Trying to assign a numerical value to a deck based on interactivity is really an effort in futility. Say my opponent has Bolt and Push in hand. His interactive score is +2. I play a Hollow One, which is interacting with the Bolt and Push in my opponent's hand by negating their usefulness. Does this make Hollow One's interactive score +2 for me then? Perhaps -2 for my opponent? You can't assign numbers to this type of value gained in an "This card can target X things" kind of way.
Playing a card that effectively blanks your opponents cards is interaction. I am using one card in my deck to negate X cards in my opponents deck. Lightning Bolt does the same thing to Wild Nacatl, playing one card to negate an opponents card. My Primeval Titan makes all my Jund opponent's creatures bad. Is Primeval Titan +18 or so interactivity?
However,
The whole discussion smells like veiled "my midrange/control pile lost to the faster/bigger/more explosive pile and I need to quantify my rage/disappointment somewhere on the internet but people don't like outright whining" and I don't feel like there is any value for anyone to be gained by re-re-re-re-retreading the feelsbads of midrange/control players any further.
Why are their feelings given such recognition? Where are the Affinity players complaining about Pyroclasm effects or the Scapeshift players complaining about counterspell effects? The whole conversation reeks of bias and entitlement.
So not interacting is interaction???
That seems incredibly backwards and counter to the entire discussion here.
Just because that blanks opponents cards (by design) it is entirely context based. In another match up that delve fatty still dies, nothing to do with how it is individually so it's interaction levels never change.
If you think this reeks of elitism then I suggest you reread the last 3 pages because this is not about strength or whining about decks you lose to. It's about working out how interactive a deck is (ignoring context eg bolt 80%+ going to face).
The whole discussion smells like veiled "my midrange/control pile lost to the faster/bigger/more explosive pile and I need to quantify my rage/disappointment somewhere on the internet but people don't like outright whining" and I don't feel like there is any value for anyone to be gained by re-re-re-re-retreading the feelsbads of midrange/control players any further.
Why are their feelings given such recognition? Where are the Affinity players complaining about Pyroclasm effects or the Scapeshift players complaining about counterspell effects? The whole conversation reeks of bias and entitlement.
phew good thing it isnt about that at all. that would indeed suck.
the discussion has gotten a bit too theoretical for my tastes. generally im fine with using terms like interactive to classify various play patterns for decks as a means of identification. abstraction.
people wanna hash out the details so im willing to see it through. but you are welcome to go do other things. the internet is great like that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
So not interacting is interaction???
That seems incredibly backwards and counter to the entire discussion here.
Just because that blanks opponents cards (by design) it is entirely context based. In another match up that delve fatty still dies, nothing to do with how it is individually so it's interaction levels never change.
If you think this reeks of elitism then I suggest you reread the last 3 pages because this is not about strength or whining about decks you lose to. It's about working out how interactive a deck is (ignoring context eg bolt 80%+ going to face).
There is no interaction without context. A card requires a scenario to function. A card outside of a game does nothing.
THIS 100X!!! If you don't agree with this then there is no amount of logic that will ever convince you that good, non-oppressive, combos should be allowed. If you don't agree with it then just don't play this game, and you certainly shouldn't feel entitled to make any comment on ban lists ever.
Where are the Affinity players complaining about Pyroclasm effects or the Scapeshift players complaining about counterspell effects? The whole conversation reeks of bias and entitlement.
I know this is probably going out of context a little bit, but now I'm kind of wondering what happened to Shattering Spree in the discussion of things artificers just love seeing in the morning. Doesn't wipe the board, but boy does it do enough against artifact decks that it doesn't matter much. It can take out the creatures with Cranial Plating or a grown Arcbound Ravager, which is something pyroclasm effects can't do.
Then again, the sideboard / answers part of modern is my least favorite part of it (outside of fighting with the mana base). There are many times where the sideboard gets forced: I want to have Shattering Spree in the board to better handle one deck, but then all those slots got eaten by Pyroclasm, Leyline of Sanctity, Chalice of the Void, Engineered Explosives, and a number of other contenders in some form of configuration.
So not interacting is interaction???
That seems incredibly backwards and counter to the entire discussion here.
Just because that blanks opponents cards (by design) it is entirely context based. In another match up that delve fatty still dies, nothing to do with how it is individually so it's interaction levels never change.
If you think this reeks of elitism then I suggest you reread the last 3 pages because this is not about strength or whining about decks you lose to. It's about working out how interactive a deck is (ignoring context eg bolt 80%+ going to face).
There is no interaction without context. A card requires a scenario to function. A card outside of a game does nothing.
