After lurking on the cube forms I have noticed that cubes tend to fall into two main categories.
1) Power Cubes - The best magic cards of all time
2) Restriction Cubes - The best magic cards of all time under certain restrictions (examples: non-power, no rares)
After lurking in the limited forums I noticed a few things
1) People prefer interactive formats
2) People like always having a chance to win, at any stage in the game.
3) People like there to be no dominant color/strategy (unless there are playing for money/rewards and they know the strategy)
4) Like environments that reward skill and devalue luck
From my observations I begin to feel that while cube is a "limited" format it is not for players that like "limited"
1) If you play with the best cards (with/without restrictions) there will always be a dominant color/strategy (generally blue/control).
2) Playing with the best cards can lead to very explosive turns where their opponents can never come back from.
3) Better cards shortens game time. When games can end turns 1-3, the die roll and the opening hand play a very large roll in the game. These two things are by their nature luck dependent. (I am not saying formats, like legacy, are just luck. Constructed formats build redundancy into their decks to reduce/eliminate the effects of luck. Redundancy, by construction, is hard to come by in cube).
My initial interest in cube came from a love of magic and limited drafting in particular but a hatred of spending money to draft. I notice however that whenever a person shows people their cube on this forum people tend to respond by telling the submitter that they should substitute cards A,B,C for cards X,Y,Z because cards X,Y,Z are stronger cards (and generally more expensive) generally because a large number of cubes of these types (some percent is generally given here) contain those cards.
So what I am asking is the following:
1) Why are the "strongest" cards better (for the cube as a whole and the limited experience)?
2) Why should I replace cards when a "better" card comes out if my cube is currently balanced, or more accurately, if it might unbalance my cube toward that color/strategy?
3) Why is there such a strong belief that all cubes of a certain type should contain the same cards?
The reason I am bringing this up is the following:
I was talking to two people who clearly liked playing magic (and drafting) but gave up on magic because it was too expensive. I suggested to them the idea of cube drafting. One asked about cubing drafting; the other said it is when you draft with the most expensive strongest cards of all time. Cost to much to bother with he said. He further elaborated how he disliked the environment for reasons similar to what I listed above. It had never occurred to him that he could customize a cube that was just like regular drafting to fit his preferences. These people have switched to playing and buying board games and sold off their collections. Some of those "board games" are deck building card games.
My philosophy is that you can play strong cards, even power, but if you craft synergies in your cube so that certain cards work together and others do not, you can balance out the strength of individual cards.
Interesting topic; I'll try to sum up my thoughts on the subject.
1. My players enjoyed playing with powerful cards.
2. I have an inherent desire to optimize.
3. Strong cards vs balance is a false dichotomy.
I'll expand the first point. Not once have my friends stated that they want to draft an unpowered Cube or peasant Cube over mine. They have before, and they found that Cube environment stale; the MODO Cube is a good example. When my group cubes, they want to make exciting and flashy plays, and have access to cards they wouldn't otherwise have a chance to play with; that's the draw of my Cube. Often, powerful cards are also fun cards.
Secondly, as a Cube designer I always feel that optimization is key. Even with 465 slots in my Cube, I agonize over every choice, with each addition or omission from my Cube carefully weighed against other factors; it's what excites me when new sets are revealed as the curator of my Cube.
Thirdly, I find that power and balance are not mutually exclusive. When I first built my Cube, I remember that Red Aggro was by far the most dominant archetype in my Cube. People would draft that archetype, to the exclusion of all others. What did I do, did I neuter Red to bring it down to the other color's level? No; instead, I added more powerful cards in the other colors, and diversified what Red can do. It made my players see that White weenies was just as viable, as was Reanimator or Tempo. It made my Cube environment not only balanced, but exciting to play.
People always get hung up on 1 particular card and its power level, but what they should instead focus on are archetypes; specifically, having enough support and variation among the different colors. I remember people claiming that True-Name Nemesis has no place in their Cubes, that it made games boring and uninteractive. It was far too strong, they said, and therefore used it as the excuse to exclude it from their list. I looked at it, and saw a good card that will support my Blue-tempo decks, my U/W aggro decks, and adds devotion to Blue; it also made sweeper and sac effects a premium, which made drafting more interesting. Sure, I've lost against it, but I've also beaten it, and so have others. In the end, it's 1 card out of 450; when drafting, it can be cut, when in someone's deck, it might not be drawn; I've never had someone complain that it was a toxic card to my Cube environment. Ultimately, powerful cards tend to do unique things that other cards cannot; this doesn't stifle interactivity, it adds to it.
I would say, don't fear power! It's the spice of Cube.
After cubing for a few years, I've come to realized that interaction and fun is more important to my cube and friends. Which means that balancing is always a work in progress, and remains the prime factor for my cube.
I also do recognize that there're some cards that can never be matched in power level; i.e. Jace, Memory Adept, True-Name Nemesis, Sol Ring. So no matter how one tries to up the level of "answer" cards, Sometimes the damage has already been done.
I still do run things like Armageddon and Splinter Twin combos, but again the focus is more of interaction and balance.
I do agree with Chained to Life on upping the level of other colors to fight against a stronger color, but there's only so much one can increase the level without taking away the fun/interaction.
I also think that there's a general philosophy when it comes to cubing, but the beauty of it is that every cube is uniquely different. It depends on what designers want.
I love both cube and limited. So I would disagree with your observation that cube is not for players that like limited. They are different formats with different merits. You could also build a cube with the goal that a cube draft should resemble a limited draft, but then why not just play limited? 3 booster packs cost about 10 bucks here, less than going to the cinema, so I don't consider it an expensive hobby either. You also get some value for your money after the draft, maybe you opened a sweet cube card or you can sell/trade a few cards, so the actual cost is less than what you pay for the packs.
