Deckstats Forum
English-language Forums => Commander Discussion => Topic started by: Judaspriester on October 08, 2019, 08:12:22 pm
-
Hey,
I've promissed that I'll post the power table I wrote together with dexflux some time ago. Here it is.
The following table seeks to rank the power level of individual Commander/EDH decks to better the playing conditions and level the playing field between decks.
Capabilities of each deck are categorized in between 0 to 5 in the following categories:
Manabase ☆☆☆☆☆
Tutors ☆☆☆☆☆
Acceleration ☆☆☆☆☆
Interaction ☆☆☆☆☆
Mana Curve ☆☆☆☆☆
Combo Potential ☆☆☆☆☆
Utility ☆☆☆☆☆
Card Power ☆☆☆☆☆
Synergy ☆☆☆☆☆
The categories are defined as followed:
Manabase (how consistent the deck potentially is regarding mana accessibility)
☆☆☆☆☆ - only basics and taplands/gainlands
★☆☆☆☆ - basics/taplands/utility lands
★★☆☆☆ - basics/taplands/few untapped nonbasics
★★★☆☆ - basics/taplands/many untapped nonbasics
★★★★☆ - shock (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=de&card=Shock)/fetch manabase + unfetchable nonbasics
★★★★★ - full suite of ABUR duals/shocks/fetches/powerful nonbasics
Tutors (how consistent the deck potentially is regarding card accessibility)
☆☆☆☆☆ - no tutors
★☆☆☆☆ - few high cmc tutors (e.g. Diabolic Tutor (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=de&card=Diabolic+Tutor))
★★☆☆☆ - few low cmc tutors (e.g. Demonic Tutor (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=de&card=Demonic+Tutor))
★★★☆☆ - many low cmc tutors (e.g. Vampiric, Mystical, Enlightened)
★★★★☆ - many low cmc tutors + other (repeatable) tutor cards (e.g. low cmc tutors + Sidisi, Rune-Scarred Demon (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=de&card=Rune-Scarred+Demon), etc)
★★★★★ - full suite of low cmc and/or deck relevant tutors
Acceleration (how fast the deck can generate large amounts of mana)
☆☆☆☆☆ - no ramp
★☆☆☆☆ - basic land ramp/no rocks
★★☆☆☆ - basic land ramp/Sol Ring (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=de&card=Sol+Ring)/signets
★★★☆☆ - nonbasic land ramp/higher density of rocks
★★★★☆ - mono green ramp or Urborg (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=de&card=Urborg)+Coffers
★★★★★ - full suite of rocks and ramp (e.g. Mana Vault (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=de&card=Mana+Vault), Mana Crypt (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=de&card=Mana+Crypt), Serra's Sanctum (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=de&card=Serra%27s+Sanctum), etc)
Interaction (how well the deck can interact with the board and other players)
☆☆☆☆☆ - no interaction
★☆☆☆☆ - very low interaction (e.g. two spell removal/counter suite)
★★☆☆☆ - low interaction (e.g. basic removal/counter suite + few boardwipes)
★★★☆☆ - medium interaction (e.g. low cost spot removal + modal boardwipes)
★★★★☆ - high interaction (e.g. extensive removal/counter suite + boardwipe suite)
★★★★★ - full control suite
Mana Curve (mana cost effiency)
☆☆☆☆☆ - extremely high average cmc (cmc >- 5)
★☆☆☆☆ - high average cmc (cmc <- 4.5)
★★☆☆☆ - medium average cmc (cmc <- 4)
★★★☆☆ - low average cmc (cmc <- 3.5)
★★★★☆ - very low average cmc (cmc <- 3)
★★★★★ - extremely low average cmc (cmc < 2.5)
Combo Potential (potential to win on the spot via combo and/or lock)
☆☆☆☆☆ - no (infinite) combos
★☆☆☆☆ - janky multiple card combo without redundancy and/or consistency
★★☆☆☆ - janky multiple card combo with redundancy (and potentially consistency)
★★★☆☆ - typical combo wins without redundancy and/or consistency (e.g. Kiki-Jiki combos)
★★★★☆ - typical combo wins with redundancy (and potentially consistency)
★★★★★ - typical combo wins with redundancy and consistency (and potentially protection)
Utility (access to utility effects)
☆☆☆☆☆ - no utility
★☆☆☆☆ - few utility cards (e.g. Bojuka Bog (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=de&card=Bojuka+Bog) and Ghitu Encampment (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=de&card=Ghitu+Encampment))
★★☆☆☆ - high power utility at high cost (e.g. card draw on lands for 5 mana)
★★★☆☆ - moderate and high power utility at moderate cost
★★★★☆ - high power utility at low cost (e.g. Maze of Ith (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=de&card=Maze+of+Ith))
★★★★★ - abundant high power utility at low cost (e.g. Maze of Ith (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=de&card=Maze+of+Ith))
Card Power (amount of individually powerful cards / average card power level)
☆☆☆☆☆ - very low individual card power (e.g. only commons or cards that are usually dead in hand)
★☆☆☆☆ - low individual card power
★★☆☆☆ - medium individual card power (e.g. most bulk rare cards)
★★★☆☆ - high individual card power (e.g. most planeswalkers)
★★★★☆ - very high individual card power (e.g. Parallel Lives (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=de&card=Parallel+Lives), planeswalkers, Atraxa)
★★★★★ - extremely high individual card power (e.g. Wurmcoil Engine (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=de&card=Wurmcoil+Engine), Ulamog, Doubling Season (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=de&card=Doubling+Season))
Synergy (synergistic value of possible card combinations)
☆☆☆☆☆ - essentially just a bunch of cards with no effects
★☆☆☆☆ - the barest minimum of synergy - cards interact with each other at all
★★☆☆☆ - useful synergies, but relatively harmless (e.g. blinking Mulldrifter (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=de&card=Mulldrifter))
★★★☆☆ - less harmless (e.g. repeated blinking of Mulldrifter (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=de&card=Mulldrifter), Deadeye Navigator (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=de&card=Deadeye+Navigator) synergies)
★★★★☆ - dangerous (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=de&card=Dangerous) (e.g. Brago blinking the board for five triggers or more per turn)
★★★★★ - extremely dangerous (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=de&card=Dangerous) (e.g. Doubling Season (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=de&card=Doubling+Season) into planeswalkers)
I've also added a pdf with a printable summary. If I haven't make any mistakes here, the size should fit with the normal card size, so you can put the summary in the deck box.
The table won't cover every problem, and there may still be strong and weak 3 star decks, but it should at least help to smooth out the matches.
-
Hey man.
This is awesome. Seems really comprehensive and should yield consistent results for people. Really cool document.
One potential future improvement that could be made if you feel inclined would be to update from a 1-5 to a 1-6 rating system. Scoring within an even range is widely considered more useful as it forces people to lean one side or the other. On a 1-5 scale it is very easy for people to sit in the middle, but those people would then be encouraged to lean towards a 3 (slightly weaker) or 4 (slightly stronger) result.
I appreciate that there is a 0 option as it stands but there is an argument that anyone who wants to make use of this is probably not going to be a zero.
Just an idea if you fancy it. I've read quite a bit on the subject for work and pretty much everything I read recommends 1-6 so thought I'd pass on the idea.
Either way though, this is really good and I'll certainly be using it in my playgroup.
Cheers for doing the legwork and writing it all down in a coherent fashion
-
@judaspriester - This is AWESOME!!! I already like this better than the 10 point scale that I have seen, which has always seemed completely subjective and arbitrary to me.
Just curious how your group uses this table. Do you calculate an overall ranking of your deck? (ex: my mana base is a zero, all other categories are a 5, therefore my deck is 4.5 stars)? Or do you discuss your deck on each category separately?
The first 5 categories seem very straight forward and simple, as objective qualities have been included in each category.
The last 4 categories, though, seem as subjective as the general 10 point list. How does your group overcome (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Overcome) this subjectiveness?
Combo Potential: It is my experience, that unless the deck was built to be a 5, people claim they have no combo potential. They later discover all kinds of combo potential as they play the deck.
Utility: I'll be honest, I don't really know what this word means. I bet most other people really can't define it either. I've been playing Magic since Revised. I've been playing Commander REGULARLY since 2011. I don't know the difference between a "utility card" and a card that has an effect that is good for my deck. Where does utility end and interaction/card power/synergy begin?
