Is Ramp Too Good?

[Aetherium Slinky]

By this logic if your game is very relaxed and casual it might even be better to have copious amounts of draw spells instead of ramp spells. I understand that the cumulative mana count is higher in a ramp-y deck but such a deck runs the risk of running out of cards to play which doesn't happen with a draw heavy deck.

Well, what do you mean by "relaxed and casual"? If you mean, deliberately trying to be slower then, yeah... but is that an argument that ramp is less good, or that ramp is so good that you don't want to use too much of it?

Draw definitely complicates matters, but it's not as simple as ramp vs draw. And, draw doesn't substitute for ramp. It might give you smoother games and hit your land drops, but it doesn't let you play important things early (when they're more impactful). Heck, if you can get a Rhystic Study or, say, Stolen Strategy out one or more turns early, you're quite possibly drawing even more by ramping than you would have otherwise.

Ramp is good but only certain kinds of ramp spells. You don't see anything above mana value 2 in cEDH games. Cultivate and such are just way too slow. Instead it's more about low to the ground ramp like Sol Ring.

If you relax on the speed a bit and allow for a slower game (than cEDH) it could be argued that at the point where Cultivate becomes relevant one could instead just have more draw and rely on land drops and drawing into ramp with the excess draw.

According to https://www.cedh.guide/stats we see that an average cEDH deck plays 20 ramp spells and 20 draw spells. That's a nice balance which is probably the best ratio to have. From what I've seen people usually run way more ramp than they do draw spells.

I'm not sure if playing impactful things early is always the desired outcome. The Command Zone (yes, Morganator) found way back that a turn 1 Sol Ring has a -2% effect on the chance to win. This is because EDH is a multiplayer format where the person in the lead is punished for being in the lead. A turn 1 Rhystic Study is incredibly powerful but it will also draw a ton of hate which might prove to be detrimental.

Sure, in a vacuum it's best to do your thing early when it has a proportionally bigger effect on the game. A good measure of that is cumulative mana spent which is higher in decks that both ramp fast and hit their land drops than in decks that cannot do that. So... I'm not sure if ramp is too good. However, I do think it's overrated most of the time, especially when it comes to cards like Cultivate. And particularly when the deck doesn't draw enough or misses its land drops due to a greedy land base.

[anjinsan]

I don’t mean to ask whether the concept of ramp is overpowered; quite clearly, an 8-mana sorcery that just put one land out would be pretty terrible, despite being ramp. Rather, the question is whether the ramp options that we have in EDH are too good. Cultivate may be overrated, but Sol Ring is pretty busted. What if, instead, Cultivate was the fastest ramp we had, and those rocks and dorks didn’t exist? (As in modern Standards)

[Landale]

What if, instead, Cultivate was the fastest ramp we had, and those rocks and dorks didn’t exist? (As in modern Standards)

At lower power, that would barely change anything. Cultivate and the like aren't necessarily all that rare outside of cEDH. You'd just consistently not have your Sol Rings and Signets because they're just not there anymore instead of having the occasional game where you start strong.
I suppose it might hit Elf decks hardest, given the loss of so many mana dorks.

[Morganator 2.0]

I'm not sure if playing impactful things early is always the desired outcome. The Command Zone (yes, Morganator) found way back that a turn 1 Sol Ring has a -2% effect on the chance to win.

You know we don't talk about this.

[Aetherium Slinky]

I don’t mean to ask whether the concept of ramp is overpowered; quite clearly, an 8-mana sorcery that just put one land out would be pretty terrible, despite being ramp. Rather, the question is whether the ramp options that we have in EDH are too good. Cultivate may be overrated, but Sol Ring is pretty busted. What if, instead, Cultivate was the fastest ramp we had, and those rocks and dorks didn’t exist? (As in modern Standards)

Uhhh... Yeah? Cultivate is a very representative ramp card. https://edhrec.com/top It's the third most popular ramp card and fourth most popular card overall. Only Sol Ring (understandably) and Arcane Signet are more popular. That's my benchmark - what people actually play.

I have written paragraphs on the topic but all fast mana does is generate volatile pods that may or may not end up lopsided. If you play all fast mana you're guaranteed to see some so that's not a problem but if your only piece of fast mana is the Sol Ring you're guaranteed to have some lopsided starts. Some people like that, some don't but that is a true effect Sol Ring has on the game. https://www.reddit.com/r/EDH/comments/120jvvk/to_sol_ring_or_not_to_sol_ring_variance_and/ There's the full article for those who are interested.

I don't quite grasp your perspective. I might be missing something. I thought when I said ramp is overrated I also implied it's not too good. In fact I think there are real alternatives to jamming your deck full of Cultivate and Arcane Signet. The alternative is drawing more cards and hitting your land drops. It's not as fast as ramping to eleven on turns 1 and 2 but it's certainly better than having all this mana and nothing to cast.

Let's put it this way: if ramp was overpowered then why aren't people playing like 40 ramp spells in their decks?

[anjinsan]

I thought when I said ramp is overrated I also implied it's not too good. In fact I think there are real alternatives to jamming your deck full of Cultivate and Arcane Signet. The alternative is drawing more cards and hitting your land drops. It's not as fast as ramping to eleven on turns 1 and 2 but it's certainly better than having all this mana and nothing to cast.

