Well I've certainly never played Izzet Signet in UB unless I was splashing, and I certainly have played Thornscape Battlemage in GW and been happy with it. I guess battlemage is more of a sideboard card in GW and mainboard in GR, but I've played it main. I'll note that my experience from both cards comes from my main cube, not the mostly peasant one. I guess artifacts are better in the main cube.
I'm not categorically against anything. I said only UR is going to play Izzet Signet, but that was prefaced by saying any color can. If you are in the habit of playing off-color mana-rocks for ramp, more power to you. It's just not something I've really seen in my cubing career more than maybe once or twice. So then Izzet Signet can go in a UR deck, or a deck that loves artifacts, or a deck that desperately needs ramp. That only increases the nuance.
I certainly wasn't trying to make some statement about the exact quality of the cards I listed. I was trying to suggest that the spectrum of playability is much wider than the example of Rakdos Cackler suggests. A simpler illustration: Rakdos Cackler can go in loads of non-BR decks-- Rakdos Shred-Freak goes in fewer-- Ashenmoor Gouger can go in fewer still. You can argue that Cackler is good and Gouger is bad, but the principal remains. To further complicate the spectrum, a card like Grief Tyrant is much much easier to get the right mana for outside of BR than even the Cackler, since you tend to have your colors by the time you cast a six drop. Grief Tyrant may be considered unplayable, but again, the principal remains.
That's ignoring all the more mana-nuanced options like Rakdos Signet, Carnival // Carnage and Toil // Trouble. I guess most of you don't care unless the card is at the tip-tip top of playability, in which case only Rakdos Cackler and Signet out of that list are even worth blinking at. That's never been my philosophy.
My sister once played Dominus of Fealty in a nonred deck in my big cube, and it worked, so that can actually be done, though I wouldn't really recommend it.
I don't think color balance matters at all actually, I have it only because I like all of the colors in Magic equally.
But if someone wanted to say, just cut blue from their cube entirely or have 3 white cards and 50 cards in each other color it wouldn't ruin the cube. Since everyone drafts from the same pool of cards it inherently balances things out.
I will make a defense of hybrids in the guild section by saying that a number of guild cards act pretty close to hybrids, so sorting guild cards into different sections would follow the same logic, but no one does that. If both red decks and green decks always splash for Bloodbraid Elf, then it's effectively a hybrid RG card, not a guild card. I've seen Lingering Souls in basically every colour combination containing black or white, so it's hard to say it's an BW card (if you have it in the guild section). Not all decks do splash, but considering Trostani's Summoner is effectively a BGW hybrid in practice it's definitely not irrelevant. Obviously there's some more effort put into splashing than playing an actual hybrid card (though CC costs aren't trivial either), but the effect is the same if it's commonly done.
Since the effect of sorting hybrids away from guilds is so small and trying to "correctly" codify guild sections is such a mind boggling task, I would say that it's not worth the effort to deal with hybrids differently.
I don't think color balance matters at all actually, I have it only because I like all of the colors in Magic equally.
But if someone wanted to say, just cut blue from their cube entirely or have 3 white cards and 50 cards in each other color it wouldn't ruin the cube. Since everyone drafts from the same pool of cards it inherently balances things out.
Slight imbalances don't make a huge impact, but if you are doing something crazy like cutting a color, you are creating a gimmick cube, and you'll have to embrace it. That's okay, but the players need to understand it and be on board or they'll draft wrong and have less fun-- which is your fault.
At 800+ you really don't need exact balance. I eventually balanced out my big cube's colors, but it hasn't actually helped the format; it's just made me micromanage more. Relative balance really does work fine at that level. At smaller size, you're probably fine as long as your colors are within one or two cards of one another. But exact balance feels good.
-----
I like hybrids in my guild section. I always have. Frankly I like the idea of using only hybrids in my guild section without having to play weak cards. We aren't that far from that anymore. There are gold cards I love, so I'll probably never do that, but I really liked the way Shadowmoor block felt to draft.
I don't think color balance matters at all actually, I have it only because I like all of the colors in Magic equally.
But if someone wanted to say, just cut blue from their cube entirely or have 3 white cards and 50 cards in each other color it wouldn't ruin the cube. Since everyone drafts from the same pool of cards it inherently balances things out.
Slight imbalances don't make a huge impact, but if you are doing something crazy like cutting a color, you are creating a gimmick cube, and you'll have to embrace it. That's okay, but the players need to understand it and be on board or they'll draft wrong and have less fun-- which is your fault.
At 800+ you really don't need exact balance. I eventually balanced out my big cube's colors, but it hasn't actually helped the format; it's just made me micromanage more. Relative balance really does work fine at that level. At smaller size, you're probably fine as long as your colors are within one or two cards of one another. But exact balance feels good.
-----
I like hybrids in my guild section. I always have. Frankly I like the idea of using only hybrids in my guild section without having to play weak cards. We aren't that far from that anymore. There are gold cards I love, so I'll probably never do that, but I really liked the way Shadowmoor block felt to draft.
If you cut blue from your cube entirely it wouldn't be possible to draft wrong. If you had 20% less red cards in proportion to other colors of cards, people would see less red cards and build their decks accordingly.
I'd rather draft a gimmick cube than a good stuff pile by the way. I've played good stuff cubes before and for all of the complaining about how what I like is parasitic and "on rails", there is far more thinking involved in drafting a Splice Onto Arcane deck than there is in P1P1'ing Mulldrifter or Sprout Swarm every game.
I don't really believe that most Magic players actually enjoy playing Magic, hence branding any cube that's not a good stuff pile as parasitic or a gimmick cube or "on rails".
_________________________
I don't play land destruction because it's never fun and is binary. Either:
1.) You actually get enough of it and your opponent has no fun.
2.) You don't get enough of it and you draw your single Stone Rain when your opponent has 7 lands out and it's a dead draw.
I do have a handful of ways to destroy lands (Bronze Tablet, Vindicate, Reality Acid, Who/What/Where/When/Why, etc.) but no specific Stone Rain cards.
Even if I did play specific LD spells the fact that my opponent played Bouncelands wouldn't have much of an impact on my decision on whether or not to side them in.
I don't really believe that most Magic players actually enjoy playing Magic
Alright, I know I'm taking the bait here, but this really proves to me that you don't enjoy playing Magic and are just trolling everyone. I've wondered for a while, but I think you've made it pretty obvious this time.
