"Over-optimizing" a deck

[Bonethousand]

Don't play to win

This also kinda defeats my purpose: I want to play to win using my stronger decks, because that's how I enjoy to play Magic.
I put deckbuilding restrictions on myself before the game, but when the game starts I'm going to try to play as optimally as I can and to murder you all. For me, it's also a question of mutual respect: I would be mad if I knew that an opponent was holding a game-winning piece and he didn't play it out of pity! 

So, I LOVED the response that suggested "don't play to win," and not necessarily because it encourages you to play badly or differently than your style. What I think the core message is in this advice (which is largely missing from the MTG community) is to learn the personalities of your play group and to be deliberate in why you're playing the game. People like to play the game for different reasons, and as cliche as it is, I think the most valuable communication tool in Magic has been figuring out if the people you play with are Timmy's, Johnny's, or Spikes. This will help you figure out how to approach "play" in general. Because, I know people who are all about deck building for strategy or uniqueness, but would have no qualms with being advised in how to power up their decks. And then I know true Johnny's who would be insulted that you were putting your hands on the only part of the experience they enjoy. If you're feeling conflicted about play experience, the best cure is always communication.

[WizardSpartan]

I definitely resonate with a lot of your problems. I usually dive headfirst into any hobby I pick up, and Magic is no different. I want my decks to be as consistent & smooth as possible, and that means I overtake much of my playgroup very quickly. Most of the new decks I build I try to avoid too many tutors (like you), and that's probably the best way to make your decks more "fair" to play against (almost any casual player will get tired of losing to the exact same set of cards multiple games in a row). It's good you have already embraced that.

My playgroup also is a bit light on the removal, and I don't really care for telling them how to build their deck. I still want everyone to have fun, and it's 100% within their rights to run a little less removal in favor of fun cards (god knows I struggle with this when building decks).

So here's the 3 things I am doing to combat the problem (some have already been kinda addressed in the thread, but I just wanted to give my take):

• When building new decks, stay aware of how powerful you want your deck to be. For example, instead of building that Korvold, Fae-Cursed King deck that will likely stomp your opponents at the blink of an eye, consider Juri, Master of the Revue or Mazirek, Kraul Death Priest. You can build a very strong sacrifice deck with these at the helm, but these commanders definitely cap what the deck can do (they can do very fun, crazy things, but aren't as absolutely oppressive Korvold is). Unfortunately, this doesn't really help your current decks.
• On the topic of lending your playgroup your decks: Maybe I'm alone in this, but my playgroup doesn't exactly run a bunch of different decks, so it's not like I constantly see a card I'm not expecting when playing against their decks. I personally would find it more fun playing against a strong deck I know well that challenges me rather than playing against a deck I'm not as experienced with that doesn't really pose a challenge. Also, you can get an idea of your playgroup's playstyle when they play your decks. You know how you would play their deck, and there's a good chance they will make different decisions.
• I play a lot online on Untap.in, and it's great for playing at different levels. Obviously, it's not perfect, but it's another alternative to webcam & Discord. You can play with your playgroup on their, or you can play with other people (which would obviously help you find more balanced, enjoyable games). I agree that once Covid is over, going back to your LGS and finding some people who play on the same level as you is probably the best long-term solution.

[Valmias]

I was just wondering, have you gotten feedback from your group that it's not fun to play against your favorite deck? A lot of the suggestions seem to be about not playing or building to win, and that makes sense. All things being equal, any player is going to lose 75% of the games they sit down at (assuming four players), so while we are all trying to do well in some way, we know that it's just not reasonable to base fun on always winning.

It sounds like you make plenty of deckbuilding choices that understand that, but this one deck is a real winner. Is that so bad? It's good to read the table and want everyone to have fun, but could there be space in there for "fun" to include you playing the deck you put work into? Getting stomped game after game isn't fun, but I don't mind if someone wipes the floor with me from time to time. Maybe your group won't mind not playing to win for a minute while you do cool stuff. I mean, you're entitled to your 25%, right? It sounds like they would be short games anyway 

Also, playing it more regularly (letting it be an expectable part of your meta) might inspire them to build against it and raise their overall level. My group has gone through a few "arms races" like this, and we're usually better off after (except the last one, when our lowest-power player showed up with Grand Arbiter Augustin IV, that one sucked).