Well, I think I disagree. You said you typically run only three ramp pieces, but you still run ramp - and I think most people run a lot more than that. Are there any competitive decks that don't?

Let's put it this way: if ramp was overpowered then why aren't people playing like 40 ramp spells in their decks?

Well, two big reasons: firstly, this is a singleton format with a limited (albeit large) card pool; just because some ramp spells are overpowered doesn't mean that 40 of them are. If you could put 40 Sol Rings in a deck, I doubt people would only put one Sol Ring in a deck. But would they put 40? Probably not, because of the bigger reason, which is that ramp alone doesn't win games. This is true of everything else in Magic! If your deck was all one-mana draw-three spells or two-mana extra-turn spells, you wouldn't actually have any wincon - does that mean that Time Walk isn't overpowered? I might run 40 Time Walks but I wouldn't run 98 Time Walks, so clearly there's a limit that has nothing to do with the overall power of the card.

Plus, what people run and what's optimal for people to run are two very different things. People will choose not to play cards sometimes precisely because they consider them to be "too good", or for any number of other reasons.

I have written paragraphs on the topic but all fast mana does is generate volatile pods that may or may not end up lopsided. If you play all fast mana you're guaranteed to see some so that's not a problem but if your only piece of fast mana is the Sol Ring you're guaranteed to have some lopsided starts. Some people like that, some don't but that is a true effect Sol Ring has on the game. https://www.reddit.com/r/EDH/comments/120jvvk/to_sol_ring_or_not_to_sol_ring_variance_and/ There's the full article for those who are interested.

I think this is a good argument for fast mana not to exist, and a good counter to the argument that, well, if everyone's using it it doesn't really matter and is equivalent just to drawing lands and everyone playing them more slowly.

[Aetherium Slinky]

I thought when I said ramp is overrated I also implied it's not too good. In fact I think there are real alternatives to jamming your deck full of Cultivate and Arcane Signet. The alternative is drawing more cards and hitting your land drops. It's not as fast as ramping to eleven on turns 1 and 2 but it's certainly better than having all this mana and nothing to cast.

Well, I think I disagree. You said you typically run only three ramp pieces, but you still run ramp - and I think most people run a lot more than that. Are there any competitive decks that don't?

Let's put it this way: if ramp was overpowered then why aren't people playing like 40 ramp spells in their decks?

Well, two big reasons: firstly, this is a singleton format with a limited (albeit large) card pool; just because some ramp spells are overpowered doesn't mean that 40 of them are. If you could put 40 Sol Rings in a deck, I doubt people would only put one Sol Ring in a deck. But would they put 40? Probably not, because of the bigger reason, which is that ramp alone doesn't win games. This is true of everything else in Magic! If your deck was all one-mana draw-three spells or two-mana extra-turn spells, you wouldn't actually have any wincon - does that mean that Time Walk isn't overpowered? I might run 40 Time Walks but I wouldn't run 98 Time Walks, so clearly there's a limit that has nothing to do with the overall power of the card.

Plus, what people run and what's optimal for people to run are two very different things. People will choose not to play cards sometimes precisely because they consider them to be "too good", or for any number of other reasons.

I have written paragraphs on the topic but all fast mana does is generate volatile pods that may or may not end up lopsided. If you play all fast mana you're guaranteed to see some so that's not a problem but if your only piece of fast mana is the Sol Ring you're guaranteed to have some lopsided starts. Some people like that, some don't but that is a true effect Sol Ring has on the game. https://www.reddit.com/r/EDH/comments/120jvvk/to_sol_ring_or_not_to_sol_ring_variance_and/ There's the full article for those who are interested.

I think this is a good argument for fast mana not to exist, and a good counter to the argument that, well, if everyone's using it it doesn't really matter and is equivalent just to drawing lands and everyone playing them more slowly.

I'm sorry, I can't figure out what your stance is. Are you arguing just for the sake of arguing?

From what I've gathered thus far:

• 40 copies of Sol Ring is excessive
• Lots of ramp is good, though
• Having draw spells is somehow not a part of this conversation
• Competitive decks are the golden standard except when they're not

Let's not consider competitive EDH. That is not what people play most of the time. It has its own established meta and there isn't much to say about it. You run 20 ramp spells, 20 draw spells, a couple of efficient win conditions, fill the rest of the deck with interaction and you're pretty much good to go. That's the formula.

For slower games (=not competitive) the golden standards are Cultivate and Arcane Signet. This is what people play. For Arcane Signet you can make a case. Cultivate in my opinion is straight up bad, overrated and useless when compared to a decent draw spell that enables a land drop and draws you gas on top. Cultivate is a draw spell but it can't find win conditions because basics don't finish games.

If everyone has fast mana all is good but what I'm trying to say here and in the article is that Sol Ring as a single inclusion is "too good" - not because it statistically somehow warps the gameplay on average but because in reality the person with the Sol Ring is rocketed so much ahead that the game becomes lopsided. And unfun for some folks. And that it's surprisingly common how often this happens.

