Debate over a Hub
TappedOut forum
Posted on Nov. 28, 2013, 11 p.m. by MindAblaze
I feel like the "Casual" Format does a disservice to deck builders.
Casual doesn't mean "I don't want to win" rather it simply means I don't necessarily play in sanctioned tournaments with this deck. I feel like labeling your deck as Casual format limits the number of views and comments your deck will get as users are generally dismissive of "casual" decks.
I have found that users who peddle their decks as Modern or Legacy when they're actually "casual" decks often get the comment "this isn't competitive" or "the mere fact it's labeled X means its intended to be competitive."
Magic is a game where more players are casual than competitive. But that doesn't mean that casual players aren't competitive and I feel that making Casual a hub rather than a format would be better for our users. People can tag their Standard decks competitive, so why not have the option to tag them Casual?
Opinions? Agreements? Rebuttals?
MindAblaze says... #3
I agree about the ban lists part. I meant to address that in my OP. A guy in my playgroup plays this deck that's technically Vintage because he runs a singleton Tinker . Without it though it's just a slow modern deck. So you could easily call it "Casual Vintage" But really that just means any deck. Realistically every deck that isn't crafted for vintage could be played in said format.
But I guess I wonder; would more people use the casual hub or the casual format if the option was available? I think there is a bit of neglect by users who would otherwise give advice on a deck and instead just brush it off with a statement like "it's casual so who cares." It's not necessarily harm but it doesn't do the user any good
November 28, 2013 11:54 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #4
I think you're misinterpreting what the format listings actually mean. If you label a deck Standard, Modern, or Legacy, you are advertising that you intend to use that deck in a competition of the appropriate format. Casual just means that you don't intend to use the deck in a competition (i.e. you intend to play it casually, hence the name). It doesn't mean the deck is bad. It just means it's not meant to see event play.
I like the idea of having casual listed as a format because it most directly addresses the purpose of the deck. You don't force users to choose a competitive format and then label elsewhere that the deck is not actually for play in events of that format.
As for the argument that casual decks get less attention, you don't account for many of the other variables impacting popularity or views. Disregarding things like name and cycling habits, we'll break the site down by demographic. Competitive players are unlikely to view a casual deck because casual isn't their primary interest. You can't really say that those users should view decks that aren't relevant to their interests. You don't make the argument that Standard decks could be labeled Modern by format and Standard by hub just so they can pick up the Modern players' views. That argument isn't really worth making, is it?
I say it's better to leave causal as a format rather than a hub. That way, there's no confusion and no misrepresentation. I don't think it's really all that fair to change the system just so casual players can get deck views from the users who wouldn't normally click on casual decks. Besides, that would make it harder to sift through decks to find ones meant for actual competition.
November 29, 2013 12:29 a.m.
MindAblaze says... #6
I find the extreme example to best illustrate the point, and when you say one wouldn't/shouldn't label a deck Modern and tag it as standard to get both groups views you make a good point. As always theres a counter example; remember CawBlade from Zendikar/Scars pre-ban... That deck was extended playable and thus I don't think you'd be in the wrong to label it Extended and slap a "Standard" hub on it. It's indicating to players that you could do either.
I'm not against leaving it as a format. But if you say the Formats are intended to help develop FNM, PTQ and GP caliber decks why have the "Competitive" Hub at all? If competitive is an option for a subcategory I don't see why casual couldn't be.
As far as picking up more views...One could theoretically misrepresent their decks to get more views on them anyway. At least if casual was a hub it communicates to the viewer that this deck abides by the Modern ban-list, but isn't intended to be played anywhere besides the kitchen table. It doesn't help the deck builder who is posting their fun, casual deck hoping for suggestions to improve its win percentage when they have to start with a handicap.
Sifting through the decks made for competition is easy enough if you use the search function. It sorts very well by cards, colors and most importantly Score. Unless you end up looking at Swamps you're going to see something a lot of people have run their eyes over and that has been well refined. You'll miss some of the lower ranked strong decks but generally you'll end up with a couple pretty good options.
November 29, 2013 1:10 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #7
@MindAblaze!:
Extended is not a great example because it was basically Standard 2.0. Most of the top Extended decks were simply the top Standard decks, give or take a few cards.
I don't really agree with the competitive hub, and I may end up deleting it in the near future. I didn't even remember that it existed.
The problem I have with the argument in your third paragraph is that there are far fewer players who specifically follow ban lists or format legality rules when they're brewing casual decks than there are players who use anything while brewing casual decks. There may be instances where a user notes that his or her casual deck contains only Modern cards, but those cases are few and far between.
While it may not be equal that casual decks don't get the same attention that competitive decks do, you can't effectively argue that the disparity isn't fair. Users view decks that interest them. You can't say it isn't fair that most users prefer competitive decks to casual decks.
As for your last argument, searching by cards, colors, or score doesn't actually do anything to solve the potential problem. You're essentially assuming that all competitive decks are cookie cutter copies of one another. While major archetypes may share certain cards, your method kind of shafts the competitive homebrewer, who may be playing outside/ahead of the meta.
Ultimately, I don't see enough justification for getting rid of the casual format listing or creating a casual hub.
November 29, 2013 1:36 a.m.