Different parts of the color pie interact in different ways. It's like the flavor text of Null Rod: sometimes something doing nothing is actually doing something; or in the case of certain keywords, answering something.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Different parts of the color pie interact in different ways. It's like the flavor text of Null Rod: sometimes something doing nothing is actually doing something; or in the case of certain keywords, answering something.
Right. There exists a scenario where Null Rod has a function, an interactivity value, but that scenario is not independent of other cards or outside a game.
It has no interactivity value in a vacuum.
THIS 100X!!! If you don't agree with this then there is no amount of logic that will ever convince you that good, non-oppressive, combos should be allowed. If you don't agree with it then just don't play this game, and you certainly shouldn't feel entitled to make any comment on ban lists ever.
So not interacting is interaction???
That seems incredibly backwards and counter to the entire discussion here.
Just because that blanks opponents cards (by design) it is entirely context based. In another match up that delve fatty still dies, nothing to do with how it is individually so it's interaction levels never change.
If you think this reeks of elitism then I suggest you reread the last 3 pages because this is not about strength or whining about decks you lose to. It's about working out how interactive a deck is (ignoring context eg bolt 80%+ going to face).
There is no interaction without context. A card requires a scenario to function. A card outside of a game does nothing.
Disagree both with what you've said and how you're choosing to read what I wrote. I at no point said 'outside of a game' if I had we're a bunch of people wasting money on tiny pieces of cardboard.
What was said is 'ignoring context' which means the card can do all of the things printed on the card no more no less.
If you try to model, calculate and assign a single value based on the mirriad of contexts that occur during a game I agree the attempt is futile because as you point out not all abilities of a card can even be used at all stages of a game and the computational power needed would be massive.
Different parts of the color pie interact in different ways. It's like the flavor text of Null Rod: sometimes something doing nothing is actually doing something; or in the case of certain keywords, answering something.
Right. There exists a scenario where Null Rod has a function, an interactivity value, but that scenario is not independent of other cards or outside a game.
It has no interactivity value in a vacuum.
Again I would disagree that null rod is a zero interaction card, there may be scenarios where is does nothing but that doesn't make it uninteractive. Just because it doesn't target (like damnation) or because it might be dead in some match ups (eg against elves) it's still interactive (it's like a narrower permenant based stifle for artifacts activated abilities)
Re: context and interaction
Context clearly matters, but some cards do not advance a win in any way unless an opponent is deploying resources to interact with. This is the average player's conception of interactivity. A card like Titan certainly interacts in combat, but does not present a choice to interact with spells. It may blank spells but that's not interaction with an opposing gamestate. Push does absolutely nothing, barring rare and weird corner cases, to advance a win unless an opponent is playing cards to be Pushed.
Re: interaction and bias
People may assign legitimacy or moral value to interactivity, but I am not doing so and I don't care about those judgments. I am simply trying to measure a subjective concept in objective terms. If people run away with that and make value judgments based on those evaluations, that's not a strike against the system. It just means people have agendas that they will choose to promote with whatever information they have. At least a system would clarify our terms and challenge some of the myths about Modern interaction.
Re: scoring ideas
I like the idea of weighing combat less, but some creatures can't even block in most/all cases (e.g. something with shadow or "this can't block" text). So I think a point for attacking and blocking each is appropriate. I also think there needs to be a way to score cards like Snpcaster that interact with interaction cards. So if Snpcaster is in a deck with cards like Push, it gets an additional point for ability to interact with that piece of interaction.
I'm doing some mock scoring and will post results soon. Very interesting findings so far and I think for all the potential theoretical criticism of such a system, it does a great job of capturing interactivity as most people know it.
Then again, the sideboard / answers part of modern is my least favorite part of it (outside of fighting with the mana base). There are many times where the sideboard gets forced: I want to have Shattering Spree in the board to better handle one deck, but then all those slots got eaten by Pyroclasm, Leyline of Sanctity, Chalice of the Void, Engineered Explosives, and a number of other contenders in some form of configuration.
yeah i can agree with this. modern sideboards dont really feel like sideboards anymore. you are locked into playing a good spread of the most versatile/generic stuff in your colors then have like 2 slots to actually do anything with.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
If you try to model, calculate and assign a single value based on the mirriad of contexts that occur during a game I agree the attempt is futile because as you point out not all abilities of a card can even be used at all stages of a game and the computational power needed would be massive.