You need to make up your mind when you say "ramp". I honestly don't know whether you mean Sol Ring, fast mana in general, Llanowar Elves, Rampant Growth or Cultivate. The answer is different for all of those depending on the scenario you're in. Sol Ring is "too good" as a single inclusion at a casual table but it's also a must in a cEDH deck. Even if everyone is running Sol Ring the randomness of drawing it in an opening hand messes up 1/4th of your games. Cultivate is popular but really bad outside of the slowest metas and certainly not cEDH viable despite it being a very popular card.

I would cut Sol Ring when playing in a low power meta, I would cut Cultivate for a draw spell any day and even Arcane Signet often feels "meh" because it's more than often a dead draw late game. I think that's the issue here for me: a draw spell is never dead but a Rampant Growth is very much dead in the late game.

Yes, it's all about the balance but the reason I'm pushing draw here is because in my experience people don't have a good balance of draw and ramp - instead people have way more ramp than they do draw.

Also my claim is that land drops are underrated as a form of securing mana later in the game. Depending on your pod it's not always necessary to power through stuff on turn 3, it might be enough to get it all out a turn later without sacrificing much. To be clear the previous statement also reads as follows: "trading cards for lands might be an actively bad thing to do in some situations in which case ramping might be a bad thing meaning ramp is definitely not too good". The upside of dedicating more slots to draw is that you have more interaction and gas in addition to your land drops compared to having a ramp spell.

Does that clarify anything?

[anjinsan]

From what I've gathered thus far:

• 40 copies of Sol Ring is excessive
• Lots of ramp is good, though
• Having draw spells is somehow not a part of this conversation
• Competitive decks are the golden standard except when they're not

Draw spells aren't banned from the conversation, but you can't simply directly compare ramp spells with draw spells. And anyway, I'm pretty certain (convince me otherwise) that replacing all your ramp spell with draw spells is suboptimal; I absolutely take your point about dead late-game cards, but on balance it's a drawback that's worth taking.

We do have to consider competitive decks. I don't play cEDH, but when you're asking "is this card too powerful?" you cannot simply answer "no, because I will choose not to play it in casual games". Indeed, a lot of the time people are choosing not to play those things because they are too powerful. Now, obviously, there's something about metas, but if all cEDH decks are running like 20 pieces of ramp it rather suggests that ramp is pretty key to making the most powerful deck.

Nobody cares about Cultivate. Yeah, it's popular. Yeah, it's not very good. But, there are many ramp cards that are much better than Cultivate; it's not "the golden standard", it's an overplayed card, and how much it actually gets played isn't really relevant. I think we can say that Cultivate is probably not "too good", but how about all those things that are better than it?

I honestly don't know whether you mean Sol Ring, fast mana in general, Llanowar Elves, Rampant Growth or Cultivate.

Apologies if this wasn't clear. Generally, all of these are considered to be ramp - they are things that can get you more than you would normally have by playing your regular one land per turn. Fast mana I think we would say is anything that instantly gives you back more mana than you spent so that probably includes rituals (which I don't think we would count as ramp, since they're one-shot) but also fast ramp like Sol Ring.

Also my claim is that land drops are underrated as a form of securing mana later in the game. Depending on your pod it's not always necessary to power through stuff on turn 3, it might be enough to get it all out a turn later without sacrificing much. To be clear the previous statement also reads as follows: "trading cards for lands might be an actively bad thing to do in some situations in which case ramping might be a bad thing meaning ramp is definitely not too good".

Yeah, these are both true, but neither of them stops ramp being the optimal choice.

[UrizenII]

Nobody cares about Cultivate... how much it actually gets played isn't really relevant.

Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and say that's blatantly incorrect.  Literally over half a million decks minimum run it, so clearly people do care about it, regardless of whether you think it's good, or even whether it is actually objectively good.  Also, how often something is played is absolutely relevant.  If a card is that ubiquitous, there's a reason for it.  You yourself referenced "auto-include" cards and asked whether running something in a majority of decks per se makes it good:

...but if a card is so good that it beats every other card you could put in that slot, in pretty much every deck, that does kind of suggest that it might be a bit too good, no?

Either the card is in so many decks because it is good, or it's good because it's in so many decks.  Alternatively, it's monetarily a very inexpensive and accessible card that does what people want it to do, so it sees play more often than something that might be objectively better but more expensive and is "good" in that sense.  In any case, it wouldn't be so widely played if it wasn't at least situationally good.

Ultimately, context matters, and I feel like that's being dismissed in this discussion.  For instance, if you're playing a landfall deck and/or haven't played a land per turn and would otherwise miss your drop, then Cultivate is definitely stronger than it would be in just about any other situation and is a good card in that moment.

The longer the thread carries on, the more it seems like you're trying to split the baby here; you seem to be arguing that that ramp is in fact "too strong" - which presumably means that it's necessary to run it - while at the same time saying the format is fast enough as it is so it's not needed and that certain ramp is bad and shouldn't be played even though it's incredibly popular.  Obviously, some cards are better than others, but if a mechanic as a whole is "too strong," you'll be hard-pressed to find a reason to argue against playing it of it outside of deck optimization (why play Explosive Vegetation when Circuitous Route or Migration Path exist unless you are building the deck around those kinds of effects) and monteary cost.

