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.
Sure, you'll never eliminate it completely, there's always going to be cards that are better p1p1 that other cards. I don't think you end up with an environment that's not exciting to play anymore, but then as we've agreed, fun is subjective.
That said, I'm not running power, Sol ring, rec. Nightmare, have, lightning bolt, batter skull, goblin guide, grave titan, jitte, and so on, and people prefer my cube to the fully powered cube at out shop.
Fun is an arguable point. In fact, its the only one that matters. You even said it yourself, fun is subjective. Some people love winning and will choose the best cards to help them do that. Some people simply love playing the game. Either way they are doing what they perceive as fun. Since you seem to have fun playing the most powerful cards in magic then you should continue doing so. I for one will apparently continue to sap the fun out of cubes.
I definitely agree that buffing is waaay better than nerfing/removing cards. I also know that perfect balance is just not possible in packs. When I said these things I do not mean to enforce it on others. In my innistrad cube I have not removed any cards based on power level. In fact, I have drawn from other sets to bolster weaker archetypes and add some counterbalance.
I believe you misread what I typed there. I want decks to be more than a mass of cards. We're on the same page with that, more options for synergy rewards those who can make it work.
I somehow disagree that every archetype needs a lot of support. Aggro will use the most aggressive cards in the format and control will take all the doomblades. Midrange will take from both of those. The only archetypes you really need to support imo are the ones that rely on heavy synergy or interactions to work, such as reanimator. If you do not include any reanimation spells then it simply wouldn't exist.
What i meant by the last bit was that if there is a elf lord in the first pack, and no other elves in the cube, then you let hurt the player. Either a strategy or tribe exists in teh draft, of it does not. I don't want to have anyone lose because they tried to draft a tribe with no support in the entire cube.
What i meant by the last bit was that if there is a elf lord in the first pack, and no other elves in the cube, then you let hurt the player. Either a strategy or tribe exists in teh draft, of it does not. I don't want to have anyone lose because they tried to draft a tribe with no support in the entire cube.
Correct. This is just good practice. Don't throw up signposts for people to follow if they just lead them nowhere. But I don't think anybody intentionally does this, nor do I think it's a problem with cubes that are designed for power. I was just curious why this piece of generic cube construction advice was in a thread geared towards a power vs balance debate ...because I don't think what you're describing here is an issue that stems from the topic in the OP.
Quote from Windikite »
I for one will apparently continue to sap the fun out of cubes.
Don't worry, I'll scoop up that loose fun and throw it in mine.
Quote from Suicufnoc »
people prefer my cube to the fully powered cube at [our] shop.
Which is awesome. But I think the power vs unpowered thing is about the kind of experience you're trying to provide for your players and NOT about balance. Running powerful cards does not mean you need to concede to having an imbalanced format, and depowering a list does not automatically make things more balanced. In fact, by cropping out some (but not all) of the Tier-1 cards, you may be sculpting an environment that's even harder to properly balance than a list where all the top dawgs can fight it out.
tl;dr - Power and Balance are not mutually exclusive concepts.
I personally LOVE the feeling of potentially opening a high powered bomb..
It takes me back to the days of my childhood of collecting hockey/baseball cards, hoping to open the super rare foil card.
That excitement I get from cracking a mana crypt or black lotus, then building my deck around the card ; can't be replicated in an unpowered cube. I'm willing to take the occasional turn 1 blowout, or the rare auto loss to some 3 mox, sol ring, tinker, demonic tutor, balance deck if it means I can do the same and get the excitement of drafting power.
As for maximum strategic gameplay with lowest variance... lowered power is the way to go. But I've yet to see someone design a medium power cube that really maximizes interaction , while still having a great drafting experience.
There's so much more information out there for interactions between high powered cube cards, makes it much easier to design and balance.
One point I think about a lot is how to cater to a play group of varying experience. I think a cube with higher variance (in practice a cube with a bigger power differential between cards) works better here than a super flat power level one. Variance allows a less experienced player to win (one of the fundamental aspects of magic, actually). So my cent of input is that if you play with new players, don't skimp on including high powered cards! Be it moxen or inferno titan.