[The Golgari Guy]

I forgot to address these suggestions:

My solution to this problem is to choose an obscure and low power commander or a strategy (or both), then hyper-optimize for the strategy.

• When building new decks, stay aware of how powerful you want your deck to be. For example, instead of building that Korvold, Fae-Cursed King deck that will likely stomp your opponents at the blink of an eye, consider Juri, Master of the Revue or Mazirek, Kraul Death Priest. You can build a very strong sacrifice deck with these at the helm, but these commanders definitely cap what the deck can do (they can do very fun, crazy things, but aren't as absolutely oppressive Korvold is). Unfortunately, this doesn't really help your current decks.

I definitely agree, and actually this is something I do. I have a Mazirek deck and a Doran Treefolk Tribal deck, for example, and as much as I try to optimize them, their power level is severely capped by that of the commander.

However some times I end up liking some stronger commanders, like Meren, and in that case if you like to optimize it really can't be helped: the deck will become powerful.

So, I LOVED the response that suggested "don't play to win," and not necessarily because it encourages you to play badly or differently than your style. What I think the core message is in this advice (which is largely missing from the MTG community) is to learn the personalities of your play group and to be deliberate in why you're playing the game. People like to play the game for different reasons, and as cliche as it is, I think the most valuable communication tool in Magic has been figuring out if the people you play with are Timmy's, Johnny's, or Spikes. This will help you figure out how to approach "play" in general. Because, I know people who are all about deck building for strategy or uniqueness, but would have no qualms with being advised in how to power up their decks. And then I know true Johnny's who would be insulted that you were putting your hands on the only part of the experience they enjoy. If you're feeling conflicted about play experience, the best cure is always communication.

I agree that communication is fundamental, and I think we have quite different profiles in my playgroup. I'm not some kind of Spike that wants to win at all costs, but when I take out my strong deck to play with my friends, I'll try my hardest to win. Then I also have some flavorful janky decks that I take out sometimes -- still trying my hardest to win, but not really expecting it 

I was just wondering, have you gotten feedback from your group that it's not fun to play against your favorite deck? A lot of the suggestions seem to be about not playing or building to win, and that makes sense. All things being equal, any player is going to lose 75% of the games they sit down at (assuming four players), so while we are all trying to do well in some way, we know that it's just not reasonable to base fun on always winning.

It sounds like you make plenty of deckbuilding choices that understand that, but this one deck is a real winner. Is that so bad? It's good to read the table and want everyone to have fun, but could there be space in there for "fun" to include you playing the deck you put work into? Getting stomped game after game isn't fun, but I don't mind if someone wipes the floor with me from time to time. Maybe your group won't mind not playing to win for a minute while you do cool stuff. I mean, you're entitled to your 25%, right? It sounds like they would be short games anyway 

Also, playing it more regularly (letting it be an expectable part of your meta) might inspire them to build against it and raise their overall level. My group has gone through a few "arms races" like this, and we're usually better off after (except the last one, when our lowest-power player showed up with Grand Arbiter Augustin IV, that one sucked).

Some people in my playgroup don't mind playing against my stronger decks, while others feel that the power gap is a bit too much and have let me know. This is why I am a bit conflicted about taking them out.

You're right about the "arms race", and it kinda happened. A fiend in my playgroup has built a budget Chulane deck (still very strong even on a budget!) that he takes out when I play my Xenagos for example, and it can definitely match the power level. However some other people in the playgroup just don't have so many cards/decks, or don't want to spend the money required for this kind of "arms race", or maybe they just prefer to play battlecruiser games.

[Valmias]

Some people in my playgroup don't mind playing against my stronger decks, while others feel that the power gap is a bit too much and have let me know. This is why I am a bit conflicted about taking them out.