I don't really believe that most Magic players actually enjoy playing Magic
Alright, I know I'm taking the bait here, but this really proves to me that you don't enjoy playing Magic and are just trolling everyone. I've wondered for a while, but I think you've made it pretty obvious this time.
My argument is that people don't actually like playing the game or having to interact, just cheating at it with solitaire decks. That's an opinion I'm not allowed to express of course because solitaire decks have become hypernormalized, so you'll call me a troll even though it's something that I genuinely believe.
It's why the elegantly designed Shroud was replaced with Hexproof, why sets full of broken mechanics are loved and sets that are well designed and have few/no broken cards in them, (Compare say, Mirrodin to Kamigawa) are hated. It's why interesting mechanics with synergies you have to work towards like Splice Onto Arcane are called, "Parasitic". It's why Banding illicits a groan from most Magic players. Anything that requires thought is an NPE to most Magic players.
Some of this attitude translates to draft. One way of minimizing the amount of thought it takes to draft is to make a good stuff pile cube where every pick is obvious (example: Every Pauper cube which is a downhill train ride of card efficiency starting at Sprout Swarm) and then call other types of cubes gimmick cubes, bad card cubes, on rails drafting, etc.
I've only been playing Magic for a year and a half. I consider myself a bit of an outsider. I look at things from a different point of view than most Magic players. Another controversial view I hold is that the randomized sales model of the game is just the 1993 version of loot boxes and therefore it's gambling and Magic should become an LCG.
I have other weird opinions too.For example I think that recorded music peaked in the 30's and the mid-late 60's. If I told you my opinion of how awful 90's music is and then suggested that you listen to some Berthe Sylva you'd probably think I was trolling too.
" If you had 20% less red cards in proportion to other colors of cards, people would see less red cards and build their decks accordingly."
This is factually in error. The proportion of red cards being off by 20% could very well make red frequently unviable to draft any given night, but it could still give red the appearance of draftability in short, pack sized sample sizes.
If you see 3 red cards for P1p1 and 3 again in P1p2, you can get baited into thinking red, you know, exists.
" If you had 20% less red cards in proportion to other colors of cards, people would see less red cards and build their decks accordingly."
This is factually in error. The proportion of red cards being off by 20% could very well make red frequently unviable to draft any given night, but it could still give red the appearance of draftability in short, pack sized sample sizes.
If you see 3 red cards for P1p1 and 3 again in P1p2, you can get baited into thinking red, you know, exists.
Yeah, and then you won't see very many red cards and you'll have to draft other colors and it'll work out.
I don't really believe that most Magic players actually enjoy playing Magic
Alright, I know I'm taking the bait here, but this really proves to me that you don't enjoy playing Magic and are just trolling everyone. I've wondered for a while, but I think you've made it pretty obvious this time.
My argument is that people don't actually like playing the game or having to interact, just cheating at it with solitaire decks. That's an opinion I'm not allowed to express of course because solitaire decks have become hypernormalized, so you'll call me a troll even though it's something that I genuinely believe.
If that's your argument, then maybe you should state it the first time rather than making broad, sweeping generalizations and assuming everyone can discern what you actually mean instead of going on what you actually wrote. Poor communication magnifies issues of misunderstanding. Contrarian statements that aren't accompanied by the underlaying reasoning are labelled as trolling because that's what they sound like.
As you said, you've only been playing for a year and a half; that's not much experience. Additionally, I have to wonder about how diverse your playing group(s) is/are. You repeatedly make statements about Magic players not liking to play Magic and "anything Magic players hate is good for the game." Maybe it's not Magic players in general - maybe you just have a crap group that would rather be playing a different game.
solitaire decks have become hypernormalized
Maybe in your group. Not in mine, and not in others that I've spoken with. I've been playing Magic for almost seventeen years, I've had four different play groups, as well as free-play at several LGSs, and sure, there are some toxic players who would rather play solitaire, but in my experience, they are not the norm, and their play style has not become normalized.
" If you had 20% less red cards in proportion to other colors of cards, people would see less red cards and build their decks accordingly."
This is factually in error. The proportion of red cards being off by 20% could very well make red frequently unviable to draft any given night, but it could still give red the appearance of draftability in short, pack sized sample sizes.
If you see 3 red cards for P1p1 and 3 again in P1p2, you can get baited into thinking red, you know, exists.
Yeah, and then you won't see very many red cards and you'll have to draft other colors and it'll work out.
After having wasted several of your prime picks, it's not going to work out. You'll have been trolled by the cube designer who left red herrings instead of a legit draftable cube.
It's actually really hard to make solitaire decks viable in cube. You have to really push archetypes like storm and specific two-card combos. Most decks tend to be some mix of aggro, midrange, and control. Hyper-aggro is a little solitaire-ish, but not really. All you have to do is throw down Propaganda or Wall of Denial or something, and the deck becomes interactive. Most decks win by attacking with creatures, which is fundamentally interactive.
And having 2/3 the cards in one color as others is the actual worst way to do it because you send bad signals to your players. If four people first-pick red cards, the people who didn't are unfairly favored for no reason. The only person who comes out on top is the one who built the cube and knows how it works.
As a non-traditional cube player, you have to have some respect and understanding for conventions to be able to effectively defy them.
Personally I think people are pretty draconian about card choices. They call perfectly good cards unplayable because they aren't as good as the accepted standard card choices. I think that's dumb, and I try to broaden the horizons of accepted playability, but that has its limits. When you go way off the rails in things like color balance, and when you play cards that are actually just harmful to the format, you are just mocking your players for assuming they know how to play magic. There's a difference between trying things out and just being strange because you can. You can fill your cube with mountains and Squires if you want to, but that's not a working environment.
I have other weird opinions too.For example I think that recorded music peaked in the 30's and the mid-late 60's. If I told you my opinion of how awful 90's music is and then suggested that you listen to some Berthe Sylva you'd probably think I was trolling too.
Music is fundamentally a matter of personal taste. There's nothing wrong with liking music other people don't like. I personally love Magma, but I've never met another person who did. There's nothing wrong with liking weird music, or liking weird Magic strategies. There is something wrong with making everybody listen to your weird music at a party. Cube isn't just for you, it's for all your players. If you are forcing something strange into your environment, you have to make sure everyone is on board first. You can't just build an environment where the only creatures are Merfolk of the Pearl Trident and expect everyone to just get it. Nobody will play with you.
I don't really believe that most Magic players actually enjoy playing Magic, hence branding any cube that's not a good stuff pile as parasitic or a gimmick cube or "on rails".