My experience is the opposite. New and less experience players don't know so well how to evaluate the power of the cards, so it will often happen that the better players get all the crazy good cards and stomp the newbies, which is not much fun for anybody. With less experienced players I'd prefer a non-powered cube.
One point I think about a lot is how to cater to a play group of varying experience. I think a cube with higher variance (in practice a cube with a bigger power differential between cards) works better here than a super flat power level one. Variance allows a less experienced player to win (one of the fundamental aspects of magic, actually). So my cent of input is that if you play with new players, don't skimp on including high powered cards! Be it moxen or inferno titan.
My experience is the opposite. New and less experience players don't know so well how to evaluate the power of the cards, so it will often happen that the better players get all the crazy good cards and stomp the newbies, which is not much fun for anybody. With less experienced players I'd prefer a non-powered cube.
I think there's so much subtle skill in drafting and deck building. Less experienced players tend to get stomped no matter what. My play group has some pro-tour caliber players , some mediocore players , as well as an occasional fish. The mediocre ones who still know all the interactions of the cards, have solid fundamentals, get occasional free wins from the fish, still only have match win %'s in the 35-45% range.
A card like blacker lotus would definitely give the newer player a chance to catch up, but a card like upheavel's power is totally lost on a new cuber.
Any card that appears symmetrical tends to be underrated by noobs and misbuilt by weaker players, upheavel, tangle wire, smokestack, balance etc.
Getting back to the OP's post, cost is a huge issue, though. I started my cube with a box of draft rejects and $50, and played that thing to death, and had a great time. I've slowly ratcheted up the power level over the years with gifts, small purchases, trades, and donations from people who play the cube. But frankly, I probably had 90% of the fun with 10% of the cost with my original iteration. I always tell people just to build something and start drafting it. It's pretty much impossible not to have fun, and tinkering with the balance of the cube is endlessly interesting. And that way, you'll figure out if you and your playgroup actually like playing with powerful cards enough to spend the money, or even print a proxy.
Awe, nostalgia and acknowledgement: Cards that carry a big legacy like Ancestral Recall, Emrakul or Jace, the Mind Sculptor add something positive to a cube. When you open a pack and open a fabled card like that, it improves your experience. That is something to consider in the balance, especially with experienced players who never played vintage.
Budget: For many, a cube is also a collection, so it is acceptable for them to get some cards no matter the cost, or even pimp all their cards. If budget is an issue though, there is nothing wrong to using substitutes. If you really don't want to spend much but carve expensive cards, you can always proxy.
Variance: Some cards can add a lot of variance when played. Games will be decided on some very good draws. This can ease newer players (who will not lose all the time), but experienced ones who want a test of skill might not like it.
Non-interactivity: Hexproof, shroud, spells that cannot be countered or interacted with often lead to frustration and make the players feel too much out of control.
All cards need to be considered with many lenses when building a cube. Some players want to experience the very best cards of all time (something you cannot do often), kind of like watching fireworks or visiting the Louvre. Some want a cube they can replay indefinitely and learn to master, people who would be inclined to play chess or Go.
A common point of debate is the Swords of x and y or Jitte. While people know their power and want to wield them, they bring a lot of variance (and non-interactivity for Swords in many cases). You just gotta know what makes your playgroup the most happy. For many playgroups, I'd guess people would like trying the big toys at first, but with enough plays people could like a more balanced and engaging experience. And the beauty of a cube is that you do whatever you want about it.
Also, when powerful new cards are printed, you should most often include them and replace lesser, older versions. The reasoning is that you will almost always include card in your cube that are both very good and also very fun, stuff like Fact or Fiction or planeswalkers. At this point, the solution to make the power level flatter is either to cut these fun cards or to make the other cards just as good as them.
