Loadout Format

General forum

Posted on July 10, 2018, 12:52 p.m. by Merlin_Darkrimson_Voidmystic

So, after consulting with the wonderful Tapped Out community, I have designed another format with less chaos and more possibility that WotC will recognize it.

This format is Loadout.

It restricts decks by their VCRS, or Value/Cost Ratio Score. I have designed a base algorithm that is still in testing, which will take a card's stats and abilities and give you a number, which would be it's VCRS.

The format is all Modern legal cards, plus the banned ones, but restricts the deck by total VCRS.

I am going to be posting here with decklists and their VCRS total, and asking you guys if it seems like the score works. If it doesn't work, then I can tweak some numbers until we have an agreed upon algorithm and an agreed upon VCRS total for each deck.

Of course, this would rely on the meta of the format as well, by taking cards that appear in the top, say, 4-8 in a tournament and adding score to some of them.

Any ideas, suggestions, and feedback would be appreciated as this could become a fun format!

maxon says... #2

I read some of that other thread, and I really can't imagine a VCRS value being any more reliable than the competitive meter on decks. If all cards are measured in a vacuum, then I would imagine certain decks to benefit more than others.

It sounds to me like a complicated way of rating a card. If a deck is restricted to a certain VCRS, and each card's VCRS is based in part on price, then that basically means all the best decks will essentially play themselves out of the format. This will result in constant re-investment in the next best deck/cards.

Who in their right mind would invest time and money in a format that could see cards legal and then illegal over the course of days/weeks? For those people who recognize their time as being valuable I would imagine they'd just invest in any more stable format since at least all their thought energy, creating and testing and playing the deck, will assuredly maintain it's value.

Any format based around price, I feel, is doomed to fail because like every other format, "tier 1" decks will surface, driving up prices.

I think for a new format to flourish, its rules and restrictions should be simple, easy to understand, and it's card pool should not be in a state of constant flux because it is based partly on price.

July 10, 2018 2:42 p.m.

DruneGrey says... #3

I would however be interested in seeing the maths behind your formula out of curiosity.

July 10, 2018 3:13 p.m.

@maxon

1 -- It will be designed so that the rating is in a vacuum, while updating if a card is very powerful in the meta so as to put abusable cards in their place.

2 -- Meta and tournament-based power levels will affect it, not price. This is to prevent one card getting over-hyped and getting really pricey.

3 -- Poverty is based on price(in USD). Loadout is based on a ratio that calculates about how much you're actually getting out of your card, so as to restrict cards that get far more out of the cost than is balanced.

4 -- There will eventually be a list of all VCRSs, but the algorithm will be publicly available for those who want to double check and those who believe certain abilities need more score in order to restrict them.

@DuneGrey

I haven't gotten it done quite yet, but the google sheet I'm using can be viewed on the Poverty Format thread. I will add the link here soon, once it loads.

July 10, 2018 5:26 p.m.

maxon says... #5

So when you said "cost" you meant CMC? I took that to mean cost of the card, as in price. If cost meant CMC that would alleviate most of my concerns.

July 10, 2018 6:13 p.m.

Here's the link the the spreadsheet with the base algorithm.

Green is a value variable, Red is a cost variable, and Yellow is an output or utility input.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1DpJObbyywIIuH4EB983LvIIltoHNGXW04eBoAYAI7x8/edit?usp=sharing

Sorry if you though that cost was price, I meant overall cost of playing the card ingame.

July 10, 2018 9:23 p.m.

Boza says... #7

Having a value for each invidual card makes things super complicated. It makes me think of warbands creation from something like Warhammer - it is a complicated system to ensure parity despite variance. But it is slow and difficult to use and coordinate between all players.

My main question is - how does the score impact deck building?

July 11, 2018 3:31 a.m.

The goal is to limit the amount of staples you can play in a deck and force you to get more creative in your brewing. My hope with it is to really create a level playing field between budget and competitive players. I want a format that really rewards intuitive deck building and smart plays.

Hypothetically if the algorithm works all decks should be on level footing as far as raw power level goes.

July 11, 2018 8:58 a.m.

Boza says... #9

"Hypothetically if the algorithm works all decks should be on level footing as far as raw power level goes." - for exactly one tournament.

The problem is this:

"Of course, this would rely on the meta of the format as well, by taking cards that appear in the top, say, 4-8 in a tournament and adding score to some of them"

The best decks will self-ban themselves after tournaments. This is not good.