Surely you can understand why it's insulting to say things like this. Everyone who posts regularly on this thread cares about their cube and works to make it a fun environment. I agree with you in concept: just playing the best cards because they're the best is not the best way to make a fun environment. I'm always saying that. But there are plenty of ways to find nuance and craft a great environment without making overtly bad choices. Playing significantly less of one color than others is an overtly bad choice, and so is playing cards like One With Nothing.
You don't have to put underpants on your head and pencils in your nose to defy standard practices.
I don't really believe that most Magic players actually enjoy playing Magic
Alright, I know I'm taking the bait here, but this really proves to me that you don't enjoy playing Magic and are just trolling everyone. I've wondered for a while, but I think you've made it pretty obvious this time.
My argument is that people don't actually like playing the game or having to interact, just cheating at it with solitaire decks. That's an opinion I'm not allowed to express of course because solitaire decks have become hypernormalized, so you'll call me a troll even though it's something that I genuinely believe.
If that's your argument, then maybe you should state it the first time rather than making broad, sweeping generalizations and assuming everyone can discern what you actually mean instead of going on what you actually wrote. Poor communication magnifies issues of misunderstanding. Contrarian statements that aren't accompanied by the underlaying reasoning are labelled as trolling because that's what they sound like.
As you said, you've only been playing for a year and a half; that's not much experience. Additionally, I have to wonder about how diverse your playing group(s) is/are. You repeatedly make statements about Magic players not liking to play Magic and "anything Magic players hate is good for the game." Maybe it's not Magic players in general - maybe you just have a crap group that would rather be playing a different game.
solitaire decks have become hypernormalized
Maybe in your group. Not in mine, and not in others that I've spoken with. I've been playing Magic for almost seventeen years, I've had four different play groups, as well as free-play at several LGSs, and sure, there are some toxic players who would rather play solitaire, but in my experience, they are not the norm, and their play style has not become normalized.
" If you had 20% less red cards in proportion to other colors of cards, people would see less red cards and build their decks accordingly."
This is factually in error. The proportion of red cards being off by 20% could very well make red frequently unviable to draft any given night, but it could still give red the appearance of draftability in short, pack sized sample sizes.
If you see 3 red cards for P1p1 and 3 again in P1p2, you can get baited into thinking red, you know, exists.
Yeah, and then you won't see very many red cards and you'll have to draft other colors and it'll work out.
After having wasted several of your prime picks, it's not going to work out. You'll have been trolled by the cube designer who left red herrings instead of a legit draftable cube.
1.) You're right, my playgroup is terrible but they're just a concentrated version of the wider issue. My cube didn't used to be full of hipster cards, it started off as another person's Pauper cube I netdecked and I replaced Hymn to Tourach (A card I find to be cancer) with Dash Hopes and illicited groans. "Ugh! Why is this card in this pack?!"
2.) I not only base my opinion on what I experience playing the game and talking to other Magic players in person, but on interactions online with other Magic players. The majority of players, both in person and online hate the concept of banning cards even when a degenerate deck is strangling the format.
Pauper Tron is basically an unstoppable prison deck in Pauper. It's not really possible to interact with it if it's allowed to get to say, turn 3-4. If you mention this simple fact on /r/Pauper you will be blasted. Before Gush was banned in Pauper there were people that would claim that literally the only reason they play the format is for Gush decks. So my perception of Magic players is that they're all clutching their degenerate combo or Tron decks or Bogles or whatever and declaring, "From my cold dead hands".
When I first encountered hexproof creatures in games I thought that they were broken, and then I came upon some Shroud creatures. Being new to the game I thought that Wizards replaced hexproof with the more balanced shroud mechanic and that hexproof was an old mechanic they didn't make anymore. Then I learned that the opposite was true.
Before I played Magic I played X-Wing:Miniatures for 4 years. X-Wing had huge problems with degeneracy ruining it, and I noticed some similarities in player psychology. X-Wing, like Magic, with its core game mechanics is an elegant game. Eventually the game became a Russian Nesting Doll of various degeneracies where not a single one of its core game mechanics were respected. And yet people would doggedly defend the awful state of the game and purport to enjoy the dumbed down training wheels version of the game.
After a few weeks/months of playing Magic I realized that most players of both games don't actually enjoy playing the game as Richard Garfield/Jay Little (X-Wing's designer) intended and just want to be handed free wins.
So I don't really think I'm inexperienced when I'm making this argument. It's not really 1.5 years, it's 5.5 years of coming up against this same hypernormalization of degenerate nonsense.
Assume my argument is true for a moment, that most players don't actually like having to interact or play the game, of course pointing this out will enrage them and they'll look for any excuse to stop me from expressing it.
First I make my argument. I'm called a troll. I explain that I'm not trolling and try to explain my argument more and am considered even more of a troll.
Honestly this entire discussion is based on a false premise- ie that consensus is at all useful for cube construction which is a matter of personal taste. Considering that I disagree with this notion there is no way for me to express my views without drawing fire.
I'm fine with drawing fire, I just don't want to be banned. I don't know why you guys can't tolerate opposing view points, I don't want any of you guys banned.
Assume my argument is true for a moment, that most players don't actually like having to interact or play the game, of course pointing this out will enrage them and they'll look for any excuse to stop me from expressing it.
I just don't understand why you feel this way. Why would we be here at all if we didn't like playing the game? This is peasant cube, where you actually can't just go Channel + Emrakul. Peasant is known to be more combat focused, and less combo driven. It's not the format for "Oops, I win" strategies. There are other formats for that (particularly EDH), and sure there are people who love doing it. But it's just not easy to do here, and I don't think it's something any of us are interested in. Even commonly played, non-interactive cards like Plated Crusher can be handled by board interaction.
This isn't a format where you have to play Force of Will to stop people from comboing off on turn three. What non-interactive strategies are you talking about? I feel like persist combos are probably the worst thing you can even do here. Maybe this is an issue in non-peasant cubes where people push archetypes like storm and play degenerate combos, but the most degenerate things we have are cards like Skinrender that are fundamentally interactive.
Personally, I'm not playing Plated Crusher, or Skinrender, or several of the 2/1s for one, or even Lightning Bolt because I like to slow the format down a little bit and cut down on must-pick cards. My most non-interactive cards are probably Archetype of Endurance and Invisible Stalker. Stalker creates an archetype, and I'm even playing Kaya, Bane of the Dead to make hexproof more interactable, and I'm not playing much hexproof because it is so hard to interact with. Interaction is absolutely a consideration for my card choices.