I asked myself why nearly everybody seems to play the best cards aviable for a job
The answer is because people that build those kinds of cubes (traditional cubes) are attracted to that aspect of Magic. The whole "sleeve up the best cards and draft 'em" is what made a lot of people (myself included) interested in the format.
Quote from ravnic »
Why does nobody play a card that's fun as hell ... instead of a really boring powerhouse
Because to other cube managers (myself included) the powerhouse cards are the ones that are fun, and the "fun" cards are the ones that are boring. I'm simply not interested in using bad Magic cards when I could be using good ones instead.
Quote from ravnic »
most players never tested a cube with a lesser powerleveland interesting cards or cards they just like
Quite the contrary. I think that most cube managers built their lists over time, starting off with cards that were available and affordable, using cards they've enjoyed from their personal collections. Over time, the list evolved because the interest in winning becomes more popular (since that's at least a part of the objective when you draft cube, even when it's just casual) and so cards that don't pull their weight get replaced by cards that will.
Quote from ravnic »
cube lists not containing all those super powerful staples are overlooked
Not by other cube managers that are interested in creating that kind of environment. Budget cubes and low-power cubes don't have the same objectives as my cube list does, so the information gained and experienced from one list doesn't have much bearing on the other. It's not about intentionally overlooking or ignoring low-powered lists, it's about finding common ground so that information can be shared in a meaningful way. The same reason why I don't browse through low-powered cube lists is the same reason why a Pauper cube manager doesn't research cube information from powered cube discussion ...the information simply isn't valuable to the experience they're trying to create. So, they'll stick mostly to the Pauper cube discussion threads and blogs.
..........
So it's a matter of wanting to build competitive cube decks, combined with having more fun when using powerful cards. It's not for everybody, but those two concepts attract the kinds of cube managers interested in "traditional" cube drafting. Which is why you see lists that appear homogeneous (even though they really aren't, that's just a common misconception to the untrained eye).
The difference between format and environment is what makes a card good or bad. I have a peasant cube a "traditional" powered cube. There's some overlap in card choices, but there's also several differences. When I first built my peasant list, I basically just ported all the commons and uncommons from my rare cube over and added some other stuff. I quickly found out that some of those cards are only really good in the context of a rare cube and aren't that great (or needed) at the peasant level. Something like Calciderm is a staple in most peasant lists, while it's been quite outclassed in traditional cubes. To use your example of Rhox, it's not a bad card, but there are several options for green ramp targets and finishers that I feel are better and would prefer to that card.
"Oh boy! Rhox Garruk, I love that Beast, maybe I'll try a green deck!".
Same difference. Fun is subjective. We have more fun with Garruk than we do with Rhox. We're more interested in playing the most powerful cards from throughout the history of the game, and cards within this environment that can give those cards a run for their money. It's part of what attracted me and my players to this format.
I love Serra Angel, and she's right at home in a classic themed cube where her powerlevel is more appropriate to the competition.
I'm sure most people here make their own decisions and build their cubes the way they like, they just like to hear the input from other cube managers. In fact, I'm not here so much to make my cube better, I just enjoy reading and talking about it. Our cube has existed quite a while before I registered here. But sometimes the opinions I read here make me think different about certain cards or general cube design. Our cube was always fun, but I do feel like it has gotten a lot better over the years, also because of the insights found here.
And it doesn't matter to me whether my cube is becoming similar to other people's cubes, since I'm only drafting my cube. It would be something else if I knew more people with cubes, then I might actually want mine to be different so that we can have varying experiences drafting them. But since that's not the case, I see absolutely no point in trying to be different.
Quite the contrary. I think that most cube managers built their lists over time, starting off with cards that were available and affordable, using cards they've enjoyed from their personal collections. Over time, the list evolved because the interest in winning becomes more popular (since that's at least a part of the objective when you draft cube, even when it's just casual) and so cards that don't pull their weight get replaced by cards that will.
Agreed that when drafting, the goal is to win, but I don't see what that has to do with constructing the cube. You can go for a higher or lower power level, or more or less variance, or make aggro super broken in your environment(or suck), or whatever, but it affects all of the cubes players equally (with a concession that a cube with more variance may give weaker players a chance at winning).