[anjinsan]

Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and say that's blatantly incorrect.  Literally over half a million decks minimum run it, so clearly people do care about it, regardless of whether you think it's good, or even whether it is actually objectively good.  Also, how often something is played is absolutely relevant.

How so? The question isn't even "is Cultivate good?"; if it were, you could argue that it's played a lot because it's good, but we all know that there are lots of reasons for cards to be played or not played, and it's quite possible that it's just overrated (which is in fact the stance that, so far as I can tell, everyone in this thread so far is taking). But the actual question is "are the best ramp options too good?" and if you don't think that Cultivate is as good as those, then it's not something we're even considering.

If a card is that ubiquitous, there's a reason for it.  You yourself referenced "auto-include" cards and asked whether running something in a majority of decks per se makes it good:

There's a subtle difference there: a card being run a lot suggests that it's probably quite good. But, that's why I'm asking, do people think that ramp is too good in EDH? Furthermore, I'm talking about a category of cards. A whopping 49% of EDHrec decks that can run Cultivate do... but how many run any ramp spell? 100%? Are there any that we consider remotely viable decks that don't run any? Plenty of people would claim that a deck with Cultivate would be better without it... how many people would claim that any given deck would be better off it you removed all the ramp entirely?

Either the card is in so many decks because it is good, or it's good because it's in so many decks.

You what? How does playing something a lot make it good?

Ultimately, context matters, and I feel like that's being dismissed in this discussion.  For instance, if you're playing a landfall deck and/or haven't played a land per turn and would otherwise miss your drop, then Cultivate is definitely stronger than it would be in just about any other situation and is a good card in that moment.

Lots of things can be "a good card in a moment". 6-mana sorcery-speed removal can be pretty great in a lot of moments. That doesn't mean anyone is arguing that those are the most powerful cards.

Besides, this whole confused discussion about Cultivate seems to be a massive distraction. The previous argument seemed to be "ramp isn't too good because Cultivate isn't too good" and I said, OK, but there are plenty of things that are better than Cultivate. Now you seem to be saying,
actually, Cultivate is great. Well OK, doesn't that imply, then, that the things that are better than Cultivate are, like, really good, possibly too good? Or are you saying that Cultivate is actually Magic's best ramp spell?

The longer the thread carries on, the more it seems like you're trying to split the baby here; you seem to be arguing that that ramp is in fact "too strong" - which presumably means that it's necessary to run it - while at the same time saying the format is fast enough as it is so it's not needed and that certain ramp is bad and shouldn't be played even though it's incredibly popular.

I don't really understand the confusion here. Who said the format is fast and so ramp is not needed? And, as I've just elaborated, popularity is really irrelevant and some ramp spells can be bad without making all ramp spells bad. I kind of thought that that was obvious.

Are you getting confused by the fact that I asked what a version of EDH would look like without the fastest/best ramp, and proposed that it would be fine? That's a separate question to whether ramp in the format as it exists now is good or not.

Let me go back to what I was originally asking and attempt to clarify:

1. Do we think (the best) ramp is good? Everyone runs ramp, and so far as I can tell the accepted wisdom is that it's the best thing to do. The most competitive decks in the format use large amounts of ramp and, even at non-cEDH tables, the ability to explode early and achieve an unassailable lead requires ramp. I certainly cannot imagine doing the most powerful things decks can do without more than the normal one mana per turn. No, ramp is not sufficient to win, but I would argue that it is necessary. So I am arguing for yes on this one, but willing to be challenged.

Note that we are not talking about any specific ramp spell. You can look at the world's worst ramp spell and say, nope, not good but that doesn't say anything really about this question; we're talking about using good ramp vs no ramp at all. Heck, a lot of those bad ramp spells probably are still better than not having any at all.

2. If 1. is true, and ramp is so good to be ubiquitous, is that a problem? My proposition (something to be discussed) is that, actually, EDH would be better without it. These spells take up slots in the deck, introduce (unneeded and possibly excessive/unhealthy) variance, and don't really add anything to the game. If it were tuned to the point where it were more of a balanced trade-off, such that some decks would want and run ramp but others might put in none at all, would the format be more interesting? It would also likely be slower, which I propose is also no bad thing.

This is, actually, pretty similar to the proposition in MustaKotka's Sol Ring article (not that you alone should not run ramp and expect to have a good game, but that perhaps your whole table should not run it, and have more fun).

[Valmias]

This is a fun topic! I feel like it's a Rorschach test for how people understand the game.

tl;dr Ramp exists because some people want to do the thing, but faster, so faster ramp will always be more desirable to them. Everyone else plays ramp to the degree that they still want to win sometimes, but no one actually has to if it's not fun for them or they don't need it.

To specifically address your questions:

1. Do we think (the best) ramp is good? Everyone runs ramp, and so far as I can tell the accepted wisdom is that it's the best thing to do. The most competitive decks in the format use large amounts of ramp and, even at non-cEDH tables, the ability to explode early and achieve an unassailable lead requires ramp. I certainly cannot imagine doing the most powerful things decks can do without more than the normal one mana per turn. No, ramp is not sufficient to win, but I would argue that it is necessary. So I am arguing for yes on this one, but willing to be challenged.

