So what exactly is a 75% deck?
Commander (EDH) forum
Posted on Nov. 23, 2015, 9:56 p.m. by ComradeJim270
I hear the term thrown around. Apparently it's something I may be trying to do with some of my decks... or it may absolutely not be. I've been linked to articles on the whole philosophy, example decklists, etc.
I'm still confused. A lot of this stuff doesn't match with how I see the term actually used, which makes it really hard to actually use it in a way that means something. I can't use a term to describe something if it's as ambiguous as this one seems to be.
Does it mean I can't run Demonic Tutor or Force of Will? Does it mean the deck doesn't go infinite? Or does it just mean "strong, but not perfectly optimized"? How strict is the definition for 75%? Again... I get different answers from different people.
What is the most common understanding of what a 75% deck is? I'd really like to be able to go "this is/isn't supposed to be a 75% deck" and be confident that statement will be understood.
It's a term coined by Jason Alt over at GatheringMagic, meaning the deck is "75% of the way to an optimal build and just good enough to beat a deck built to be 100% optimal if I play tight and get lucky."
Here's a summary of his 75% deck design philosophy.
November 23, 2015 10:17 p.m. Edited.
Yeah, I was under the impression that unless you were in a tournament, a super powerful deck should be toned down(75%) for casual play as it make the game unfair combo-ing off on everyone turn 3-4 to win the game.
If you have infinite combos, make them something that can be shut down but still have the edge of actually pulling it off.
Just my 2 cents.
Edit: Play against Dominus - Dreamcrusher Edition and you'll see what I mean :P
No disrespect, because it's meant to win, and win fast as a tournament level deck. But not many people want to play that competitive all the time. But they certainly don't want to lose all the time either.
November 23, 2015 10:18 p.m. Edited.
ComradeJim270 says... #5
@TheDevicer: That makes a bit of sense. But what if I play a 100% optimized deck but use that mentality in the way I play it in a new group? What if I were to build a deck that does run a bunch of tutors, but choose not to just tutor into the same win ASAP in every game? Suppose I make a deck that isn't fully optimized but disregards some aspects of 75% philosophy.
What would we call that?
@clayperce: I have read that article, and it doesn't seem to fit with how I most commonly see the term used. A lot of times it seems to be used much more loosely and just takes some cues from that philosophy rather than fully adhering to it.
@Caligula: That definition is a lot closer to how I commonly see the term used than anything in the articles where the idea is outlined in detail. Is that what you find, too?
November 23, 2015 10:25 p.m.
RoarMaster says... #6
You could build a 100% optimized deck with a bunch of tutors, but not tutor for the best card/win con, but thats not building a 75% deck, thats building a 100% deck and playing shitty. Im against 'dumb playing' against weaker decks, it ruins the fun for me since there is no challenge and I know I could have won turns ago if I had wanted, and it takes the fun out of the opponent much of the time, as no one wants to be 'let win'.
November 23, 2015 10:33 p.m.
Yeah. It's better to build something that isn't up to par and go form there rather than nerf something that's incredibly good.
November 23, 2015 10:37 p.m.
ComradeJim270 says... #8
Not going to disagree. But I'm trying to find an actually usable definition of "75%", so it's sort of a thought experiment.
Part of the problem I see is that actually knowing when the deck is "too powerful" for 75% seems like it'd be a fool's errand. Some of the 75% decks I've seen would curb stomp a lot of decks I've played against while not standing a snowball's chance in hell against others. There's a massive variance in deck power level in this format and you can only build in so much "scalability".
75% feels meta-dependent, which is weird if the idea is that this is something you can comfortably use with a new playgroup.
November 23, 2015 10:42 p.m.
75 percent decks do often depend on the meta. Running a turn 3 Hermit Druid deck fully optimed with every tutor and powerful control magic is an ultra-competitive EDH deck. A toned down Zur voltron deck is a good example of 75%. It can still run a lot of powerful enchantments, but it isn't going to one hit the entire table turn 4. Still is vompetitive, and takes a lot of skill to pilot, but isn't too competitive to oppress other decks completely.
November 24, 2015 12:43 a.m.
griffstick says... #11
I like to think if you feel like your winning all the time then your not playing 75%
November 24, 2015 12:46 a.m.
ComradeJim270 says... #12
@Kryzis: Yeah... Hermit Druid is quite obviously not 75%.
It seems like the concept as presented by its creator isn't what I'm going for. The goals are almost the same, but I'm very doubtful the methods presented would lead to something that serves my needs. It kind of seems like I'd need to create my own version of this philosophy, in which case it would be misleading for me to use the "75%" terminology.
That said, I think I'm starting to get the idea; more from talking to other people than from the articles where it originated.
@griffstick: I certainly don't feel like that, but it's probably a useful metric.
November 24, 2015 1:20 a.m.
fadelightningmm says... #13
What I have always thought of as a 75% deck is a deck that is almost perfect but embraces it's imperfections. Because the deck is imperfect it can exist in casual play but because it is almost perfect it could be played competitively. This allows you to play a single deck in more situations and in a variety of metas being used as adaptive tool to switch play styles between metas.
Now that I offered my interpretation of 75% decks let me offer an alternative hypothesis towards a general answer. A 75% deck is different to different people. There is no concrete answer that works 100% of the time. Rather if you understand the basic idea that the deck itself is good but could be better with improvements. You essentially have the gist of a 75% deck. Additionally you would have approximately 75% of the meaning which could vary
November 24, 2015 4:43 a.m.
Karns_Pyromancer says... #14
I always thought of 75 as a mentality. You're there to have fun, cast cool spells, maybe combo of with some ridiculousness. The point is have fun, though. I run a lot of huggier effects (Tempt with Discovery and Collective Voyage namely) for that reason; most people have more fun when everyone is having fun. (And they tend to speed up a game, which is awesome in EDH).