The obvious part of course is that if there are weaker cards in your cube that aren't being played, you can either cut those cards, or cut the more powerful cards that are making those cards unplayable. Either can lead to a balanced cube. I would argue that a lower power cube can potentially be more balanced, because there are way more cards that are "almost cubable" than cards that are "cubable". Not easier to balance necessarily, as there are so many more options, but possible.
Note that none of this has anything to do with the real goal: fun. If you enjoy drafting the most powerful cards, great. My cube's goal is to create an evironment with less variance that's more skill testing. Some people have other goals. Some people like EDH, for some reason.
Agreed that when drafting, the goal is to win, but I don't see what that has to do with constructing the cube.
There are some lesser powered cards that simply can't compete with even the moderately powerful stuff. There's always going to be a set of "best cards" in the cube, so continuing to shave off the top isn't a realistic option. What ends up happening is that the lesser cards get upgraded, and so a lot of the "fun" stuff just ultimately isn't usable for players that want a shot at winning drafts. Even in environments where the powerlevel is intentionally neutered.
[quote]There's always going to be a set of "best cards" in the cube, so continuing to shave off the top isn't a realistic option.
I don't see your point. Of course a cube will always have a strongest and weakest card, but I see no reason that cutting stronger cards can't work the same as cutting weaker cards. You can build a cube at basically any power level you want, there's plenty of cards available. You don't just cut forever, you cut until you've reached the desired power level.
When the set of best cards prevents your "fun" cards from being competitive, that's where the breakover point is. The powerlevel of the cube required to make Rhox a contender is simply not something I've seen. Like, if the card contains mid-tier cards like Counterspell, most of the bad "fun" cards are out.
You sculpt the lesser cards around the ability to beat the good cards. Snake isn't as good as Jace, but when you build around it and can abuse his ETB trigger multiple times, you can use it as part of a deck that can compete with the best cards in the cube. Jackal Pup is part of a critical mass of aggro creatures that contributes to the success of an entire theater of Magic play.
Running important role-players is different than just running bad cards. Bad cards can't compete with better cards, and ultimately get cut for cards that can, or for cards that contribute to the success of decks that can beat the best cards.
But this discussion is off-track. The ultimate goal is to have a good time when you're cubing. And fun is subjective. So if Rhox is what does it for you guys, awesome! But cards like that couldn't hang in my cube, even when it was in its fledgling stages. Because players were trying to draft cards that could help them win, and the under-powered cards don't do that in a cube environment with even a moderate powerlevel.
The response was generated from this quote:
Quote from ravnic »
most players never tested a cube with a lesser powerleveland interesting cards or cards they just like
Which simply isn't true. I was just giving one potential reason why those lesser powered cards and "fun" cards and cards they just "like" don't hang around forever.
..........
Quote from ravnic »
You act like a green fattie that can't be blocked effectively with regeneration on top is a crappy card, that's hard to justify as soon as you add anything constructed worthy
I don't think we're far off topic, but we could bring it back in I suppose. So the title of the thread suggests that it is possible to make a more balanced cube by running weaker cards. I think this makes total sense. There have been a lot more cards printed at Rhox's power level than have been printed at Mind Sculptor's power level. A cube trying to keep the power level of its cards close to Rhox's power level should therefore be able to achieve a flatter power level than a cube running Mind Sculptor.
There's then the question of which is more fun. If you like big cool plays and powerful cards, that cube may be more fun to you. I would argue that a flatter power level creates more skill testing games with less variance. If that sounds desirable to you, I recommend trying to achieve a flatter power level.
Also, the concept of cutting the most powerful cards doesn't mean that each time you make cuts, the next best cards are now the powerful cards, so you cut those,then repeat the process until your cards are all terrible. You cut the outliers on the high end of the power spectrum, and replace them with cards that are somewhere in the middle of your cube's power level. You might then cut the weakest cards and replace them with cards that fit your cube's power level. You haven't even lowered your cube's average power level, just made it flatter.
