Mtg proplayer winpercentage5/19/2023 it has a significantly larger viable cardpool than any other format Ramping is not a complicated thing in commander and boring ramp payoffs are not my bag.Īs pokken mentioned, EDH tests different skills compared to other formats. In general I find I hate the stuff that follows the underwear gnomes model of magic: Assembling a combo is just a much more fair way to win in my opinion and I know that probably is ridiculous but that's how I feel. Because that stuff is just super boring and nobody likes losing that way. I tend to not play those kinds of haymakers (with the exception of my MW deck, which is almost a meme deck that I pull out when people complain about my combos). Because if not I am gonna copy all my damn spells and make you watch, and if I happen to counter your spell it's going to be even worse (kinda like when someone pacts your paradox engine removal and makes the mana they need to win:P). I throw the big mana 'copy all your %$#%' enchantments because they tend to create a comical value chains that force the "do you have specifically enchantment removal, the rarest of removals, right now?" question. It's not like Pathbreaker Ibex or Coat of arms where we can just play removal. I had it, and that player lost, while simultaneously reducing my ability to develop my board and allowing everyone else to do their thing unfettered. So the game is the player rolling the dice and hoping I don't have a counterspell. He's right after me in the turn order, and everyone passes priority because they're not blue and it's my job to deal with it. The game was over, because no one else was playing blue. I'll give an example tonight of why I detest craterhoof - I played against a 4c saproling deck that had like 12 guys out and cast hoof. And it also tests mulliganning skill probably more than any format.Īs far as cards, there is a handful of big dumb cards that really get my goat from a method of winning perspective: Commander tests people knowledge and cardpool knowledge more any other format. I can kinda feel myself beginning to talk in circles here, but my gut feeling is that commander is an extremely skilltesting format, but it tests different skills - modern tests meta knowledge more than legacy, legacy tests play patterns and sequencing more than modern. Modern has a bigger effective card pool than legacy (because cantrips drive other cards out) and you can see this comparison there (there are simply more actually playable cards in Modern than legacy, so meta knowledge is more important and more difficult). That said, I think commander is extremely skill testing because of the nature of multiplayer and all the effects that you might see - the sheer variety of cards rewards card knowledge to an extreme that no other format really does. So the quality of your opening hand is quite exaggerated in effect, probably moreso than even Modern (the format with the most notorious opening hand bias I can think of). In my opinion, Commander is higher variance than constructed formats for the most part. It's a pretty common thing to think about in magic - how much of an edge is player skill vs. What cards do you feel lead to skill-less games, and what cards do you think lead to skillful games? A deck that just looks to ramp big mana and plays lots of draw cards often isn't "the hardest" to play? Often a single spell like Genesis Wave seals the game.Īnyway thought I'd get the discussion going, where do you you see your playgroups fitting in with skills levels versus deck strengths being the major factors? But what they are trying to say is that "you have no skill, you are just copying a deck online".īut at the same time certain decks might not lead to much skill. So I don't bother telling them, but take it as a compliment. The other thing is that the opponents are not wrong in the my decks are "net decks", but I am actually the one posting them lol. I have a very good memory bank for play patterns to look out for and thus can utilize my resources in an effective way most games. Whether that is using removal on the exact needed threats, not committing at times I knew something was up, or whatever. So I find that when I win games, opponents feel like they have been run over by a "net deck" and hardly ever give credit to just how well I played that game. I have a mix between building strong decks and also being a very experienced player. Is this clearly different from dueling compared to multiplayer format? Is this also vastly different from other formats like Standard, Modern, Legacy, etc? I just wanted to hear people's perspective on how much of winning is due to the strength of a deck and how much of it is based on the skill of the player? This sort of discussion also brought up the subject of skill level. I've noticed a discussion in a thread and it touches upon the argument that some cards = "instant win".
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |