Power Levels EDHREC Room

[robort]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtNdun0oc_8

Granted it is a few days ago but I thought it was a good and interesting watch. It starts off with magic fest and the power level scale of 1-10 which can be subjectable. I do like the idea of removing the numbers and just having categories with descriptions. For example instead of saying I have a level 4 deck it falls into the I have a casual deck. I personally like the quote using numbers to tell what type of deck we have has a bias on our psychology of it. Taking away the numbers and making it per say casual, focused, optimized, and competitive would take away some of the bias psychology and wouldn't be so subjective as power level of 1-10. Then using descrptions in each category also helps as well. The rest of the discussion is also good, it talks about what you talk about when you first sit down at a table. I do however like the idea of asking people at the table before you start the game "what turn to you plan on winning".

Then for Morgantor, Stats start at 7:34 of the video. The video really isn't long but that is where they start showing the stats.

Again this is just my thoughts which don't mean to much but figure it is good for a discussion

[WWolfe]

Interesting video. I agree with the premise that the number scale isn't the best power level descriptor. But I think their suggestion of just saying Casual, Focused, Optimized, and Competitive can be misleading as well. I have decks that I would say are focused or borderline optimized that I've played against people who said their decks were fully optimized and mine ended up looking like a competitive deck playing against a focused deck, but against other decks that say they're the same strength as mine I've ended up skunked by something that was really borderline competitive. Sheldon's question of what turn does your deck look to win is interesting but you always have people that really don't know the answer to that.

In other words, I don't know what the best option is but it's always going to be open to interpretation which can lead to mismatches and let's be honest, some people just don't know how to evaluate a decks power level.

[Slyvester12]

Not to mention that a truly disgusting prison deck that wins through a hard lock may take 10+ turns to win, but only after shutting the board down with an incredibly hard to break set of stax pieces and interaction. Just because someone isn't playing fast combo doesn't mean they aren't playing something borderline competitive.

[robort]

I agree that Casual, Focused, Optimized, and Competitive can be misleading but it would work much better than using the numbers 1-10 that has the psychology bias attached with it. We now could lump level 1-4 into Casual, 5-6 into focused, 7-8 into optimized and 9-10 into competitive. It won't have so much of a feel bad feeling if I say I have a focused deck that does fit into optimized compared if I say I have a level 5 deck when in actuality it is an 8. By using the stats they have provided we have a decent idea that people on avg were running power level 5,6,7, and 8's. So that means it could be said the avg deck was focused or optimized. If we know a deck is optimized we know that it can also lean into competitive and it could also lean into focused. You only have 4 areas to choose from with your deck compared to the number system of 10 areas. Wouldn't it be easier to say again for an example I have a casual deck instead of power level 4 deck vs your optimized or level 8 deck. Now if you mislead me unintentional or intentional(either of these don't matter) on your power level and say it was a 5-6. It be as misleading if you called it focused when it is optimized.

I think what I am trying to get at here is what question seems better? Asking what power level is your deck which equates 1-10 or asking what type of deck you running which equates to casual, focused, optimized or competitive.

[stuffnsuch]

Whatever we start using will quickly shift back into that issue with bias.  A few years ago, the numbers became popular because they were more objective and less biased.  Now we worry that people are loosing sight of what they originally meant and are getting back to having bias issues.  The problem of replacing the numbers with words is that we'll eventually fall in the same trap, and I feel that describing something as casual v optimized v competitive will shift into bias much more quickly than something like numbers, that feel more technical.  I wonder if it might be a good idea to just have everyone look at their decks and reassess them based on what's actually happening.  I think people typically overestimate their decks (because you tend to rate based on best case more than worst case scenarios).  If everyone went through and took the decks they own that lose most often and dropped them down a number, I think the entire EDH community would be a little more accurate.
Another idea is that you could have a playgroup power level along with your deck power level, so when you play with someone new, you can say, this deck is a level 7 in my playgroup, where someone first threatens to win usually around turn 5.  Everyone knows what kind of playgroup you're coming from, and what to expect.  If you're from a playgroup that threatens turn 2 wins regularly, they'll know your level 7 might feel like a 9 in their playgroup where people don't usually threaten wins until turn 7.

[G. Moto]

Jank, casual, focused, optimized and competitive are good descriptions in my opinion. It's large enough to describe the effort that the player put into the deck but it's not so specific as to make someone say "Hey that's not a 6, that's a 7". Plus hearing someone say "I have a competitive deck" gives people the mindset of being prepared for a high level duel against the other player. If i see a Nekusar the mindrazer at the table and someone says "I optimized this deck", then i'll be under the impression that they do have their underworld dreams and maybe a havoc festival (my personal touches to how i run the deck).  Now if i see a Kathril, Aspect Warper on the field and someone says "I'm playing a focused Insect tribal deck", I may not know what to expect outside of some small creatures with multiple keywords but i won't be so determined to take that person out when playing in a pod. Having the words of someone explaining where they are in their deck building process gives other players the ability to do proper threat assessment at the table while at the same time giving people the chance to play their decks out and learn what their decks can do. This way they learn where to improve it instead of getting stomped out at every table they sit down at.

[Morganator 2.0]

The video really isn't long but that is where they start showing the stats.

It's a half hour long video. That's kinda long.

Now that my pettiness is out of the way, let's talk about my favorite thing about the stats; the Deckstats. Wait, I mean, my thing about Deckstats; the stats. Crap. I meant to say my favorite thing... wait...

*Deep inhale*

Do you know what my favorite thing about Deckstats is? The stats.

Nailed it. Of course the stats part was just this one graph, showing the distribution of games played at Command Fest. This was an online event right?



Let's remember that just like when I did a power-level analysis of my playgroup (context: https://deckstats.net/forum/index.php/topic,50625.0.html) this is a rank statistic. It's based on opinion and testimony rather than a measurable variable. The analogy I like to use is how there is no way to scientifically quantify which sugar is tastiest, you can only ask people's opinions and draw a conclusion from that. You need to rely on gathering enough opinions to get a general consensus on which sugar is best (it's totally dextrose by the way. I refuse to accept sucrose as the best).

So with that out of the way, there's not much for me to say here. Except that, we've been here before. It seems like we have this discussion a lot. I'm hoping that the efforts of Command Fest and the PlayEDH discord will help everyone better judge the power of their decks. The problem seems to stem from when people haven't seen a 10 deck, they'll think that the strongest deck they've seen is a 10. It happens with me all the time. I'm also getting a little sick of people telling me they have a super strong competitive deck, only for me to find out they're playing Korvold value, instead of Korvold Food Chain. The other thing I hear frequently is "My deck's a seven". Great, that tells me nothing though, because most everyone rates their deck a seven.

I've gotten a little bit better at gauging deck power by asking questions myself. So when someone tells me that their Sidisi, Brood Tyrant deck is a 9, I'll ask something like "Oh, so you're playing layered combo?" If they don't know what that means, the deck isn't a 9. If they claim to have an optimized Rafiq of the Many, it's not the same strength as an optimized Krenko, Mob Boss. I find people tend to overrate their decks more than underrate them, so when in doubt, I power down before powering up.

Also, once more games start to kick up, I'm going to organize a round 2 of my playgroups power-analysis. But this won't be for at least another 3 months.