You're right about the "arms race", and it kinda happened. A fiend in my playgroup has built a budget Chulane deck (still very strong even on a budget!) that he takes out when I play my Xenagos for example, and it can definitely match the power level. However some other people in the playgroup just don't have so many cards/decks, or don't want to spend the money required for this kind of "arms race", or maybe they just prefer to play battlecruiser games.

Ah. Yeah, even a little bit of feedback like that would kill the fun for me too. That's a crap situation. And you don't want to create a scenario where you price someone out of playing. At least it lets your friend play his Chulane sometimes, I guess. But I don't know if more Chulane is ever really an "upside".

This whole conversation is giving me a lot of empathy for my friend who wins all the time. I'm going to go check on him.

[fluffyp]

I have a similar problem.  The rest of my group don't really enjoy deck building whereas I almost enjoy it more than playing Most of my decks are deliberately underpowered from where I would like to have them, but I prefer them that way as it keeps the games fun.  I just stick to a few rules: no tutors (or no tutors that cost less than three and are only tutors, so a tutor on a creature will be all right); only two or three ways to draw cards (unless that's the point of the deck, such as Locust God), but then I'll limit something else; no crazy lands like Gaea's Cradle or expensive fetch lands; building to a theme to the point that the deck is automatically hampered but remains a fun, janky deck; building around low-powered commanders or ones with limitations; building to a budget etc.  There's a lot of ways I have found that allow multiple upgrades but keep the deck in line and, actually, keeps the building more fun because you don't stick to the "go-to" cards.  Not every green deck has a Sylvan Library, for instance.

The most fun I have it either taking a weird idea or theme and sticking to it.  Pirates are awesome and perform very, very well even when every spell you have in the deck HAS to relate in some way to the thieving critters.  They've got some love lately, so I'll be upgrading my pirate deck with a few cool creatures, but you can bet I'll never swap out "Walk the Plank".  That card has won me the game in the past and there's NOTHING more satisfying than playing a pirate deck and making someone else's creature walk the plank.

[The Golgari Guy]

I have a similar problem.  The rest of my group don't really enjoy deck building whereas I almost enjoy it more than playing Most of my decks are deliberately underpowered from where I would like to have them, but I prefer them that way as it keeps the games fun.  I just stick to a few rules: no tutors (or no tutors that cost less than three and are only tutors, so a tutor on a creature will be all right); only two or three ways to draw cards (unless that's the point of the deck, such as Locust God), but then I'll limit something else; no crazy lands like Gaea's Cradle or expensive fetch lands; building to a theme to the point that the deck is automatically hampered but remains a fun, janky deck; building around low-powered commanders or ones with limitations; building to a budget etc.  There's a lot of ways I have found that allow multiple upgrades but keep the deck in line and, actually, keeps the building more fun because you don't stick to the "go-to" cards.  Not every green deck has a Sylvan Library, for instance.

The most fun I have it either taking a weird idea or theme and sticking to it.  Pirates are awesome and perform very, very well even when every spell you have in the deck HAS to relate in some way to the thieving critters.  They've got some love lately, so I'll be upgrading my pirate deck with a few cool creatures, but you can bet I'll never swap out "Walk the Plank".  That card has won me the game in the past and there's NOTHING more satisfying than playing a pirate deck and making someone else's creature walk the plank.

I agree with most of what you wrote, and I already avoid playing powerful tutors as I wrote in one of the previous posts. I also dislike game-warping cards like Cabal Coffers and Cradle (and the latter I couldn't afford anyway).

The only part I don't agree with is the "two or three ways to draw cards": a deck just cannot work without 8-10 card draw spells, unless your commander is a card draw engine on itself (and also in this case, you have to be prepared for the event that you can't access your commander).

[Aetherium Slinky]

The only part I don't agree with is the "two or three ways to draw cards": a deck just cannot work without 8-10 card draw spells, unless your commander is a card draw engine on itself (and also in this case, you have to be prepared for the event that you can't access your commander).

Maybe their meta is just super relaxed, like precon level relaxed?

[The Golgari Guy]

Maybe their meta is just super relaxed, like precon level relaxed?