A flatter powerlevel doesn't mean a more balanced environment. Balance and power are not mutually exclusive concepts. Just because the gameplay in Modern is more fair than it is in Legacy doesn't mean the format is more balanced. It means it's less swingy. Powerlevel is about the desired experience, not about the desired level of balance.
the concept of cutting the most powerful cards doesn't mean that each time you make cuts, the next best cards are now the powerful cards
This sounds all well and good in theory, but I've yet to see it applied successfully in practice. Every cube I've played that has an intentionally controlled powerlevel has a group of cards that are so head-and-shoulders above the rest that they're all clearly the cards worth taking and playing all the time. Powered cubes have this too, but they have so many of them that it saturates the environment with insane cards and there are less auto-picks and less auto-includes because of it. The way I've seen that phenomenon combatted the best is in cubes that just try and run the most cards that fit that description, rather than trying to prune them all out.
I won a game with a face-down Exalted Angel the other day despite my opponent having good cards in their deck. Didn't inspire me to add Gray Ogre to my cube though.
I won a game with a face-down Exalted Angel the other day despite my opponent having good cards in their deck. Didn't inspire me to add Gray Ogre to my cube though.
Agreed with your point, I think. Szadek, Lord of Secrets is not fit for a cube running Swords to Plowshares. If your removal is that efficient, your 7 drops need to have immediate impact. I've personally chosen not to run the most efficient removal spells, but most people just run better 7 drops.
I'm not telling anyone that they shouldn't play cards they enjoy using. On the contrary, I play with several pet cards myself, and those personalizations can really make and break a cube experience. The cube is all about having fun for you and your playgroup. Period. So do whatever they enjoy the most.
But if you go back to what originated this side-discussion, I was simply posing one possible reason why we see less "fun" cards and more powerful cards as a cube evolves. I think the format naturally drives its powerlevel in an upward direction for most groups (because players are trying to sculpt competitive decks) and as a result, the "fun" cards stop being drafted ...so they get replaced with powerful ones that will. But it's not a result of cube managers never playing with the "fun" stuff. Almost every cube built from the ground up goes through it's incipient stages which are full of the cards you describe. But the cube simply evolves away from those cards being competitive in the long run, for most cubes.
But if you go back to what originated this side-discussion, I was simply posing one possible reason why we see less "fun" cards and more powerful cards as a cube evolves. I think the format naturally drives its powerlevel in an upward direction for most groups (because players are trying to sculpt competitive decks) and as a result, the "fun" cards stop being drafted ...so they get replaced with powerful ones that will. But it's not a result of cube managers never playing with the "fun" stuff. Almost every cube built from the ground up goes through it's incipient stages which are full of the cards you describe. But the cube simply evolves away from those cards being competitive in the long run, for most cubes.
Absolutely. But the opposite is also possible (lowering the cubes power level until those card are good.) There are certainly less examples, but I've seen cubes where the best fattie is something like Rhox would be a bomb, the best removal spell is something like Murder, the best burn spell Volcanic Hammer. There's been a lot of people using modern masters and vintage masters as inspiration for their cubes, which has led to some lower power, almost retail limited style environments. Thouugh I admit I have less experience with those cubes than I do with powered or standard unpowered cubes, they are a good proof of concept.
Sure, you'll never eliminate it completely, there's always going to be cards that are better p1p1 that other cards. I don't think you end up with an environment that's not exciting to play anymore, but then as we've agreed, fun is subjective.
That said, I'm not running power, Sol ring, rec. Nightmare, have, lightning bolt, batter skull, goblin guide, grave titan, jitte, and so on, and people prefer my cube to the fully powered cube at out shop.
I definitely agree that buffing is waaay better than nerfing/removing cards. I also know that perfect balance is just not possible in packs. When I said these things I do not mean to enforce it on others. In my innistrad cube I have not removed any cards based on power level. In fact, I have drawn from other sets to bolster weaker archetypes and add some counterbalance.
