away the casual folks.  (Not by intent, just by the nature of the competitiveness.)  We ultimately have to allow what is effectively 2 groups within our league.  The competitive and the casual.  Each was basically insulated from the other.   

[Morganator 2.0]

There are going to be prizes, but I'm not sure how I'm going to do this. I'm bouncing between two different systems.

1. Overall win rate
With this system, I compare the win rates of the players over the course of the league season (2 months, 8 weeks, ~24 games). Unfortunately, this system assumes that each deck is in its proper rank, which can lead to arguments when a rank C player has a higher win rate than a rank A.

2. Within-rank prizing
For this one each rank would have it's own set of prizes. Rank A would have the best and rank E would have the worst. The catch here is that organizing 5 times as many prizes sounds like a logistical nightmare. It would also need higher participation in each rank, which is hopefully solved with the last system...

Participation Prizes
No matter which prize structure we use, there will definitely be participation prizes in the form of either promo cards or a booster pack. If someone invites 3 other people to the league, they get a booster pack. Same thing if those people invite three people.

We're basically making a pyramid scheme.

This way we should be able to get a lot more people showing up to commander night.

What do you guys think would be a better prize structure? Option 1 (overall win-rate) or option 2 (within-rank prizing)?

[Slyvester12]

Why not use a budget range for the ranks? It might be less accurate, but it's also less subjective and no one can get angry about their placement.

For the prize system, it seems unlikely that everyone will be happy. If you give every rank similar prizes, someone at the bottom of B rank will wonder why they couldn't have just been the top of C rank (this is why I think budget ranges would be good). If you give better prizes to higher ranks, people at the bottom will complain that the good prizes are pay-to-win, which is probably what you're avoiding with a rank system to begin with.

If you decide on something like budget ranges or another concrete ranking method, I'd say give the same prize to every bracket. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you should do.

[Red_Wyrm]

I think I prefer the idea of within rank prizes because then the Rank C deck isn't indirectly competing with Rank A decks. I feel like the power gap between the worst Rank C deck and the  best Rank C deck is a lot more than the worst and best Rank A deck, giving the most powerful deck in the lower ranks a better chance at winning. Also, why can't the prizes all be the same? First place in each Rank gets 3 booster packs second place, gets 2 third gets 1, for example.

Another thing that has been bothering me, EDH is a casual format, not competitive, hence the entire subcategory of cEDH for competitive players. Are you going to have enough people in Rank C and below? Oh another thing that just came to mind, what really is the difference between C and E or a low powered C deck and a high powered E deck? Perhaps it is my own limited experience, but I would've said most of my decks were Rank B or maybe a powerful C, but looking back, a few of my decks definitely suck balls, like precon level balls, whereas my decks now are comparable to a cEDH deck that doesn't have an optimized land base. Are you and your group going to be able to adequately handle the rankings, and what happens when the deck builder disagrees with your ranking or when the other 3 players in the pod disagree with your ranking? Tough luck?

[Morganator 2.0]

This is a lot to unpack at once, but I'll try my best.

To start with Sylvester12, a budget-based system I out of the question. Prices fluctuate constantly and having to track the prices of all decks is time consuming. Higher budget also doesn't mean higher power, as you can make some very strong decks on a low budget.

Also, why can't the prizes all be the same? First place in each Rank gets 3 booster packs second place, gets 2 third gets 1, for example.

It's an idea. The actual prizes will likely be store credit instead of booster packs. It's harder to move up a rank than it is to move down, which is why the higher ranks should have better prizes. I'll see what the store thinks is best.

Are you going to have enough people in Rank C and below?

Absolutely. There is going to be more people in the lower ranks than the upper ranks. Ranks C to E are the more casual decks, and there are more casual Commander players.

Oh another thing that just came to mind, what really is the difference between C and E or a low powered C deck and a high powered E deck?

There is no such thing as a high-powered E deck. It's the lowest rank. It's where the worst decks go.

Are you and your group going to be able to adequately handle the rankings, and what happens when the deck builder disagrees with your ranking or when the other 3 players in the pod disagree with your ranking? Tough luck?

If the deck builder disagrees with the ranking we give, they have to prove that the deck deserves a higher spot. Time and time again people think their deck is much stronger than it really is, because they've never seen something better. But I have. Me and the two other people that are judging the decks have seen just how strong commander decks can get. If we rank a deck C and the builder thinks it should be a B rank deck, they need to prove it by winning games. If they are at the correct rank, they should have a 25% win rate. If they are stronger than what we ranked, they'll have higher than that (50% is my estimate, but I'll need to figure out if that is a good threshold) and will be moved up to the next rank. If the deck is weaker than that (12.5% win rate) then it will be moved down a rank.

[Aetherium Slinky]

But how do you take player skill into account? If somelne has an inferior deck but plays really well shouldn't they be allowed to stay in their lower league?

[Morganator 2.0]

But how do you take player skill into account? If somelne has an inferior deck but plays really well shouldn't they be allowed to stay in their lower league?

Now that's a good question. I'll have to think about it. What does everyone else think I should do?

[Soren841]

I feel like that's the whole point. Who plays the best

[Aetherium Slinky]

Now that's a good question. I'll have to think about it. What does everyone else think I should do?

I think you need to put a lot of emphasis on your deck assessments. You should probably draft a rationale so that you know you're evaluating each deck rather than people's skill. This way you neglect building skills but highligjt play skill.

Alternatively you could broaden the categories. S for cEDH, A for anything in between and B for jank. That way you give more emphasis to deck building skill. You could give higher rewards for higher tiers in order to encourage people to stay in their league.

I don't know. You tell us: do you want to measure deck building skill or play skill?

[Morganator 2.0]

Play skill. Definitely play skill.

The ranks are their to make sure no one gets pub-stomped. That's why a rank A deck will never go against a rank C. The worry with most leagues is that it will eventually just be the strongest decks. The rank system controls for this.

So to go back to your first question, I think that if someone is able to win a lot with a weaker deck, then they deserve to go up a rank. For all I know, it was just me incorrectly assessing the deck in the first place.

[Aetherium Slinky]

I wouldn't like that. Say I was poor at playing but decent at building I'd have to fight in a category I'm not ready for, getting pub stomped completely.

Say I borrowed a friend's cEDH combo deck but had no idea how to win and as a result I'd initially start in A but soon be bumped to B or C due to my low winrate. How is that fair to anyone playing A) a cEDH deck in a higher tier or B) me playing a superpower deck in a lower tier.

I deserve to stay in A tier and lose to everyone if my playing skill is poor compared to the rest of the group.