Source
r/EDH•
Claky

Would clearly defining an EDH power level scale (1-10) be beneficial or possible?

DISCUSSION

People are pretty bad at estimating the power level of their decks which can lead to unbalanced matchups. The advice I've heard to create better matchups is to have a conversation with your opponents about power level before the game begins. I think if the community were to define a 1-10 power scale as specifically as possible, it would lead to better matchmaking.

I don't yet know what the inputs for this scale would be but a place to start might be number of tutors, average CMC, number of stax pieces, how many turns it takes to goldfish or W/L ratios

I'm not even sure if everyone can agree on a unified scale, but I think it's worth attempting.

Posted Jul 11, 2019, 4:07 PM UTC

017
huckaNajeela!•

its simply not possible

30
PuzzleboxedZedruu, Prossh, Gahiji, Yuriko, Reyhan&Ishai, Jolrael•

Beneficial? Yes. Possible? No. Not with any reasonable degree of objectivity or accuracy anyway.

Personally I mentally rate my own decks and those I commonly play against, but realistically the tier of a deck will change dramatically depending on the types of decks it runs up against and meta factors like removal and board wipes.

15
xshredder8Omnath, Locus of Battlecruiser•

I don't know, I think the Command Zone's scale was done pretty well

Edit: Any of the downvoters care to elaborate their views?

-3†
MailChimper•

Not in this context, you can have an unlimited budget optimized Urza deck and an optimized Lord Windgrace build and they will both be the same score on the CZ 1-10 scale even though the decks have wildly differing power levels.

1
xshredder8Omnath, Locus of Battlecruiser•

Those are both cEDH decks though, right? So a 10 on the scale? As a competitive format its meta will be much more graduated (i.e. there will be more detail in the 10+ range to suss out). While I don't think the Windgrace deck would get wins off of Urza, they at least play the same kind of magic, so the scale still works well enough for the purposes of the social contract.

1
MailChimper•

No optimized is a non cEDH deck that you wouldn't change a single card in regardless of budget

8 or 9 on the CZ scale IIRC

1
ryouninjaLord of Tresserhorn•

Keeping stock of your own decks power levels can help a lot. When you play with a consistent group this can be really help when everyone can play the same power level decks. The best thing I’ve done is talk to the other players and ask them to gauge their own and align them accordingly!

Also, EDHRec’s Salt Scale for cards can also be a good gauge for this. Maybe include a small list of cards that you find to be more powerful and ask the other players if they’re including some. Communication is key!

Hope this helps! :)

5
tntturtle5Kruphix, Pinnacle of Knowledge•

I think the general consensus is that it's not possible to clearly define power levels. There's not really one method without playing decks against each other that is applicable across the board. Sure, decks with "high power levels" tend to have more tutors, lower CMC, but if they're a stax deck they don't goldfish very well because the point of a stax deck is to stall the game and buy time for your win conditions to get online, while aggro decks goldfish extremely well, but in practice don't tend to last to the end of the game. Meanwhile, a janky 1-drop tribal deck is not likely high power level but can run all of the 1 mana tutors, an extremely low average CMC of... less than 1.

Even W/L ratios isn't necessarily a good measure unless everyone is playing to win and making the best plays, and no politics were involved, because all of these affect the game. If I talk someone out of removing a combo piece of mine, then I combo off, did I really win that game because of my deck, or because of my politics skills, or because my opponent misplayed/didn't care? I'll say that I myself have let people resolve Doomsday piles with a grip of counterspells and stifles, just to see what 5 cards they get, but I had already taken 99% control of the game. So was my deck of a lower power level? No, but his deck was also a Grenzo combo deck, so his wasn't of a lower power either.

1
Team7UBard•

How do you define it? My mono-white deck runs a LOT of fast mana-I think it’s effectively missing Mox Diamond and Chrome Mox. Its got some staples like Path and Wrath and some random niche pieces that are powerful in particular decks. However, I’d say it’s maybe a 5/10 in terms of power.

1
l3atman•

I personally use the Mike and Trike Scale:

Precon/Casual = Mike and Trike is too OP

Tuned = Mike and Trike isn't OP at all

cEDH = Mike and Trike? The kiddie table is that way -->

I don't personally use Mike and Trike, this is just to get a general feedback on accepted/expected powerlevel.

1
KlenthGrixis is UBR•

Ever since I found out about how Canadian Highlander balances their format, I thought it would be a good way to manage our own. They use a point system that assigns values to specific power cards and limit the number of points that are allowed in a deck. The point assignments are pretty subjective and would require balancing and tweaking, and it doesn't necessarily prevent broken things from happening. Here's a better description. I think the real benefit would be in allowing us to say, this is a X point deck and discuss from there. It would also allow us to setup actual leagues and break things up a bit to help avoid high power\point value decks from sitting across from precons or lower power decks.

1
DuploJamaal•

This doesn't really work though.

A optimized budget deck with good synergy is better than an expensive mess.

Two cards with low rating could be amazing together and a lot of cards that seem bad in surface are great for specific commanders.

You would have to have specific ratings for each commander and also account for combos and such.

You need something like the 3 Rs

  • Rocks/Ramp

0: Rocks??

1: I've got a [[Dimir Locket]] and a [[Darksteel Ingot]]

2: I run [[Dimir Signet]], [[Sol Ring]], [[Mind Stone]]

3: I only run free or mana positive rocks.

  • Removal

0: why would I waste card slots on something like that? I want to play monsters

1: I run a few sorcery speed removal spells

2: I run a handful of instant speed removal and a few board wipes

3: I can deal with anything

  • Record

0: Never won

1: After like 3 hours

2: Turn 5 or 6 kill

3: Turn 1 or 2 kill

1
MTGCardFetcher•

#####

######

####

Dimir Locket - (G) (SF) (txt) (ER)
Darksteel Ingot - (G) (SF) (txt) (ER)
Dimir Signet - (G) (SF) (txt) (ER)
Sol Ring - (G) (SF) (txt) (ER)
Mind Stone - (G) (SF) (txt) (ER)
^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call

1
KlenthGrixis is UBR•

Yeah, I acknowledged the weak point of it not preventing broken things. The point valued cards aren't necessarily just the expensive ones either. There's also no reason why the commander themselves can't be provided with a point value. Teferi or Urza for instance would both be good candidates for something like that. I also recognize that relatively mundane cards can do silly things in a deck like Zada. I'd only really be concerned about the interactions if they're in the command zone. If they're part of the 99 and tutors or mass draw have high point costs, then it's unlikely that you'll be able to abuse an interaction with non-point value cards very frequently.

That's why I emphasized the real benefit is in being provided with the language to objectively talk about our decks. The system you propose is pretty good too, but instead of or maybe in addition to Record, I think the number of tutors or repeatable draw would be good to include. Specifically because of stax decks or in the case of a very high power meta that can end games on turn 3, but usually have them run much longer because everyone is able to stop their opponents wincons.

1