MindAblaze says... #8
I think it's fair to say that equality and fairness are not the same thing. I guess that's what it comes down to. This website at its essence is a resource for players who want to improve their game. Funky, kitchen table homebrews are the outliers and the reality of the situation is winning is what it's about. Understandably. Of course people will look at the decks that interest them. But like you've written yourself, there are a number of ways to make our decks more interesting than marking them "competitive." These tactics have proven themselves, and it's just a matter of doing what you need to do to market your own build and work at getting an equal number of views. Its not often you see people feature their casual decks.
I began this conversation noticing a stark contrast between the decks I post as casual, and the decks I post to a format. What it comes down to for me is I'm a competitive player who doesn't play competively. I just like to build decks that are strong and make me a target. Should I label all my decks then as casual, or should I continue to build my decks to any given formats restrictions making them as strong for casual multiplayer play as I can without compromising their strength in a duel? For me all my decks are built to win, often at any cost. But they're meant for a specific multiplayer casual environment.
Players who don't abide by any format may be the dominant force when it comes to casual play, as their decks just evolve as they become aware of different interactions and new cards come into existence. I don't know if few and far between is necessarily correct but your hyperbole still resonates. Im not naive enough to believe that all competitive decks are the same across an archetype, but I do see the value in sorting by score to see what the top 5 rated Damia, Sage of Stone EDH decks are.
Either way, you make a number of valid points. Catering to the minority doesn't make us any better than the government.
November 29, 2013 2:09 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #9
Well, just to briefly address the score comment: deck score is not necessarily an indication of quality or strength. Score is comparatively arbitrary from deck to deck, so it isn't a good measure of anything more than popularity and whim.
November 29, 2013 2:26 a.m.
MindAblaze says... #10
Like Swamps...
But the higher the score the more likely many people have looked at it and either liked it enough to vote for it, or put in enough thought to comment. I don't recall if there is a way to sort by # of comments though. Generally decks that generate a lot of traffic get lots of votes, whether they're intended to be competitive or just funny. Nothing is ever a catch-all, and no blanket statement can sum up an Internet community. Except maybe that one.
November 29, 2013 3:02 a.m.
Rhadamanthus says... #11
As a player who's about 90% casual in terms of games played, I find that having the "Casual" format label has helped me to avoid the unhelpful comments like "Y no Jace?" and "Necro is banned in Legacy, dumbass" that I used to get on my decks before the label was implemented. The "Competitive" hub has a similar usefulness for steering the wrong people away from a list and the right people towards it.
If you're not getting a lot of views, comments, or upvotes on your casual decks, then to me the intuitive reason has to do with the mindset of different kinds of players. A casual player is more likely to just want to do his own thing and to encourage others to also do their own things. He might go searching for other decks to get ideas for his own, but probably won't leave critiques or comments unless there's something he feels very strongly about that he wants to share.
November 29, 2013 10:41 a.m.
RussischerZar says... #12
Well, in my casual multiplayer group we made an agreement on Modern construction rules to be used. Therefore I tag all of the decks I use for that as Modern format, although they - according to Epoch's description - should be put in the Casual format.
Usually I write in the deck description that the deck is meant for casual multiplayer (also usually assumed since most my decks in that format have 100 cards), but some people might not read that.
I think there will always be people that neither read the deck description nor the deck hubs, but the thing pretty much everyone looks at is the format. And then I'd rather have a suggestion that is actually Modern legal than a suggestion that is just plain useless as I can't use it for my deck since our construction rules don't admit it.
So I'm in the team that says: If you have a 'Competitive' hub, you could just as well implement a 'Non-Competitive' or 'Casual' hub. It's really nothing that would hurt the site, right?
November 29, 2013 11:12 a.m.
HarbingerJK says... #13
I've noticed that standard decks generally get more love on here
November 29, 2013 4:48 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #14
Most of our users are Standard players.
I'm debating whether competitive (and casual) should remain hubs. They both seem redundant in the majority of cases. EDH is the only format that might be able to use them effectively, and at that point you could just as easily write in the description whether the deck is for casual or competitive play.
November 29, 2013 5 p.m.
MindAblaze says... #15
But it's nice to have the ability to deckcycle and have your deck pop back up at the top of a number of different hubs for those users that browse decks by Hub at all to see.
November 29, 2013 5:09 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #16
That's true, but the redundancy is unnecessary.
November 29, 2013 5:10 p.m.
HarbingerJK says... #17
personally the casual hub is redundant for me, but even for casual decks I make them standard or modern legal just for the "challenge" of keeping them such
November 29, 2013 5:15 p.m.
MindAblaze says... #18
For me it comes down to this; Would people who mark their decks as Modern or Standard use the casual hub if it existed?
I see many decks not using the 6 hub max anyway, but for those people who do use the hubs it would be a nice way to distinguish between the decks that are made to win and the ones that are made to do something fun.
As is there's no reason you can't label a deck as "Casual : competive" That doesn't have to mean playsets of the power nine though simply because casual is loosely defined as "not restricted by banlists."
November 29, 2013 5:55 p.m.
HarbingerJK says... #19
that's basically this deck:
James Bond in Landfall
I guess it could be legacy but it's casual, the entire deck is modern legal except Counterspell lol
Jay says... #2
I think having both would actually be a good option.
I say this because some casual decks don't actually fit into a format- that is, they don't play with the appropriate banlists and such. While it seems redundant, it would mean you could have both a "Standard Casual" deck and a "Casual Control" deck.
But, as is, I don't think it's really doing any harm.
November 28, 2013 11:19 p.m.