that reduction makes no sense (google relative and absolute values) and i also disagree with the impact of XX costs you assume. phitt already posted the math behind it. you would also end with way too many staples, which theyre not anymore thanks to powercreep
Like I said, there's definitely a solution and I'm just tossing things out there to think about so the numbers aren't set in stone, but perhaps the solution is raising your amount for 'staple' the higher you get on the curve, or changing those numbers that I suggested. Yes, it will have an impact to have one vs another, but in practice a two color Gx deck will barely notice the difference between Sentinel Spider and Bitterbow Sharpshooters, at least not enough to reduce it by 10%/etc.
Frankly, there *should* be a lot of cards close to staple status at the higher cost since there are less spots, kind of like white 5s in a regular cube, at least in comparison percentage-wise to the lower-curved spots. Just because there are better options doesn't mean the older options are so much worse now. Like, when Sentinel Spider hits the battlefield, it's the same card as Bitterbow Sharpshooters, and the only thing stopping it from doing that is variance which should have an impact but really not that big of one between 4G and 3GG. The only reason Spider is no longer a staple is the proverbial gun-to-the-head that Sharpshooters forces you to put there, and they don't feel ~10% different in actual practice. Outside of horrendous variance, I don't think I've ever missed the GG aspect of Sentinel Spiders by a turn I should've cast them, and that's even more true since it's a green card and is often cast off an elf. (Yet another wrinkle that needs to be addressed, how less weight you need to put on 4+ costed creatures with multiple green symbols in their cost due to elves.) I don't think that's as much of a problem as you're making it out to be, some sections aren't going to be even and the amount of staples (or close to) will be higher in some sections than others.
again, its pretty simple math that applies to all cards. sure, some random keywords or abilities can be tricky to give exact values, but in the end they will be much more consistent for comparsion than random categorization which ended totally inconsistent. in fact cards with core abilities will be categorized perfectly.
uhm if anything there should be way less staples at higher cost because there are way less spots??!!
we have agree to disagree here, because the 10% difference is real and you might want to observe your next drafts or watch some on twitch how reliable you hit doubleX on your 5th land drop. or you can bring some math to the table how reliable you hit XX or not. (i bet its somewhere around 10% difference)
uhm if anything there should be way less staples at higher cost because there are way less spots??!!
Not true, the number of spots you have don't determine the quality of the card, which is why what a 'staple' is probably needs to be higher than what you have for a 5 drop vs a 2 drop if the numbers come together the same way i.e. the average. Just because there are less spots doesn't mean that the number of staple-quality cards don't exist beyond that number of spots. If there are 20 incredible green creatures that all rate similarly, I'm not running 20, I'm running the amount that I want for green 5s in my cube. So if your criteria for a staple is 9+ and there are 10 9+ cards, then saying that they all grade as 'staples' means you have to adjust the numbers after the fact way more so than however you got those average numbers. Add to that it being easier to print stronger cards at higher costs because they have less of an impact on limited/constructed formats generally, and it makes a lot of sense to have an abundance of options for higher costs vs typically a number of cards you'd happily cut at lower costs.
And then there's the other issue of how the grades play out, like is Silent Artisan really a 7.5 when Sentinel Spider is an 8?! That seems absurd. Sentinel Spider is barely above average? It's Borderline? It may be worse than other green 5s, but it as a creature is not bad and it sends a weird message to see it so close to something I wouldn't play in any deck ever. You might want to finish a project like this before sharing it, because the results for what you have so far make it tough to put much weight behind it if Sentinel Spider is borderline and something like Silent Artisan is average, because if that was the conclusion I came to on my own I would immediately say 'ok something isn't right here'. I mean, it seems like you have two cubes' worth of green 5s, and you would be hard-pressed to get a similar ratio with lower parts of your curve in green.
And it's like +75% to hit X by turn 5 if I have 9 sources of X mana according to wtwlf's mana short article, which is pretty reliable. Obviously it would be more for X, but it's not hard to get 9 sources of green in a green deck between elves/the limited number of duals/other fixing. Even without any elves or fixing--which is the most massive stretch to make for a green deck, but still--I don't think a 9/8 split would be asking a lot, and that's an absolute floor. Maybe put less weight on GG costs at higher CMC vs other colors?
I'm quoting your previous page, where you list it as a 7.5. You list how you factor in the mod for Grizzly Bears, so it would be a safe assumption to say you did that for all of them.
And if that's the case, then Sentinel Spider is 1.5 above and is therefore a staple if it's an 8 and the average is actually 6.5.