Card Power: again, this is the entire problem with the 10 point scale. Different people and different playgroups evaluate cards differently. My playgroup may not think that Cyclonic Rift (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Cyclonic+Rift) is a very big deal. But I may go to another playgroup that feels it is so powerful as to merit banning.
Synergy: It is easy to see the synergy difference between a 0 star and a 5 star deck. But what about evaluating between a 2 and a 3? Or a 3 and a 4? Again, very subjective.
Again, this chart is AWESOME!!! Don't take these questions as a complete criticism. I'm not trying to pee no your cornflakes here. I'm curious how your group(s) address these issues. I'm curious to use something like this with my group to help us all be on the same page.
-
Well, the point is that we invented this for our playgroup some time ago, but never really put the list to use.
For the points, we tried to add some examples, but I agree with you that it will be difficult sometimes to say this is 2 or 3 star in some categories. But with a scaling of 0-45 in total, a inaccuracy of 1-2 stars shouldn't be a that big deal.
about the subjective stuff, yeah, I agree with you that it can be difficult, but I think at least within an existing meta, it is possible to roughly describe these points. I've got alot of discussions with Deflux about these 4, but we finally decided to add them and then look what happends.
The idea for usage was to take the average of all categories and then try to match decks similar decks together.
In general, I don't think this table is enough to assure matches on a equal level. but its a foundation from where you can start to discuss how strong a deck is compared to another one.
-
Alright, let's try this out. I'll try to include a wide variety of decks.
Captain Sisay (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Captain+Sisay)
This was definitely my strongest deck. I say "was" because without Paradox Engine (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Paradox+Engine), it's just a fancy stax deck. This deck could consistently win turn 4, and had an adaptive stax strategy to deal with the faster decks.
Mana Base: ★★★☆☆ - basics/taplands/many untapped nonbasics. No taplands, but also no fetch lands. To be fair, this is true for all of my decks.
Tutors: ★★★★☆ - many low cmc tutors + other (repeatable) tutor cards (e.g. low cmc tutors + Sidisi, Rune-Scarred Demon (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Rune-Scarred+Demon), etc) I only really needed Enlightened Tutor (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Enlightened+Tutor), Worldly Tutor (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Worldly+Tutor), and a few others to get some more specific cards (Namely Scavenging Ooze (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Scavenging+Ooze) and Containment Priest (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Containment+Priest)). Sisay (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Sisay) could search for almost everything I'd need.
Acceleration: ★★★★★ - full suite of rocks and ramp (e.g. Mana Vault (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Mana+Vault), Mana Crypt (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Mana+Crypt), Serra's Sanctum (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Serra%27s+Sanctum), etc). Ramp was super important for this deck.
Interaction: ★★★☆☆ - medium interaction (e.g. low cost spot removal + modal boardwipes). No boardwipes, but the removal I did have was top-notch.
Mana Curve: ★★★★★ - extremely low average cmc (cmc < 2.5).
Combo Potential: ★★★★★ - typical combo wins with redundancy and consistency (and potentially protection). Assuming it was safe, consistent turn 4 wins. There was also Dosan the Falling Leaf (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Dosan+the+Falling+Leaf) and stuff like Apostle's Blessing (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Apostle%27s+Blessing) to protect both Sisay (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Sisay) and Paradox Engine (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Paradox+Engine).
Utility: ★★★☆☆ - moderate and high power utility at moderate cost. I'm not liking how utility is defined. I had a lot of high power utility, but it wasn't always low cost. Stuff like Linvala, Keeper of Silence (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Linvala%2C+Keeper+of+Silence) and Karn, the Great Creator (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Karn%2C+the+Great+Creator) could shut down entire strategies. And when I needed the game to end (and didn't have Paradox Engine (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Paradox+Engine)) I'd go for Iona, Shield of Emeria (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Iona%2C+Shield+of+Emeria) or Brisela, Voice of Nightmares (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Brisela%2C+Voice+of+Nightmares).
Card Power: ★★★★★ - extremely high individual card power (e.g. Wurmcoil Engine (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Wurmcoil+Engine), Ulamog, Doubling Season (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Doubling+Season)).
Synergy: ★☆☆☆☆ - the barest minimum of synergy - cards interact with each other at all.
Overall: 3.77 (★★★★☆, approximately). Seems a little low for what I expect to be my best deck.
Mishra, Artificer Prodigy (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Mishra%2C+Artificer+Prodigy)
This deck almost entirely depended on Possibility Storm (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Possibility+Storm). As a result, it didn't have much of a backup plan (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Backup+Plan), and had huge consistency problems. It was also self-destructive... because it revolved around Possibility Storm (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Possibility+Storm).
Mana Base: ★★★☆☆ - basics/taplands/many untapped nonbasics
Tutors: ★★☆☆☆ - few low cmc tutors (e.g. Demonic Tutor (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Demonic+Tutor)).
Acceleration: ★★★☆☆ - nonbasic land ramp/higher density of rocks
Interaction: ★☆☆☆☆ - very low interaction (e.g. two spell removal/counter suite)
Mana Curve: ★★★★☆ - very low average cmc (cmc <- 3)
Combo Potential: ★☆☆☆☆ - janky multiple card combo without redundancy and/or consistency
Utility: ★★☆☆☆ - high power utility at high cost (e.g. card draw on lands for 5 mana)
Card Power: ★★☆☆☆ - medium individual card power (e.g. most bulk rare cards)
Synergy: ★★☆☆☆ - useful synergies, but relatively harmless (e.g. blinking Mulldrifter (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Mulldrifter))
Overall: 2.55 (★★★☆☆ approximately). Fair assessment. This was one of my weaker decks.
The Scarab God (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=The+Scarab+God)
This deck is a little crazy. I've had some really weird plays with it, because of the interactions with both my creatures and my opponents' coming back from the graveyard.
Mana Base: ★★★☆☆ - basics/taplands/many untapped nonbasics
Tutors: ★★☆☆☆ - few low cmc tutors (e.g. Demonic Tutor (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Demonic+Tutor))
Acceleration: ★★☆☆☆ - basic land ramp/Sol Ring (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Sol+Ring)/signets. These colors don't have many good options. maybe I should finally test out Charmed Pendant (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Charmed+Pendant).
Interaction: ★★★☆☆ - medium interaction (e.g. low cost spot removal + modal boardwipes). Artifact removal is garbage. I'm stuck using Meteor Golem (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Meteor+Golem). Meteor Golem (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Meteor+Golem)! That's Bojuka Bog (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Bojuka+Bog) level bad.
Mana Curve: ★★★☆☆ - low average cmc (cmc <- 3.5)
Combo Potential: ☆☆☆☆☆ - no (infinite) combos. However, I do sometimes steal other peoples combos. Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Kiki-Jiki%2C+Mirror+Breaker) and Combat Celebrant (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Combat+Celebrant) were already in my opponent's graveyard. What am I going to do? Not grab them?
Utility: ★★★★★ - abundant high power utility at low cost (e.g. Maze of Ith (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Maze+of+Ith))
Card Power: ★★★★☆ - very high individual card power (e.g. Parallel Lives (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Parallel+Lives), planeswalkers, Atraxa)
Synergy: ★★★☆☆ - less harmless (e.g. repeated blinking of Mulldrifter (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Mulldrifter), Deadeye Navigator (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Deadeye+Navigator) synergies)
Overall: 2.88 (★★★☆☆ approximately). Hmm... alright... I feel like it should be higher than this. While this deck lacks tutors, the card advantage is very high, mostly from various card draw effects, The Scarab God (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=The+Scarab+God)'s scry trigger, and the copious amounts of graveyard recursion.
Edric, Spymaster of Trest (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Edric%2C+Spymaster+of+Trest)
Currently my strongest deck (RIP Sisay (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Sisay)). A very high interaction and heavy card draw deck. It wins by looping extra turn spells non-infinitely.
Mana Base: ★★★☆☆ - basics/taplands/many untapped nonbasics
Tutors: ★★☆☆☆ - few low cmc tutors (e.g. Demonic Tutor (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Demonic+Tutor)).
