Is anyone interested in a "Budget" Format?
The Kitchen Table forum
Posted on April 14, 2017, 11:52 a.m. by ruy343
"I'm just a poor boy, I need no sympathy..."
But sometimes I do. I, and many here, aren't able to spend hundreds to get an amazing Modern or Commander deck. Is there the possibility to create a new format where the deck value caps out at a certain value (at time of creation), to encourage use of less-known cards and re-invigorate casual players to participate in 60-card formats?
Snapdisastermage says... #3
It's called pauper. If you throw rares into the mix, A best deck will emerge and then the card prices will rise
April 14, 2017 12:51 p.m.
I know what you're saying, but pauper gets rid of a bunch of the fun low-costing rares. Those are the most fun cards to play with. Commons are so boring comparatively.
The rising prices aspect is part of it. That's what makes it fun. If something becomes too valuable, you'll have to sacrifice power in the rest of your deck to use that one card, which puts you at a disadvantage. The issue fixes itself and forces people to be continually creative.
April 14, 2017 12:56 p.m.
It seems you and I are kindred spirits. I would probably set the cap for $40 or so, or perhaps even lower (I've made decks for <$10; see my profile), but yeah, that's the kind of thing I'd be aiming for.
The self-banning problem fixes itself because it would constantly be pushing out popular archetypes, in favor of individual creativity. Overall, it would be a slower, likely more fun archetype than modern, and easier to get into.
Now, Snapdisastermage, regarding Pauper... I actually love and hate Pauper. Pauper forces you to use commons, true, but importantly, its cost still often gets out of hand, and its restrictions on what you can and can't use limits what you can do to only a handful of archetypes (which is why certain commons are still prohibitively expensive). I'd rather be able to throw around some bulk rares or uncommons, you know?
April 14, 2017 1:01 p.m.
It was always my goal to make a deck using cheap rares that could beat the Tier 1 decks. I've had a couple successful ones that beat Tier 1 standard decks at FNMs, but most of the time I just lose :)
I will check out the decks in your profile because the creative decks that use cheaper rares are my faves!
April 14, 2017 1:06 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #9
This thread was moved to a more appropriate forum (auto-generated comment)
April 14, 2017 2 p.m.
I like this idea. In fact, I think the competitive scene might benefit from deck caps, much in way boxing has weight classes. There could be an unlimited circuit where anything goes, a $500 tier, a $300 tier, and so on. I think it is would inject lots of creativity into play.
April 14, 2017 2:24 p.m.
@Snapdisastermage, I've been continuing to think about this, and I think that the other reason that I like this idea over Pauper is that i personally own one or two really cool, expensive cards, and I'd like to put them into a deck, and this format would allow me to do so, so long as I could fill in the rest of the deck with less-expensive cards to supplement it. I could actually play budget planeswalkers, bulk rares, and others without being constrained by rarity of individual price, which would be really fun, in my opinion.
@SlimJim83, I like that idea as well. It would be cool to be able to go to a Modern tournament and have three "tiers" of play that you could enter, one unlimited, one capped at $500, and one capped at $50 or something like that.
@ Epochalyptik, sorry for putting this thread in the wrong place. Penny Dreadful sounds like it scratches the itch, but again, as I was saying above, it would be cool to be able to play a handful of neat, powerful cards alongside a less expensive deck. A Budget format would allow for greater variety if based on overall deck price, rather than just cards used.
... I just don't know how we'd get traction behind it...
April 14, 2017 3:46 p.m.
Once in a while my local shop has a $20 edh tourney based on what our tappedout pages say the deck costs.
April 14, 2017 4:13 p.m.
this would be amazing the only thing really holding me back from going to any events is budget
April 15, 2017 2:43 a.m.
I've thinking about this over the weekend, and I realized that the majority of the price difference between most modern decks and my own has to do with lands, specifically the shocks/duals/whatevers that let players have better control over their manabase. This format would get rid of those, meaning it would automatically be a slower format.
However, we'd still see 4x of specific powerful cards valued at about $5 each at a $50 cap. Is $50 too high? or would $30 be better?
April 17, 2017 10:37 a.m.
Either way would be interesting. I think $50 would get some more interesting and powerful decks, which would keep the format fun. I only play standard, but $5 cards usually aren't huge game changing cards in that format. Almost all the ones that are super powerful and make or break games are $20/piece
April 17, 2017 11:02 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #16
It would depend on how restrictive you wanted to be. Ultimately, creating any kind of cost-based limit on deck construction will force people away from certain options.
I still don't like the idea of a budget limitation on deck construction, but I would definitely advise against setting too low a ceiling. Making the format more accessible is one thing. Forcing people to play trash just to make budget is quite another.
I'm reminded of the argument I make every time someone complains that the reserved list is unfair and they should have easier access to old, expensive cards: Magic is a trading card game. You are not entitled to, nor are you guaranteed, access to every card.
Similarly, you're not guaranteed even footing in competition. although competitions are meant to evaluate player skill, they're not meant to do so by equalizing the point of entry for everyone. If you want to play this game at a certain level, you'll need to invest a certain amount in time, money, etc.
It's ok to want to create more opportunities for those who can only spend $100 instead of $500, but you have to be conscious of what limitations are reasonable and what limitations are sacrificing the game's potential to pander to people who don't want to invest.