The matrix solution to rate cards takes very little computational power. It does however require a lot of data entry, if you were to use mtgtop8 data and rate only the 372 most popular cards (an arbitrary cutoff of showing up in 1% of the meta... their data goes to the 876 most popular cards), you would need 138,384 pieces of data to complete it. Since you're probably looking at around 5 seconds per card to quickly go over the rules by hand, that's 11,532 man hours. If each member of the community put 8 hours into the project over a month you would need just under 1500 participants to complete it, and that doesn't get into issues of accuracy.
Computationally however, it would be very simple. This is why automated text parsing is really the only way to go about doing this.
Re: scoring ideas
I like the idea of weighing combat less, but some creatures can't even block in most/all cases (e.g. something with shadow or "this can't block" text). So I think a point for attacking and blocking each is appropriate. I also think there needs to be a way to score cards like Snpcaster that interact with interaction cards. So if Snpcaster is in a deck with cards like Push, it gets an additional point for ability to interact with that piece of interaction.
yeah snapcaster and other value creatures that 'may' add additional points of interaction are more difficult to asses. tbh it might just be better to score them at face value as creatures. the merit of your system is its lack of complexity.
creatures that tutor would fit the bill as well. there are probably others im not thinking of.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
Re: scoring ideas
I like the idea of weighing combat less, but some creatures can't even block in most/all cases (e.g. something with shadow or "this can't block" text). So I think a point for attacking and blocking each is appropriate. I also think there needs to be a way to score cards like Snpcaster that interact with interaction cards. So if Snpcaster is in a deck with cards like Push, it gets an additional point for ability to interact with that piece of interaction.
yeah snapcaster and other value creatures that 'may' add additional points of interaction are more difficult to asses. tbh it might just be better to score them at face value as creatures. the merit of your system is its lack of complexity.
creatures that tutor would fit the bill as well. there are probably others im not thinking of.
Usually I tend to think of Snappy as a wild card that leaves behind a token. It has equal value to the card it copies, and leaves behind a critter. It doesn't really provide value parity unless you get to flash a card back, IMO.
I'm doing some mock scoring and will post results soon. Very interesting findings so far and I think for all the potential theoretical criticism of such a system, it does a great job of capturing interactivity as most people know it.
Here's a first pass at some rules, sorry it's so sloppily written
Must pass criteria:
Ratings rate first cast of each spell, at earliest opportunity.
Creatures:
Successfully fights (trades in combat, bounces in combat, wins in combat... does not die for nothing)
Edge cases - Fight exception If CA is gained (Wall of Omens example), variable p/t (ooze, goyf, etc) given arbitrary values, I'm using 4/5 goyf, 4/4 ooze
Removal:
Kills at target CMC+1 or less. (Terminate passes vs Birds of Paradise, Hero's Downfall does not)
Corner cases – Delve fails vs CMC of 1. Delve creatures assumed to fully delve, conditional enablers (metalcraft, revolt, etc) always assumed on. Must trade for full card (Electrolyze passes Lingering Souls, beats one side and draws another, Kolaghan's Command does not, fatal push loses to BBE), treat counterspells as removal
Discard:
Opponents choice discard never beats a card
Player choice discard must within choice cmc+1
Trading:
Use traditional CA counts, draw = +1, discard = -1, pass if parity or better (Cryptic Command hits parity against BBE, so it passes). Edge case, 2 for 1 passes at mana+3 vs mana +1. Additional cards gained such as 3 for 1 pass at mana +2 for each additional card.
Planeswalker:
May evaluate all modes usable on ETB, if any usable mode passes vs a given card, the card passes
No interaction:
If no interaction between cards (Vial vs Lighting Bolt), result is a -1.
Key: 1 = good, 0 = bad, -1 = NA
I used these rules to evaluate the top 21 non land cards (which was everything in the top 40) in Modern against each other going by MTG Top8 which ranks by metagame prevalence. It's using the criteria of column vs row.
Attached are images of the raw scores including -1's, and adjusted scores which treat -1's as 0's for the purposes of summing positioning.
This was 441 pieces of data, and adhering to these rules it took about 60 minutes to implement. That's 8 seconds per card. Seems pretty rough to do this for a larger format.
Additionally, I realized halfway into this that the rules approach needs to change. Card vs card doesn't work because different cards serve different purposes.
Instead, I would recommend multiple rule sets, one for threats, one for answers, and one for enablers. The reason this is important is that Serum Visions and Ancient Stirrings both had very poor scores that don't represent actual performance because they enable the rest of your deck rather than doing anything on their own. Each card should probably exist in all three sets, but in each set be judged by different criteria, for example Snapcaster Mage should be judged on a different axis depending on if you want to use it as a threat (bolt/snap attack/bolt) or an answer (push/snap block/push), or even both as a mix of the two scores based on percent of each.
