jesahg 18 months{"ops":[{"insert":"This is a feature that has been asked for and rejected multiple times, but I'm here to make another argument for it.\n\nSalt score is an arbitrary, community-sourced rating for cards in the Commander format. It is a metric that is intended to measure how an average table might react to a deck's power (or annoyance) level. It's not an ideal solution, but it's helpful.\n\nBasic lands, however, have a salt score. And this is where the problem lies. It's not just a little bit salty. Every basic land is ridiculously inflated. Example: My Shigeki deck plays 40 forests. It has a salt score of 36. If you replace every forest with a Snow-Covered Forest, it drops to 25 - an 11-point drop for a trivial change that actually increases the price of the deck. This is an egregious discrepancy.\n\nSalt scores for basics:\nPlains: 0.31\nIsland: 0.72\nSwamp: 0.31\nMountain: 0.31\nForest: 0.41\nFor comparison, an Underground Sea is 0.64. A basic Island is considered more salty than a $700 dual? Doesn't compute. Saval Triome, a $12 land that is a Plains, Swamp, and Mountain, is 0.03 - one-tenth the score of any of its component types. Making your entire mana base out of expensive nonbasics is considered less salty than a mana base of just basics. What the?\n\nIf this was just a small discrepancy, it wouldn't be an issue. I wouldn't be wasting my time bashing my head against something other people have already failed to convince you to implement. But my Shigeki deck is very sad. It's not salty. It's not mean. It just wants to mill itself and play Forests. And yet salt-wise, it calculates as above average. Mono-color decks are rated higher for being mono-color.\n\nClearly the community considers blue and green to be more salty than the other colors, but even the basics in the other colors are colossally overrated. The trade-off for basics has always been that they have no utility and only make one color, but ETB untapped and aren't affected by certain land hate, and they're fetched by many land ramp cards. They're always affordable, they don't ask for anything, and they're the lifeblood (lifemana? manablood?) of the game. Please don't punish basics for being basic. Thank you.\n\nSo what's the solution? I think the best one is just to drop basics from the equation entirely. Another potential solution would be to reduce them to 1/10 of their current values. It's a big change, but it removes the problem at the source. The scores for blue and green will still be reflected in the cards they play. Shigeki will be happy again. And harmony will be restored to the universe. \n"}]}
Edited 8/5/2023, 2:26:44 PM
4
michael(Alpha User)
18 months{"ops":[{"insert":"Sorry, I accidentally archived your post when I went to reply which is what caused it to become edited. I've unarchived it.\n\nSo I think based on your post that you already understand our position on this, but for those unaware we've gotten this request before. We believe that basics belong in the salt score for decks because it's a community voted on metric, and the numbers are meant to reflect what the community voted on. \n\nI understand that it doesn't really make a ton of sense when you sit down to use these number critically, but that's not really the point of the salt sum of a deck. It's meant to be a fun metric that's good for nothing more than a few chuckles, that's all. \n\nIf you don't like that basics are as salty as they are, do your part and vote the next time the salt voting survey for EDHREC roles out! I know there is a handful of people who share your opinion on this, and if you want salt voting to become more of an analytical number over a number that's just for fun, then start beating that drumb the next time the salt survey roles around.\n\nSorry, I know this isn't what you wanted to hear. We appreciate the feedback nonetheless.\n"}]}
0
Lscoppio 14 months{"ops":[{"insert":"No, it really does not makes any sense, snow-covered island is arguably \"better\" than a vanilla Island and their score is lower.\nSaying something is communitty decided does not mean that it is fair, it just means that there is a majority of people who thinks alike, which can lead to this kind of weird situation, which should be avoided, and if you cannot avoid, dealt with.\n\nThere is value for saying something is \"valuable\" in some sense, and with large numbers there is a level of analytical presicion that has bearing in reality. But, in a setting where \"people get together to play\", and they like to follow salt to decide upon the \"fairness\" of the decks, then it means that a person playing blue is \"paying\" for each land more than a Lotus Petal. A monoblue with 36 Islands starts at 27 of Salt while a RBW would start at 10 even with 2 and 3 color lands.\n\nSo, yes, adding individual salt cost for cards is indeed a bad call, a bad design choice, and a really distasteful decision overall, meanwhile we have cards with literal 0 salt-cost.\n"}]}
0