Constructed (for most people) is about competitively striving for the best win ratio. It's no surprise that everyone is chasing degenerate easy wins. Cube doesn't tend to be like that, at least not peasant. Yeah, people love degenerate play, but you can easily sculpt a format that isn't based on that.
I'm not advocating for anybody being banned by the way. I'm just flummoxed by the sentiment of "Magic players hate playing Magic." It's demonstrably not true.
I'm fine with drawing fire, I just don't want to be banned. I don't know why you guys can't tolerate opposing view points, I don't want any of you guys banned.
You're just kinda shifting every topic into your views on magic players. I'm fine with contrarian opinions (even if I disagree with yours), but there's a time and place for them. You're taking a discussion about unequal colour numbers and moving that to your philosophical views on the magic community as a whole. Pauper isn't Peasant Cube. X-Wing: Miniatures isn't Peasant Cube. Whatever gameplay you think is non-interactive doesn't really exist in Peasant at a relevant level, so I fail to see how most of your points are relevant to Peasant Cube.
If you want to have a discussion on why Dash Hopes is good or why having only 3 white cards works I'm sure people will argue those points with gusto. But you seem to be mostly interested in going on about how mtg players hate mtg, which is both derailing the conversation and hardly a discussion worth having considering it seems pretty clear no one is going to change their minds.
Honestly this entire discussion is based on a false premise- ie that consensus is at all useful for cube construction which is a matter of personal taste. Considering that I disagree with this notion there is no way for me to express my views without drawing fire.
Cube construction is definitely personal taste and there is a lot of variation in that regard. But broadly speaking people want their cube to appeal to a large band of players. Doing efficient things, doing cool things, and doing powerful things are what people tend to enjoy (Spike, Johnny, and Timmy), so people will make their cube with those things in mind and try to allow players to do all 3. Allowing those things is what the consensus is for this community. If you don't agree with that consensus then it's likely you're not going to get much help from this board.
Assume my argument is true for a moment, that most players don't actually like having to interact or play the game
Why should anyone assume this utter nonsense you dare to call an argument? I don't like interaction with other players and I don't want to play the game? This is no argument, it's an insult and the very definition of trolling.
Honestly this entire discussion is based on a false premise- ie that consensus is at all useful for cube construction which is a matter of personal taste.
No, it is not. There is a reason why people learn how to make movies, write books, develop games etc even if the end result may be subjective. If you just let a clueless person do the opposite of what is considered state of the art then crap will come out of it - always.
Also, if you think dicussing cube design/construction isn't useful, why are you even here? Because that's why we are here at least and you certainly won't change that. You're like someone who goes to a cooking forum and tells people what they do is useless as they can just as well eat canned ravioli instead of cooking a three star menu, because taste is subjective.
I'm fine with drawing fire, I just don't want to be banned. I don't know why you guys can't tolerate opposing view points, I don't want any of you guys banned.
I would almost start to cry now if you wouldn't have insulted everyone on this forum over and over again just because they told you that 1+1 is 2 and not 3.
Somehow I didnt realize that Imperial Recruiter got reprinted and is now affordable. I was looking through my list and to be honest the Recruiter has a lot of valuable targets (removal, token-generators, utility-creatures, etc.) and I consider including the card in my list.
Has anybody any expericne with the Recruiter in the peasant enviroment?
Sorry for weering off-topic, but what are our best options for flash creatures in blue, green and simic? And what are some "almost there" options?
I have experience with Imperial Recruiter and it has been pretty irreplaceable. Many archetype-defining cards like Anger or Young Pyromancer can be searched up with it which considerably increases the viability of such decks when Recruiter is involved. Even outside such decks, it provides decent value. I would not insist that everyone needs to play it - especially given the price, even after a drop - but it is definitely worth a slot if you can afford it.
Oh, and as for my opinion on the 'argument' being criticised: Calling it that is an insult to logic and rhetoric both, and I hope that ignoring it for the most part will be enough just like with a genuine troll even if this seems like an actual opinion. It does poison every thread where it is copy-pasted, though.
Assume my argument is true for a moment, that most players don't actually like having to interact or play the game, of course pointing this out will enrage them and they'll look for any excuse to stop me from expressing it.
I just don't understand why you feel this way. Why would we be here at all if we didn't like playing the game? This is peasant cube, where you actually can't just go Channel + Emrakul. Peasant is known to be more combat focused, and less combo driven. It's not the format for "Oops, I win" strategies. There are other formats for that (particularly EDH), and sure there are people who love doing it. But it's just not easy to do here, and I don't think it's something any of us are interested in. Even commonly played, non-interactive cards like Plated Crusher can be handled by board interaction.
This isn't a format where you have to play Force of Will to stop people from comboing off on turn three. What non-interactive strategies are you talking about? I feel like persist combos are probably the worst thing you can even do here. Maybe this is an issue in non-peasant cubes where people push archetypes like storm and play degenerate combos, but the most degenerate things we have are cards like Skinrender that are fundamentally interactive.
Personally, I'm not playing Plated Crusher, or Skinrender, or several of the 2/1s for one, or even Lightning Bolt because I like to slow the format down a little bit and cut down on must-pick cards. My most non-interactive cards are probably Archetype of Endurance and Invisible Stalker. Stalker creates an archetype, and I'm even playing Kaya, Bane of the Dead to make hexproof more interactable, and I'm not playing much hexproof because it is so hard to interact with. Interaction is absolutely a consideration for my card choices.
Constructed (for most people) is about competitively striving for the best win ratio. It's no surprise that everyone is chasing degenerate easy wins. Cube doesn't tend to be like that, at least not peasant. Yeah, people love degenerate play, but you can easily sculpt a format that isn't based on that.
I'm not advocating for anybody being banned by the way. I'm just flummoxed by the sentiment of "Magic players hate playing Magic." It's demonstrably not true.
My reaction was aimed more towards the attitude that cubes that are good stuff piles are better than cubes that have "on rails" synergies and how this is just an excuse to dumb down drafting because the opposite is true. Even though I'd argue that having to draft synergies is less on rails and requires you to think more than snap picking every single on-color good stuff card in ranked power order.