I take issue with the current proposed scoring system for interaction, just because I don't think it is correctly encapsulating what interaction is. For instance, lightning bolt scoring 3 because it hits creature and planeswalkers is overinflating bolt's effect. If that is the case, then abrupt decay should score 4, because it hits creatures, walkers, enchantments and artifacts. I'm going to propose a different system for point scoring that, hopefully, address this type of issues.
First I will define interaction as 'anything that can affect, positively or negatively, globally or specifically, one of the opponent's zones'. The opponent's zones are: his battlefield, his graveyard, his library, his hand, himself and 'his stack'. I know the stack is the same for both players, but by 'his stack' I mean 'effects or spells controlled by the opponent that are on the stack'. For each zone that a card is able to interact with, it scores one point.
Before I can explain the rest of the scoring system, let me clarify two things in the definition:
1) 'Positively or Negatively' incorporates simmetrical group hug cards. Rites of Flourishing forces the opponent to draw an extra card, so it scores 1 interaction point. Upwelling, however, doesn't interact with any of the zones previously mentioned, therefore it doesn't score points. Negative effects incorporate things like Bolt, Push, etc.
Now, to score points, besides counting the amount of zones a card interacts, you also have to count the two 'moments' where it is able to interact. The two moments are:
1) When a card is played
2) After the card is played
So, if a card, when played, can interact with one of the opponent's zones, it scores 1 point. Examples of this would be counterspell (works when played, interacts with opponent's stack), or hymn to tourach (works when played, interacts with opponent's hand).
If a card can interact with one or more of the opponent's zones after being played, it gets points accordinly. Goblin Guide counts 2, because it can interact with the opp's battlefield and with the opponent himself. Deathrite Shaman scores 3, because it can interact with the opp's battlefield, the opp's graveyard and the opponent himself. Sphinx's Tutelage scores 1, because it can interact with the opponent's library. Notice that for you to score points, it doesn't matter if a condition needs to be fulfilled, as is the case for tutelage. The only thing that matters is your potential to interact.
There are issues with scoring like that, for instance Grim Lavamancer is no different than a vanilla creature. It scores 2, interacting with the battlefield and the opponent himself, even though someone would instinctively claim that lavamancer is more interactive than, say, monastery swiftspear. However, no system of classification is perfect. Similarly, Snapcaster Mage scores 2, because even though it has a effect when it is played, such effect interacts only with YOUR zone (your graveyard). Meanwhile Dire Fleet Daredevil would score 3.
Examples of cards that interact both when they're played and when they're on board are, for instance, Mystic Snake. Snake scores 3 (1 for the stack when it is played, and 2 for interacting with battlefield and opponent after it is played). Venser, Shaper Savant scores 4 (2 for interacting with the stack and battlefield when it is played, and 2 for interacting with battlefield and opponent after it is played).
There are maybe some hiccups in such system where an extraction effect like surgical extraction is gonna score 3 because it interacts with graveyard, hand and library, but that is the nature of the beast. I think this system can better encapsulate what people mean by 'interaction', but I'm open to modifications, criticism or whatever else it might come.
The idea, after explained, is simple. You just need to ask yourself this:
1) Once this card is played, with how many of the opponent's zones does it interact with? (1 point for each zone)
2) After this card is played, with how many of the opponent's zones does it interact with? (1 point for each zone)
And that's it. What do you guys think? Complex? Not better than the other proposed system? Something else?
EDIT: just quick observations - cards likes Nevermore and Ensnaring Bridge score 1 (interact with the opponent directly and his battlefield, respectively, after they're played). Creatures with defender score 1, because they can only interact with the battlefield. That is the gist of the idea.
Would you like to read Commander stories? Check my latest stories, coming from Lorwyn and Innistrad: Ghoulcaller Gisa and Doran, The Siege Tower! If you like my writing, ask me to write something for your commander as well!
1. Endlessly debating an interaction scoring system is mostly bike-shedding. Unless you plan to actual use the system to build some stats, it's just endless hair-splitting.
2. I don't think cards that interact after they're played, like ensnaring bridge and, similarly, chalice of the void are what most people consider being interactive. In fact, those two cards would pretty much fall into the non-interactive side, reducing what can be done. A prison deck should not end up being the summum of interactions.
Yes, I realized my point #2 is exactly what I'm talking about in point #1. Irony.
1. Endlessly debating an interaction scoring system is mostly bike-shedding. Unless you plan to actual use the system to build some stats, it's just endless hair-splitting.