July 11, 2018 9:44 a.m.

Boza assuming that the score is based on how much the card is played. The way the current score is calculated is based on what the card does based and it's mana cost. If a card started appearing in multiple different archetype as an automatic 4 of (like bolt, if you play red you play 4.), that would be sign that the algorithm needed to be adjusted. I don't think that a score should ever be assigned to a card based on popularity BUT if something seems undervalued then that warrants an adjustment.

Currently my biggest concern is assessing the power level of combos, normally a combo piece is useless in a vacuum but in the right scenario it can be broken. I would assume that decks like KCI or storm would have a very misleading score.

July 11, 2018 9:59 a.m.

@Boza

The goal of score adding is to keep "Tier 1" decks from ruling the format, while still letting powerful decks survive. Many rules can be added to the system of adding score to powerful cards, such as

There has to be a high percentage, maybe 20% or another agreed upon value, of decks in the top group running the card.

If a card almost always wins the game once it is cast, then score should be added.

Also, I personally want a format that kills Tier 1 decks, but not entirely. Imagine Modern of Affinity, Tron, and 4-color Humans all had small but significant bans. They wouldn't be quite as powerful anymore.

The goal is to have a format where no deck can beat most other decks. Everything should end up balancing itself out, and that is why I want as many people as possible to give feedback on the algorithm.

Also, the way it would affect deckbuilding is pretty simple -- players look up a card's score when they think it would work in their deck, and from there make decisions.

It would force players to make harder decisions, such as "Would I rather use 4 Opts to dig for my combo, or 2 Tutors to get it immediately?" Simple situations like this make the format more fun and challenging enough to be an almost entirely skill-based format.

July 11, 2018 10:04 a.m.

Boza says... #12

I have to say that is an unrealistic goal.

"don't think that a score should ever be assigned to a card based on popularity BUT if something seems undervalued then that warrants an adjustment." - but the only way you can determine if a card is undervalued is through popularity! If Goblin Chainwhirler spikes the pro tour like it did,with 7 out 8 decks in the top playing 4 copies, should that increase the score? if the answer is yes, then that would mean you are banning the top card/deck based on its popularity.

"The goal of score adding is to keep "Tier 1" decks from ruling the format, while still letting powerful decks survive. Many rules can be added to the system of adding score to powerful cards, such as"

If you adjust the card score so that it effectively bans the winning list from play, how is this any different from the current system of bannings?

TLDR; You are setting out to do something different, but you are coming to the same conclusion as other formats. I do not think the idea as it is currently will be sufficiently different than existing options.

July 11, 2018 11:28 a.m.

But an adjustment shouldn't necessarily ban a card or make it unplayable but it would affect the quality of the supporting cards. Say if you run a top tier threat you'll have to run subpar removal and vice versa. So I think this will add an interesting dynamic into deck building and fine running to really find the correct balance. While in allot of modern decks it's just about jamming the most efficient cards possible into the deck.

July 11, 2018 12:17 p.m.

It's not for banning winning lists, it's for making them slightly less powerful. Like if Chainwhirler plays that well, then it would obviously need a slight score increase, making a full 4 copies harder to play, so players would have to cut, say, one or two copies and replace them with something a little cheaper to use in the deck.

Also, the algorithm is available for anyone to view. If someone believes it's not quite up to par, they can tell me and I'll do something about it.

The score adding would be for extremely powerful cards, mainly as a backup plan so as to keep the format cheap to play and as an alternative to actually banning the card. Admittedly, the criteria for a score bonus will be slightly lower than actual banning or restricting, but that is to make up for the fact that the card is still technically playable, just harder to do so effectively.

Here's an example for what the goal is:

Say an Infect deck makes 5 decks in the top 8. They are all obviously running Glistener Elf, as well as some other artifact creatures with infect.

Now say that they typically win by turn 3 or 4 if they get Glistener Elf out on turn 1. If they get the artifact infecto rs, which cost 2, they win by turn 5 or 6, or even 7. It is now obvious that Glistener Elf needs a slight score increase.

Now say that the Infect decklists fill up almost the entirety of the limit, minus a couple points. If you then make Glistener Elf .75 points extra apiece, then they are forced to cut a single copy, or at least something else, in order for the deck to still be legal. This won't kill it, but it will make it a smidge less powerful because they lost a card or two for slightly less powerful replacements.

