I was thinking about Limited today, and how expansions affect draft environments with regards to the availability of build-around cards and so forth. Then I got to thinking about how one might simulate this in a Cube--it seems like one could mark certain cards as belonging to a different "expansion", then create those packs separately. I guess the main benefit would be splitting up combo pieces so that they don't occur in the same pack, but would there be any other utility to doing those? Do some people do this already?
This sounds more like something one would do for board game like Ascension or Dominion than a Cube. The whole point of Cube is to build a cohesive format that feels fully formed and synergistic. What you're talking about would amount more to sculpting out (or in) certain combos/synergies based on personal preference and creating a less cohesive environment overall.
Don't most Cubes have combos and synergies sculpted in by personal preference?
I guess this would allow one to increase the viability of certain combos or synergies, if that's what you mean - so for example, you could split the "sets" so that a card like Burning Vengeance would always appear in the first pack, making it more likely someone will be able to build a deck around it.
But one could also do things like tweak the mana-fixing available, for example having fetchlands all in the first pack and duals all in the last pack. Or spreading out similar cards so that Lightning Bolt and Chain Lightning don't appear at the same time.
Don't most Cubes have combos and synergies sculpted in by personal preference?
Obviously preferences influence the design of a cube, but the overall design is usually done in such a way that cards all exist together and are drafted as fully and as randomly possible. What you're talking about sounds like segregating parts of what should be a single list and turning it into 2 or more sublists. There's nothing wrong with that, but it seems more like Ascension than cube at that point.
I guess this would allow one to increase the viability of certain combos or synergies, if that's what you mean - so for example, you could split the "sets" so that a card like Burning Vengeance would always appear in the first pack, making it more likely someone will be able to build a deck around it.
But one could also do things like tweak the mana-fixing available, for example having fetchlands all in the first pack and duals all in the last pack. Or spreading out similar cards so that Lightning Bolt and Chain Lightning don't appear at the same time.
What you're talking about here is more pack-sculpting, which a separate and equally controversial move. I think most cubers would agree that sculpting face-up to create idealized (or at least less "Feel-Bad" type) packs would be problematic for a number of reasons.
It's not completely unheard of, I know wtwlf has a "conspiracy expansion" of sorts that includes un-cards and conspiracies for when his drafters want something like that.
I, for one, would very seriously enjoy playing a cube with balanced packs that are the same every time. That seems like a fantastic environment to analyze. It also seems like a lot of work.
I have thought about instituting a rarity system into a cube, so as to more carefully control the way power flows, which is a similar concept, but both ideas would be almost impossible to carry out. A computer could arrange all that for you, but the idea of shuffling it all, then drafting it, then having to reshuffle it into the correct piles before drafting again seems daunting.
If the cards were somehow given an obvious indicator as to what "set" they were in/ what "rarity" they are occupying in the specific cube, I think it could work, because you could easily sift them into the correct piles. But if you're just keeping a list of what goes where, that seems like a lot of homework.
If the cards were somehow given an obvious indicator as to what "set" they were in/ what "rarity" they are occupying in the specific cube, I think it could work, because you could easily sift them into the correct piles. But if you're just keeping a list of what goes where, that seems like a lot of homework.
Write something on the front of the card sleeve with permanent marker? Might not be pretty, but it would probably work well enough.
I, for one, would very seriously enjoy playing a cube with balanced packs that are the same every time. That seems like a fantastic environment to analyze. It also seems like a lot of work.
I think it would be great to have optimally balanced packs, but you can't have a static list, or people will begin to memorize where certain cards are. Or is that part appealing to you? I'm envisioning a set of algorithms that can generate packs according to your preferences - perhaps you want at least 1.5 cards of each color per pack, or you want specific combo pieces to be in separate packs, or certain cards to appear earlier or later in the draft. You could also balance the relative power of packs, or even ensure that the most powerful cards are more consistently distributed (first-pick opportunities) between all players.
It would certainly take longer to setup, but if that's something that's desirable, (and some randomization is still wanted) the program could actually use a 'blind' system to allow even a single person to organize it without knowing how the cards are distributed.
I'm officially proposing we retire the word "insane" from the MtG vocabulary.
"The best way to be different is to be better" - Gene Muir
Cubes:
Modern Banlist Cube
Monocolor Budget Cube
I guess this would allow one to increase the viability of certain combos or synergies, if that's what you mean - so for example, you could split the "sets" so that a card like Burning Vengeance would always appear in the first pack, making it more likely someone will be able to build a deck around it.
But one could also do things like tweak the mana-fixing available, for example having fetchlands all in the first pack and duals all in the last pack. Or spreading out similar cards so that Lightning Bolt and Chain Lightning don't appear at the same time.
Obviously preferences influence the design of a cube, but the overall design is usually done in such a way that cards all exist together and are drafted as fully and as randomly possible. What you're talking about sounds like segregating parts of what should be a single list and turning it into 2 or more sublists. There's nothing wrong with that, but it seems more like Ascension than cube at that point.
What you're talking about here is more pack-sculpting, which a separate and equally controversial move. I think most cubers would agree that sculpting face-up to create idealized (or at least less "Feel-Bad" type) packs would be problematic for a number of reasons.
I'm officially proposing we retire the word "insane" from the MtG vocabulary.
"The best way to be different is to be better" - Gene Muir
Cubes:
Modern Banlist Cube
Monocolor Budget Cube
Also, follow us on twitter! @TurnOneMagic
If the cards were somehow given an obvious indicator as to what "set" they were in/ what "rarity" they are occupying in the specific cube, I think it could work, because you could easily sift them into the correct piles. But if you're just keeping a list of what goes where, that seems like a lot of homework.
Low-power cube enthusiast!
My 1570 card cube (no longer updated)
My 415 Peasant+ Artifact and Enchantment Cube
Ever-Expanding "Just throw it in" cube.
Write something on the front of the card sleeve with permanent marker? Might not be pretty, but it would probably work well enough.
I think it would be great to have optimally balanced packs, but you can't have a static list, or people will begin to memorize where certain cards are. Or is that part appealing to you? I'm envisioning a set of algorithms that can generate packs according to your preferences - perhaps you want at least 1.5 cards of each color per pack, or you want specific combo pieces to be in separate packs, or certain cards to appear earlier or later in the draft. You could also balance the relative power of packs, or even ensure that the most powerful cards are more consistently distributed (first-pick opportunities) between all players.
It would certainly take longer to setup, but if that's something that's desirable, (and some randomization is still wanted) the program could actually use a 'blind' system to allow even a single person to organize it without knowing how the cards are distributed.