2. I don't think cards that interact after they're played, like ensnaring bridge and, similarly, chalice of the void are what most people consider being interactive. In fact, those two cards would pretty much fall into the non-interactive side, reducing what can be done. A prison deck should not end up being the summum of interactions.
Yes, I realized my point #2 is exactly what I'm talking about in point #1. Irony.
As a counterpoint, if you're ranking cards against each other, many prison cards score quite highly since they beat whatever the opponent is doing. I think that's a completely valid way to measure things.
1. Endlessly debating an interaction scoring system is mostly bike-shedding. Unless you plan to actual use the system to build some stats, it's just endless hair-splitting.
2. I don't think cards that interact after they're played, like ensnaring bridge and, similarly, chalice of the void are what most people consider being interactive. In fact, those two cards would pretty much fall into the non-interactive side, reducing what can be done. A prison deck should not end up being the summum of interactions.
Yes, I realized my point #2 is exactly what I'm talking about in point #1. Irony.
As a counterpoint, if you're ranking cards against each other, many prison cards score quite highly since they beat whatever the opponent is doing. I think that's a completely valid way to measure things.
That's also why good prison cards are not exactly popular in game design land over at WoTC. They are so good at stopping the opponent that they prevent the opponent from winning the game if deployed correctly, but don't necessarily win the game for the player playing the cards. Collective Restraint was one of the most abysmal cards to play against because once the opponent hit at least 3-4 land types it was over. That was before fetchlands and shocks were around. Try playing against a deck that runs that alongside Ghostly Prison and Archangel of Tithes. It's kind of sadistic because it leaves you with the vague hope you can just buy your way around it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
1. Endlessly debating an interaction scoring system is mostly bike-shedding. Unless you plan to actual use the system to build some stats, it's just endless hair-splitting.
2. I don't think cards that interact after they're played, like ensnaring bridge and, similarly, chalice of the void are what most people consider being interactive. In fact, those two cards would pretty much fall into the non-interactive side, reducing what can be done. A prison deck should not end up being the summum of interactions.
Yes, I realized my point #2 is exactly what I'm talking about in point #1. Irony.
As a counterpoint, if you're ranking cards against each other, many prison cards score quite highly since they beat whatever the opponent is doing. I think that's a completely valid way to measure things.
Then in order to differentiate, "interaction" could be viewed as active or passive. Passive "interaction" is not normally viewed as the colloquial definition of "interaction" because something just sits there and doesn't actively do anything. Even though both Chalice of the Void and Spell Snare can counter a 2cmc spell, one of them has to be actively chosen and target a spell, the other sits idly, without targeting or requiring any further input from the controller. It's hard to consider both as "interaction."
1. Endlessly debating an interaction scoring system is mostly bike-shedding. Unless you plan to actual use the system to build some stats, it's just endless hair-splitting.
2. I don't think cards that interact after they're played, like ensnaring bridge and, similarly, chalice of the void are what most people consider being interactive. In fact, those two cards would pretty much fall into the non-interactive side, reducing what can be done. A prison deck should not end up being the summum of interactions.
Yes, I realized my point #2 is exactly what I'm talking about in point #1. Irony.
As a counterpoint, if you're ranking cards against each other, many prison cards score quite highly since they beat whatever the opponent is doing. I think that's a completely valid way to measure things.
Then in order to differentiate, "interaction" could be viewed as active or passive. Passive "interaction" is not normally viewed as the colloquial definition of "interaction" because something just sits there and doesn't actively do anything. Even though both Chalice of the Void and Spell Snare can counter a 2cmc spell, one of them has to be actively chosen and target a spell, the other sits idly, without targeting or requiring any further input from the controller. It's hard to consider both as "interaction."
What could Chalice of the Void be other than interaction though. The card doesn't advance your own board and even requires special deck building constraints in order to make it work. It is a card whose only purpose is to interact with the opponent
Then in order to differentiate, "interaction" could be viewed as active or passive. Passive "interaction" is not normally viewed as the colloquial definition of "interaction" because something just sits there and doesn't actively do anything. Even though both Chalice of the Void and Spell Snare can counter a 2cmc spell, one of them has to be actively chosen and target a spell, the other sits idly, without targeting or requiring any further input from the controller. It's hard to consider both as "interaction."
I don't think that's accurate. Thalia, Guardian of Thraben is interaction against Storm. Damping Sphere is interaction against Tron. Melira, Sylvok Outcast is interaction against Infect.
So not interacting is interaction???
That seems incredibly backwards and counter to the entire discussion here.
Just because that blanks opponents cards (by design) it is entirely context based. In another match up that delve fatty still dies, nothing to do with how it is individually so it's interaction levels never change.