To your questions:
1) The strongest cards are fun to play with, and they also gives the cube a "history of Magic" feeling. Actually, I don't really like cards that are so strong that every deck wants to pick and maindeck them (basically the cube power 10, power 9 minus time twister, plus library and sol ring; and some other artifacts). I just don't like this kind of automatic decisions, where for example you open a Mox and it *almost* doesn't matter what else is in the pack. And sometimes it can feel unfair if your opponent has power and you don't. But *overall* I really like the powered environment. It's fun to play with these cards, and it's an interesting challenge to play against them.
2) Newly printed, stronger cards actually help balancing a (powered) cube. We already run the most powerful stuff, but there are cards that don't perform so well, get last picked, or end in the sideboard too often. Replacing them with more powerful and more versatile cards is great. Of course, some cards are always have to be the worst, some cards always have to be the last picks, but I like that in cube I can last pick a powerful niche card, whereas in limited after the first, Idk, 8-10 picks, I only get unplayable crap.
3) Yes, I also find this strange sometimes, when people on this board say, every cube should run a certain card. It's just that cubes with the design goal of running the most powerful cards (powered or not) are the most common, so it becomes the default. And actually, it makes sense to discuss cards in that light. If your cube has a different design goal, you can still draw your conclusions from a discussion about the power level of a card.
About your observations about luck and consistency: it's all true. Some people just don't mind swingy games with high variance. For me, they key is to play often (and rather fast games), then it doesn't matter so much if you loose some games without getting a real chance once in a while.
1) Why are the "strongest" cards better (for the cube as a whole and the limited experience)?
Because Restoration Angel is simply more fun to use than Pillarfield Ox. Not everybody wants to use the most powerful cards, but players like myself (and everyone in my playgroup) find the experience of drafting the best cards in Magic in the cube more enjoyable than core set limited. It's what makes us gravitate to the format.
Quote from CidAvadose »
2) Why should I replace cards when a "better" card comes out if my cube is currently balanced, or more accurately, if it might unbalance my cube toward that color/strategy?
Replacing one card with a better version of a similar effect won't imbalance the cube. So you don't need to worry about this.
But in a broader sense, the cube is a living format. It's never "done". It can be balanced, but you want growth, change and evolution. New cards help accomplish this in the same way they do for every other format. A stagnant format is only fun for so long ...eventually you're gonna want to shake things up and get some fresh blood in there.
Quote from CidAvadose »
3) Why is there such a strong belief that all cubes of a certain type should contain the same cards?
There isn't. Cube managers with similar objectives tend to settle on similar cards because they're the best cards for the job. So you'll see more Lightning Bolts than Lightning Strikes, not because there's some agenda to homogenize all cubes, but because it's better and that's what most managers are looking for.
Also, we enjoy using certain cards and have fun playing them. In large, we want to extend those positive experiences to other cube groups. So we recommend cards that work well for us to other groups, simply because it's the nice thing to do.
..........
Power and Balance are not mutually exclusive concepts. You can be playing the "best" cards, and also be playing a balanced format where every color combination, archetype and deck theater wins an equal percentage of your drafts.
What restrictions you set on the cube design should reflect what style of Magic your playgroup is looking for. Just because powerful plays exist doesn't mean that there's an imbalance. It just may not be the type of Magic that you're looking for. I love Vintage as a format, and a tight powered cube is the Vintage of limited. Depending on what your goals are, modifying the cube to reflect those ideals allows you to sculpt a format that appeals most to your group, which should always be your #1 priority. So Powered vs Unpowered ≠ Balanced vs Imbalanced. All it is, is an indication of the kinds of games you want to play.
I think is an inherent assumption that players will want more powerful cards, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a cube designer here who simply includes powerful cards with no thought to the environment as a whole. Plenty of people who played powered cubes still don't run stuff like Channel because it's so un-fun.
First of all thank you for all your responses. They have been most insightful.
To address a few issues.
To those who said "if you like a limited feel just play limited it is only $10". I try to spend no more then $10 whenever any set comes out. There is a very large difference between $120 dollars for 3 months of drafting ($480 a year) and $10 ($40). The build your collection argument assumes that you are using the cards for stuff other then limited. Also there is a 50/50 chance you will like any given limited environment.
Why is there an assumption that if you are not playing a card like Restoration Angel you are playing cards like Pillarfield Ox. There are many many cards that more interesting then the ox but less strong then the angel. Take Celestial Crusader for instance. You cannot argue that this card is "boring" despite not being one the most powerful cards.
I guess my opinions sprang up from the feelings I had when building my cube. While it felt like there were many people telling what cards I could improve, there did not feel like there were any resources on how to balance the cube as a whole. In my first version of my first cube I tired forcing multicolor (without proper support), I tried making it have many themes, and it failed miserably. I just wish there were more comments about how a card could improve the limited environment as a whole versus how a card is "more powerful".
It's also easier for cube players to discuss (especially online) the relative strengths of individual vs individual cards than, say, interactions between cards. And evaluating individual cards is way easier than evaluating decks vs decks and WAAAY easier than each and every person drafting ONE person's unique cube and coming up with constructive criticism about their evironment. Discussions online drift toward "what's most powerful in cube" because it's some of the only in-kind knowledge people actually have.
Theorizing about cube about power, balance, and fun can only take you so far until you have to either build or proxy up a cube and get it to a table.
Why is there an assumption that if you are not playing a card like Restoration Angel you are playing cards like Pillarfield Ox. There are many many cards that more interesting then the ox but less strong then the angel. Take Celestial Crusader for instance. You cannot argue that this card is "boring" despite not being one the most powerful cards.
Probably for the same reason there is an assumption that using the best cards isn't interesting. I disagree with that completely. Cards being powerful adds a fundamental level of interest/excitement that is lacking in lesser cards. I wouldn't call Crusader "boring", but I definitely don't think it adds the same value to a cube that a more powerful option does, because the more powerful cards have both their value as interesting/exciting cards and their intrinsic value as powerful cards, which makes them better inclusions, IMO.
I guess my opinions sprang up from the feelings I had when building my cube. While it felt like there were many people telling what cards I could improve, there did not feel like there were any resources on how to balance the cube as a whole. In my first version of my first cube I tired forcing multicolor (without proper support), I tried making it have many themes, and it failed miserably. I just wish there were more comments about how a card could improve the limited environment as a whole versus how a card is "more powerful".