I believe you misread what I typed there. I want decks to be more than a mass of cards. We're on the same page with that, more options for synergy rewards those who can make it work.
I somehow disagree that every archetype needs a lot of support. Aggro will use the most aggressive cards in the format and control will take all the doomblades. Midrange will take from both of those. The only archetypes you really need to support imo are the ones that rely on heavy synergy or interactions to work, such as reanimator. If you do not include any reanimation spells then it simply wouldn't exist.
What i meant by the last bit was that if there is a elf lord in the first pack, and no other elves in the cube, then you let hurt the player. Either a strategy or tribe exists in teh draft, of it does not. I don't want to have anyone lose because they tried to draft a tribe with no support in the entire cube.
Correct. This is just good practice. Don't throw up signposts for people to follow if they just lead them nowhere. But I don't think anybody intentionally does this, nor do I think it's a problem with cubes that are designed for power. I was just curious why this piece of generic cube construction advice was in a thread geared towards a power vs balance debate ...because I don't think what you're describing here is an issue that stems from the topic in the OP.
Don't worry, I'll scoop up that loose fun and throw it in mine.
Which is awesome. But I think the power vs unpowered thing is about the kind of experience you're trying to provide for your players and NOT about balance. Running powerful cards does not mean you need to concede to having an imbalanced format, and depowering a list does not automatically make things more balanced. In fact, by cropping out some (but not all) of the Tier-1 cards, you may be sculpting an environment that's even harder to properly balance than a list where all the top dawgs can fight it out.
tl;dr - Power and Balance are not mutually exclusive concepts.
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!
It takes me back to the days of my childhood of collecting hockey/baseball cards, hoping to open the super rare foil card.
That excitement I get from cracking a mana crypt or black lotus, then building my deck around the card ; can't be replicated in an unpowered cube. I'm willing to take the occasional turn 1 blowout, or the rare auto loss to some 3 mox, sol ring, tinker, demonic tutor, balance deck if it means I can do the same and get the excitement of drafting power.
As for maximum strategic gameplay with lowest variance... lowered power is the way to go. But I've yet to see someone design a medium power cube that really maximizes interaction , while still having a great drafting experience.
There's so much more information out there for interactions between high powered cube cards, makes it much easier to design and balance.
Last Updated 02/07/24
Streaming Standard/Cube on Twitch https://www.twitch.tv/heisenb3rg96
Strategy Twitter https://www.twitter.com/heisenb3rg
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
My experience is the opposite. New and less experience players don't know so well how to evaluate the power of the cards, so it will often happen that the better players get all the crazy good cards and stomp the newbies, which is not much fun for anybody. With less experienced players I'd prefer a non-powered cube.
I think there's so much subtle skill in drafting and deck building. Less experienced players tend to get stomped no matter what. My play group has some pro-tour caliber players , some mediocore players , as well as an occasional fish. The mediocre ones who still know all the interactions of the cards, have solid fundamentals, get occasional free wins from the fish, still only have match win %'s in the 35-45% range.
A card like blacker lotus would definitely give the newer player a chance to catch up, but a card like upheavel's power is totally lost on a new cuber.
Any card that appears symmetrical tends to be underrated by noobs and misbuilt by weaker players, upheavel, tangle wire, smokestack, balance etc.
Last Updated 02/07/24
Streaming Standard/Cube on Twitch https://www.twitch.tv/heisenb3rg96
Strategy Twitter https://www.twitter.com/heisenb3rg
My $40 MTGO cube
Draft my cube at Cubetutor!
Budget: For many, a cube is also a collection, so it is acceptable for them to get some cards no matter the cost, or even pimp all their cards. If budget is an issue though, there is nothing wrong to using substitutes. If you really don't want to spend much but carve expensive cards, you can always proxy.
Variance: Some cards can add a lot of variance when played. Games will be decided on some very good draws. This can ease newer players (who will not lose all the time), but experienced ones who want a test of skill might not like it.