If you think this reeks of elitism then I suggest you reread the last 3 pages because this is not about strength or whining about decks you lose to. It's about working out how interactive a deck is (ignoring context eg bolt 80%+ going to face).
Legacy - LED Dredge, ANT & WDnT
phew good thing it isnt about that at all. that would indeed suck.
the discussion has gotten a bit too theoretical for my tastes. generally im fine with using terms like interactive to classify various play patterns for decks as a means of identification. abstraction.
people wanna hash out the details so im willing to see it through. but you are welcome to go do other things. the internet is great like that.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)There is no interaction without context. A card requires a scenario to function. A card outside of a game does nothing.
I know this is probably going out of context a little bit, but now I'm kind of wondering what happened to Shattering Spree in the discussion of things artificers just love seeing in the morning. Doesn't wipe the board, but boy does it do enough against artifact decks that it doesn't matter much. It can take out the creatures with Cranial Plating or a grown Arcbound Ravager, which is something pyroclasm effects can't do.
Then again, the sideboard / answers part of modern is my least favorite part of it (outside of fighting with the mana base). There are many times where the sideboard gets forced: I want to have Shattering Spree in the board to better handle one deck, but then all those slots got eaten by Pyroclasm, Leyline of Sanctity, Chalice of the Void, Engineered Explosives, and a number of other contenders in some form of configuration.
Different parts of the color pie interact in different ways. It's like the flavor text of Null Rod: sometimes something doing nothing is actually doing something; or in the case of certain keywords, answering something.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Right. There exists a scenario where Null Rod has a function, an interactivity value, but that scenario is not independent of other cards or outside a game.
It has no interactivity value in a vacuum.
Disagree both with what you've said and how you're choosing to read what I wrote. I at no point said 'outside of a game' if I had we're a bunch of people wasting money on tiny pieces of cardboard.
What was said is 'ignoring context' which means the card can do all of the things printed on the card no more no less.
If you try to model, calculate and assign a single value based on the mirriad of contexts that occur during a game I agree the attempt is futile because as you point out not all abilities of a card can even be used at all stages of a game and the computational power needed would be massive.
Legacy - LED Dredge, ANT & WDnT
Again I would disagree that null rod is a zero interaction card, there may be scenarios where is does nothing but that doesn't make it uninteractive. Just because it doesn't target (like damnation) or because it might be dead in some match ups (eg against elves) it's still interactive (it's like a narrower permenant based stifle for artifacts activated abilities)
Legacy - LED Dredge, ANT & WDnT
It's not really true though. Liliana of the Veil and Collective Brutality are much closer to Brainstorm in that they let you filter resources.
Context clearly matters, but some cards do not advance a win in any way unless an opponent is deploying resources to interact with. This is the average player's conception of interactivity. A card like Titan certainly interacts in combat, but does not present a choice to interact with spells. It may blank spells but that's not interaction with an opposing gamestate. Push does absolutely nothing, barring rare and weird corner cases, to advance a win unless an opponent is playing cards to be Pushed.
Re: interaction and bias
People may assign legitimacy or moral value to interactivity, but I am not doing so and I don't care about those judgments. I am simply trying to measure a subjective concept in objective terms. If people run away with that and make value judgments based on those evaluations, that's not a strike against the system. It just means people have agendas that they will choose to promote with whatever information they have. At least a system would clarify our terms and challenge some of the myths about Modern interaction.
Re: scoring ideas
I like the idea of weighing combat less, but some creatures can't even block in most/all cases (e.g. something with shadow or "this can't block" text). So I think a point for attacking and blocking each is appropriate. I also think there needs to be a way to score cards like Snpcaster that interact with interaction cards. So if Snpcaster is in a deck with cards like Push, it gets an additional point for ability to interact with that piece of interaction.
I'm doing some mock scoring and will post results soon. Very interesting findings so far and I think for all the potential theoretical criticism of such a system, it does a great job of capturing interactivity as most people know it.
yeah i can agree with this. modern sideboards dont really feel like sideboards anymore. you are locked into playing a good spread of the most versatile/generic stuff in your colors then have like 2 slots to actually do anything with.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)The matrix solution to rate cards takes very little computational power. It does however require a lot of data entry, if you were to use mtgtop8 data and rate only the 372 most popular cards (an arbitrary cutoff of showing up in 1% of the meta... their data goes to the 876 most popular cards), you would need 138,384 pieces of data to complete it. Since you're probably looking at around 5 seconds per card to quickly go over the rules by hand, that's 11,532 man hours. If each member of the community put 8 hours into the project over a month you would need just under 1500 participants to complete it, and that doesn't get into issues of accuracy.