In this way, the deck isn't banned right off the bat, just cut down just enough that we can let it into the next tournament with the hope that those few points might help the deck lose once or twice more, allowing other decks to shine, and possibly get a score bonus on one of their cards.

I hope that clears it up, but I can see why you are concerned. I will attribute this to lack of information, because I was very vague.

July 11, 2018 12:18 p.m.

maxon says... #15

As far as the algorithm, how would you account for all the intricacies each card has?

Like Scute Mob is a 1/1 for 1 with the hope of growing up to be big and strong, so long as it eats it's greens. How do you account for that ability compared to another creature like say Skirsdag High Priest who, on cast, is also just a simple creature, but can make 5/5 fliers under the right circumstances?

July 11, 2018 12:30 p.m.

maxon honestly I dont know the correct answer. The 2 things I can think of is to either create a separate item for each variation of interaction and ability or create the algorithm with super generalized generic statements that can cover multiple scenarios with a single value. Neither one of these is a great solution

July 11, 2018 12:44 p.m.

I guess we could also scrap the algorithm altogether and manually assess the power of each card and assign a number but then that adds some level biased into our system

July 11, 2018 12:47 p.m.

I have been generalizing a lot.

For instance, Skirsdag High Priest could be calculated by saying that it generates a 5/5 each turn, and sacrifices a creature each turn, while tappin three creatures each turn.

At the moment, however, I am still adding more and more to the algorithm, which is why cards like that don't have an actual value yet.

Personally, generalized variables are best because if there are enough you can entirely customize it for each individual card.

The algorithm part is really so I can prove my work and get others to work on it as well, so I can't get accused of counting wrong without proof and so that everyone can add input.

July 11, 2018 12:50 p.m.

I don't want a biased system.

July 11, 2018 12:53 p.m.

Wizards has kind of already given us a kind of power assessment in the rarity of cards, I wonder if it would work better to assign a value for the rarity and track it that way?

common=1

uncommon=2

rare=3

ultra=4

This would greatly simplify our system and would alleviate any bias. Unfortunately we would probably have to have some kind of ban list....

Idk the algorithm seems like a neat idea but i'm not sure how practical it will be in the long run.

July 11, 2018 1:03 p.m.

Well, what if we had base values be

Common -- 1

Uncommon -- 2

Rare -- 3

Mythic -- 4

Then have a simple algorithm to add more.

For instance, Opt is common(highest rarity used when calculating). This means it has a value of 1. But, it's a pretty solid card, so we could add .1 for each card drawn or level of scry, and .2 for instant speed, making Opt 1.4 in value.

Would this work a little better?

July 11, 2018 1:48 p.m.

DruneGrey says... #22

It's also possible that you can restrict power level much more simply with the magic duels style of deck restriction. Make all Modern cards legal but you can only have 1 of each Mythic, 2 of each Rare, 3 of each uncommon and 4 of each common. Base it off of their highest printed rarity. Wouldn't that also help to restrict over power level and force more thought in deck building without being super complicated?

July 11, 2018 2:54 p.m.

maxon says... #23

Skirsdag High Priest can be used at instant speed, while Herald of Anafenza can only be used at sorcery. So, in addition to the different tap abilities you'll also have to consider the timing.

July 11, 2018 3:04 p.m.

Yea I'm leaning toward just using the rarity. It's a simple solution that will still allow us to limit the power of the decks. It's the easiest way to explain it to players entering the format as well integrating new sets. Every time a new set is printed, some alteration to the algorithm would have to be made, to account for new interactions.

I'm going to check out a few tier one lists and check out there score and then cross reference that with the score of our test lists. I'm thinking the score limit should be 100 give or take

July 11, 2018 4:05 p.m.

What about this?

Deck Restrictions:

Modern, no banlist.

2 Mythics max, one copy of each.

Mythics cannot cost more than 4 CMC.

No Rare Lands

8(or 12?) Rares max, 2 copies of each

Rares may cost no more than 6 CMC.

3 copies each max of Uncommons

Normal rules for commons and lands.

Of course, a banlist would be used as well here.

July 11, 2018 4:14 p.m.

So I calculated the score of some teir 1 modern lists (not including sides and using the 1-4 scoring system) and the average score came out to be around 140.

My 2 test decks (Budget Stompy and Load Out Delver) came out to be around 70 without sideboard so I think that if we simply set the limit to be 100 points, including side, using the lowest printed rarity, we could have a pretty interesting format.