It's hard to comment on the balance of someone else's cube because balance is largely going to be playgroup dependent. Commenting on card quality can help to improve the quality of the list from the outside, whereas balance issues need to be addressed at the local level. In short, you have to fix balance issues yourself, but you can be aided in card quality decisions by folks with lots of cube experience.
Why is there an assumption that if you are not playing a card like Restoration Angel you are playing cards like Pillarfield Ox. There are many many cards that more interesting then the ox but less strong then the angel. Take Celestial Crusader for instance. You cannot argue that this card is "boring" despite not being one the most powerful cards.
Probably for the same reason there is an assumption that using the best cards isn't interesting. I disagree with that completely. Cards being powerful adds a fundamental level of interest/excitement that is lacking in lesser cards. I wouldn't call Crusader "boring", but I definitely don't think it adds the same value to a cube that a more powerful option does, because the more powerful cards have both their value as interesting/exciting cards and their intrinsic value as powerful cards, which makes them better inclusions, IMO.
I think we will have to agree to disagree here. I do not believe a card being more powerful makes a better card for cube or more enjoyable in general. There are a lot of fun cards that cost 1 mana to much to be the strongest. A lot of the "strongest", if cost 1 more mana, would not be considered. If Crusader cost 1 mana less, I think it would stand a good chance of being in those "strongest" cubes. If Restoration Angel cost 1 mana more, people might pass it by. I did not change how interesting the cards are, just how soon they can be played.
Costing 1 mana more or 1 mana less isn't a hurdle that cards should have to pass. Every card in the game would be made dramatically better if it was 1 mana different in cost. For most "fringe" cards, it would make them too good, and for most cubeworthy cards, it would make them not good enough. There are of course exceptions, but most good cards would be average ones if they cost 1 more mana, and most average cards would be good if they cost 1 less mana. But I don't see what that has to do with ...anything.
But I think that a card being powerful definitely adds to its value. A card can be both intrinsically strong and interesting/fun. When a card is powerful, that in and of itself adds value to the tension/excitement of the game. You don't have to agree, but I think it's a hell of a lot more interesting to resolve powerful cards than it is to resolve mediocre cards, and I think it's significantly more boring to use fair average quality cards.
I would suggest trying to build a peasant cube if you want a more "limited" feel. The games are arguably more interactive than with powered/rare cubes, and due to relatively flat power level of the card pool your options for playables at each color and casting cost are wide open. And without rares there isn't nearly the tendancy of players to expect you play card X over card Y. In fact, players are often pleasantly surprised to find cards that would've never played with before. Plus it rewards veteran limited players who instantly identify that bomb pick from when they were drafting triple Kamigawa back in the day.
I agree with wtwlf, but I wanted to add one thing. People like playing with the most powerful cards in constructed, because they help you win in those formats. As a result, those cards tend to enter the public consciousness around the game, and they become memorable. People enjoy seeing the powerful cards that they know from various constructed formats enter an all encompassing limited environment.
It's awesome seeing Restoration Angel in the same draft as Baneslayer Angel and Armageddon. As far as I'm aware, there's not a lot of limited formats that let you play them all together. Cube is an exciting experience for many, and it's awesome and gratifying seeing people go "WOW! This pack is insane!" when they open packs of your cube.
I think the comparison between Pillarfield Ox and Restoration Angel is a little too outrageous. It's true one doesn't need to run angel in his/her cube, but there're cards with power level that are still high enough. The closest card ability wise is Flickerwisp.
If one has just started cube, it's really ok to start off with say, Sentinels of Arashin.
On Celestial Crusader: I disagree here. If one has cubed enough, one will know the nuances of timing, effect, and impact. Celestial Crusader works differently from Angel. Take my example Sentinels, which I believe is slightly better than Crusaders. Stats wise, it's equal to Resto.
Also, Crusader has double W compared to Sentinels or Angel. Double-colored costs can be detrimental, or become a turn off for drafters.
What's unique about Resto is her ability, which I believe is the 2nd factor why many people play her.
To summarize, cards like Restoration Angel are the cream of the crop. It's strong, it's unique, and it's fun. Not many cards fill the 3 criteria.
I enjoy a more consistent play experience over 1-sided battles that can happen when there are a select handful of cards that are just completely over-powered. My cube is unpowered, but that term doesn't mean that a card like Sol Ring is okay just because it's not technically part of the P9 (if it was a rare it probably would have been). When the person on the play goes t1 swamp, sol ring, grim monolith into stuff, that's probably not going to be a fun match when the other person just goes plains, pass. There are other cards like that too. Umezawa's Jitte is just completely busted in any limited format. You know it's strong when people pick it over JTMS on a regular basis. A card like that really isn't healthy for the format, even when there are plenty of answers. It just makes the game quite lopsided, more so than almost any other card. Some people see that as the reason to play the card to begin with, since some people like playing solitaire I guess, but I'd rather have a balanced format that rewards good deckbuilding and synergies rather than just goodstuff.dec
The bottom line is I value gameplay more than anything else. Some arbitrary attribute of a card being powerful doesn't mean it should be in a cube, but if I had to make the choice over choosing soldier of the pantheon over Savannah lions, I would do it (though obviously I just use both).
Restoration Angel provides an effect we want and it just so happens it's attached to an evasive and relevant body (yay!). But cube managers don't just include cards based on power alone. Sometimes you'll want a certain effect in your cube, may it be to support an archetype/combo or to provide answers to particular cards/strategies (due to those cards/strategies being dominant). There will be times when you choose to take out a card that is more powerful for the sake of variety and balance <-- key. Having said that, in order to maintain balance you want to add the absolute best card with that effect you want, given the restrictions you've placed (pauper vs powered). Otherwise it will never be played/drafted and the quality of the games/draft will be negatively affected.
I do not believe a card being more powerful makes a better card for cube or more enjoyable in general.