I don't think the question can really be whether it's "good" on its own. No ramp is necessary to cast all the big EDH spells if you are willing to wait. You are guaranteed to eventually hit your max power if you live long enough. The reason people ramp is because the game has a timer they can't wait for: the game ends when one player locks in their wincon. You don't ramp so you can cast spells; you ramp so you can cast spells sooner than your opponents. If you play against slower decks, then you have more freedom to play slower. If you play against fast decks, then you need to be fast in order to win. Most people try to play as fast as possible because we don't know the speed of the deck we're playing against. If Deck 1 is playing 5 Manalith variants and Deck 2 is a direct copy but with the Manaliths swapped for Sol Ring, Arcane Signet, Mana Vault, etc., Deck 2 is probably going to win because it does the same thing but sooner (that's just going to be a reality in a game where some cards are better than others - better cards will win). But if Deck 1 has no ramp and instead has more redundant cards for their strategy, then there really is a trade-off in choosing how much ramp to include. Deck 1 would be gambling that a greater density of useful cards will outweigh a slower average start, and Deck 2 would be gambling that they will hit only enough ramp to act sooner without replacing useful card draws with useless ramp.

2. If 1. is true, and ramp is so good to be ubiquitous, is that a problem? My proposition (something to be discussed) is that, actually, EDH would be better without it. These spells take up slots in the deck, introduce (unneeded and possibly excessive/unhealthy) variance, and don't really add anything to the game. If it were tuned to the point where it were more of a balanced trade-off, such that some decks would want and run ramp but others might put in none at all, would the format be more interesting? It would also likely be slower, which I propose is also no bad thing.

I think you are making an unfounded logical leap here. Saying it is good is not the same as agreeing that it is ubiquitous, and something being ubiquitous does not make it a problem. You say EDH would be better without it, but it sounds like you mean it would be slower without it, and slower is somehow better. The issues that you mentioned, deck slots and variance, seem like strange issues since this entire format is designed with 40 extra card slots and is singleton to increase variance. This is the lots-of-cards-high-variance format. I guess I would suggest that creating a high-variance format where these cards are legal is the whole point of EDH. So to say that they are bad for the format makes me wonder if maybe it's the format itself that is the issue.

Don't get me wrong. I hate how fast the game is nowadays. I like my games to take an hour or more, and all my games are definitely faster now than they were, say, 10 years ago. I don't really like the standardization of decks that comes when people feel like they have to include the same suite of good ramp in every deck, and I agree that it would be a lot more fun, casual, and janky if we had more room for niche cards. But that's also all my own fault because I'm trying to win as well as have fun. There is no authority that forces me to play fast except the knowledge that another player might. The reason EDH has become more "solved" is because we are all actively trying to solve it against each other. If you aren't playing a big 8-drop Elder Dragon with a three-color upkeep cost because you know you'll lose before you ever cast it, then you've already made choices to play smarter to win the game. Observing that one strategy will typically defeat another strategy is not the same as being forced to adopt that strategy. Only a desire to win does that. I remember Sheldon's main argument against fast mana boiled down to "I don't want to play fast mana and I lose to people who play it, but I would also like to win, so can people not play it and let me win". And the response that will always get is, "No, I want to win so I'm going to", which is why we will always be in this position. (Side story: last night I cut Nissa, Who Shakes the World for Woodland Druid in my Seton deck and it made me feel ruthless. I am not immune to lure of fast mana.)

As for ramp being a balanced trade off with some decks wanting it and others not, I would say that's already the case. I think we're in agreement that ubiquity is not quality, so the fact that everyone runs Sol Ring doesn't mean every deck benefits optimally from running it. My Nicol Bolas has 9 pieces of ramp, including Mana Vault, Sol Ring, and Arcane Signet, and every one of them hurts because it's taking a slot away from another fun giant sorcery. My Tuya Bearclaw, which wins a lot more often, has 2 ramp cards (Domri, Anarch of Bolas and Caravan Vigil) because there is a trade-off between drawing mana versus useful cards, and she tops out at 3 cmc and wants the cards. I've never felt that deck needed a Sol Ring.

It sounds like you are saying that fast mana puts restrictions and pressures on deckbuilding that aren't fun, and I think a lot of people would agree. In the end I don't quite understand why it should be a conversation about whether the whole idea of ramp as a game mechanic is good. Certainly the variance and restrictions caused by ramp are nowhere near the variance and wasted slots caused by the land/mana system in general, right? It seems like, if anything, the ramp strategy exists primarily to smooth out the effects of that design choice.

[anjinsan]

Deck 2 is probably going to win because it does the same thing but sooner (that's just going to be a reality in a game where some cards are better than others - better cards will win). But if Deck 1 has no ramp and instead has more redundant cards for their strategy, then there really is a trade-off in choosing how much ramp to include. Deck 1 would be gambling that a greater density of useful cards will outweigh a slower average start, and Deck 2 would be gambling that they will hit only enough ramp to act sooner without replacing useful card draws with useless ramp.