It's been my experience that getting random strangers to draft at the LGS is easier with, "It's the MTGO proxy Vintage cube you can play Black Lotus!" than "Hey want to draft a cube? It's a mostly Pauper cube." So my perception is that people prefer to Tinker -> Blightsteel you over say, a close game that takes 20 turns and involves Banding. I think I should start lying and start calling my cube an unrestricted Vintage cube, after all Timmerian Fiends and Shahrazad are banned in Vintage and Benalish Hero is vintage legal lol.
"Aw *****, he lied to us. Now we have to play interactive Magic noooooooooooo!"
You're right that I'm mischaracterizing the Peasant players here as people that just want to smear ice cream on their face and turn 2 reanimator you or whatever. That's a hyperbolic, I admit. Albeit is is kind of annoying having a firing squad of people ready to jump on you for suggesting reasonable mid tier cards.
But ultimately I'll never meet any of you guys and get to draft your cubes(Although I wouldn't be opposed to a meet up if the driving distance was within a few hours even just to 2 player Winston draft) so it doesn't matter. The only people I have to draft with are my playgroup and randoms at the LGS.
And all of them, especially the commander players and my playgroup are really what I'm describing.
The reason why I stick around here even though I disagree with 90% of what everyone says here is threefold:
1.) If I always disagree with what people here like, what I can do is use everyone as a sort of inverse springboard for ideas. So for example If I asked what people think about cutting Thraben Inspector for Shield Bearer I would likely be told not to (and probably accused of trolling because one is not allowed to question the council's judgement on The One True 360) so that to me is confirmation that my cube is built correctly.
2.) Occasionally some advice genuinely slips through. When I asked in the Pauper thread about exceptions to Pauper rarity that people make, someone suggested Worldknit and I ended up including it. I decided to replace One With Nothing with Necrogen Mists based on your reasoning and the realization that One With Nothing would only be playable if I included Balance in my cube (which I'm not willing to) or if the stars aligned and you drafted all 15~ Madness cards in mt cube which will never happen.
3.) I like cube and even if I hated everyone here I'd still want a place to discuss it. I had a vasectomy when I was 23 and got banned from a childfree forum for saying that, "None of you people here are actually childfree, you just have cats as children."
I got banned from board game geek for saying that no one here actually likes board games, just buying them. And that if they actually liked playing board games they'd play what they have. I also criticized modern "eurogame" design and how everything is just an abstract points salad with no actual interaction and is just an illusion of a game. And that Monopoly is genuinely good game and a better version of Settlers of Catan.
So I'm going to speak my mind and drive my dagger into the sacred cows that I see. I see no alternative to this.
My reaction was aimed more towards the attitude that cubes that are good stuff piles are better than cubes that have "on rails" synergies and how this is just an excuse to dumb down drafting because the opposite is true. Even though I'd argue that having to draft synergies is less on rails and requires you to think more than snap picking every single on-color good stuff card in ranked power order.
On rails is used to refer to hyper specific synergies that require you to pick all the cards the cube designer puts in for that archetype. If you're trying to draft a tribal deck there's likely only going to be 1 card of that tribe in the pack, so you're railed into taking that card. No one is arguing that cubes shouldn't have synergies, they're saying that the "on rails" synergies are so specific you'd be better off with synergies that work with more cards.
It's been my experience that getting random strangers to draft at the LGS is easier with, "It's the MTGO proxy Vintage cube you can play Black Lotus!" than "Hey want to draft a cube? It's a mostly Pauper cube." So my perception is that people prefer to Tinker -> Blightsteel you over say, a close game that takes 20 turns and involves Banding. I think I should start lying and start calling my cube an unrestricted Vintage cube, after all Timmerian Fiends and Shahrazad are banned in Vintage and Benalish Hero is vintage legal lol.
Most people have basically no interaction with pauper/peasant cubes, so it makes total sense that people shy away from them. Even if the MTGO vintage cube isn't the best cube, I know that I can at least do some exciting stuff that's fun for a couple games; with pauper I'm not immediately coming up with cards I want to play with in the same way. And even if you know what to expect it takes a lot of time to get used to a whole new set of cards. I played pauper once and it was very clear immediately after my first game that I drafted wrong, which made close games almost impossible. If I'm only going to be playing the cube once, why would I play something I could have a horrible time with instead of something I know I can have close games with?
1.) If I always disagree with what people here like, what I can do is use everyone as a sort of inverse springboard for ideas. So for example If I asked what people think about cutting Thraben Inspector for Shield Bearer I would likely be told not to (and probably accused of trolling because one is not allowed to question the council's judgement on The One True 360) so that to me is confirmation that my cube is built correctly.
This doesn't really make your cube more inviting to play considering I now need to learn mechanics on top of a ton of new cards and archetypes. If I had Shield Bearer in my cube I can assure you I would spend a good 10-15min over the course of the draft explaining how banding works. Regardless of how much fun Shield Bearer is, that's a lot of time to be spending on a single card instead of playing the game. This also just paints you as a contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian, which isn't a good look.
Well I've certainly never played Izzet Signet in UB unless I was splashing, and I certainly have played Thornscape Battlemage in GW and been happy with it. I guess battlemage is more of a sideboard card in GW and mainboard in GR, but I've played it main. I'll note that my experience from both cards comes from my main cube, not the mostly peasant one. I guess artifacts are better in the main cube.
I'm not categorically against anything. I said only UR is going to play Izzet Signet, but that was prefaced by saying any color can. If you are in the habit of playing off-color mana-rocks for ramp, more power to you. It's just not something I've really seen in my cubing career more than maybe once or twice. So then Izzet Signet can go in a UR deck, or a deck that loves artifacts, or a deck that desperately needs ramp. That only increases the nuance.
I certainly wasn't trying to make some statement about the exact quality of the cards I listed. I was trying to suggest that the spectrum of playability is much wider than the example of Rakdos Cackler suggests. A simpler illustration: Rakdos Cackler can go in loads of non-BR decks-- Rakdos Shred-Freak goes in fewer-- Ashenmoor Gouger can go in fewer still. You can argue that Cackler is good and Gouger is bad, but the principal remains. To further complicate the spectrum, a card like Grief Tyrant is much much easier to get the right mana for outside of BR than even the Cackler, since you tend to have your colors by the time you cast a six drop. Grief Tyrant may be considered unplayable, but again, the principal remains.
That's ignoring all the more mana-nuanced options like Rakdos Signet, Carnival // Carnage and Toil // Trouble. I guess most of you don't care unless the card is at the tip-tip top of playability, in which case only Rakdos Cackler and Signet out of that list are even worth blinking at. That's never been my philosophy.