Acceleration: [blank]. Not sure how to rate this. The deck doesn't really need ramp (low mana curve). I have a few elves and Sol Ring (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Sol+Ring), but that's about it. Probably a ★★☆☆☆ rating.
Interaction: ★★★★★ - full control suite
Mana Curve: ★★★★★ - extremely low average cmc (cmc < 2.5). I mean, just look at it.
(https://i.imgur.com/dEbIexm.jpg)
Combo Potential: ★★★★★ - typical combo wins with redundancy and consistency (and potentially protection)
Utility: [blank]. I don't really know what else this deck needs besides removal and counterspells. I mean, it's got Null Rod (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Null+Rod). Probably a ★★★★☆.
Card Power: ★☆☆☆☆ - low individual card power. In any other deck, Faerie Miscreant (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Faerie+Miscreant) would suck.
Synergy: ★★☆☆☆ - useful synergies, but relatively harmless (e.g. blinking Mulldrifter (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Mulldrifter)). Is card draw off of Edric synergy?
Overall: 3.22 (★★★☆☆ approximately). Really need to find a better way of averaging the ratings.
-
Hmm.. according to Moganators feedback, I think we need something better than taking the average. The question is, what would be better?
For the "soft" criterias: if you got some ideas how to clarify them, I'm open for suggestions. If you think some of them should be replaced/removed, we can also talk about that.
-
I think you're too harsh. You should probably rate the deck for more in terms of what it needs, on an abstract level. If my Esper deck desperately needs better ramp than signets but none is available it's going to get a 2/5 for ramp. But if your CMC is below 2 I don't think you need any. That's 5/5 for being the best possible, ever, out of all cards that exist.
-
I think implementing some sort of weight multiplier to the categories would help.
For example, I have a Jhoira, Weatherlight Captain (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Jhoira%2C+Weatherlight+Captain) storm deck with an average cmc of 1.7. This deck doesn't care as much about ramp but cares massively about synergies.
Orchestrating a scoring technique that somehow takes this into consideration might mean the overall score is more reflective of the things the deck wants to achieve.
Off the top of my head, it could be something like this:
We have 9 categories: Mana Base, Tutors, Acceleration, Interaction, Mana Curve, Combo Potential, Utility, Card Power, Synergy.
We order these in priority order for what the deck wants. Using Jhoira as an example, it might end up like this:
1. Synergy
2. Combo Potential
3. Mana Curve
4. Utility
5. Tutors
6. Interaction
7. Card Power
8. Acceleration
9. Mana Base
All this deck cares about is storming off. It wants cheap and free artifacts to trigger Jhoira to draw more cards to play more cards to increase the storm count. Everything in it is cheap or free, so it doesn't need too much acceleration and is fine with basics (basically once it hits 4 mana it goes off). It doesn't care much about individual cards so card power and tutors are less important. It does care about triggering Jhoira over and over. A little bit of interaction just in case.
So, now we have our order, let's start adding in some multipliers for relevance:
Category Star Rating Multiplier Score
Synergy 4 9 36
Combo Potential 4 8 32
Mana Curve 4 7 28
Utility 3 6 18
Tutors 3 5 15
Interaction 2 4 8
Card Power 2 3 6
Acceleration 3 2 6
Mana Base 2 1 2
So just taking an average of the start rating we end up with a 3.0 star deck. ((4+4+4+3+3+2+2+3+2) / 9)
If we add up the weighted scores, we get to 151. Divide that by 5 to get our equivalent total star rating (30.2), then divide by 9 to get our average - 3.25
It's still pretty inline with the original score, but it has given a little benefit in the areas the deck cares about and has been a little lenient in the areas the deck doesn't care about, giving it an overall better average.
If people can be bothered with it, this kind of thing might be slightly more reflective of what a deck's true score is as it goes some way to providing a score based on context.
Just a thought. If people like the idea, feel free to use and adapt it to your needs.
-
@Judaspriester: Neat list, much appreciated!
@Morganator: Fair assessments. Unweighted mean does not do reality justice (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=de&card=Justice).
@CleanBelwas: Quite the elegant solution!
Great Forum :)
-
Thank you all for the replies and criticism!
I like the idea of weighted values! Might need to test some variations of that.
As for the soft criteria, like utility, I think it would be better to clarify as far as possible (the list is getting old by now and of course our pool of knowledge of deckbuilding has become larger as well). The given examples for each category are fairly incomplete, too, so I'd like bolster them, as well.
What the list does not do well is judge based on matchups. Decks may be similarily strong, but one deck's strategy has some advantage against the other's. But that should be within reason not to measure given the singleton nature of the format.
-
I've thought about the comments and suggestions.
first of all, I think we should concider the abilities of the colorcombination we picked while evaluating the deck. E.g. accelleration in mono white is very hard, but if I go close to the possible maximum (just excluding some inefficient cards) it should end up with 4-5 stars, even if this isn't comparable to a mono green deck with the same rating.
For the problem that the table doesn't cover some strenghts right, I would prefere a similar but easier solution than CleanBelwas suggested.
My problem with his solution is, that you'll have to weight all 9 categories compared to each other. This can be time consuming if you want to make this accurate and even then, there is some space for discussions.
In stead I would suggest taking 1 main category that has the weight 3 and 2 important categories with the weight 2. the remaining 6 categories stay at weight 1. Then get the total star rating and divide the outcome by 13.
I think this is the better solution since it's much easier to pick 3 important categories for a given deck in stead of ranking the whole catalog (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=de&card=Catalog).
-
As for the soft criteria, like utility, I think it would be better to clarify as far as possible (the list is getting old by now and of course our pool of knowledge of deckbuilding has become larger as well). The given examples for each category are fairly incomplete, too, so I'd like bolster them, as well.
This is a great idea. Examples tend to help people contextualise things and should help people score more accurately.
What the list does not do well is judge based on matchups. Decks may be similarily strong, but one deck's strategy has some advantage against the other's. But that should be within reason not to measure given the singleton nature of the format.
I think this is fine. This list seems really good at figuring out power level in a vacuum, but naturally there are going to be good match ups and bad ones for any deck. People should be able to apply common sense and know what kind of decks theirs are good and bad against.
Again though, this seems like a really solid foundation to build upon for accurately judging power levels, so cheers to you guys for putting in the time and effort and sharing it with the rest of us.
-
Did some literal back of the envelope math here and ended up getting very similar scores for my decks. They're all hovering around 2.5 which probably isn't true because I know some are better than others. I think the whole average thing flattens deck variety, surprisingly, putting almost all decks in the mid category. We should actually test it out with some cEDH decks and see them get 4-point averages despite them being the best of the best.
The categories should definitely be more specific, giving substantially more credit for higher power levels.
Example; Mana Base:
1 - no duals or tapped duals
2 - conditional untapped duals
3 - shocks
4 - shocks and fetches
5 - shocks, fetches and ABUR duals
Example; Synergy:
1 - no synergy beyond basic tribal (e.g. Coat of Arms (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Coat+of+Arms), Lieges)
2 - some two-card synergies
3 - half of the deck has focused synergy (e.g. multiple sources and targets for untapping)
4 - most cards can interact with each other (e.g. almost everything is applicable for Krark-Clan Ironworks (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Krark-Clan+Ironworks), Food Chain (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Food+Chain), etc)
5 - almost all cards can interact with each other in a variety of ways
Example; Interaction:
1 - basic removal (e.g. Disenchant (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Disenchant), Murder (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Murder)), basic wipes
2 - low cost removal, modal wipes
3 - modal/asymmetric wipes, low cost extensive removal
4 - some control, asymmetric wipes, low-cost counters or protection
5 - extensive control, asymmetric wipes, low cost counters or protection (e.g. Force of Will (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Force+of+Will) and Pact of Negation (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Pact+of+Negation))
Also note how I trunkated the categories. You could give yourself a zero but I like the idea that a good average deck is 3 and not 2.5. Scoring out of 6 seems a bit arbitrary.
***
I think you should really compare apples to apples. Green has access to some really good ramp and green should rightly get some high marks for ramp. Contrast: there's probably a cap to how much ramp you can put into a red deck so they shouldn't really get that good grades. You're trying to assess whether this deck is a good match for that deck in a pub environment. If you know your score beforehand it's all good or if you can hand out a piece of paper it's all good but you can't say "these are my rules and those are yours" based on the colour you're playing.