April 17, 2017 11:07 a.m.
Epochalyptik you're probably right in that the budget shouldn't be set too low because we don't want to sacrifice the game's potential. Making it $30 would basically take out planeswalkers all together.
However, I disagree with a lot of your other sentiments. I like that it equalizes the point of entry because it's all up to the player's creativeness and forces players to think outside of the box, rather than finding the best deck on the internet, spending $500+ to buy the cards, and learning the exact strategies to play with that one deck. That's almost entirely a mechanical version of the game, rather than a creative process.
Also, you're not eliminating other formats like Standard and Modern. There will always be formats where a lack of money results in losing. But for those of us who don't want that process, it would be fun if there were an alternate format.
But I do understand where you're coming from, and many of my friends would probably agree with what you're saying. I just like the home-brews and they really make the game fun for me. And being able to competitively play with one, rather than play against decks filled with all the $20+/piece cards, would be fun.
April 17, 2017 12:42 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #18
Fair point about not eliminating other formats, although it was proposed earlier that those formats be stratified according to different budget limits.
I'd like to offer a counterpoint about netdecking, though. There's nothing inherently bad about netdecking. I often hear the argument raised that people's ability to copy a deck off the Internet is harmful to the game because it reduces creativity, but I don't think that's necessarily the case. Keep in mind that something will always be meta. Every competitive game, whether it's sports, esports, TCGs, or even board games like Settlers of Catan will have certain "best" strategies and plays. When something comes out that's better than all or a number of previous strategies, it gets adopted and then the cycle repeats itself as people work to beat the new top plays. The existence of a meta thereby encourages continued innovation and strategizing.
On top of that, competitions are not designed to (directly) measure or reward creativity. They aim to measure and reward skill.
Arguing that we should force players to think outside of the box because tournaments currently reward copycat behavior is a non sequitur not only because that's not what tournaments are intended to do, but because no matter what limitations you put on a given format, something will always be meta. There will be a best $100 deck just like there's a best $500 deck and a beat $1000 deck and a best $infinite deck. Lowering or raising the ceiling will not change that.
April 17, 2017 1:01 p.m.
I agree with what you're saying about netdecking. It's not inherently bad, and will always happen no matter what game you're playing. And you're right in that there will be best $100 decks too.
I think what would be fun about $100 decks though, is that when a card gets played a lot in that format, it will (in theory) raise in price and no longer be available in the format unless you want to sacrifice the integrity of the rest of the deck. This will force it to be a creative process.
You're also right in that most TCG tournaments don't reward creativity as much as skill, and are not designed that way either. But some of us just with they were! Like sealed... while there are best practices (# lands, # creatures, good mana base, etc.), there's a big element of creativity, as well as a lot of skill involved in creating the most powerful deck, and being able to use it. That would be fun with home-brews too!
Overall... I think you're right, but I wish there was a format where you weren't lol.
April 17, 2017 2:08 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #20
I think too much weight is being given to price as a regulator. In general, yes, it's true that a card will increase in price as it sees more play and is in more demand. But basing a format on monetary value with the assumption that it will self regulate through price fluctuations is faulty.
The kind of price changes that would be required for a card to effectively ban itself in such a format would need to be fairly significant. This, in turn, means that the format would only truly self regulate if it received widespread support and so many people played it that its meta were influential enough to cause those spikes.
There's also an inverse relationship between the height of the budget ceiling and the impact that any given card's price change will have on the meta. As the ceiling rises, players can afford larger and larger changes without too much loss to their decks.
But, as I explained before, we kind of want higher ceilings because lower ones lead to the perceived neutering of the format.
April 17, 2017 2:16 p.m.
Yes, the format would have to become very popular for self regulating deck turnover, but that is possible. Also, I think it would still be fun at a $50 ceiling. It does take away from the use of some cards, such as planeswalkers, but that would just be part of it. And there are plenty of $5 planeswalkers, that if you wanted to use a playset, it would only be $20/$50. And there would still be netdecks, but the little guy would stand a better chance than in Standard or Modern.
April 17, 2017 3:17 p.m.
One thing to note here, though, is that the banlist should be the same as whatever format the "lightweight" format aims to emulate. The reason why is that the price for super powerful cards (i.e. staples in Modern) is really high, but once banned, they usually drop to below a dollar or so, since they cant be used competitively anymore. This means that whatever banlist is being used by the the original format should be emulated for the "lightweight" format, or we'll just see the same decks crop up as were used int he past (minus expensive lands).
How do we go about getting a tag here on the website to mark a deck as "following the lightweight format"?
April 17, 2017 5:04 p.m.
StardustDragon11 says... #23
Silverback (commons and uncommons only 60 card constructed)
+
Non-Standard (No standard legal cards)
+
General (Same as EDH rules, only cards in their color in the deck, cast from command zone, costs +2 each time. This is the only card that is allowed to be a rare or mythic.)
=
AWESOME FUN TIMES... (Haven't Thought of a Clever Name Yet: The Format).
It allows for cheap fun decks but they are also absurdly powerful with a good general. Sure people can power play old uncommons and commons that are nuts but that is their own perogative.
Shwang says... #2
I would LOVE this. There could be a budget format for every regular format... such as Budget Standard, with a cap at $60 or so. That would be really fun, especially if that became a competitive format.
April 14, 2017 12:48 p.m.