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.
But if someone wanted to say, just cut blue from their cube entirely or have 3 white cards and 50 cards in each other color it wouldn't ruin the cube. Since everyone drafts from the same pool of cards it inherently balances things out.
Ignoring what Magic players say isn't the answer, it's listening to what they have to say and doing the exact opposite that's correct.
Since the effect of sorting hybrids away from guilds is so small and trying to "correctly" codify guild sections is such a mind boggling task, I would say that it's not worth the effort to deal with hybrids differently.
Slight imbalances don't make a huge impact, but if you are doing something crazy like cutting a color, you are creating a gimmick cube, and you'll have to embrace it. That's okay, but the players need to understand it and be on board or they'll draft wrong and have less fun-- which is your fault.
At 800+ you really don't need exact balance. I eventually balanced out my big cube's colors, but it hasn't actually helped the format; it's just made me micromanage more. Relative balance really does work fine at that level. At smaller size, you're probably fine as long as your colors are within one or two cards of one another. But exact balance feels good.
-----
I like hybrids in my guild section. I always have. Frankly I like the idea of using only hybrids in my guild section without having to play weak cards. We aren't that far from that anymore. There are gold cards I love, so I'll probably never do that, but I really liked the way Shadowmoor block felt to draft.
So do the bouncelands (Azorius Chancery) make you more or less inclined to play hate for them (Pillage, Stone Rain, Boomerang, Temporal Spring, etc.)?
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.
If you cut blue from your cube entirely it wouldn't be possible to draft wrong. If you had 20% less red cards in proportion to other colors of cards, people would see less red cards and build their decks accordingly.
I'd rather draft a gimmick cube than a good stuff pile by the way. I've played good stuff cubes before and for all of the complaining about how what I like is parasitic and "on rails", there is far more thinking involved in drafting a Splice Onto Arcane deck than there is in P1P1'ing Mulldrifter or Sprout Swarm every game.
I don't really believe that most Magic players actually enjoy playing Magic, hence branding any cube that's not a good stuff pile as parasitic or a gimmick cube or "on rails".
_________________________
I don't play land destruction because it's never fun and is binary. Either:
1.) You actually get enough of it and your opponent has no fun.
2.) You don't get enough of it and you draw your single Stone Rain when your opponent has 7 lands out and it's a dead draw.
I do have a handful of ways to destroy lands (Bronze Tablet, Vindicate, Reality Acid, Who/What/Where/When/Why, etc.) but no specific Stone Rain cards.
Even if I did play specific LD spells the fact that my opponent played Bouncelands wouldn't have much of an impact on my decision on whether or not to side them in.
Ignoring what Magic players say isn't the answer, it's listening to what they have to say and doing the exact opposite that's correct.
2023 Average Peasant Cube|and Discussion
Because I have more decks than fit in a signature
Useful Resources:
MTGSalvation tags
EDHREC
ManabaseCrafter
My argument is that people don't actually like playing the game or having to interact, just cheating at it with solitaire decks. That's an opinion I'm not allowed to express of course because solitaire decks have become hypernormalized, so you'll call me a troll even though it's something that I genuinely believe.
It's why the elegantly designed Shroud was replaced with Hexproof, why sets full of broken mechanics are loved and sets that are well designed and have few/no broken cards in them, (Compare say, Mirrodin to Kamigawa) are hated. It's why interesting mechanics with synergies you have to work towards like Splice Onto Arcane are called, "Parasitic". It's why Banding illicits a groan from most Magic players. Anything that requires thought is an NPE to most Magic players.
Some of this attitude translates to draft. One way of minimizing the amount of thought it takes to draft is to make a good stuff pile cube where every pick is obvious (example: Every Pauper cube which is a downhill train ride of card efficiency starting at Sprout Swarm) and then call other types of cubes gimmick cubes, bad card cubes, on rails drafting, etc.
I've only been playing Magic for a year and a half. I consider myself a bit of an outsider. I look at things from a different point of view than most Magic players. Another controversial view I hold is that the randomized sales model of the game is just the 1993 version of loot boxes and therefore it's gambling and Magic should become an LCG.
I have other weird opinions too.For example I think that recorded music peaked in the 30's and the mid-late 60's. If I told you my opinion of how awful 90's music is and then suggested that you listen to some Berthe Sylva you'd probably think I was trolling too.
Ignoring what Magic players say isn't the answer, it's listening to what they have to say and doing the exact opposite that's correct.
This is factually in error. The proportion of red cards being off by 20% could very well make red frequently unviable to draft any given night, but it could still give red the appearance of draftability in short, pack sized sample sizes.
If you see 3 red cards for P1p1 and 3 again in P1p2, you can get baited into thinking red, you know, exists.
My CubeCobra (draft 20 card packs, 2 packs.)
430, Peasant, Very Unpowered
Why you should take your hybrids out of your gold section
Manamath Article
Yeah, and then you won't see very many red cards and you'll have to draft other colors and it'll work out.
Ignoring what Magic players say isn't the answer, it's listening to what they have to say and doing the exact opposite that's correct.
As you said, you've only been playing for a year and a half; that's not much experience. Additionally, I have to wonder about how diverse your playing group(s) is/are. You repeatedly make statements about Magic players not liking to play Magic and "anything Magic players hate is good for the game." Maybe it's not Magic players in general - maybe you just have a crap group that would rather be playing a different game.Maybe in your group. Not in mine, and not in others that I've spoken with. I've been playing Magic for almost seventeen years, I've had four different play groups, as well as free-play at several LGSs, and sure, there are some toxic players who would rather play solitaire, but in my experience, they are not the norm, and their play style has not become normalized.
After having wasted several of your prime picks, it's not going to work out. You'll have been trolled by the cube designer who left red herrings instead of a legit draftable cube.
2023 Average Peasant Cube|and Discussion
Because I have more decks than fit in a signature
Useful Resources:
MTGSalvation tags
EDHREC
ManabaseCrafter
And having 2/3 the cards in one color as others is the actual worst way to do it because you send bad signals to your players. If four people first-pick red cards, the people who didn't are unfairly favored for no reason. The only person who comes out on top is the one who built the cube and knows how it works.
As a non-traditional cube player, you have to have some respect and understanding for conventions to be able to effectively defy them.