***
Weighting categories is easy, btw: just cap the points you could get. If you have a really important category you can give it seven degrees of freedom but for a less important one, like mana base, you could let people choose between "no untapped duals", "untapped conditional duals, some shocks" and "full suite of shocks, fetches and ABUR duals". That way the category can only contribute three points to the overall score.
-
Did some literal back of the envelope math here and ended up getting very similar scores for my decks. They're all hovering around 2.5 which probably isn't true because I know some are better than others. I think the whole average thing flattens deck variety, surprisingly, putting almost all decks in the mid category. We should actually test it out with some cEDH decks and see them get 4-point averages despite them being the best of the best.
As for cEDH, 4,x (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=X) values would be fine given the system, since a 5,0 average would mean to excel in any category, which even the best decks just don't do. Exactly 5 is currently meant as an "impossible value", or ceiling. It's more problematic when non-cEDH decks get similar values when they just could not compete. This needs testing.
Other than that, your examples for the given categories should help to evaluate. Just note: a mono color deck may use just basics and have the most efficient manabase possible. That should be considered in the examples.
Also note how I trunkated the categories. You could give yourself a zero but I like the idea that a good average deck is 3 and not 2.5. Scoring out of 6 seems a bit arbitrary.
I'm in favor of the 1 to 6 system that CleanBelwas mentioned. That forces the user to lean more into a direction instead of opting for average values if in doubt.
I think you should really compare apples to apples. Green has access to some really good ramp and green should rightly get some high marks for ramp. Contrast: there's probably a cap to how much ramp you can put into a red deck so they shouldn't really get that good grades. You're trying to assess whether this deck is a good match for that deck in a pub environment. If you know your score beforehand it's all good or if you can hand out a piece of paper it's all good but you can't say "these are my rules and those are yours" based on the colour you're playing.
I agree. A nongreen deck just has less and worse options for ramp. Therefore, no weighting according to color is needed - just state the fact and embrace that the deck isn't as strong in that regard.
-
For the problem that the table doesn't cover some strenghts right, I would prefere a similar but easier solution than CleanBelwas suggested.
My problem with his solution is, that you'll have to weight all 9 categories compared to each other. This can be time consuming if you want to make this accurate and even then, there is some space for discussions.
In stead I would suggest taking 1 main category that has the weight 3 and 2 important categories with the weight 2. the remaining 6 categories stay at weight 1. Then get the total star rating and divide the outcome by 13.
I think this is the better solution since it's much easier to pick 3 important categories for a given deck in stead of ranking the whole catalog (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=de&card=Catalog).
This sounds decent. Even when I was just writing out my initial idea I was thinking "this is taking bloody ages".
Just adding weight to a few key categories could be a nice middle ground between accurate representation and speed.
-
Other than that, your examples for the given categories should help to evaluate. Just note: a mono color deck may use just basics and have the most efficient manabase possible. That should be considered in the examples.
Yeah, I didn't take that into account... Maybe the scale is relevant to gameplay, not the actual cards themselves.
0 - can produce mana
1 - can produce relevant colours one turn behind the curve
2 - can produce relevant colours one turn behind the curve and consistently
3 - can produce multiples of relevant colours immediately
4 - can produce multiples of relevant colours immediately and consistently
5 - can produce multiples of relevant colours immediately, consistently and has utility lands or above curve land ramp (e.g. Coffers, Urborg (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Urborg), City of Traitors (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=City+of+Traitors), Ancient Tomb (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Ancient+Tomb))
Better? A monocolour deck with just basics will get a 4. A shock-fetch-ABUR-dual rainbow monstrosity will also get a 4.
Perhaps that's the key: we can quantify the differences if we talk about how quickly or effectively something can be achieved and if any of the categories contribute to that. A sort of "relative actions per round", if you will. That doesn't really care whether you're an infinite combo deck (if you discount the turn you win) or a heavy tax player (you can still make big effects per round compared to your opponents if they can't play anything).
And ok, 0-5 it is (scoring out of 6), I'm not going to argue about that.
-
Just adding weight to a few key categories could be a nice middle ground between accurate representation and speed.
Again, weights are essentially just an artificial way to expand a category. A scale of 0-5 with a weight of 2 is just 0-11. You should be able to quantify the difference between a 7 and an 8, otherwise weights don't make any sense. This is why I actually proposed cutting some categories short. Mana base is a good one: maybe six categories is a bit too much, adding a .5 weight to it would give us three categories to work with.
See this:
0 - Produces relevant colours one turn behind the curve
1 - Produces relevant colours immediately
2 - Produces relevant colours ahead of curve.
Clean and simple, adds a lower modifier/weight to the whole thing (as in don't average averages, just tally up all points and divide by maximum score).
-
Just adding weight to a few key categories could be a nice middle ground between accurate representation and speed.
Again, weights are essentially just an artificial way to expand a category. A scale of 0-5 with a weight of 2 is just 0-11. You should be able to quantify the difference between a 7 and an 8, otherwise weights don't make any sense. This is why I actually proposed cutting some categories short. Mana base is a good one: maybe six categories is a bit too much, adding a .5 weight to it would give us three categories to work with.
See this:
0 - Produces relevant colours one turn behind the curve
1 - Produces relevant colours immediately
2 - Produces relevant colours ahead of curve.
Clean and simple, adds a lower modifier/weight to the whole thing (as in don't average averages, just tally up all points and divide by maximum score).
I see what you're saying, but the important part about weight is that it provides context. Different decks will add their weight to different categories depending on what they want to achieve, and weight allows them to do this without having to come up with the subtle variations between the examples given. It can be universal in it's application and can be calculated with ease, meaning you don't have to quantify the difference between a 7 and an 8.
I think it would depend on what scoring system you went with. Weights are good when you take an average. If your preferred method is calculating a score derived from a total score, then they aren't.
If you want to say "I have a 3.5 star deck" then weighting is fine.
If you want to say "My deck scores 42 out of 50" then weighting is less useful, like you say, you just reduce the number of potential score options available for the less important or more universal categories to the deck.
-
And ok, 0-5 it is (scoring out of 6), I'm not going to argue about that.
The point I made and dexflux agreed with was that scoring should be 1-6, not 0-5. It's not just about scoring out of 6, but making sure that those scores are reflective.
Realistically, no one using this is likely to have a deck that scores a 0 in a category, so really it's a 1-5 system as it stands.
Changing that to be a 1-6 system means that it is harder to sit on the fence about your deck. You have to think "Is my deck a bit better at this than normal, or a bit worse".
People have a tendency to sit on 3 out of 5 because it's easy, especially if they are not really sure, but given that the aim of this is to encourage people to come up with accurate summaries of their deck's power level, not allowing fence sitting should hopefully go some way towards that.
-
Just adding weight to a few key categories could be a nice middle ground between accurate representation and speed.
Again, weights are essentially just an artificial way to expand a category. A scale of 0-5 with a weight of 2 is just 0-11. You should be able to quantify the difference between a 7 and an 8, otherwise weights don't make any sense.
While I understand your comment on weights, I don't exactly agree with you here. Weighting the whole thing like CleanBelwas initially mentioned, would blow things off. but without a weight things start to group in the middle. besides that, since we only have natrual numbers for the categories and the weight is also natural, it stays in the same number of categories. they just change from 0,1,2,3,4,5 to 0,2,4,6,8,10.
This is why I actually proposed cutting some categories short. Mana base is a good one: maybe six categories is a bit too much, adding a .5 weight to it would give us three categories to work with.
See this:
0 - Produces relevant colours one turn behind the curve
1 - Produces relevant colours immediately
2 - Produces relevant colours ahead of curve.
Clean and simple, adds a lower modifier/weight to the whole thing (as in don't average averages, just tally up all points and divide by maximum score).
About your suggestion about lands, well, I don't think it would work that good. I may be wrong, but i think between a) shocks, b) shocks + fetches and c) shocks + fetches + duals are big differences in consistence, especially with 3+ colors. in your 3 category model I'm not sure if I shall put all 3 cases in 1, or a) in 1 and b) & c) in 2. In both cases it feels wrong for me.