Non-interactivity: Hexproof, shroud, spells that cannot be countered or interacted with often lead to frustration and make the players feel too much out of control.
All cards need to be considered with many lenses when building a cube. Some players want to experience the very best cards of all time (something you cannot do often), kind of like watching fireworks or visiting the Louvre. Some want a cube they can replay indefinitely and learn to master, people who would be inclined to play chess or Go.
A common point of debate is the Swords of x and y or Jitte. While people know their power and want to wield them, they bring a lot of variance (and non-interactivity for Swords in many cases). You just gotta know what makes your playgroup the most happy. For many playgroups, I'd guess people would like trying the big toys at first, but with enough plays people could like a more balanced and engaging experience. And the beauty of a cube is that you do whatever you want about it.
Also, when powerful new cards are printed, you should most often include them and replace lesser, older versions. The reasoning is that you will almost always include card in your cube that are both very good and also very fun, stuff like Fact or Fiction or planeswalkers. At this point, the solution to make the power level flatter is either to cut these fun cards or to make the other cards just as good as them.
The answer is because people that build those kinds of cubes (traditional cubes) are attracted to that aspect of Magic. The whole "sleeve up the best cards and draft 'em" is what made a lot of people (myself included) interested in the format.
Because to other cube managers (myself included) the powerhouse cards are the ones that are fun, and the "fun" cards are the ones that are boring. I'm simply not interested in using bad Magic cards when I could be using good ones instead.
Quite the contrary. I think that most cube managers built their lists over time, starting off with cards that were available and affordable, using cards they've enjoyed from their personal collections. Over time, the list evolved because the interest in winning becomes more popular (since that's at least a part of the objective when you draft cube, even when it's just casual) and so cards that don't pull their weight get replaced by cards that will.
Not by other cube managers that are interested in creating that kind of environment. Budget cubes and low-power cubes don't have the same objectives as my cube list does, so the information gained and experienced from one list doesn't have much bearing on the other. It's not about intentionally overlooking or ignoring low-powered lists, it's about finding common ground so that information can be shared in a meaningful way. The same reason why I don't browse through low-powered cube lists is the same reason why a Pauper cube manager doesn't research cube information from powered cube discussion ...the information simply isn't valuable to the experience they're trying to create. So, they'll stick mostly to the Pauper cube discussion threads and blogs.
..........
So it's a matter of wanting to build competitive cube decks, combined with having more fun when using powerful cards. It's not for everybody, but those two concepts attract the kinds of cube managers interested in "traditional" cube drafting. Which is why you see lists that appear homogeneous (even though they really aren't, that's just a common misconception to the untrained eye).
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!
MTGS Average Peasant Cube 2023 Edition
Follow me. I tweet.
Same difference. Fun is subjective. We have more fun with Garruk than we do with Rhox. We're more interested in playing the most powerful cards from throughout the history of the game, and cards within this environment that can give those cards a run for their money. It's part of what attracted me and my players to this format.
I love Serra Angel, and she's right at home in a classic themed cube where her powerlevel is more appropriate to the competition.
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!
And it doesn't matter to me whether my cube is becoming similar to other people's cubes, since I'm only drafting my cube. It would be something else if I knew more people with cubes, then I might actually want mine to be different so that we can have varying experiences drafting them. But since that's not the case, I see absolutely no point in trying to be different.
Agreed that when drafting, the goal is to win, but I don't see what that has to do with constructing the cube. You can go for a higher or lower power level, or more or less variance, or make aggro super broken in your environment(or suck), or whatever, but it affects all of the cubes players equally (with a concession that a cube with more variance may give weaker players a chance at winning).
The obvious part of course is that if there are weaker cards in your cube that aren't being played, you can either cut those cards, or cut the more powerful cards that are making those cards unplayable. Either can lead to a balanced cube. I would argue that a lower power cube can potentially be more balanced, because there are way more cards that are "almost cubable" than cards that are "cubable". Not easier to balance necessarily, as there are so many more options, but possible.