I agree with you here, to an extent. I do not believe being more powerful alone makes a card be more enjoyable in general... not necessarily at least. Like I said above, there are times where you want a particular effect in your cube - to make it more 'enjoyable' (which is very subjective) and to achieve more balance <-- key.
I'm looking to shake up my Orzhov section and the only way I can is to cut one of the big 3 cards... All clearly more powerful (most of the time) and versatile (go in more decks) than the other options in the guild. However, our group 'enjoys' the combos and huge swingy plays so I want to make room for Unburial Rites. Any cut I make is a 'loss' in flexibility and arguably power. But I'm willing to take the loss in order to gain the effect (more graveyard support in white) and to have the Gifts/Rites combo in my cube. I see it as (slightly) shifting power from one archetype/strategy to another. So yes, I agree that a card 'being more powerful' doesn't necessarily make it a 'better card for your cube or more enjoyable in general'. But I do believe balance is correlated to the 'enjoyment' a group finds playing cube, no matter if it is pauper of powered, so you need to choose the absolute best card with that effect you want, within the restrictions of your cube.
I haven't posted on mtgSal for a few years, but I feel the need to add my 2 cents to this topic.
I think the distinction between the traditional "cube" set of cards versus the "custom draft environment" is a matter of personal preference and giving your normal cube companions what they want.
My LGS is hosting a Wednesday cube league in conjunction with SCG's "Game Night" promotion (free foil tokens!). A few of us have our cubes to contribute to the league. My contribution definitely falls on the "custom draft environment" side:
We had 16 players on the first week of our league this week and one pod drafted my cube, while the other drafted my friend's power cube. The response was very similar for both cubes. Both were balanced against other decks from their own pod and the players' experiences were good! Now, this isn't to say that a typical deck from my cube would stand a chance against the typical power cube deck, but that is not important. What's important to me and the folks who played this Wednesday is that our cubes create fun games with friends.
TL;DR - As long as your cubers are having fun, it doesn't really matter what's in your cube!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Draft my cube!!
(450 unpowered, MMA-style archetypes in each color pair)
TL;DR - As long as your cubers are having fun, it doesn't really matter what's in your cube!
I don't think anyone is arguing this at all. This is 100% correct, and appealing to your playgroup is the #1 priority.
The title of the thread seemed to imply that powerful cards and a balanced environment are somehow at odds with each other. They're not, which is what I was pointing out. How powerful you make your cube is not about balance, but more about the kind of experience you present to your players.
The title of the thread seemed to imply that powerful cards and a balanced environment are somehow at odds with each other. They're not, which is what I was pointing out. How powerful you make your cube is not about balance, but more about the kind of experience you present to your players.
'Balance' is the wrong word, really. I've seen 'swingy' used too, but it doesn't really explain the point either. 'Lopsided' is the best English descriptor I can think of. Having a large power-gap between cards will inevitably result in some lopsided games, and that's exactly what the non-power, flatter-power-level crowd is actively trying to avoid. As you say, either style can be balanced.
EDIT: You can't call it 'lopsided' either because that only happens in some games. Perhaps 'variance' is a kinder word. Actually, 'game variance', because variance by itself could be taken to mean the opposite - a higher variety of playable cards due to a flatter power level.
I think there is a bit of an assumption that powerful cards equate to one sided non-interactive games. I've had my cube for many years now and I can recall on 1 match which was completely dominated by a one sided play. That is not to say that there have not been blow outs but they don't happen in 2 turns (not including when people are mana screwed which would happen in any format). I thought by throwing just powerful cards together that I'd have a fun experience. As it was we had a mess of cards which was actually pretty crappy to play with. Probably around 4 years ago I(maybe more I guess) did a major overhaul, and started focusing on archetypes not cards. Along with that came insuring there were appropriate answers to playable decks in the cube. The amount of artifact destruction when up, and cards that were powerful in a bubble but not in the context of what the colors were pushed to support disappeared. Cubing with my cube became way more fun and my playgroup was very happy with the changes. People drafted decks as opposed to drafting cards. The power was all still there, but there was now balance throughout.
Just because someone runs powerful cards, doesn't mean they don't want a balanced play experience. If they just wanted the most power cards ever printed, you would not see an arbor elf in a power 360 list but you do. If anything powered cubes need to be more balanced in their card choices. If one player has strong cards, someone should have access to strong answers to those cards.
It is also really hard to place arbitrary power limits. The only cards I don't run are double sided cards (not because of power level, just because it is awkward if I have someone playing who wants to know what the whole card does). I also don't play with conspiracies although I may if I can figure out what to take out to put them in. True Name Nemesis is a card which many people said was too powerful for cube. It was evasive and very hard to get rid of once it hit the table. If True Name Nemesis comes out on turn 3, and is answered by a Master of the Feast and the 2 of them race the Master of the Feast will out race the True Name Nemesis handily. However nobody complains that Master of the Feast is overpowered. Yes it has a drawback, but the drawback may not even matter. And it doesn’t have the protection, but again the protection only matters if they have an answer in hand. True Name Nemesis could also be answered by a Day of Judgement on Turn 4 just as easily. Basically what I’m getting at is if every player has access to strong cards to support their decks, and answers to their opponent’s threats available during the draft you should have a good groundwork set for a balanced game. After that is just takes time to tweek things as you play your cube
Note: Building with fixed limitations such as no rares is not an arbitrary power limit. It is a fixed limitation which is imposed but not based off of power level. You are still building a balanced powerful environment with all the cards available to you; you just have a smaller pool to draw from. The same would be true for someone with a modern frame cube, or a 1994 cube. You will still strive to make a balanced environment across the board but you shouldn’t to pick and choose based off of personal judgement on the power of an individual card.
I believe that power is a relative term, and am sure many will agree. If you choose to add restoration angel into your cube filled with leveler cards it's usefulness will drop, and so will it's perceived power level. Personally I have some very different design philosophies when adding cards, and seeing how I value fun over everything else my choices here will reflect that.