Personally I think people are pretty draconian about card choices. They call perfectly good cards unplayable because they aren't as good as the accepted standard card choices. I think that's dumb, and I try to broaden the horizons of accepted playability, but that has its limits. When you go way off the rails in things like color balance, and when you play cards that are actually just harmful to the format, you are just mocking your players for assuming they know how to play magic. There's a difference between trying things out and just being strange because you can. You can fill your cube with mountains and Squires if you want to, but that's not a working environment.
Music is fundamentally a matter of personal taste. There's nothing wrong with liking music other people don't like. I personally love Magma, but I've never met another person who did. There's nothing wrong with liking weird music, or liking weird Magic strategies. There is something wrong with making everybody listen to your weird music at a party. Cube isn't just for you, it's for all your players. If you are forcing something strange into your environment, you have to make sure everyone is on board first. You can't just build an environment where the only creatures are Merfolk of the Pearl Trident and expect everyone to just get it. Nobody will play with you.
Surely you can understand why it's insulting to say things like this. Everyone who posts regularly on this thread cares about their cube and works to make it a fun environment. I agree with you in concept: just playing the best cards because they're the best is not the best way to make a fun environment. I'm always saying that. But there are plenty of ways to find nuance and craft a great environment without making overtly bad choices. Playing significantly less of one color than others is an overtly bad choice, and so is playing cards like One With Nothing.
You don't have to put underpants on your head and pencils in your nose to defy standard practices.
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.
Asking for a friend.
My CubeCobra (draft 20 card packs, 2 packs.)
430, Peasant, Very Unpowered
Why you should take your hybrids out of your gold section
Manamath Article
1.) You're right, my playgroup is terrible but they're just a concentrated version of the wider issue. My cube didn't used to be full of hipster cards, it started off as another person's Pauper cube I netdecked and I replaced Hymn to Tourach (A card I find to be cancer) with Dash Hopes and illicited groans. "Ugh! Why is this card in this pack?!"
2.) I not only base my opinion on what I experience playing the game and talking to other Magic players in person, but on interactions online with other Magic players. The majority of players, both in person and online hate the concept of banning cards even when a degenerate deck is strangling the format.
Pauper Tron is basically an unstoppable prison deck in Pauper. It's not really possible to interact with it if it's allowed to get to say, turn 3-4. If you mention this simple fact on /r/Pauper you will be blasted. Before Gush was banned in Pauper there were people that would claim that literally the only reason they play the format is for Gush decks. So my perception of Magic players is that they're all clutching their degenerate combo or Tron decks or Bogles or whatever and declaring, "From my cold dead hands".
When I first encountered hexproof creatures in games I thought that they were broken, and then I came upon some Shroud creatures. Being new to the game I thought that Wizards replaced hexproof with the more balanced shroud mechanic and that hexproof was an old mechanic they didn't make anymore. Then I learned that the opposite was true.
Before I played Magic I played X-Wing:Miniatures for 4 years. X-Wing had huge problems with degeneracy ruining it, and I noticed some similarities in player psychology. X-Wing, like Magic, with its core game mechanics is an elegant game. Eventually the game became a Russian Nesting Doll of various degeneracies where not a single one of its core game mechanics were respected. And yet people would doggedly defend the awful state of the game and purport to enjoy the dumbed down training wheels version of the game.
After a few weeks/months of playing Magic I realized that most players of both games don't actually enjoy playing the game as Richard Garfield/Jay Little (X-Wing's designer) intended and just want to be handed free wins.
So I don't really think I'm inexperienced when I'm making this argument. It's not really 1.5 years, it's 5.5 years of coming up against this same hypernormalization of degenerate nonsense.
Ignoring what Magic players say isn't the answer, it's listening to what they have to say and doing the exact opposite that's correct.
That's crazy, I have a friend who would like to know as well!
My Old School Battlebox
My Premodern Battlebox
Assume my argument is true for a moment, that most players don't actually like having to interact or play the game, of course pointing this out will enrage them and they'll look for any excuse to stop me from expressing it.
First I make my argument. I'm called a troll. I explain that I'm not trolling and try to explain my argument more and am considered even more of a troll.
Honestly this entire discussion is based on a false premise- ie that consensus is at all useful for cube construction which is a matter of personal taste. Considering that I disagree with this notion there is no way for me to express my views without drawing fire.
I'm fine with drawing fire, I just don't want to be banned. I don't know why you guys can't tolerate opposing view points, I don't want any of you guys banned.
Ignoring what Magic players say isn't the answer, it's listening to what they have to say and doing the exact opposite that's correct.
I just don't understand why you feel this way. Why would we be here at all if we didn't like playing the game? This is peasant cube, where you actually can't just go Channel + Emrakul. Peasant is known to be more combat focused, and less combo driven. It's not the format for "Oops, I win" strategies. There are other formats for that (particularly EDH), and sure there are people who love doing it. But it's just not easy to do here, and I don't think it's something any of us are interested in. Even commonly played, non-interactive cards like Plated Crusher can be handled by board interaction.
This isn't a format where you have to play Force of Will to stop people from comboing off on turn three. What non-interactive strategies are you talking about? I feel like persist combos are probably the worst thing you can even do here. Maybe this is an issue in non-peasant cubes where people push archetypes like storm and play degenerate combos, but the most degenerate things we have are cards like Skinrender that are fundamentally interactive.
Personally, I'm not playing Plated Crusher, or Skinrender, or several of the 2/1s for one, or even Lightning Bolt because I like to slow the format down a little bit and cut down on must-pick cards. My most non-interactive cards are probably Archetype of Endurance and Invisible Stalker. Stalker creates an archetype, and I'm even playing Kaya, Bane of the Dead to make hexproof more interactable, and I'm not playing much hexproof because it is so hard to interact with. Interaction is absolutely a consideration for my card choices.
Constructed (for most people) is about competitively striving for the best win ratio. It's no surprise that everyone is chasing degenerate easy wins. Cube doesn't tend to be like that, at least not peasant. Yeah, people love degenerate play, but you can easily sculpt a format that isn't based on that.
I'm not advocating for anybody being banned by the way. I'm just flummoxed by the sentiment of "Magic players hate playing Magic." It's demonstrably not true.
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.
You're just kinda shifting every topic into your views on magic players. I'm fine with contrarian opinions (even if I disagree with yours), but there's a time and place for them. You're taking a discussion about unequal colour numbers and moving that to your philosophical views on the magic community as a whole. Pauper isn't Peasant Cube. X-Wing: Miniatures isn't Peasant Cube. Whatever gameplay you think is non-interactive doesn't really exist in Peasant at a relevant level, so I fail to see how most of your points are relevant to Peasant Cube.