It will take a group of people to really test this out and build a few different decks (especially combo decks, I think they are going to be our biggest issue) to find out just how balanced or broken that it could become

July 11, 2018 4:56 p.m.

Oh, here's another idea for the rarity --

Mythics are worth 6 points, while 'walkers are 8

Rares are worth 3 points

Legendary creatures/enchantments/artifacts/spells get +1

Anything costing over 6 CMC gets +1

Anything costing over 10 CMC gets +1

Anything costing over 12 CMC gets +1

Anything larger than 6/6 gets +1

Anything larger than 8/8 gets +1

Anything over 10/10 gets +1

Uncommons are 2

Commons are 1

Anything that can be cast for at least 3 less than it's base CMC gets +1

Anything that can be cast for at least 5 less than it's base CMC gets +1

Anything that can do 2 or more different complex(not vigilance, flying, etc.) abilities(such as a command) gets +1

And whatever else we think of.

July 11, 2018 4:57 p.m.

Note that Planeswalkers being 8 already account for the Legendary stuff.

Also, anything that can give you 3 or more cards of card advantage(scry and pseudo scry apply here) get +1. This means Serum Visions is a 3, ant Anticipate is 2.

I think that 80 is a good start limit, accounting for the extra points added with the aforementioned score increases.

July 11, 2018 7:14 p.m.

Also, should we eliminate rare & mythic lands?

July 11, 2018 7:19 p.m.

I found a problem -- I have a ~$30 5-color Dragons. It's about 145 points...

With the additional scoring system, of course, so...

July 11, 2018 7:23 p.m.

Huh...

With the additional scoring

A $884 Affinity list is 176

A $1,482 4-color Humans list is 184

And a $661 Infect list is 144

July 11, 2018 7:37 p.m.

I don't really understand the need for all of the extra points, competitive 60 card decks barely run 4 drops much less 5 and up. Planes walkers barely see competitive play, I also think that your over valuing draw affects like visions. Visions doesnt net you additional cards it simply thins your deck out while smoothing out your draw.

I also think it's fine if people want to waste points on fancy mana bases. By themselves fetches dont increase the power of your lists

My goal isn't to eliminate people's ability to play their $200 cards or make ultra budget decks tier 1. I just want a healthier format where modern tier 3-2 strategies have a leg to stand on, theres a lower investment ceiling on a powerful list and deck building is more complex than just jamming all of the most efficient cards possible

I also realize that I should probably just play pauper XD

July 11, 2018 7:52 p.m.

There are some points there, but I also don't have the budget for anything bigger than maybe $50, so I'd prefer the format to cut down on the cards that would be expensive, because I don't want to be beat out of a format I built(with help, obviously) immediately simply because I can't afford it.

Also, we will need a partial banlist.

First, Stoneforge Mystic. We cannot allow this in the format. The simple reason is why it was banned from everything except Legacy in the first place. It would immediately rule the format, with Batterskull being only 6 points for the cost of the 1 copy you need to run, and 4 copies of Mystic end up being 12. This would be insane.

Also, 'walkers are super powerful in the decks they are played in. Even the $2 'walkers are powerful in the right situations. In the Poverty tournament I play in, I run 2 Jace, Architect of Thought and 2 Dovin Baan.

July 11, 2018 8:13 p.m.

Whoops. Wrong button.

To continue, it's insane and people hate me. Literally, I haven't played a tournament in months where at least one person hasn't groaned when they found they had to play me.

:) That's what happens when you manage to fit Pillow Fort or T6 Combo into $30...

Anyway, 'walkers are powerful and can easily win games, you just have to find the right one for the format. For instance, in a go-wide aggro filled meta, The aforementioned Jace is super good, while in a format that uses one creature to beat you, Dovin Baan is powerful, and in a format where card advantage is key, JtMS and Liliana the Discard Queen thrive.

Not that they're always win cons, just that they are way to powerful for them to be in a format that is trying to be relatively budget.

I personally really hope this doesn't go Pauper and make cards jump in price. At least not for 2 years, so I can have some amount of money to throw into Magic.

July 11, 2018 8:21 p.m.

My previous two posts probably had little to actually do with this topic. Please disregard them, except for the Banlist.