First and foremost, cards that prevent interaction should never be included. Highest on my list of cards to never add is Armageddon; any card that locks a player out of playing anything has no place in my cube. Playing cards is fun, right? Why should I ever encourage a playstyle that removes fun? I wouldn't even run small land destruction, though that's more down to not wanting to annoy the newer players in my environment.
I want to create packs for people that make them think for a second about which card would fit their deck best. Adding any card that removes the element of choice from my drafters is a cancer to the draft. I know many people love or feel obligated to take the busted cards immediately, so I choose to keep those autopicks to a minimum in an effort to keep people off autopilot.
I personally love reducing the element of luck in drafts and think that by doing so you reward more skillful drafting. I think that if you include an archtype such as reanimator in your cube, you are letting those people who draft it down unless there is proper support for it.
After typing this up I realize that this thread is a month old. Seeing as it's only 1 month, and the board can move slowly sometimes I hope no one will hold it against me that I don't want to have wasted my time. I hope maybe we can rekindle this discussion, as it is good for people to talk about things like this.
Playing cards is fun, right? Why should I ever encourage a playstyle that removes fun?
Playing powerful cards is fun, right? Why should I ever encourage a design philosophy that removes fun?
Fun is subjective. You can't tell me that Armageddon isn't a fun card; we have a blast resolving it. People should really stop using fun as a metric for depowering cube lists ...removing all the best cards removes all the fun. Which just goes to illustrate that fun is subjective and shouldn't be an arguable point.
Quote from Windkite »
I want to create packs for people that make them think for a second about which card would fit their deck best. Adding any card that removes the element of choice from my drafters is a cancer to the draft. I know many people love or feel obligated to take the busted cards immediately, so I choose to keep those autopicks to a minimum in an effort to keep people off autopilot.
It may be possible to do this, but I've never seen it successfully accomplished. The more top tier cards get removed from the cube, the clearer the line between the good cards that remain are against the competition. I've found my experience drafting unpowered cubes to be completely the opposite of this design objective that people have. It's much harder to snap-pick that Recurring Nightmare when you have to pass a Mox Emerald to do it, even though that could very well be the right call still. But when Nightmare is the only tier-1 card in the pack, it becomes the snap-grab. The solution to removing auto-pick scenarios is to increase the powerlevel of the cube, not decrease it, IMO.
Quote from Windkite »
I personally love reducing the element of luck in drafts and think that by doing so you reward more skillful drafting. I think that if you include an archtype such as reanimator in your cube, you are letting those people who draft it down unless there is proper support for it.
The two thoughts in this sentence are at odds with one another. By removing archetype and synergistic cards, you punish skillful drafters. It's easy just to take a bunch of cards from some colors you want to play and add lands. It takes skill to identify archetypes and synergy while you're drafting and deckbuild on the fly.
And of course you let people down if you don't support certain archetypes with enough support. What do you mean here? Every archetype is bad if you don't support it with enough cards.
If you're running cards like recurring nightmare and moxen, then raising the power level of your other cards is going to flatten your power level.
In an unpowered cube, though, recurring nightmare is likely to be the most powerful cards, so removing it will help flatten your power level.
The lower you make the power level of your cube, the more cards there are available to you, so you can make the power level flatter.
If you're running cards like recurring nightmare and moxen, then raising the power level of your other cards is going to flatten your power level.
In an unpowered cube, though, recurring nightmare is likely to be the most powerful cards, so removing it will help flatten your power level.
The lower you make the power level of your cube, the more cards there are available to you, so you can make the power level flatter.
This works in theory, but I've never seen it applied successfully in practice. Every unpowered list I've seen still contains at least a handful of top tier cards that become even more "auto-pick" in their lower-powered environment than even the most egregiously powered cards are in a powered format. The only format where auto-picks would be removed entirely would be in an environment so neutered that it wouldn't even be exciting to play anymore. You'd have to remove every good card to eliminate this phenomenon entirely.
1) Power Cubes - The best magic cards of all time
2) Restriction Cubes - The best magic cards of all time under certain restrictions (examples: non-power, no rares)
After lurking in the limited forums I noticed a few things
1) People prefer interactive formats
2) People like always having a chance to win, at any stage in the game.
3) People like there to be no dominant color/strategy (unless there are playing for money/rewards and they know the strategy)
4) Like environments that reward skill and devalue luck
From my observations I begin to feel that while cube is a "limited" format it is not for players that like "limited"
1) If you play with the best cards (with/without restrictions) there will always be a dominant color/strategy (generally blue/control).
2) Playing with the best cards can lead to very explosive turns where their opponents can never come back from.
3) Better cards shortens game time. When games can end turns 1-3, the die roll and the opening hand play a very large roll in the game. These two things are by their nature luck dependent. (I am not saying formats, like legacy, are just luck. Constructed formats build redundancy into their decks to reduce/eliminate the effects of luck. Redundancy, by construction, is hard to come by in cube).
My initial interest in cube came from a love of magic and limited drafting in particular but a hatred of spending money to draft. I notice however that whenever a person shows people their cube on this forum people tend to respond by telling the submitter that they should substitute cards A,B,C for cards X,Y,Z because cards X,Y,Z are stronger cards (and generally more expensive) generally because a large number of cubes of these types (some percent is generally given here) contain those cards.
So what I am asking is the following:
1) Why are the "strongest" cards better (for the cube as a whole and the limited experience)?
2) Why should I replace cards when a "better" card comes out if my cube is currently balanced, or more accurately, if it might unbalance my cube toward that color/strategy?
3) Why is there such a strong belief that all cubes of a certain type should contain the same cards?
The reason I am bringing this up is the following:
I was talking to two people who clearly liked playing magic (and drafting) but gave up on magic because it was too expensive. I suggested to them the idea of cube drafting. One asked about cubing drafting; the other said it is when you draft with the most expensive strongest cards of all time. Cost to much to bother with he said. He further elaborated how he disliked the environment for reasons similar to what I listed above. It had never occurred to him that he could customize a cube that was just like regular drafting to fit his preferences. These people have switched to playing and buying board games and sold off their collections. Some of those "board games" are deck building card games.