I think what this all boils down to, though, is that the faster-ramping deck is probably still stronger overall?

I think you are making an unfounded logical leap here. Saying it is good is not the same as agreeing that it is ubiquitous, and something being ubiquitous does not make it a problem.

There's no leap. So far as I can tell, ramp is good and ubiquitous (and is ubiquitous because it's good). As for whether it's a problem... well, that's rather what I was hoping to discuss! It being ubiquitous sounds like a problem to me because, if all decks are doing it, why is it there at all? What's it actually adding to the game? (I don't mean ramp in general, I mean ramp that every deck wants to use)

You say EDH would be better without it, but it sounds like you mean it would be slower without it, and slower is somehow better.

Yeah, I think so - for all the reasons you mention yourself.

The issues that you mentioned, deck slots and variance, seem like strange issues since this entire format is designed with 40 extra card slots and is singleton to increase variance. This is the lots-of-cards-high-variance format. I guess I would suggest that creating a high-variance format where these cards are legal is the whole point of EDH. So to say that they are bad for the format makes me wonder if maybe it's the format itself that is the issue.

This is a fair argument, and to a certain extent I think it is the format. Everyone has 40 life and there are usually more players, so games are by default slower than they would have been (all other things being equal), which in turn makes ramping more attractive than, say, aggro. But, with the huge card pool, the ramp options available are a lot stronger than they are in, say, Standard (with its 20 life and 1v1 nature).

However, the variance thing is I think a bit more subtle than that. Being a 100-card singleton format, I think, is probably meant to increase variance in a fun way - as in, sometimes you see this card, sometimes you see that card. You don't normally get the same combination of cards together, so every game is different (not that that worked out, given how many tutors and combo wins there are, but that's the idea, right?). That's not the same, though, as "sometimes you don't draw any lands, do nothing for the whole game, and just lose" or "sometimes you get 7 mana by turn 2 and just win".

Certainly the variance and restrictions caused by ramp are nowhere near the variance and wasted slots caused by the land/mana system in general, right? It seems like, if anything, the ramp strategy exists primarily to smooth out the effects of that design choice.

Ah, now we're talking! Frankly, I think there's a strong argument that lands are one of the worst things about Magic's design... but they're also pretty integral to the format these days. I was hoping we'd see more MDFC lands, as they were a really neat design.

Ramp, though, I think makes the issues worse, not better. We can imagine that with just lands, we have three possible situations: not enough lands, enough lands, and too many lands (which is only an issue because that means fewer nonland cards). With ramp, though, we have more situations: not enough lands or ramp, ramp but not enough lands (so the ramp kind of makes up for the missed drops, at a price), lands but no ramp, OK, fine, lands and ramp, which is even better, and of course still too many lands/ramp. Perhaps the middle situations become more common, but the extremes become more extreme: the difference between missing some lands drops and getting way-above-curve mana is a lot bigger than just that between missing and hitting one land per turn.

[UrizenII]

Besides, this whole confused discussion about Cultivate seems to be a massive distraction. The previous argument seemed to be "ramp isn't too good because Cultivate isn't too good" and I said, OK, but there are plenty of things that are better than Cultivate. Now you seem to be saying,
actually, Cultivate is great. Well OK, doesn't that imply, then, that the things that are better than Cultivate are, like, really good, possibly too good? Or are you saying that Cultivate is actually Magic's best ramp spell?

I made no claims about its power level; I said neither that it was great nor that it was bad, and nobody is claiming that it is the best ramp spell in the game.  What I said was that it is a very popular ramp spell that is situationally impactful, and there must be some merit to running it for as popular as it is or else it wouldn't be that popular.  MustaKotka is originally the one who said Cultivate is too slow.  In general, I might agree with him (similarly to how I think three mana rocks are too slow), but I'd almost rather Cultivate on curve to guarantee I don't miss a future land drop than Rampant Growth on curve and miss my drop the following turn.  When you get down to splitting hairs like that, it's more a matter of personal preference.

I don't really understand the confusion here. Who said the format is fast and so ramp is not needed?

You literally said these exact things.  Maybe you didn't intend to say it, but I'm not sure how else I'm supposed to interpret the following.

For one, EDH has been getting faster and faster, and it's already really fast. Games often end turn 6 or earlier. And yes, if we think of non-cEDH decks this may not be true...

My point is, I don't quite buy the argument that the format is too slow and needs ramp to speed it up if, when we put in all the ramp, we end up with very fast games.

If... ramp is so good to be ubiquitous, is that a problem? My proposition (something to be discussed) is that, actually, EDH would be better without it.

I wouldn't mind slower games myself (fast mana is disgusting and the friends that got me into Magic in the first place played way too much green for me to not cringe every time I see it outside of a four or five-colored deck), but I don't think eliminating ramp altogether would solve the problem.  I think what you'd find with that is either games would last way longer than they need to because battlecruiser Magic now turns into trying to sink the Bismarck, or games speed up even further because people would shy away from the prohibitively expensive commanders (say 5-6 CMC or more) and play far cheaper, faster commanders (say 2-3 CMC max) who don't need to worry too much about ramp to go off and still effectively win by turn 6-8.  I have seen a good number of decks that don't need to ramp at all in order to gain a huge advantage very early.  Doing away with ramp would completely eliminate that middle ground and skew decks to one extreme or the other, leading to even greater power disparities and just some other mechanic that is "too good."