The manabase is a difficult topic, because it's nearly irellevant for mono (like deflux already pointed out) and becomes more and more important with each additional color.
In general, I think we should maybe slow down a little. There will always be corner cases that break this powertable, even if we spend a whole year discussing. for me it should be primally an indicator for the deck power besides the feelings of the player(s).
If you want to say "I have a 3.5 star deck" then weighting is fine.
If you want to say "My deck scores 42 out of 50" then weighting is less useful, like you say, you just reduce the number of potential score options available for the less important or more universal categories to the deck.
CleanBelwars wrote this while I was typing, and I think he's on the right track here. At least for me this table goes towards "I have a 3.5 star deck".
-
I wasn't kidding when I said that I need to find a better way of averaging the ranks. You're going to see that the middle score (2.5 in our case) will have higher variance than the extremes (0 and 5). Fortunately...
Wait... Shoot...
Do you know what my favorite thing about Deckstats is? The stats.
Almost forgot to say that.
There are several different ways of determining ranks. All kinds, because, unfortunately, no one has really figured out the best way to rank things for all situations, or even most situations. It's not like a chi-squared test or ANOVA, which are based on measured data. Rank tests are often based on opinion. There is no way to determine which sugar is "tastiest" because what tastes good to you is based on opinion. Some people like glucose most, some like fructose, and some weirdos might like chitin best. So while you can gather people's opinions, there is no exact measure.
One of the other issues with rank tests (besides being based largely on opinion) is that not all categories have the same strength. For this one that we just did, we valued having a perfect land-base with ABUR duals and fetches just as good as having a super-consistent combo. Which is of course not the case. But how much more important is the combo? If we add more weight to it, how much more do we add? This will likely end up being based on an arbitrary value.
I'm going to do some thinking tonight, and looking at different rank tests. There's got to be a good one for what we want here.
-
Considering mana base is meant to help a combo perhaps it would be wise to only look at the combos and their redundancy as criteria. Thus we imply that a good mana base (good protection, tutors etc) will add to the consistency, which is probably what we're sort-of measuring here. Consistency and effectiveness.
-
Combo consistency shouldn't be a category. It's a product of the entire process. You should look at things like how many cards is your combo, how expensive are they, how dead are they outside of the combo, do you have an easy way to assemble the combo (Flash (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Flash) Hulk) or do you have to manually get all your combo pieces.
-
Good guide for deck building. My style doesn't score well, as I'm at almost exactly 2.0 for all my decks, but I win 35-45% of my games. I think it applies more for CEDH and decks hoping for turn 3-4 wins. One thing that I think it's missing is card draw. Command Zone always talks about the two things every deck needs is card draw and mana ramp.
-
Good guide for deck building. My style doesn't score well, as I'm at almost exactly 2.0 for all my decks, but I win 35-45% of my games. I think it applies more for CEDH and decks hoping for turn 3-4 wins. One thing that I think it's missing is card draw. Command Zone always talks about the two things every deck needs is card draw and mana ramp.
I was thinking about this too. Maybe there is an argument that tutors should be changed to card advantage. Like you say, it's common thing every deck wants, but also there are some decks that don't care as much about specific cards. My Jhoira deck I used in a previous example doesn't really care a about any one card in particular, so while I run trophy and trinket mage (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Trinket+Mage) and the like, tutoring isn't a huge part of what makes it win, it's just the raw card advantage.
Could be an idea for a potential change.
-
Good guide for deck building. My style doesn't score well, as I'm at almost exactly 2.0 for all my decks, but I win 35-45% of my games. I think it applies more for CEDH and decks hoping for turn 3-4 wins. One thing that I think it's missing is card draw. Command Zone always talks about the two things every deck needs is card draw and mana ramp.
I was thinking about this too. Maybe there is an argument that tutors should be changed to card advantage. Like you say, it's common thing every deck wants, but also there are some decks that don't care as much about specific cards. My Jhoira deck I used in a previous example doesn't really care a about any one card in particular, so while I run trophy and trinket mage (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Trinket+Mage) and the like, tutoring isn't a huge part of what makes it win, it's just the raw card advantage.
Could be an idea for a potential change.
Hmm.. one option would be change tutors to card advantage, or (my personal preference, at least right now) sharpen the definition of utility, so that it's clear that card draw also counts in this section.
-
Good guide for deck building. My style doesn't score well, as I'm at almost exactly 2.0 for all my decks, but I win 35-45% of my games. I think it applies more for CEDH and decks hoping for turn 3-4 wins. One thing that I think it's missing is card draw. Command Zone always talks about the two things every deck needs is card draw and mana ramp.
I was thinking about this too. Maybe there is an argument that tutors should be changed to card advantage. Like you say, it's common thing every deck wants, but also there are some decks that don't care as much about specific cards. My Jhoira deck I used in a previous example doesn't really care a about any one card in particular, so while I run trophy and trinket mage (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Trinket+Mage) and the like, tutoring isn't a huge part of what makes it win, it's just the raw card advantage.
Could be an idea for a potential change.
Hmm.. one option would be change tutors to card advantage, or (my personal preference, at least right now) sharpen the definition of utility, so that it's clear that card draw also counts in this section.
Yea that sounds like a decent option too. It's you're brain child too so by all means go with your preference.
On a similar subject, how do we feel about Consistency as a category instead of Tutors? Tutors are basically there to provide consistency, but not every deck cares about specific cards (I keep coming back to Jhoira) and therefore run many tutors, but they can still be consistent.
The caveat to that, of course, is that consistency is quite a vague and subjective term anyway, whereas tutors are much easier to define and measure, which is more inkeeping with what we're trying to achieve here.
What are your thoughts?
-
Good guide for deck building. My style doesn't score well, as I'm at almost exactly 2.0 for all my decks, but I win 35-45% of my games. I think it applies more for CEDH and decks hoping for turn 3-4 wins. One thing that I think it's missing is card draw. Command Zone always talks about the two things every deck needs is card draw and mana ramp.
I was thinking about this too. Maybe there is an argument that tutors should be changed to card advantage. Like you say, it's common thing every deck wants, but also there are some decks that don't care as much about specific cards. My Jhoira deck I used in a previous example doesn't really care a about any one card in particular, so while I run trophy and trinket mage (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Trinket+Mage) and the like, tutoring isn't a huge part of what makes it win, it's just the raw card advantage.
Could be an idea for a potential change.
Hmm.. one option would be change tutors to card advantage, or (my personal preference, at least right now) sharpen the definition of utility, so that it's clear that card draw also counts in this section.
Yea that sounds like a decent option too. It's you're brain child too so by all means go with your preference.
On a similar subject, how do we feel about Consistency as a category instead of Tutors? Tutors are basically there to provide consistency, but not every deck cares about specific cards (I keep coming back to Jhoira) and therefore run many tutors, but they can still be consistent.
The caveat to that, of course, is that consistency is quite a vague and subjective term anyway, whereas tutors are much easier to define and measure, which is more inkeeping with what we're trying to achieve here.
What are your thoughts?
Depends on how you define consistency. It's of course a much broader term, but you can tell if a deck is consistent or not (as per probability of card draw, tutors, etc.). A problem would be that consistency as a concept bleeds into the rating of manabase, since a good manabase helps being consistent. Therefore, I would like to keep that separated. But: you could argue for measuring raw draw power somehow - how many cards you can draw at which efficiency is usually a great indicator of deck strength (if the drawn cards are not total jank, but we're assuming that decks are built to win with this evaluation method).
-
Well, I would like to get rid of this wague categories and use stuff that's kinda clear defined in stead. Tutors is a clear defined subject, you can count them and then think about the rating, but usually end up in a range like 3 or 4 stars.
consistency would be interesting, since it tells alot about the deck quality. but the problem is how do you want to measure this? For some archetypes like combo or storm, it can be kinda easy, since you aim to finish off at turn X (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=de&card=X) and you're usually able to say how likely this will happen. But if you play voltron, it's not that easy to say you've finished the table at turn x (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=de&card=X). Okay, this would result in a lower value since it's more inconsistent, but unless you've got a clear and somewhat consistent gameplan it gets harder and harder to measure this.