Yes, sure, it could be, and I didn't want to come off as patronizing.
However with the improvement precons have undergone recently, I think that aiming to have more card draw is better at any level, from which my comment.

[fluffyp]

Maybe their meta is just super relaxed, like precon level relaxed?

Yes, sure, it could be, and I didn't want to come off as patronizing.
However with the improvement precons have undergone recently, I think that aiming to have more card draw is better at any level, from which my comment.

Well I mean it's perfectly fine to disagree or have other opinions.  My group is super relaxed and we just lack the card draw.  If I added more than 2 or 3 to my decks they'd quickly stifle the rest of the group.  However, what I should really say is I think that, relaxed or non-relaxed groups aside, the choice is card draw OR tutors.  I don't mind people using either or as a focus, but playing with both gets towards the "over-optimised" level I think.  I also think decks that tutor too much are quite boring to play against - oh, there's that tutor again, guess which card they're going for etc and all that. 

I do agree that more card draw is better - but that's kind of the point of this whole thread, isn't it? Ways to build that improve but don't over-optimise for your group?  The way I look at it is, even though I COULD trick my decks out with all kinds of neat things, which definitely "improve" it, if I don't have fun playing it because my group refuse to go against it, it's a pointless improvement, and actually something that harms the deck and my enjoyment.  So it's quite easy for me to stop at a point where I'm satisfied, so after a point added "investment" is dead money. I know that's part of your point, but my angle is that I prefer not having optimised decks overall.  It's that or change my group, and I'm not willing to do that.  That said, eventually, the power level creeps up - two of the group have started building strong decks (still janky in places because we have fun that way) so who knows whether my plans for improvements will stay forever on the "upgrades" wishlist or if they'll make it to the deck?

[The Golgari Guy]

Well I mean it's perfectly fine to disagree or have other opinions.  My group is super relaxed and we just lack the card draw.  If I added more than 2 or 3 to my decks they'd quickly stifle the rest of the group.  However, what I should really say is I think that, relaxed or non-relaxed groups aside, the choice is card draw OR tutors.  I don't mind people using either or as a focus, but playing with both gets towards the "over-optimised" level I think.  I also think decks that tutor too much are quite boring to play against - oh, there's that tutor again, guess which card they're going for etc and all that. 

I do agree that more card draw is better - but that's kind of the point of this whole thread, isn't it? Ways to build that improve but don't over-optimise for your group?  The way I look at it is, even though I COULD trick my decks out with all kinds of neat things, which definitely "improve" it, if I don't have fun playing it because my group refuse to go against it, it's a pointless improvement, and actually something that harms the deck and my enjoyment.  So it's quite easy for me to stop at a point where I'm satisfied, so after a point added "investment" is dead money. I know that's part of your point, but my angle is that I prefer not having optimised decks overall.  It's that or change my group, and I'm not willing to do that.  That said, eventually, the power level creeps up - two of the group have started building strong decks (still janky in places because we have fun that way) so who knows whether my plans for improvements will stay forever on the "upgrades" wishlist or if they'll make it to the deck?

I see your point. It's just that I think that even some of my stronger decks would go from being "over-optimized" to falling flat on their face if I removed too much card draw. And also part of the problem is that I like to optimize my deck so much, as I explained in the previous posts, that it feels painful for me to tune them down 

Anyway thanks for the suggestion!

[fluffyp]

You could just bring out the stronger decks occasionally.  I have a few in my collection now but I only run them infrequently or when my friends start reaching for their stronger decks.  The other thing I often do, is choose a strong deck but that might be a bad match for another deck that's in play, even if that other deck is technically "weaker".  One of my stronger decks, for instance, is a mill deck, and I don't play it often because most of my group will only tolerate one game with it before they cry foul.  But, if my friend plays his enchantment, Estrid deck, and the other grabs his Lazav deck, then it's fair game because my mill actually helps those decks and I've lost many a time to the clone deck because it copied some of my best cards in the graveyard.  It lets me do my thing, play a strong deck, do things it was meant to do, but makes me have to play hard and smart at times.