Computationally however, it would be very simple. This is why automated text parsing is really the only way to go about doing this.
yeah snapcaster and other value creatures that 'may' add additional points of interaction are more difficult to asses. tbh it might just be better to score them at face value as creatures. the merit of your system is its lack of complexity.
creatures that tutor would fit the bill as well. there are probably others im not thinking of.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)Usually I tend to think of Snappy as a wild card that leaves behind a token. It has equal value to the card it copies, and leaves behind a critter. It doesn't really provide value parity unless you get to flash a card back, IMO.
Here's a first pass at some rules, sorry it's so sloppily written
Must pass criteria:
Ratings rate first cast of each spell, at earliest opportunity.
Creatures:
Successfully fights (trades in combat, bounces in combat, wins in combat... does not die for nothing)
Edge cases - Fight exception If CA is gained (Wall of Omens example), variable p/t (ooze, goyf, etc) given arbitrary values, I'm using 4/5 goyf, 4/4 ooze
Removal:
Kills at target CMC+1 or less. (Terminate passes vs Birds of Paradise, Hero's Downfall does not)
Corner cases – Delve fails vs CMC of 1. Delve creatures assumed to fully delve, conditional enablers (metalcraft, revolt, etc) always assumed on. Must trade for full card (Electrolyze passes Lingering Souls, beats one side and draws another, Kolaghan's Command does not, fatal push loses to BBE), treat counterspells as removal
Discard:
Opponents choice discard never beats a card
Player choice discard must within choice cmc+1
Trading:
Use traditional CA counts, draw = +1, discard = -1, pass if parity or better (Cryptic Command hits parity against BBE, so it passes). Edge case, 2 for 1 passes at mana+3 vs mana +1. Additional cards gained such as 3 for 1 pass at mana +2 for each additional card.
Planeswalker:
May evaluate all modes usable on ETB, if any usable mode passes vs a given card, the card passes
No interaction:
If no interaction between cards (Vial vs Lighting Bolt), result is a -1.
Key: 1 = good, 0 = bad, -1 = NA
I used these rules to evaluate the top 21 non land cards (which was everything in the top 40) in Modern against each other going by MTG Top8 which ranks by metagame prevalence. It's using the criteria of column vs row.
Attached are images of the raw scores including -1's, and adjusted scores which treat -1's as 0's for the purposes of summing positioning.
This was 441 pieces of data, and adhering to these rules it took about 60 minutes to implement. That's 8 seconds per card. Seems pretty rough to do this for a larger format.
Additionally, I realized halfway into this that the rules approach needs to change. Card vs card doesn't work because different cards serve different purposes.
Instead, I would recommend multiple rule sets, one for threats, one for answers, and one for enablers. The reason this is important is that Serum Visions and Ancient Stirrings both had very poor scores that don't represent actual performance because they enable the rest of your deck rather than doing anything on their own. Each card should probably exist in all three sets, but in each set be judged by different criteria, for example Snapcaster Mage should be judged on a different axis depending on if you want to use it as a threat (bolt/snap attack/bolt) or an answer (push/snap block/push), or even both as a mix of the two scores based on percent of each.
First I will define interaction as 'anything that can affect, positively or negatively, globally or specifically, one of the opponent's zones'. The opponent's zones are: his battlefield, his graveyard, his library, his hand, himself and 'his stack'. I know the stack is the same for both players, but by 'his stack' I mean 'effects or spells controlled by the opponent that are on the stack'. For each zone that a card is able to interact with, it scores one point.
Before I can explain the rest of the scoring system, let me clarify two things in the definition:
1) 'Positively or Negatively' incorporates simmetrical group hug cards. Rites of Flourishing forces the opponent to draw an extra card, so it scores 1 interaction point. Upwelling, however, doesn't interact with any of the zones previously mentioned, therefore it doesn't score points. Negative effects incorporate things like Bolt, Push, etc.
2) 'Globally or Specifically' incorporates global effects that hit both players zones, like Wrath of God and Night of Soul's Betrayal. Specifically means just the opponent's zones, like inquisition of kozilek.
Now, to score points, besides counting the amount of zones a card interacts, you also have to count the two 'moments' where it is able to interact. The two moments are:
1) When a card is played
2) After the card is played
So, if a card, when played, can interact with one of the opponent's zones, it scores 1 point. Examples of this would be counterspell (works when played, interacts with opponent's stack), or hymn to tourach (works when played, interacts with opponent's hand).
If a card can interact with one or more of the opponent's zones after being played, it gets points accordinly. Goblin Guide counts 2, because it can interact with the opp's battlefield and with the opponent himself. Deathrite Shaman scores 3, because it can interact with the opp's battlefield, the opp's graveyard and the opponent himself. Sphinx's Tutelage scores 1, because it can interact with the opponent's library. Notice that for you to score points, it doesn't matter if a condition needs to be fulfilled, as is the case for tutelage. The only thing that matters is your potential to interact.
There are issues with scoring like that, for instance Grim Lavamancer is no different than a vanilla creature. It scores 2, interacting with the battlefield and the opponent himself, even though someone would instinctively claim that lavamancer is more interactive than, say, monastery swiftspear. However, no system of classification is perfect. Similarly, Snapcaster Mage scores 2, because even though it has a effect when it is played, such effect interacts only with YOUR zone (your graveyard). Meanwhile Dire Fleet Daredevil would score 3.
Examples of cards that interact both when they're played and when they're on board are, for instance, Mystic Snake. Snake scores 3 (1 for the stack when it is played, and 2 for interacting with battlefield and opponent after it is played). Venser, Shaper Savant scores 4 (2 for interacting with the stack and battlefield when it is played, and 2 for interacting with battlefield and opponent after it is played).
There are maybe some hiccups in such system where an extraction effect like surgical extraction is gonna score 3 because it interacts with graveyard, hand and library, but that is the nature of the beast. I think this system can better encapsulate what people mean by 'interaction', but I'm open to modifications, criticism or whatever else it might come.
The idea, after explained, is simple. You just need to ask yourself this:
1) Once this card is played, with how many of the opponent's zones does it interact with? (1 point for each zone)
2) After this card is played, with how many of the opponent's zones does it interact with? (1 point for each zone)
And that's it. What do you guys think? Complex? Not better than the other proposed system? Something else?
EDIT: just quick observations - cards likes Nevermore and Ensnaring Bridge score 1 (interact with the opponent directly and his battlefield, respectively, after they're played). Creatures with defender score 1, because they can only interact with the battlefield. That is the gist of the idea.
Read my other stories as well (some ongoing):
Reaper King (a horror story), Kaalia of the Vast (an origin story), Sequels for Innistrad (Alternative sequels for Inn), Grey Areas (Odric's fanfic), Royal Succession (goblins),The Tracker's Message (eldrazi on Innistrad) and Ugin and his Eye (the end of OGW).
1. Endlessly debating an interaction scoring system is mostly bike-shedding. Unless you plan to actual use the system to build some stats, it's just endless hair-splitting.
2. I don't think cards that interact after they're played, like ensnaring bridge and, similarly, chalice of the void are what most people consider being interactive. In fact, those two cards would pretty much fall into the non-interactive side, reducing what can be done. A prison deck should not end up being the summum of interactions.
Yes, I realized my point #2 is exactly what I'm talking about in point #1. Irony.
As a counterpoint, if you're ranking cards against each other, many prison cards score quite highly since they beat whatever the opponent is doing. I think that's a completely valid way to measure things.
That's also why good prison cards are not exactly popular in game design land over at WoTC. They are so good at stopping the opponent that they prevent the opponent from winning the game if deployed correctly, but don't necessarily win the game for the player playing the cards. Collective Restraint was one of the most abysmal cards to play against because once the opponent hit at least 3-4 land types it was over. That was before fetchlands and shocks were around. Try playing against a deck that runs that alongside Ghostly Prison and Archangel of Tithes. It's kind of sadistic because it leaves you with the vague hope you can just buy your way around it.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Then in order to differentiate, "interaction" could be viewed as active or passive. Passive "interaction" is not normally viewed as the colloquial definition of "interaction" because something just sits there and doesn't actively do anything. Even though both Chalice of the Void and Spell Snare can counter a 2cmc spell, one of them has to be actively chosen and target a spell, the other sits idly, without targeting or requiring any further input from the controller. It's hard to consider both as "interaction."
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
I would just go with the basic bolt equals 3, push equals 1, and then apply that to 3 decks of each type, as an 'eye test'.
Much like the definition of porn in the US, I know interaction when I see it.
Spirits
What could Chalice of the Void be other than interaction though. The card doesn't advance your own board and even requires special deck building constraints in order to make it work. It is a card whose only purpose is to interact with the opponent
I don't think that's accurate. Thalia, Guardian of Thraben is interaction against Storm. Damping Sphere is interaction against Tron. Melira, Sylvok Outcast is interaction against Infect.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
What do you consider them to be then? Are Counterspell and Thoughtseize non-interactive because they just prevent the opponent from doing something?
Spirits