-
The numeric values describe consistency. You say it's hard to measure: this is exactly what we're doing through these criteria. Seriously, what do you think the number at the bottom should describe? "Power level" is too vague; does it measure consistency, raw combo speed, lock potential or what.
I say that it should measure consistency and effectiveness. These two combined usually means "tendency to win". That was my proposal. Feel free to disagree.
Consistency is a percentage of games where you were able to execute (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Execute) your strategy successfully.
Effectiveness or efficiency is [your progress towards win]/[their progress towards win]. As long as it's above 1 you're winning. You could get all fancy with differentials if you want, I don't care at the moment.
You can't really put a numerical value on something if you don't even know what you're trying to measure! Consistency is a sum of its parts: you need good mana base, draw, tutors, protection and a solid winning strategy, possibly redundant. Efficiency is the same: good ramp, low CMC and fewer moving parts. All in all: use things that you can count or observe directly and use them to establish consistency and efficiency and any other qualities that are hard to measure subjectively.
-
The numeric values describe consistency. You say it's hard to measure: this is exactly what we're doing through these criteria. Seriously, what do you think the number at the bottom should describe? "Power level" is too vague; does it measure consistency, raw combo speed, lock potential or what.
I say that it should measure consistency and effectiveness. These two combined usually means "tendency to win". That was my proposal. Feel free to disagree.
Consistency is a percentage of games where you were able to execute (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Execute) your strategy successfully.
Effectiveness or efficiency is [your progress towards win]/[their progress towards win]. As long as it's above 1 you're winning. You could get all fancy with differentials if you want, I don't care at the moment.
You can't really put a numerical value on something if you don't even know what you're trying to measure! Consistency is a sum of its parts: you need good mana base, draw, tutors, protection and a solid winning strategy, possibly redundant. Efficiency is the same: good ramp, low CMC and fewer moving parts. All in all: use things that you can count or observe directly and use them to establish consistency and efficiency and any other qualities that are hard to measure subjectively.
Hmm.. my conclusion of your post is that we should focus on stuff we can measure. Tutors, card draw, combo potential (size of the combo, redundancy etc.), these are things we can measure. The consistency and efficiency are the results of the factors we check and shouldn't be a criteria above the conclusion line.
-
All is true… the composition of the deck depends of too much variables (main theme, combos, synergy etc...) but normaly in old EDH it was : 1 Dragon as commander (Legendary Creature) about 30 lands (often 35 in "monsters deck"), about 30 creatures, about 10 artifacts and about 25-30 spells = 100
here we are...
-
All is true… the composition of the deck depends of too much variables (main theme, combos, synergy etc...) but normaly in old EDH it was : 1 Dragon as commander (Legendary Creature) about 30 lands (often 35 in "monsters deck"), about 30 creatures, about 10 artifacts and about 25-30 spells = 100
here we are...
Well, we are trying to measure how well (meaning: how effective and efficient) you can execute (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Execute) your gameplan, dependent on the condition that the goal is to win and nothing else (I tend to say that powerlevel estimates would be pointless otherwise, but a well balanced table of decks is (almost) always more fun than a lopsided one). Remember: Always feel free to play Commander/EDH like you want! The goal beyond winning is to have fun!
@everyone I'm thankful that this pet project (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Pet+Project) of Judaspriester and mine is discussed so lively here after our playgroup didn't even want to try it. We will try to refine it as much as possible, so that we can go beyond the 75% thing. Thank you so much.
-
Hmm.. my conclusion of your post is that we should focus on stuff we can measure. Tutors, card draw, combo potential (size of the combo, redundancy etc.), these are things we can measure. The consistency and efficiency are the results of the factors we check and shouldn't be a criteria above the conclusion line.
Just wanted to say you got my point exactly! :)
-
Well, we are trying to measure how well (meaning: how effective and efficient) you can execute (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Execute) your gameplan, dependent on the condition that the goal is to win and nothing else (I tend to say that powerlevel estimates would be pointless otherwise, but a well balanced table of decks is (almost) always more fun than a lopsided one). Remember: Always feel free to play Commander/EDH like you want! The goal beyond winning is to have fun!
Copy that… It's exactly the point, but in my opinion, we forget (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Forget) a essential point : Magic is also a random game, and a lot depend of the Draw, and how the deck is shuffle (See american method to understand that) and have an effect of how the cards get out of the deck…
thank a lot for your answer...
-
Well, we are trying to measure how well (meaning: how effective and efficient) you can execute (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Execute) your gameplan, dependent on the condition that the goal is to win and nothing else (I tend to say that powerlevel estimates would be pointless otherwise, but a well balanced table of decks is (almost) always more fun than a lopsided one). Remember: Always feel free to play Commander/EDH like you want! The goal beyond winning is to have fun!
Copy that… It's exactly the point, but in my opinion, we forget (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Forget) a essential point : Magic is also a random game, and a lot depend of the Draw, and how the deck is shuffle (See american method for understand that) and have an effect of how the cards get out of the deck…
thank a lot for your answer...
One goal of a competitively constructed deck is to minimize the randomness as much as possible. Of course it's always there, but you can work around it. Variance makes those games fun, too. We can't fully account for variance itself, but we can account for how much it is minimized. Like Morganator says: the fun thing about deckstats are the stats. I can't wait for the stats that Morganator is currently brewing for human (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Human) reading (if I remember Morganator's post correctly).
Feel free to add more thoughts :)
-
One goal of a competitively constructed deck is to minimize the randomness as much as possible. Of course it's always there, but you can work around it. Variance makes those games fun, too.
Yop, I tried to do this on this deck: https://deckstats.net/decks/112135/1432478-tribal-wizards-unleash-the-pow/fr (https://deckstats.net/decks/112135/1432478-tribal-wizards-unleash-the-pow/fr)
by reducing mana cost, decrease mana curve but it's hard to master in combinatorials
even, good idea to trying to ensure that...
-
I can't wait for the stats that Morganator is currently brewing for human (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Human) reading (if I remember Morganator's post correctly).
Did I make a post about this? I remember sending Judaspriester a private message about this, but I never posted it to the forums.
Oh well, the cat is out of the bag now. I better explain what I'm up to.
I've made a list of all the decks in my main play-group's meta. I'm now asking all of those people to rate the decks using the 1 to 10 scale. Then, once I've gathered all the data, I'm going to compare how the creator rated their decks, versus how their opponents rated the decks. Hopefully, this will provide insight (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Insight) into making the rating system more effective.
Also, because I'm discussing power levels, there are going to be copious amounts of DragonBall references. Stay tuned!
-
I think dexflux was refering to this post:
I wasn't kidding when I said that I need to find a better way of averaging the ranks. You're going to see that the middle score (2.5 in our case) will have higher variance than the extremes (0 and 5). Fortunately...
Wait... Shoot...
Do you know what my favorite thing about Deckstats is? The stats.
Almost forgot to say that.
There are several different ways of determining ranks. All kinds, because, unfortunately, no one has really figured out the best way to rank things for all situations, or even most situations. It's not like a chi-squared test or ANOVA, which are based on measured data. Rank tests are often based on opinion. There is no way to determine which sugar is "tastiest" because what tastes good to you is based on opinion. Some people like glucose most, some like fructose, and some weirdos might like chitin best. So while you can gather people's opinions, there is no exact measure.
One of the other issues with rank tests (besides being based largely on opinion) is that not all categories have the same strength. For this one that we just did, we valued having a perfect land-base with ABUR duals and fetches just as good as having a super-consistent combo. Which is of course not the case. But how much more important is the combo? If we add more weight to it, how much more do we add? This will likely end up being based on an arbitrary value.
I'm going to do some thinking tonight, and looking at different rank tests. There's got to be a good one for what we want here.
Besides that, you was already mentioning somewhere else, that you are recording some stats about your games. I'm just to lazy now to use the search. ::)
-
I think dexflux was refering to this post:
I wasn't kidding when I said that I need to find a better way of averaging the ranks. You're going to see that the middle score (2.5 in our case) will have higher variance than the extremes (0 and 5). Fortunately...
Wait... Shoot...
Do you know what my favorite thing about Deckstats is? The stats.
Almost forgot to say that.
There are several different ways of determining ranks. All kinds, because, unfortunately, no one has really figured out the best way to rank things for all situations, or even most situations. It's not like a chi-squared test or ANOVA, which are based on measured data. Rank tests are often based on opinion. There is no way to determine which sugar is "tastiest" because what tastes good to you is based on opinion. Some people like glucose most, some like fructose, and some weirdos might like chitin best. So while you can gather people's opinions, there is no exact measure.
One of the other issues with rank tests (besides being based largely on opinion) is that not all categories have the same strength. For this one that we just did, we valued having a perfect land-base with ABUR duals and fetches just as good as having a super-consistent combo. Which is of course not the case. But how much more important is the combo? If we add more weight to it, how much more do we add? This will likely end up being based on an arbitrary value.
I'm going to do some thinking tonight, and looking at different rank tests. There's got to be a good one for what we want here.
Besides that, you was already mentioning somewhere else, that you are recording some stats about your games. I'm just to lazy now to use the search. ::)
Exactly that one.
The stats will help us evaluate better. We don't have meta analysis like we do for Modern, Legacy or Standard, but we do have the cEDH decklist conglomerate, EDHRec, deckstats, etc. I might have flunked my probability theory exam, but I will try to make up for that in exercise regarding MTG stats. Thank you in advance, Morganator. I really like your work here.
-
Right yeah... The rank tests. I'm going to put those off until Judaspriester finishes the revisions for the checklist. Rank tests are difficult because you need to make sure you're using the right one. If anyone feels like looking into this, two of the more common ones are the Mann-Whitney U-test and the Wilcoxen Signed-rank test (they are all named after people). I want to make sure that I'll be using the right one before I go any further.
-
I'll try to talk with dexflux over the weekend and edit the initial post afterwards based on the feedback we've collected here.
-
Give me a second, I gotta pay three mana to cast Necromancy (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Necromancy) on this thread.
There we go.
I think that this checklist was a step in the right direction. It's moving away from the way to simplistic and opinion based rating system of 1-10. Each category had examples of what a 5 star rating would have, what a 4-star rating would have, etc. I like this, because it gives a reference point, instead of just saying "How many stars out of 5 would you give your mana base?"
I want to build on this. I think that we don't need so many categories to get an idea of how strong the deck is. And as we've seen, not all of the categories are as important for most decks (example: mono-colored decks don't need a fancy land-base, just basics). So let's trim these categories down. I've come up with one so far:
1. What turn do you usually get your commander out by?
I've found this to usually be a pretty good indicator of deck strength. Most cEDH decks get their commander out by turn 3 or sooner (partner commanders are the exception) and many strong casual decks will get their commander out a turn or two above curve. If you're casting a 6-mana commander on turn 6, it's an indication of either not enough mana ramp, or a slow gameplan. Possibly both.
So that's one. Another one should be about land bases. Which fortunately was already mentioned in this thread.
2. Does the deck get all of it's colors without using tapped lands?
Maybe someone else can word it better, but I think we all understand. If you're using lands that enter tapped, it slows you down. If you're using lands like Luxury Suite (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Luxury+Suite) and Sunpetal Grove (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Sunpetal+Grove) that conditionally enter tapped (and usually untapped), then mana shouldn't be a problem. Adding in fetches and ABUR duals does make the deck better, but it's not as significant a leap (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Leap) as going from tapped lands to untapped lands. Many decks will operate fine without fetches and OG duals.
Last one I can think of:
3. Can you consistently either win a game by turn 4 or consistently stop someone winning by turn 4?
Turn 4 is the turn that most cEDH decks try to combo off. So it's no surprise that the other decks will be ready to stop combos by this turn. Stax decks will have slowed the game down, and control decks likely have a removal spell or counterspell (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Counterspell) ready. If we want to talk about adding weights to categories, I think this one would have the most weight.
What other criteria do you think can we add?
-
I haven't forgotten this topic, the problem is finding a timeframe where Dexflux and I have the time to go through the feedback, discuss it, and apply it to the initial list.
The new ideas are going in a interesting direction. for point 3 I would have a different idea (that would fit better into the stars rating):
At which turn the deck has consistently/usually a serious impact on the game (e.g. win combos, stax, etc)?
here we would still need to differ a little between "I can win on turn 4", "I can lock down the table on turn 4" and "I manage to build up significant board presence on turn 4" but I think that's a solvable problem.
-
1. What turn do you usually get your commander out by?
I've found this to usually be a pretty good indicator of deck strength. Most cEDH decks get their commander out by turn 3 or sooner (partner commanders are the exception) and many strong casual decks will get their commander out a turn or two above curve. If you're casting a 6-mana commander on turn 6, it's an indication of either not enough mana ramp, or a slow gameplan. Possibly both.
I have to disagree on this one. I could get my Merieke Ri Berit (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Merieke+Ri+Berit) fairly consistently out on turn three but I would hardly call that an achievement because A) I don't usually want to do that B) I play taplands and still get her out. Something like Hope of Ghirapur (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Hope+of+Ghirapur) would totally ruin this category.
However... Casting commander ahead of curve is a good indication of ramp power. My friend won't cast Kozilek on T11 but more like T6-T7, which is an indication of really good ramp power. Perhaps the correct wording is: "how much ahead of the curve can you cast your commander?" I know something like Hope of Ghirapur (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Hope+of+Ghirapur) and Rhys the Redeemed (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Rhys+the+Redeemed) still get poor scores.
-
1. What turn do you usually get your commander out by?
I've found this to usually be a pretty good indicator of deck strength. Most cEDH decks get their commander out by turn 3 or sooner (partner commanders are the exception) and many strong casual decks will get their commander out a turn or two above curve. If you're casting a 6-mana commander on turn 6, it's an indication of either not enough mana ramp, or a slow gameplan. Possibly both.
I have to disagree on this one. I could get my Merieke Ri Berit (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Merieke+Ri+Berit) fairly consistently out on turn three but I would hardly call that an achievement because A) I don't usually want to do that B) I play taplands and still get her out. Something like Hope of Ghirapur (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Hope+of+Ghirapur) would totally ruin this category.
However... Casting commander ahead of curve is a good indication of ramp power. My friend won't cast Kozilek on T11 but more like T6-T7, which is an indication of really good ramp power. Perhaps the correct wording is: "how much ahead of the curve can you cast your commander?" I know something like Hope of Ghirapur (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Hope+of+Ghirapur) and Rhys the Redeemed (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Rhys+the+Redeemed) still get poor scores.
That isn't a that big deal. First of all I would go the way like you already mentioned, to take a look on how fast I can play my commander compared to its cmc. Rhys on turn 1 isn't exactly an archivement, Memnarch (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=de&card=Memnarch) on the other hand would be a powerful play on turn 3. So if we make a rating from 1-6, playing the commander on curve would be either 3 or 4.
/edit: clarification.
-
I agree with MustaKotka, but I also think the problem extends further than that.
The biggest issue with determining a power level is that EDH as a format has such a variety of players that want different things.
The clearest distinction for what I mean is EDH vs cEDH.
In EDH, people are usually looking to play a good game of interactive magic, playing powerful cards and doing cool stuff. It is not uncommon, nor unwanted, for games to go 10+ turns even without hard stax effects. When people play like this, it's not really a big deal if you play your commander out a bit later because a) they have a high cmc or b) it better suits your game plan (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Game+Plan). But this kind of play style simply will not cut the mustard in cEDH.
Personally I feel that comparing cEDH and non-cEDH decks is like comparing lemons and limes. They're similar sure, but ultimately different. I think it would probably be worth having separate systems for ranking cEDH and "regular" EDH decks. I think the criteria for what makes a deck effective and powerful are different enough that there could be two systems. There could even be a pre-cursor check list for the cEDH list. A list of criteria (to be defined) that a deck must fulfil to meet the requirements before it's even assessed to stop people overestimating their deck's power level, assuming it's a cEDH deck or close to one and scoring it incorrectly.
I touched on this earlier in the thread when I suggested the idea of weighting categories based on priority, but I think that remains one of the biggest issues that these kinds of scoring systems need to get around. Different decks are going to care about the same categories different amounts.
As MustaKotka points out with his HoG example, there will always be times when a given deck will answer a certain category in a way that belies it's power level. HoG will likely never be a cEDH deck, but has the potential to be reasonably powerful. However, it is always going to boss the "When can you get your commander out by" question.