If you want to have a discussion on why Dash Hopes is good or why having only 3 white cards works I'm sure people will argue those points with gusto. But you seem to be mostly interested in going on about how mtg players hate mtg, which is both derailing the conversation and hardly a discussion worth having considering it seems pretty clear no one is going to change their minds.
Cube construction is definitely personal taste and there is a lot of variation in that regard. But broadly speaking people want their cube to appeal to a large band of players. Doing efficient things, doing cool things, and doing powerful things are what people tend to enjoy (Spike, Johnny, and Timmy), so people will make their cube with those things in mind and try to allow players to do all 3. Allowing those things is what the consensus is for this community. If you don't agree with that consensus then it's likely you're not going to get much help from this board.
Why should anyone assume this utter nonsense you dare to call an argument? I don't like interaction with other players and I don't want to play the game? This is no argument, it's an insult and the very definition of trolling.
No, it is not. There is a reason why people learn how to make movies, write books, develop games etc even if the end result may be subjective. If you just let a clueless person do the opposite of what is considered state of the art then crap will come out of it - always.
Also, if you think dicussing cube design/construction isn't useful, why are you even here? Because that's why we are here at least and you certainly won't change that. You're like someone who goes to a cooking forum and tells people what they do is useless as they can just as well eat canned ravioli instead of cooking a three star menu, because taste is subjective.
I would almost start to cry now if you wouldn't have insulted everyone on this forum over and over again just because they told you that 1+1 is 2 and not 3.
My Old School Battlebox
My Premodern Battlebox
Cubetutor Peasant'ish-Funbox
Project: Khans of Tarkir Cube (cubetutor)
Has anybody any expericne with the Recruiter in the peasant enviroment?
Off my head: Bounding Krasis, Fleetfeather Cockatrice
My Peasant Cube: @ mtgsalvation---- @ cubecobra
The scryfall search link: here
In my opinion the best are: Bounding Krasis, Briarhorn, Brineborn Cutthroat, Fleetfeather Cockatrice, Frilled Mystic, Great Oak Guardian, Horizon Chimera, Merfolk Trickster, Pack Guardian, Quickling, Shambleshark, Spectral Sailor, Void Grafter and Wolfir Avenger
Oh, and as for my opinion on the 'argument' being criticised: Calling it that is an insult to logic and rhetoric both, and I hope that ignoring it for the most part will be enough just like with a genuine troll even if this seems like an actual opinion. It does poison every thread where it is copy-pasted, though.
My reaction was aimed more towards the attitude that cubes that are good stuff piles are better than cubes that have "on rails" synergies and how this is just an excuse to dumb down drafting because the opposite is true. Even though I'd argue that having to draft synergies is less on rails and requires you to think more than snap picking every single on-color good stuff card in ranked power order.
It's been my experience that getting random strangers to draft at the LGS is easier with, "It's the MTGO proxy Vintage cube you can play Black Lotus!" than "Hey want to draft a cube? It's a mostly Pauper cube." So my perception is that people prefer to Tinker -> Blightsteel you over say, a close game that takes 20 turns and involves Banding. I think I should start lying and start calling my cube an unrestricted Vintage cube, after all Timmerian Fiends and Shahrazad are banned in Vintage and Benalish Hero is vintage legal lol.
"Aw *****, he lied to us. Now we have to play interactive Magic noooooooooooo!"
You're right that I'm mischaracterizing the Peasant players here as people that just want to smear ice cream on their face and turn 2 reanimator you or whatever. That's a hyperbolic, I admit. Albeit is is kind of annoying having a firing squad of people ready to jump on you for suggesting reasonable mid tier cards.
But ultimately I'll never meet any of you guys and get to draft your cubes(Although I wouldn't be opposed to a meet up if the driving distance was within a few hours even just to 2 player Winston draft) so it doesn't matter. The only people I have to draft with are my playgroup and randoms at the LGS.
And all of them, especially the commander players and my playgroup are really what I'm describing.
The reason why I stick around here even though I disagree with 90% of what everyone says here is threefold:
1.) If I always disagree with what people here like, what I can do is use everyone as a sort of inverse springboard for ideas. So for example If I asked what people think about cutting Thraben Inspector for Shield Bearer I would likely be told not to (and probably accused of trolling because one is not allowed to question the council's judgement on The One True 360) so that to me is confirmation that my cube is built correctly.
2.) Occasionally some advice genuinely slips through. When I asked in the Pauper thread about exceptions to Pauper rarity that people make, someone suggested Worldknit and I ended up including it. I decided to replace One With Nothing with Necrogen Mists based on your reasoning and the realization that One With Nothing would only be playable if I included Balance in my cube (which I'm not willing to) or if the stars aligned and you drafted all 15~ Madness cards in mt cube which will never happen.
3.) I like cube and even if I hated everyone here I'd still want a place to discuss it. I had a vasectomy when I was 23 and got banned from a childfree forum for saying that, "None of you people here are actually childfree, you just have cats as children."
I got banned from board game geek for saying that no one here actually likes board games, just buying them. And that if they actually liked playing board games they'd play what they have. I also criticized modern "eurogame" design and how everything is just an abstract points salad with no actual interaction and is just an illusion of a game. And that Monopoly is genuinely good game and a better version of Settlers of Catan.
So I'm going to speak my mind and drive my dagger into the sacred cows that I see. I see no alternative to this.
Ignoring what Magic players say isn't the answer, it's listening to what they have to say and doing the exact opposite that's correct.
Most people have basically no interaction with pauper/peasant cubes, so it makes total sense that people shy away from them. Even if the MTGO vintage cube isn't the best cube, I know that I can at least do some exciting stuff that's fun for a couple games; with pauper I'm not immediately coming up with cards I want to play with in the same way. And even if you know what to expect it takes a lot of time to get used to a whole new set of cards. I played pauper once and it was very clear immediately after my first game that I drafted wrong, which made close games almost impossible. If I'm only going to be playing the cube once, why would I play something I could have a horrible time with instead of something I know I can have close games with?
This doesn't really make your cube more inviting to play considering I now need to learn mechanics on top of a ton of new cards and archetypes. If I had Shield Bearer in my cube I can assure you I would spend a good 10-15min over the course of the draft explaining how banding works. Regardless of how much fun Shield Bearer is, that's a lot of time to be spending on a single card instead of playing the game. This also just paints you as a contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian, which isn't a good look.