To your point, however, I do agree that ubiquity can be a problem and have to disagree with Valmias to a degree (I will also note that ubiquity is synonymous with popularity, so yes, popularity does factor into the discussion).

Saying it is good is not the same as agreeing that it is ubiquitous, and something being ubiquitous does not make it a problem.

If a card should go in every deck and you actually have to come up with a rationale for not running it as opposed to a justification for running it, then it's probably too good and would serve the format well to be removed.  The disagreement I have is that I don't think that can be generalized in the way that you would like to.  A single card is much different than an entire mechanic, and it's far easier and more practical to eliminate individual problem cards than an entire subset of cards in the game.  Your argument is effectively that ramp is too good because everyone runs it and you are at a disadvantage if you don't.  You can make the exact same argument about card draw, removal spells, or even lands, for that matter.  Do you think we should do away with those as well?  The more you abstract the question, the less meaningful it becomes.

Frankly, I think there's a strong argument that lands are one of the worst things about Magic's design...

That's honestly one of the things I found intriguing about Hearthstone as opposed to Magic: each player is guaranteed to get one additional mana each turn up to the cap of 10 and can plan turns accordingly (of course, there were still "ramp" effects, namely with the player who goes second getting an extra mana to use once at any point and certain cards in the Druid class, and I'm sure there are more now... I stopped playing what must be at least four years ago).  Something like that helps improve game consistency.  I also liked being able to choose to attack creatures directly instead of face (putting more onus of combat decisions on the attacker instead of the defender), but I digress.

[Valmias]

However, the variance thing is I think a bit more subtle than that. Being a 100-card singleton format, I think, is probably meant to increase variance in a fun way - as in, sometimes you see this card, sometimes you see that card. You don't normally get the same combination of cards together, so every game is different (not that that worked out, given how many tutors and combo wins there are, but that's the idea, right?). That's not the same, though, as "sometimes you don't draw any lands, do nothing for the whole game, and just lose" or "sometimes you get 7 mana by turn 2 and just win".

Ramp, though, I think makes the issues worse, not better. We can imagine that with just lands, we have three possible situations: not enough lands, enough lands, and too many lands (which is only an issue because that means fewer nonland cards). With ramp, though, we have more situations: not enough lands or ramp, ramp but not enough lands (so the ramp kind of makes up for the missed drops, at a price), lands but no ramp, OK, fine, lands and ramp, which is even better, and of course still too many lands/ramp. Perhaps the middle situations become more common, but the extremes become more extreme: the difference between missing some lands drops and getting way-above-curve mana is a lot bigger than just that between missing and hitting one land per turn.

Okay, I think I understand your position better now!

What it sounds like you're describing as a downside is what I consider the fun challenge of this game/format. With the ramp situation, it adds a whole lot more fiddly dials and tweaks to alter the deck in a million subtle ways - and it adds a million ways to screw it up if you don't get it right. I find attempting to build around the variance issue caused by land and mana to be a fun part of the deckbuilding puzzle. It's even more complicated when you factor in whether you prefer to hit your land drops consistently or want to ramp fast then stop hitting lands. This calls into question not just ramp, but number of lands, mana curve, draw rate (do you want cantrips or Blue Sun's Zenith?), commander cost, tempo etc. I enjoy other methods like Hearthstone and Slay the Spire as well, but managing the scary random element of EDH is a compelling challenge, and I think it is one of the factors keeping the game from being even faster.

I would say people think they need ramp when what they really need is a resource management strategy of some kind, ramp being one option. But not every deck benefits the same from ramp. Someone who would put Sol Ring in literally every deck is wasting slots. Some decks don't need Sol Ring because they don't have a use for colorless mana or they would benefit more from draw or their strategy favors creature-based ramp or their plan is to kill while everyone else is setting up. Sometimes it's a choice of whether your pacing wants Sol Ring or Cultivate, and other times you just want to hit 4 mana and never draw another land again. Commander selection and deck strategy have a large impact on the kinds of resource management that are needed, and ramp is only one piece of the picture. I disagree that running Sol Ring (or other fast mana) in every deck is always an optimal choice, and I enjoy the fact that not everyone sees it this way. This gives me a chance to test my understanding of the game against theirs, and that's what makes deckbuilding fun for me.

I think what this all boils down to, though, is that the faster-ramping deck is probably still stronger overall?

I guess my position is that the deck that accesses its needed resources faster is probably stronger, but ramp is only the key if access to mana is what is limiting your speed. Sometimes Mana Vault launches you 3 turns ahead and you win; sometimes it sits there waiting for you to draw something good, wishing you'd put in more cantrips or wheels. Some decks are so thirsty for mana there's no real point where you get diminishing returns, but most decks that over-stuff on ramp will consistently lose access to value cards.