TL;DR
1) There is an argument that cEDH and EDH decks can and should be assessed, ranked and scored with different systems.
2) Being able to make scores contextually relevant to the deck so that it's score is based on areas that the deck wants to prioritise and focus on is still a fairly major hurdle as there are too many edge cases that undermine (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Undermine) regular questions.
-
Well, I've already wrote how the HoG problem could be somewhat solved. It's much more an archivement to play Memnarch (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=de&card=Memnarch) on turn 3 than HoG on turn 1, so I wouldn't "punish" a HoG deck by giving it the maximum rating, because it has got a cmc 1 commander. It should only end up in the (upper?) middle field.
About EDH vs cEDH, I think differing here wouldn't help at all. I agree with you, that the deck have a different focus, but it's not like you can draw a sharp line where you can say "this is cEDH and this is not". Also the evaluation of the decks will be somewhat dependant on the player. there will always be cases where player A says that's a 3, but player B says that's already a 4. But at least within the playgroup, this should somewhat balance (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=de&card=Balance) out.
Besides that, we can write a master thesis about this problem and there would still be some edge cases that would undermine (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=de&card=Undermine) the system. But for me this isn't a big deal. You can still say that your deck is a strong 4 star deck or a weak 4 star deck.
The big idea (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=de&card=The+Big+Idea) behind this whole table was to give the players an indicator how strong their deck is compared to others, based on some regular questions. So the question would be "do we need to cover all edge cases?". I would say no, just try to aim for the big ones.
-
Well, I've already wrote how the HoG problem could be somewhat solved. It's much more an archivement to play Memnarch (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=de&card=Memnarch) on turn 3 than HoG on turn 1, so I wouldn't "punish" a HoG deck by giving it the maximum rating, because it has got a cmc 1 commander. It should only end up in the (upper?) middle field.
I'm not sure that comparing a commanders CMC to the turn it can come out is necessarily an accurate depiction of power though. Often it will be, but there are a lot of decks whose game plan (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Game+Plan) doesn't revolve around getting their commander out as soon as possible. While I agree that any system can't account for every edge case, I think the more we can cover the better, and this one seems like one that will crop up enough and be impactful enough that it could do with some consideration.
My Scarab God deck tends to spend it's first few turns killing, countering and milling so that by the time I play him the graveyards are nice and full. My Scarab God is by no means the most powerful version of a Scarab God deck, but this strategy is fairly common for what is a reasonably powerful commander. I'd say there are a decent number of powerful decks who look to play their commander only when they are in position to make the best use of it (generally the more control based decks that are looking to make the game go longer and control the board until they strike). This is part of their plan and doesn't detract from their power.
"How soon can you deck enact it's game plan (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Game+Plan)" is kind of what we are after, but is probably ultimately too vague.
About EDH vs cEDH, I think differing here wouldn't help at all. I agree with you, that the deck have a different focus, but it's not like you can draw a sharp line where you can say "this is cEDH and this is not". Also the evaluation of the decks will be somewhat dependant on the player. there will always be cases where player A says that's a 3, but player B says that's already a 4. But at least within the playgroup, this should somewhat balance (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=de&card=Balance) out.
This is probably fair. I think I got a little too wrapped up in objective scoring and forgot about simply the context of playing with your play group which will bring it's own familiarities and unspoken knowledge. It kind of doesn't matter if a group tend to grossly over estimate a decks power level as long as they do it for all decks, because they will at least still be in similar ball parks to each other.
Besides that, we can write a master thesis about this problem and there would still be some edge cases that would undermine (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=de&card=Undermine) the system. But for me this isn't a big deal. You can still say that your deck is a strong 4 star deck or a weak 4 star deck.
The big idea (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=de&card=The+Big+Idea) behind this whole table was to give the players an indicator how strong their deck is compared to others, based on some regular questions. So the question would be "do we need to cover all edge cases?". I would say no, just try to aim for the big ones.
You're right of course, it will never be able to cover every edge case. The more we can cover though, the better, and if we identify one it's always worth bringing it up in case someone can think of a solution.
-
Well, I've already wrote how the HoG problem could be somewhat solved. It's much more an archivement to play Memnarch (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=de&card=Memnarch) on turn 3 than HoG on turn 1, so I wouldn't "punish" a HoG deck by giving it the maximum rating, because it has got a cmc 1 commander. It should only end up in the (upper?) middle field.
I'm not sure that comparing a commanders CMC to the turn it can come out is necessarily an accurate depiction of power though. Often it will be, but there are a lot of decks whose game plan (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Game+Plan) doesn't revolve around getting their commander out as soon as possible. While I agree that any system can't account for every edge case, I think the more we can cover the better, and this one seems like one that will crop up enough and be impactful enough that it could do with some consideration.
I agree with you that not every deck has the gameplan to get the commander out asap, but the speed you're able to do this is a good indicator for many decks in terms of speed and colorfixing. Even if you don't want to play your cmc 6 commander on turn 4, if your deck regulary allows you to do this it's still an indicator for how good is your deck in collecting ressources.
This is something you can evaluate. The gameplan is a way to wague construct to be evaluated with some simple criteria, but you've already noticed that yourself.
About EDH vs cEDH, I think differing here wouldn't help at all. I agree with you, that the deck have a different focus, but it's not like you can draw a sharp line where you can say "this is cEDH and this is not". Also the evaluation of the decks will be somewhat dependant on the player. there will always be cases where player A says that's a 3, but player B says that's already a 4. But at least within the playgroup, this should somewhat balance (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=de&card=Balance) out.
This is probably fair. I think I got a little too wrapped up in objective scoring and forgot about simply the context of playing with your play group which will bring it's own familiarities and unspoken knowledge. It kind of doesn't matter if a group tend to grossly over estimate a decks power level as long as they do it for all decks, because they will at least still be in similar ball parks to each other.
I also think so. There will always be some small differences in evaluation, but that's already given by the fact that we can't make the check list crystal clear. Within the playgroup this should usually balance (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=de&card=Balance) out over time. If you've got 1 person that over/underrates their decks, the group will usually notice this, and react to this (either by giving him tips how to adjust the ratings, or by learning what the score would mean in their own measurement).
Between groups there could be bigger gap, but I don't think that the evaluations will differ by more than one point (given an 1-6 rating with taking the average in order to compare the decks).
-
I agree with you that not every deck has the gameplan to get the commander out asap, but the speed you're able to do this is a good indicator for many decks in terms of speed and colorfixing. Even if you don't want to play your cmc 6 commander on turn 4, if your deck regulary allows you to do this it's still an indicator for how good is your deck in collecting ressources.
Yea that's probably pretty reasonable actually. What turn could you rather than what turn do you will denote an amount of the fixing and ramp options your deck has, which definitely contributes to it's overall power.
Plus it's probably not unreasonable to assume that, generally speaking, commanders with high and awkward casting costs aren't ever going to be the most powerful. I had a Progenitus (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Progenitus) deck that could consistently get him out around turn 5 or 6, but against super powerful decks I'd already be dead. Powerful as he is on the field, Progenitus (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Progenitus) will likely never be a top tier commander.
-
TL;DR
1) There is an argument that cEDH and EDH decks can and should be assessed, ranked and scored with different systems.
2) Being able to make scores contextually relevant to the deck so that it's score is based on areas that the deck wants to prioritise and focus on is still a fairly major hurdle as there are too many edge cases that undermine (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Undermine) regular questions.
The entire notion of ranking decks assumes maximum competitiveness as a ceiling, therefore a "regular" EDH deck would simply be an average or bad deck in terms of powerlevel. Hence, there is no need to differentiate between EDH and cEDH - cEDH is to EDH what Modern tournaments are to Kitchen Table Magic with the Modern cardpool and banlist. Ultimately the same format with different levels of competitiveness - the thing we want to measure.
Edit: I think it's safe to assume that the slugfest that is the common EDH game is not played at a high powerlevel. And it's fun. We just have to embrace that we can't rank some jank as an above average deck when the ceiling is TnT, Flash (https://cards.deckstats.net/magiccard.php?utf8=1&lng=en&card=Flash) Hulk and company.