1. My players enjoyed playing with powerful cards.
2. I have an inherent desire to optimize.
3. Strong cards vs balance is a false dichotomy.
I'll expand the first point. Not once have my friends stated that they want to draft an unpowered Cube or peasant Cube over mine. They have before, and they found that Cube environment stale; the MODO Cube is a good example. When my group cubes, they want to make exciting and flashy plays, and have access to cards they wouldn't otherwise have a chance to play with; that's the draw of my Cube. Often, powerful cards are also fun cards.
Secondly, as a Cube designer I always feel that optimization is key. Even with 465 slots in my Cube, I agonize over every choice, with each addition or omission from my Cube carefully weighed against other factors; it's what excites me when new sets are revealed as the curator of my Cube.
Thirdly, I find that power and balance are not mutually exclusive. When I first built my Cube, I remember that Red Aggro was by far the most dominant archetype in my Cube. People would draft that archetype, to the exclusion of all others. What did I do, did I neuter Red to bring it down to the other color's level? No; instead, I added more powerful cards in the other colors, and diversified what Red can do. It made my players see that White weenies was just as viable, as was Reanimator or Tempo. It made my Cube environment not only balanced, but exciting to play.
People always get hung up on 1 particular card and its power level, but what they should instead focus on are archetypes; specifically, having enough support and variation among the different colors. I remember people claiming that True-Name Nemesis has no place in their Cubes, that it made games boring and uninteractive. It was far too strong, they said, and therefore used it as the excuse to exclude it from their list. I looked at it, and saw a good card that will support my Blue-tempo decks, my U/W aggro decks, and adds devotion to Blue; it also made sweeper and sac effects a premium, which made drafting more interesting. Sure, I've lost against it, but I've also beaten it, and so have others. In the end, it's 1 card out of 450; when drafting, it can be cut, when in someone's deck, it might not be drawn; I've never had someone complain that it was a toxic card to my Cube environment. Ultimately, powerful cards tend to do unique things that other cards cannot; this doesn't stifle interactivity, it adds to it.
I would say, don't fear power! It's the spice of Cube.
Check out the Cube Discord channel here
I also do recognize that there're some cards that can never be matched in power level; i.e. Jace, Memory Adept, True-Name Nemesis, Sol Ring. So no matter how one tries to up the level of "answer" cards, Sometimes the damage has already been done.
I still do run things like Armageddon and Splinter Twin combos, but again the focus is more of interaction and balance.
I do agree with Chained to Life on upping the level of other colors to fight against a stronger color, but there's only so much one can increase the level without taking away the fun/interaction.
I also think that there's a general philosophy when it comes to cubing, but the beauty of it is that every cube is uniquely different. It depends on what designers want.
UR Melek, Izzet ParagonUR, B Shirei, Shizo's CaretakerB, R Jaya Ballard, Task MageR,RW Tajic, Blade of the LegionRW, UB Lazav, Dimir MastermindUB, UB Circu, Dimir LobotomistUB, RWU Zedruu the GreatheartedRWU, GUBThe MimeoplasmGUB, UGExperiment Kraj UG, WDarien, King of KjeldorW, BMarrow-GnawerB, WBGKarador, Ghost ChieftainWBG, UTeferi, Temporal ArchmageU, GWUDerevi, Empyrial TacticianGWU, RDaretti, Scrap SavantR, UTalrand, Sky SummonerU, GEzuri, Renegade LeaderG, WUBRGReaper KingWUBRG, RGXenagos, God of RevelsRG, CKozilek, Butcher of TruthC, WUBRGGeneral TazriWUBRG, GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
To your questions:
1) The strongest cards are fun to play with, and they also gives the cube a "history of Magic" feeling. Actually, I don't really like cards that are so strong that every deck wants to pick and maindeck them (basically the cube power 10, power 9 minus time twister, plus library and sol ring; and some other artifacts). I just don't like this kind of automatic decisions, where for example you open a Mox and it *almost* doesn't matter what else is in the pack. And sometimes it can feel unfair if your opponent has power and you don't. But *overall* I really like the powered environment. It's fun to play with these cards, and it's an interesting challenge to play against them.
2) Newly printed, stronger cards actually help balancing a (powered) cube. We already run the most powerful stuff, but there are cards that don't perform so well, get last picked, or end in the sideboard too often. Replacing them with more powerful and more versatile cards is great. Of course, some cards are always have to be the worst, some cards always have to be the last picks, but I like that in cube I can last pick a powerful niche card, whereas in limited after the first, Idk, 8-10 picks, I only get unplayable crap.
3) Yes, I also find this strange sometimes, when people on this board say, every cube should run a certain card. It's just that cubes with the design goal of running the most powerful cards (powered or not) are the most common, so it becomes the default. And actually, it makes sense to discuss cards in that light. If your cube has a different design goal, you can still draw your conclusions from a discussion about the power level of a card.
About your observations about luck and consistency: it's all true. Some people just don't mind swingy games with high variance. For me, they key is to play often (and rather fast games), then it doesn't matter so much if you loose some games without getting a real chance once in a while.
Because Restoration Angel is simply more fun to use than Pillarfield Ox. Not everybody wants to use the most powerful cards, but players like myself (and everyone in my playgroup) find the experience of drafting the best cards in Magic in the cube more enjoyable than core set limited. It's what makes us gravitate to the format.
Replacing one card with a better version of a similar effect won't imbalance the cube. So you don't need to worry about this.
But in a broader sense, the cube is a living format. It's never "done". It can be balanced, but you want growth, change and evolution. New cards help accomplish this in the same way they do for every other format. A stagnant format is only fun for so long ...eventually you're gonna want to shake things up and get some fresh blood in there.
There isn't. Cube managers with similar objectives tend to settle on similar cards because they're the best cards for the job. So you'll see more Lightning Bolts than Lightning Strikes, not because there's some agenda to homogenize all cubes, but because it's better and that's what most managers are looking for.