If a card should go in every deck and you actually have to come up with a rationale for not running it as opposed to a justification for running it, then it's probably too good and would serve the format well to be removed.

I personally don't think it's an issue for all decks to require some attention to the question of how fast it needs to be and how much mana it really needs to work. To me, that falls under the regular learning curve of the game. If a player just chooses to jam in the most popular options, I think they are missing a chance to tailor their deck better. I think it's a positive element of the game to force players to have to consider that part of the process.

I can understand why a person would think fast mana is necessary (because a lot of people say it is), and I know what kind of un-fun pressures that puts on card choices. But as MustaKotka mentioned earlier in the thread, that much-sought turn 1 Sol Ring has only a marginal, and sometimes negative, impact on performance. I just don't think the pressure is really there to run ramp that you don't want to run, so the restriction is largely propaganda by Big Mana. (Either that or I'm just trying to convince everyone else to play slower so I can win.)

[anjinsan]

You literally said these exact things.  Maybe you didn't intend to say it, but I'm not sure how else I'm supposed to interpret the following.

I think you could interpret that as what it actually was, not "the format is fast so ramp is not needed" but "the format is fast because]/i] fast ramp exists". I'm also not sure what you mean by "needed"; I don't think we need all the ramp that does exist to exist in order for us to have a good format, but that's different to whether you need to play it as an individual player to keep up with all the other people who are playing it.

I think what you'd find with that is either games would last way longer than they need to because battlecruiser Magic now turns into trying to sink the Bismarck, or games speed up even further because people would shy away from the prohibitively expensive commanders (say 5-6 CMC or more) and play far cheaper, faster commanders (say 2-3 CMC max) who don't need to worry too much about ramp to go off and still effectively win by turn 6-8.  I have seen a good number of decks that don't need to ramp at all in order to gain a huge advantage very early.  Doing away with ramp would completely eliminate that middle ground and skew decks to one extreme or the other, leading to even greater power disparities and just some other mechanic that is "too good."

Do you think so?

Battlecruiser I don't think is really affected. Most battlecruiser decks probably aren't running the best ramp anyway, and if they are they're probably suffering the drawbacks far greater without taking best advantage of it. And, they're probably just waiting until they have big amounts of mana to do anything anyway. Even if they are slowed down a bit, are they actually significantly slower, or do they just spend an extra turn at the start going "draw, land, pass"?

You can make the exact same argument about card draw, removal spells, or even lands, for that matter.  Do you think we should do away with those as well?

This is true, but these things are a bit different. For starters, lands are all but necessary, just because of the way the game works. Now, actually, we could consider whether having lands is even a good idea in terms of game design precisely because of the way they work (you mentioned Hearthstone yourself, and it's an interesting comparison), but that's a whole other topic, and anyway it's not like you can simply remove them. Card draw is similar; you could well imagine a version of the game where you just draw more than one card per turn or something so that draw is less necessary and maybe card draw spells are worse to the point that they're less worth it.

But actually, these aren't really analogous, in a way that I think is slightly subtle. Ramp is really designed around one single trade-off: you spend mana now and/or cards in order to get more mana later. Therefore, if the balance of that trade-off always skews to one side or the other, the whole point of the design is kind of undone. Things like removal, though, are much more complicated in their interactions and can't be so simply reduced to so simple a trade-off. Even there, though, removal does occupy the same space; you're spending cards and mana to do something, and in EDH it's normally bad for you to be the one using the removal, and consequently some decks simply don't run much if any and simply aim to rush to their own victory much faster.

With the ramp situation, it adds a whole lot more fiddly dials and tweaks to alter the deck in a million subtle ways - and it adds a million ways to screw it up if you don't get it right. I find attempting to build around the variance issue caused by land and mana to be a fun part of the deckbuilding puzzle.

Really? It doesn't feel so much like a puzzle, to me, as just an opportunity for games to be ruined. Drawing 7 lands out of 10 cards is not fun. Missing land drops is not fun. And, the nature of the game is such that it pretty much isn't possible to build around it, not to the point that it can't happen to you; there's just too much random chance.

I also don't think it's terribly fun when one player (whomever it is) gets to drop a bunch of rocks and start doing big stuff early when someone else has just been playing like a land per turn. Looking at the table and realising that someone's got three mana per turn whilst someone else has seven always feels bad.

Someone who would put Sol Ring in literally every deck is wasting slots. Some decks don't need Sol Ring because they don't have a use for colorless mana or they would benefit more from draw or their strategy favors creature-based ramp or their plan is to kill while everyone else is setting up.

How many decks can't make use of Sol Ring, or can kill people without their own fast mana on turns 1-3?

... most decks that over-stuff on ramp will consistently lose access to value cards.

But "overstuffing" doesn't mean "running any ramp at all". Every deck wants several ramp cards, and yeah, you can have too many, but the equilibrium point for most decks is already at "lots".

so the restriction is largely propaganda by Big Mana.

No, big mana is stuff like The Caged Sun or Zendikar Resurgent. That's not at all the same as fast mana! (In fact, big mana is usually expensive enough that it is still a meaningful trade-off; something like Doubling Cube is really too slow most of the time, for example)