Revised score system:

Mythics are 6

Rares are 3

Legendary cards get +1('walkers are legendary)

Uncommons are 2

Commons are 1

Anything costing over 7 CMC gets +1

This should eliminate most 'walkers, and cards like Emrakul, the Aeons Torn and other massive beings won't exist.

Also, I think 70-80 score limit should work great.

Additional Banned cards:

Splinter Twin. Wouldn't be hard at all to bring that menace back.

Dark Depths, because a 20/20 shouldn't happen.

Rementioning Stoneforge Mystic, just in case.

About everything else seems like we could either handle it or ban it at the first official tournament.

July 12, 2018 10:07 a.m.

DruneGrey says... #36

Why not just use the current modern ban list? Is there something on it now that you specifically wanted?

Also as mentioned previously the high CMC 'restriction' feels like it restricts weirder brews, and Legendary is often more of a hindrance.

Finally, why not just make commons free and lower the cap overall? Having commons at 1 makes it pretty difficult if someone wants to play more than 60 cards.

July 12, 2018 10:40 a.m.

The idea was to play with a Modern-based format, unbanning most or all of the banned cards. Legendary is a hindrance, but because of that Legendary things tend to be a little more powerful, although I'm not against removing that one if another person or two wants to.

The CMC is an extra precaution, because I don't particularly want to end up playing against any giant Eldrazi. Besides Eldrazi, there's not much in that CMC range that's worth playing.

The commons idea might work. Cutting the cap down to 60 and killing all the common score might be fun.

Thnx for input! :)

July 12, 2018 10:52 a.m.

Boza says... #38

I think you are approaching this the wrong way. Here are some things I noticed:

  • you want to have a format with no tier 1 decks (impossible to happen, there will always be a deck or several that are better than the rest, but that is the nature of the system and it is a good thing)

  • you conflate rarity with power level (lets think of standard for example and m19. Which is more impactful in standard - Divination or Omniscience? Scapeshift or Llanowar Elves? In both cases, it is the commons. If this were modern or legacy, both commons would be less relevant than the mythics.)

  • You conflate legendary and CMC with power level (really, 6 or 7 CMC gets penalized? Have you played modern ever - outside of tron, these CMCs are not played.)

  • "I don't want a biased system." (which inherently false - you are deciding how scores are made, so it naturally contains your bias, and you cannot create a system that removes your input).

  • The Glistener Elf example from above as an example of score increases (This really tells me you do not know what you want to do. If Infect cannot afford to play 4 Glistener Elf, it cannot compete at all. If it has to adjust other cards to make Glistener Elf fit, it will not perform as well as before. You are not banning cards per se, but you are making the deck not worth it to play over better options that have emerged to take its tier 1 place.)

  • "While in allot of modern decks it's just about jamming the most efficient cards possible into the deck" (A deck doing well in a tournament is NOT a collection of powerful cards. It is powerful cards + powerful piloting + powerful sideboarding + metagaming + powerful shell for the powerful cards. That tells me you do not know enough about deckbuilding or modern in general. Example: Humans as decklist existed 95% prior to Ixalan, but then it got 2 cards - Unclaimed Territory and Kitesail Freebooter that pushed it over the edge. 2 uncommons was all it took to make a deck from tier 3 to tier 1 almost overnight. Are these cards powerful? Heck no. Unless they are combined with the rest of the Humans and are in the hands of Collin Mullens.)

July 12, 2018 11:05 a.m.

It's all still hypothetical, and that's why I'm discussing it here. I'm asking people for their input, not trying to force an idea onto anyone.

I'm going to quickly ask a question: What would you like better? Any input is great, and I'm sure you have at least a bit more in you.

  1. A scoring system based on how much more you got for the cost you paid. Points go like this: 1 is exactly what you paid for, while anything above is that many times more value than what you paid for. i.e. a value of 3 is 3x what you paid for. Using this with a banlist to keep really powerful cards out of format, used only in emergency.

  2. The above system with metagame used in the algorithm, instead of banning

  3. Rarity-based system

I personally prefer either 1 or 2 because it makes more sense, because rarity doesn't always conform to power, and because I find that a system like that is pretty self-explanatory, at least in the score part.

What do you think? Input is currently what the hypothetical format needs.

July 12, 2018 11:30 a.m.

And the goal isn't to entirely kill Tier 1 decks, just make them a little less prevalent so more decks can take the stage.

And by "biased" I meant that I didn't want it possible for anyone to corrupt the system. Inherently, it could become a source f cheating if someone managed to get past the algorithm.