Also, we enjoy using certain cards and have fun playing them. In large, we want to extend those positive experiences to other cube groups. So we recommend cards that work well for us to other groups, simply because it's the nice thing to do.
..........
Power and Balance are not mutually exclusive concepts. You can be playing the "best" cards, and also be playing a balanced format where every color combination, archetype and deck theater wins an equal percentage of your drafts.
What restrictions you set on the cube design should reflect what style of Magic your playgroup is looking for. Just because powerful plays exist doesn't mean that there's an imbalance. It just may not be the type of Magic that you're looking for. I love Vintage as a format, and a tight powered cube is the Vintage of limited. Depending on what your goals are, modifying the cube to reflect those ideals allows you to sculpt a format that appeals most to your group, which should always be your #1 priority. So Powered vs Unpowered ≠ Balanced vs Imbalanced. All it is, is an indication of the kinds of games you want to play.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
To address a few issues.
To those who said "if you like a limited feel just play limited it is only $10". I try to spend no more then $10 whenever any set comes out. There is a very large difference between $120 dollars for 3 months of drafting ($480 a year) and $10 ($40). The build your collection argument assumes that you are using the cards for stuff other then limited. Also there is a 50/50 chance you will like any given limited environment.
Why is there an assumption that if you are not playing a card like Restoration Angel you are playing cards like Pillarfield Ox. There are many many cards that more interesting then the ox but less strong then the angel. Take Celestial Crusader for instance. You cannot argue that this card is "boring" despite not being one the most powerful cards.
I guess my opinions sprang up from the feelings I had when building my cube. While it felt like there were many people telling what cards I could improve, there did not feel like there were any resources on how to balance the cube as a whole. In my first version of my first cube I tired forcing multicolor (without proper support), I tried making it have many themes, and it failed miserably. I just wish there were more comments about how a card could improve the limited environment as a whole versus how a card is "more powerful".
Theorizing about cube about power, balance, and fun can only take you so far until you have to either build or proxy up a cube and get it to a table.
"Personally I love high-riak, low-reqars gambles. Life's best with a decent amount of riak. And f*** reqars."
Probably for the same reason there is an assumption that using the best cards isn't interesting. I disagree with that completely. Cards being powerful adds a fundamental level of interest/excitement that is lacking in lesser cards. I wouldn't call Crusader "boring", but I definitely don't think it adds the same value to a cube that a more powerful option does, because the more powerful cards have both their value as interesting/exciting cards and their intrinsic value as powerful cards, which makes them better inclusions, IMO.
It's hard to comment on the balance of someone else's cube because balance is largely going to be playgroup dependent. Commenting on card quality can help to improve the quality of the list from the outside, whereas balance issues need to be addressed at the local level. In short, you have to fix balance issues yourself, but you can be aided in card quality decisions by folks with lots of cube experience.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
I think we will have to agree to disagree here. I do not believe a card being more powerful makes a better card for cube or more enjoyable in general. There are a lot of fun cards that cost 1 mana to much to be the strongest. A lot of the "strongest", if cost 1 more mana, would not be considered. If Crusader cost 1 mana less, I think it would stand a good chance of being in those "strongest" cubes. If Restoration Angel cost 1 mana more, people might pass it by. I did not change how interesting the cards are, just how soon they can be played.
But I think that a card being powerful definitely adds to its value. A card can be both intrinsically strong and interesting/fun. When a card is powerful, that in and of itself adds value to the tension/excitement of the game. You don't have to agree, but I think it's a hell of a lot more interesting to resolve powerful cards than it is to resolve mediocre cards, and I think it's significantly more boring to use fair average quality cards.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
Etali, Primal Storm EDH
It's awesome seeing Restoration Angel in the same draft as Baneslayer Angel and Armageddon. As far as I'm aware, there's not a lot of limited formats that let you play them all together. Cube is an exciting experience for many, and it's awesome and gratifying seeing people go "WOW! This pack is insane!" when they open packs of your cube.
Juju Alters - Altered MTG Cards
If one has just started cube, it's really ok to start off with say, Sentinels of Arashin.
On Celestial Crusader: I disagree here. If one has cubed enough, one will know the nuances of timing, effect, and impact. Celestial Crusader works differently from Angel. Take my example Sentinels, which I believe is slightly better than Crusaders. Stats wise, it's equal to Resto.
Also, Crusader has double W compared to Sentinels or Angel. Double-colored costs can be detrimental, or become a turn off for drafters.
What's unique about Resto is her ability, which I believe is the 2nd factor why many people play her.
To summarize, cards like Restoration Angel are the cream of the crop. It's strong, it's unique, and it's fun. Not many cards fill the 3 criteria.
UR Melek, Izzet ParagonUR, B Shirei, Shizo's CaretakerB, R Jaya Ballard, Task MageR,RW Tajic, Blade of the LegionRW, UB Lazav, Dimir MastermindUB, UB Circu, Dimir LobotomistUB, RWU Zedruu the GreatheartedRWU, GUBThe MimeoplasmGUB, UGExperiment Kraj UG, WDarien, King of KjeldorW, BMarrow-GnawerB, WBGKarador, Ghost ChieftainWBG, UTeferi, Temporal ArchmageU, GWUDerevi, Empyrial TacticianGWU, RDaretti, Scrap SavantR, UTalrand, Sky SummonerU, GEzuri, Renegade LeaderG, WUBRGReaper KingWUBRG, RGXenagos, God of RevelsRG, CKozilek, Butcher of TruthC, WUBRGGeneral TazriWUBRG, GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
The bottom line is I value gameplay more than anything else. Some arbitrary attribute of a card being powerful doesn't mean it should be in a cube, but if I had to make the choice over choosing soldier of the pantheon over Savannah lions, I would do it (though obviously I just use both).
I agree with you here, to an extent. I do not believe being more powerful alone makes a card be more enjoyable in general... not necessarily at least. Like I said above, there are times where you want a particular effect in your cube - to make it more 'enjoyable' (which is very subjective) and to achieve more balance <-- key.