November 24, 2015 10 a.m.
ComradeJim270 says... #15
@fadelightningmm: That's a much more broad definition, and one that describes something I'm totally on-board with. Sounds great to me.
@Karns_Pyromancer: The issue I see there is that "fun" is so broad. Some groups find games where stuff actually happens during the combat step dreadfully boring. Other groups find infinite combos of any kind to be infuriating bullshit. These are both casual groups, but you can't please both.
So what do we do with that?
November 24, 2015 11:46 a.m.
Karns_Pyromancer says... #16
Tailor to your group. I don't run more than one wrath effect anymore because my group loves smashing huge armies together.
By fun, I mean that everyone at least has a chance to play the game. They don't get mana screwed or hated off by T6. They have a chance to let their deck work. (It's worth noting that I play in a very casual and johnny-centric meta)
November 24, 2015 3:22 p.m.
ComradeJim270 says... #17
@Karns_Pyromancer: Because my playgroup consists of "whoever is at my LGS on Saturday" I'm limited in how much I can do that. I already know I'm going to have to build decks on multiple power levels to account for this.
But yeah, I get what you mean by fun now. By that definition, I play against decks that are not "fun" as often as I play against ones that are. 75% doesn't seem like a workable compromise. It doesn't help that I'm generally terrible at evaluating decks' power levels, and EDH players on the whole are often pretty bad at describing decks' power levels.
November 24, 2015 3:57 p.m.
griffstick says... #18
I have a 75% deck that I use when I'm up against my my friends who are on a small budget. Makes it more fair for them.
When I play at my LGS all of my best decks are at 75% cause everyone there are all about winning. Here it is my 75% that's my 75% deck. I feel that by going mono white it helps me make a 75% deck cause I have a tendency to keep improving it if I'm not winning with it but being mono white will most likely keep me at 75%
November 24, 2015 4:24 p.m. Edited.
ComradeJim270 says... #19
It looks like fun, griffstick. In all likelihood I'm going to go a different route though and just sort of go through this intuitively rather than impose particular rules.
Again, I love the idea behind 75% decks but I think the implementation of that idea kills it. I'd rather have multiple decks on varying power levels. The commander I'm most likely to put around that level is Lazav, Dimir Mastermind because he's kind of slow and focuses on using opponents' resources. But that deck is still going to run a bunch of counterspells and removal and a fair amount of tutors.
I have less potent decks I can use, and pulling out one of those makes a lot more sense than making a deck that's always going to be overpowered or underpowered, which is my perception of true 75% decks. Neither of those things is fun. I like a well-matched game and 75% decks feel like they're trying to bridge too large a gap.
November 24, 2015 4:43 p.m.
RoarMaster says... #20
Well, there is no set definition of what a 75% deck is, and even the term '75% deck' can be taken a couple of ways, as people here have pointed out. Does it fit in well with 75% of the metas, or is it 75% optimized?
With a little research we discover via wiki that 'optimizing a deck' is simply playtesting it, making some tweaks and playtesting it some more in order to continue getting a better product. This seems to imply that there is not really any such thing as an 'optimized' list, and I agree personally. Since merrian-webster describe 'optimize' as "to make something as good or effective as possible", we must then decide, is there ever going to be a set build of a deck that is 'optimized'? Is a 'Goodstuffs' deck whose commander is only being run for its colors the truely closest thing to an 'optimized' deck? It is probably 'as good and efficient' as any deck could probably be made after all. Basically, only hyper competitive decks like epoch's Dreamcrusher mentioned above. Going by that standard, probably like 0.1% of decks are actually 'optimized', and with such a low amount, its a poor measuring stick to define what an optimized deck is.
If we are trying to define it as that it is on relatively equal footing with 75% of metas you may play in, that is equally as broad and vague definition, as metas change from place to place, so Joe's hometown 75% deck may not be a 75% deck compared to the meta of the new town he moved to. If you are talking a global meta, then we are really only talking about MTGO since most of us rarely get the chance to play on other continents. And what 75% of the meta is a 75% deck supposed to fit with? The first 0-75% or the middle 15-90% or the top end 25-100%? We will assume the middle as it is the most logical. This still leaves meta dependant problems.
Long story short, I do not believe the term '75% deck' can be used to describe a deck with much of any sort of accuracy as there is no measurable factors that can be used to judge a deck as one.
November 24, 2015 6:25 p.m.
ComradeJim270 says... #21
@RoarMaster: That's kind of what I figured at this point. Thank you for explaining that in detail.
I'm just going to do my own thing and find my own ways to describe it, then.
November 25, 2015 1:14 a.m.
RoarMaster says... #22
No problem, you got me curious on the matter myself, otherwise I probably would not have bothered.
Arvail says... #2
The term is indicative of a deck built to fit 75% of metas. If you want a good example, I highly suggest you check out my politically oriented Bolas deck at BOLAS RUNS FOR OFFICE. Notice I run no tutors, there are plenty of control magic and clone effects, and much of how the deck plays is dictated by the board.
The whole 75% thing refers to mentality as much as it refers to building a deck. For example, I could totally include Demonic Tutor or Force of Will into the deck I linked above if the whole thing weren't built on budget. In fact, if I were to play that deck in my primary meta, it would most certainly have both of those cards and still fit the whole 75% philosophy. Why? Simply put, I could (or would) only use them in rather fair ways. I mean, using those to counter a decent creature your opponent finally managed to cast or fetching a Tooth and Nail are going to incite some grumbling in most metas.
November 23, 2015 10:04 p.m. Edited.