July 12, 2018 11:34 a.m.

cdkime says... #41

My thoughts on the Point System

This is, and always will be, an unworkable mess. Magic formats are defined by easy-to-recognize deckbuilding rules. With Pauper, you can easily tell whether a card has been printed at common. With Modern or Standard, you can easily look at whether the card was printed in a given format.

No algorithm will be able to replicate the complexity of Magic cards. There's simply too much data. How do you compare a draw spell to a burn spell? Not easily--which is why Wizards messed up and printed Ancestral Recall as the equivalent to Lightning Bolt.

To highlight just how problematic your system is, these two spells would be given the same points:

A

Sorcery

Draw two cards, then discard a card.

B

Sorcery

As an additional cost to cast this spell discard a card.

Draw two cards.

Same in every single way, except one discards the card first; the other second.

One of these is an objectionably better card, as it gives you more choices in what you get to discard.

July 12, 2018 noon

Then what else would you suggest? I'm still looking for some format that I can play cheaply without the fear of decks just plain overvaluing me. So far restricting price has a big downfall, and scoring cards gets messy because there's so many ways to do it, and none of them are perfect.

On that note, what about a non-budget-based format? Here's a couple ideas.

  • Heroes. ALL creatures must be Legendary, and(using the command system) all cards in the deck must have the same color identity as the card in the deck that has the color identity with the most colors. Maybe a 45-card deck, Modern legality. There must be at least one creature in the deck, and the card with the most colors or tied for the most in it's identity must be a creature(and therefore legendary).

  • Timeslip. Each turn a phase is skipped, one after the other(i.e. main phase, combat phase, 2nd main, end). SO, the first turn the first Main Phase doesn't happen. This would be on a per-player basis. So, your T1 you have to let it go to 2nd main(not hard), then T2 you can't attack, etc, etc. You may, however, activate abilities in response to the "skipping" of the phase, and then that ability or spell cast stays on a special stack and doesn't resolve until the next time the phase happens. If it's your turn, you can cast and activate sorcery speed cards and abilities. In this way, you can have a land glitch into existence on your opponent's turn, or slam a 'walker at a weird time.

Now I'm just bored, so I thought the crap above up... IDK if it's viable, and Timeslip seems biased towards whoever goes second so it'd have to be multiplayer.

July 12, 2018 12:35 p.m.

cdkime says... #43

For a budget format, you're not going to get much better than Pauper. It has a clearly defined rule as to what cards are viable, provides lots of deckbuilding options, and already has an established place in the community.

Heroes - not a fan. What makes MTG fun is the large number of deckbuilding options. Restricting to legends decreases the number of interesting interactions you can run.

Timeslip - I think you've already addressed some of the problems with this format. It also would be an awful lot to keep track of (particularly the readying actions).

I do not think either has what it takes to be an "official" Wizards format. I presume that is still your intent? Or are you just trying to create casual formats that would work for use in your LGS.

July 12, 2018 2:08 p.m.

Boza I'll agree that i over simplified deck building BUT when I looked at power levels and the number of each rarity in a given list, I dont think that it is a coincidence that the number of each rarity is actually very close and that each list has a score ranging from 130-160 (using common =1 uncommon =2 ect, and excluding sides). Those uncommons may have pushed humans over the edge (it gave them a near painless mana base) but that doesnt take away from the value of Cavern of Souls and Aether Vial or the fact that it still plays around 35 rares. So if we where to rebuild humans for the proposed format we would have to choose some suboptimal choices instead of running the most efficient cards possible. We would have to cut some rares and mythics for uncommons and Cummons. So the optimal list gets much more grey because of the added "cost of cards" it's no longer just what does it do for the mana cost but you have to take into account how much space it takes up of your 100 points.

cdkime I agree that the algorithm idea is just much to confusing but could assigning a score based on just rarity be simple enough? Or do you think that it is still so vaugue?

I'm honestly just intrigued on if this is version viable at this point

July 12, 2018 2:20 p.m.

Heroes and Timeslip were a random "throw it out there, don't care if anybody likes it but it's a fun idea anyway." I think they might be fun for a while, but a large amount of players going 45 cards with legendary creature based decks would be chaotic, expensive, and the best few decks would be seen after a single tournament.

Although, along the lines of "formats that probably wouldn't work but they'd be fun to try anyway", what about a format that forced you to make all of your creatures in the deck share at least one creature type with every single other creature(and token that can be created). Forced Tribal! Although Merfolk, Goblins, and ELves would probably take the cake immediately.

I still want a budget format, other than Pauper 'cos I still like using rares and stuff. But I guess I'll be looking for a while...

What about a curve-based format? Commons must all be 1- or 2-drops, uncommons are 2- or 3-drops, and rares are 3-, 4-, or 5-drops. That would be interesting. Then, make it so there's a limit on how many rares, uncommons, and commons you can use(maybe commons have no limit to make it easy).

July 12, 2018 4:43 p.m.

Heroes and Timeslip were a random "throw it out there, don't care if anybody likes it but it's a fun idea anyway." I think they might be fun for a while, but a large amount of players going 45 cards with legendary creature based decks would be chaotic, expensive, and the best few decks would be seen after a single tournament.

Although, along the lines of "formats that probably wouldn't work but they'd be fun to try anyway", what about a format that forced you to make all of your creatures in the deck share at least one creature type with every single other creature(and token that can be created). Forced Tribal! Although Merfolk, Goblins, and ELves would probably take the cake immediately.

I still want a budget format, other than Pauper 'cos I still like using rares and stuff. But I guess I'll be looking for a while...

What about a curve-based format? Commons must all be 1- or 2-drops, uncommons are 2- or 3-drops, and rares are 3-, 4-, or 5-drops. That would be interesting. Then, make it so there's a limit on how many rares, uncommons, and commons you can use(maybe commons have no limit to make it easy).

July 12, 2018 4:44 p.m.

Boza says... #47

"Those uncommons may have pushed humans over the edge (it gave them a near painless mana base) but that doesnt take away from the value of Cavern of Souls and Aether Vial or the fact that it still plays around 35 rares." - But that is exactly what is supposed to happen in a normal format. Lets look at those rares. Meddling Mage before the release of Ixalan? 6 bucks according to mtggoldfish. A month after Ixalan? Tripled to 18 and now is near 30.

Is it because the card got better suddenly? No, the card stayed exactly the same. The shell for it changed and it got good.

And you still conflate rarity with power level of a card, which is NOT correct. Ok, I am gonna say this once so listen carefully: The only format where rarity has any impact on power level is Limited. Nowhere else.

Can you take an average Pauper deck and spike a small modern tournament? I think that Pauper Affinity is better than Modern Affinity and that deck plays only commons. The most busted card in that deck? Ancient Den and the artifact landsm, which are commons.

Look, by now it should be clear to you too - what you are trying to do is not possible the way you want to do it. "and I'm sure you have at least a bit more in you." Yes. The best idea I can you at this point - stop trying to make up a new format without trying the ones that exist that do the same things you are trying to do.

Pauper and Canadian Highlander (with proxies, cause even the legal gold-powered power 9 are expensive af) are grteat options to try. Pauper is close to being tierless with few decks emerging as ever so slightly better. CanHan is I think the closest thing to a tierless format.

July 12, 2018 5:24 p.m.

cdkime says... #48

I agree with Boza that rarity is not a perfect indicator of a card’s worth in constructed.

You will also run into some logistical problems - how do you decide what rarity to use for given card? The highest rarity? Then you have cards that were overrated orriginally by Wizards, or cards from the very mediocre blocks where the best rates were comparable to other sets’ commons.

The lowest? That will cause issues for cards that predate mythic rare’s release in 2008. You also run into issues with Masters sets.

This works in Pauper because every set has had common cards, and Wizards has done a pretty good job at keeping consistency among commons (although things like Artifact lands at common are clear, and admitted, mistakes).

July 12, 2018 8 p.m.

I agree that rarity isn't a good system. Looking at my fairly budget Dragons deck, it had as much score as a $800 Affinity deck. I do feel that it achieves the "budget" goal, but it's not the best.

I'm really just looking around for a possible non-Pauper budget format. If I can't find a way, then I guess I'll just stop asking around. But at the moment, it seems there's still a small area where there might be a format that works, I just haven't found it yet.

Scoring cards and price-based systems don't work, so I'll keep thinking and searching. If I find something, I'll come back and let you guys tear it apart again if you can.

Thanks for your input, I'll be off again. Until then, do whatever you do because I don't know what else to say here. Cheers!

July 13, 2018 3:48 p.m.

Please login to comment