I'm looking to shake up my Orzhov section and the only way I can is to cut one of the big 3 cards... All clearly more powerful (most of the time) and versatile (go in more decks) than the other options in the guild. However, our group 'enjoys' the combos and huge swingy plays so I want to make room for Unburial Rites. Any cut I make is a 'loss' in flexibility and arguably power. But I'm willing to take the loss in order to gain the effect (more graveyard support in white) and to have the Gifts/Rites combo in my cube. I see it as (slightly) shifting power from one archetype/strategy to another. So yes, I agree that a card 'being more powerful' doesn't necessarily make it a 'better card for your cube or more enjoyable in general'. But I do believe balance is correlated to the 'enjoyment' a group finds playing cube, no matter if it is pauper of powered, so you need to choose the absolute best card with that effect you want, within the restrictions of your cube.
I think the distinction between the traditional "cube" set of cards versus the "custom draft environment" is a matter of personal preference and giving your normal cube companions what they want.
My LGS is hosting a Wednesday cube league in conjunction with SCG's "Game Night" promotion (free foil tokens!). A few of us have our cubes to contribute to the league. My contribution definitely falls on the "custom draft environment" side:
Design Synergy Cube
We had 16 players on the first week of our league this week and one pod drafted my cube, while the other drafted my friend's power cube. The response was very similar for both cubes. Both were balanced against other decks from their own pod and the players' experiences were good! Now, this isn't to say that a typical deck from my cube would stand a chance against the typical power cube deck, but that is not important. What's important to me and the folks who played this Wednesday is that our cubes create fun games with friends.
TL;DR - As long as your cubers are having fun, it doesn't really matter what's in your cube!
(450 unpowered, MMA-style archetypes in each color pair)
Commander:
Far too many to count...
I don't think anyone is arguing this at all. This is 100% correct, and appealing to your playgroup is the #1 priority.
The title of the thread seemed to imply that powerful cards and a balanced environment are somehow at odds with each other. They're not, which is what I was pointing out. How powerful you make your cube is not about balance, but more about the kind of experience you present to your players.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
EDIT: You can't call it 'lopsided' either because that only happens in some games. Perhaps 'variance' is a kinder word. Actually, 'game variance', because variance by itself could be taken to mean the opposite - a higher variety of playable cards due to a flatter power level.
Just because someone runs powerful cards, doesn't mean they don't want a balanced play experience. If they just wanted the most power cards ever printed, you would not see an arbor elf in a power 360 list but you do. If anything powered cubes need to be more balanced in their card choices. If one player has strong cards, someone should have access to strong answers to those cards.
It is also really hard to place arbitrary power limits. The only cards I don't run are double sided cards (not because of power level, just because it is awkward if I have someone playing who wants to know what the whole card does). I also don't play with conspiracies although I may if I can figure out what to take out to put them in. True Name Nemesis is a card which many people said was too powerful for cube. It was evasive and very hard to get rid of once it hit the table. If True Name Nemesis comes out on turn 3, and is answered by a Master of the Feast and the 2 of them race the Master of the Feast will out race the True Name Nemesis handily. However nobody complains that Master of the Feast is overpowered. Yes it has a drawback, but the drawback may not even matter. And it doesn’t have the protection, but again the protection only matters if they have an answer in hand. True Name Nemesis could also be answered by a Day of Judgement on Turn 4 just as easily. Basically what I’m getting at is if every player has access to strong cards to support their decks, and answers to their opponent’s threats available during the draft you should have a good groundwork set for a balanced game. After that is just takes time to tweek things as you play your cube
Note: Building with fixed limitations such as no rares is not an arbitrary power limit. It is a fixed limitation which is imposed but not based off of power level. You are still building a balanced powerful environment with all the cards available to you; you just have a smaller pool to draw from. The same would be true for someone with a modern frame cube, or a 1994 cube. You will still strive to make a balanced environment across the board but you shouldn’t to pick and choose based off of personal judgement on the power of an individual card.
After typing this up I realize that this thread is a month old. Seeing as it's only 1 month, and the board can move slowly sometimes I hope no one will hold it against me that I don't want to have wasted my time. I hope maybe we can rekindle this discussion, as it is good for people to talk about things like this.
Playing powerful cards is fun, right? Why should I ever encourage a design philosophy that removes fun?
Fun is subjective. You can't tell me that Armageddon isn't a fun card; we have a blast resolving it. People should really stop using fun as a metric for depowering cube lists ...removing all the best cards removes all the fun. Which just goes to illustrate that fun is subjective and shouldn't be an arguable point.
It may be possible to do this, but I've never seen it successfully accomplished. The more top tier cards get removed from the cube, the clearer the line between the good cards that remain are against the competition. I've found my experience drafting unpowered cubes to be completely the opposite of this design objective that people have. It's much harder to snap-pick that Recurring Nightmare when you have to pass a Mox Emerald to do it, even though that could very well be the right call still. But when Nightmare is the only tier-1 card in the pack, it becomes the snap-grab. The solution to removing auto-pick scenarios is to increase the powerlevel of the cube, not decrease it, IMO.
The two thoughts in this sentence are at odds with one another. By removing archetype and synergistic cards, you punish skillful drafters. It's easy just to take a bunch of cards from some colors you want to play and add lands. It takes skill to identify archetypes and synergy while you're drafting and deckbuild on the fly.
And of course you let people down if you don't support certain archetypes with enough support. What do you mean here? Every archetype is bad if you don't support it with enough cards.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
In an unpowered cube, though, recurring nightmare is likely to be the most powerful cards, so removing it will help flatten your power level.
The lower you make the power level of your cube, the more cards there are available to you, so you can make the power level flatter.
This works in theory, but I've never seen it applied successfully in practice. Every unpowered list I've seen still contains at least a handful of top tier cards that become even more "auto-pick" in their lower-powered environment than even the most egregiously powered cards are in a powered format. The only format where auto-picks would be removed entirely would be in an environment so neutered that it wouldn't even be exciting to play anymore. You'd have to remove every good card to eliminate this phenomenon entirely.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!