Note that none of this has anything to do with the real goal: fun. If you enjoy drafting the most powerful cards, great. My cube's goal is to create an evironment with less variance that's more skill testing. Some people have other goals. Some people like EDH, for some reason.
There are some lesser powered cards that simply can't compete with even the moderately powerful stuff. There's always going to be a set of "best cards" in the cube, so continuing to shave off the top isn't a realistic option. What ends up happening is that the lesser cards get upgraded, and so a lot of the "fun" stuff just ultimately isn't usable for players that want a shot at winning drafts. Even in environments where the powerlevel is intentionally neutered.
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 don't see your point. Of course a cube will always have a strongest and weakest card, but I see no reason that cutting stronger cards can't work the same as cutting weaker cards. You can build a cube at basically any power level you want, there's plenty of cards available. You don't just cut forever, you cut until you've reached the desired power level.
bad"fun" cards are out.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!
Running important role-players is different than just running bad cards. Bad cards can't compete with better cards, and ultimately get cut for cards that can, or for cards that contribute to the success of decks that can beat the best cards.
But this discussion is off-track. The ultimate goal is to have a good time when you're cubing. And fun is subjective. So if Rhox is what does it for you guys, awesome! But cards like that couldn't hang in my cube, even when it was in its fledgling stages. Because players were trying to draft cards that could help them win, and the under-powered cards don't do that in a cube environment with even a moderate powerlevel.
The response was generated from this quote:
Which simply isn't true. I was just giving one potential reason why those lesser powered cards and "fun" cards and cards they just "like" don't hang around forever.
..........
Well...
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!
There's then the question of which is more fun. If you like big cool plays and powerful cards, that cube may be more fun to you. I would argue that a flatter power level creates more skill testing games with less variance. If that sounds desirable to you, I recommend trying to achieve a flatter power level.
Also, the concept of cutting the most powerful cards doesn't mean that each time you make cuts, the next best cards are now the powerful cards, so you cut those,then repeat the process until your cards are all terrible. You cut the outliers on the high end of the power spectrum, and replace them with cards that are somewhere in the middle of your cube's power level. You might then cut the weakest cards and replace them with cards that fit your cube's power level. You haven't even lowered your cube's average power level, just made it flatter.
This sounds all well and good in theory, but I've yet to see it applied successfully in practice. Every cube I've played that has an intentionally controlled powerlevel has a group of cards that are so head-and-shoulders above the rest that they're all clearly the cards worth taking and playing all the time. Powered cubes have this too, but they have so many of them that it saturates the environment with insane cards and there are less auto-picks and less auto-includes because of it. The way I've seen that phenomenon combatted the best is in cubes that just try and run the most cards that fit that description, rather than trying to prune them all out.
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!
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!
Agreed with your point, I think. Szadek, Lord of Secrets is not fit for a cube running Swords to Plowshares. If your removal is that efficient, your 7 drops need to have immediate impact. I've personally chosen not to run the most efficient removal spells, but most people just run better 7 drops.
But if you go back to what originated this side-discussion, I was simply posing one possible reason why we see less "fun" cards and more powerful cards as a cube evolves. I think the format naturally drives its powerlevel in an upward direction for most groups (because players are trying to sculpt competitive decks) and as a result, the "fun" cards stop being drafted ...so they get replaced with powerful ones that will. But it's not a result of cube managers never playing with the "fun" stuff. Almost every cube built from the ground up goes through it's incipient stages which are full of the cards you describe. But the cube simply evolves away from those cards being competitive in the long run, for most cubes.
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!
Absolutely. But the opposite is also possible (lowering the cubes power level until those card are good.) There are certainly less examples, but I've seen cubes where the best fattie is something like Rhox would be a bomb, the best removal spell is something like Murder, the best burn spell Volcanic Hammer. There's been a lot of people using modern masters and vintage masters as inspiration for their cubes, which has led to some lower power, almost retail limited style environments. Thouugh I admit I have less experience with those cubes than I do with powered or standard unpowered cubes, they are a good proof of concept.
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!