Might be a good idea to complete this project instead of the piece meal you have here, seeing how these numbers shake out would be a lot better than the theory-crafting that's going on. You clearly have an idea for how you want this to play out, maybe remove this and re-visit this thread when it's actually done so we can debate the results and not the process? Because the process is flawed being that you're assigning objective values to what ends up being more difficult to do than not, but if the results actually carry weight then it mitigates a lot of the flawed process.
so silent artisan is just a wrong example then.
maybe you just dont argue over 2 pages when the title says under construction and the thread is in progress? its easier for me to actually edit a running topic than to try to edit it in word or something.
it definitely was a mistake to remove you from my ignore list and start replying..
so silent artisan is just a wrong example then.
maybe you just dont argue over 2 pages when the title says under construction and the thread is in progress? its easier for me to actually edit a running topic than to try to edit it in word or something.
it definitely was a mistake to remove you from my ignore list and start replying..
Hey man, if you don't want to discuss these types of projects, sharing them on a discussion board might not be the best course of action. When I say 'complete the project', it's not to be snarky but it comes from a place of experience as someone who has written a guide on cube and wanted to do it a specific way, and I wasn't willing to debate the process but was happily willing to debate the results, so I didn't share a word of it until I felt it was ready to be shared. Because it would be silly to share my idea and then get mad when people poked hole in the ideas, when in reality I just wanted to do it my way and discuss the end result, like you clearly want to do here.
I've really been civil other than in response to that snarky comment you made about the math, say whatever you want but I didn't do anything wrong here. If you want to share your project, be ready to discuss it, but don't get mad just because we're finding flaws.
And, emphasis on the 'we' here--I'm not the only one pointing this stuff out.
im fine with discussion but not over details that havent been sorted out 100% as i mentioned earlier. instead you started nitpicking. so let me just sort things out and youre welcome to give your input after its done
im fine with discussion but not over details that havent been sorted out 100% as i mentioned earlier. instead you started nitpicking. so let me just sort things out and youre welcome to give your input after its done
I disagree that it's nitpicking, the details are important when you assign number grades to cards instead of loose justifications. I can get behind 'cubeable' and 'staple' without concrete values, but the values mean things when you assign them and as someone who is excited to see the end results of this project I would be remiss to not mention the lack of weight certain values carry.
But again, this is why you complete projects like these before sharing them, since the 'nitpicking' occurs a bit less when the cards have actual values to weigh against each other, or rather you can actually have justifications for arguments against the nitpicking other than 'I'm not done yet', in which case there's not really much point to sharing the project if you don't want to discuss it beyond that yet. When you decided to share this on the forums, you decided to let me and others put our input in; you may not have literally said that, but MTGSalvation is a public forum and there's no rule saying I can't give input onto a project, and I don't think anyone would want that rule to exist because that would be crazy.
Again, this comes from experience! If I could go back in time, there are a million projects I would've shown to nobody because I would want the final product to be the discussion instead of the breaking down of the variables, and I think this would be better for this too. But when you share only the process for something as exciting as this, then you get comments on the process--like it or not, but that's how it goes.
Also-also: I'm not your enemy or adversary, man, I talk to you like I'd talk to anyone else, and if you attach negative tone then you're adding something that is generally never there. Whatever happened in the past is the past if you're willing to bury the hatchet like I already have--I give criticism because I'm passionate about cubes of all types, and if someone shares something like this then I expect them to be ready to engage in conversation about the work.
If you think I'm attacking you in the future, do the Mr. Rogers test: if you read what I say in the Mr. Rogers voice and it somehow still sounds aggressive, then maybe it is and at that point I need to chill the **** out, but most of the time that's never the case since magic players are more robotic then anything when talking about the cards (myself included), and if you hear the sentences with a positive tinge behind them--even if they're being critical--then it's harder to go down the paths that you've been going during this conversation. Like when I say 'finish the project first', it's said in a positive tone, despite whatever may be attached there that, while I'm not surprised is attached, is off.
i already said its about consitency. if you rate something like nekrataal trash through your system, than its unlikely a similiar card will be staple in it. in the old evaluation thread are functional near identical cards that are rated from bad up to staple.
also its pretty obvious there is a pointystem working in the background as i proofed on page 1.
besides, dont come up with uncommons since a different system is working on them. wtf
Archaeomancer is unplayable trash. The only reason to run it is in the blink combo archetype and even there mnemonic wall is better. Saprazzan Outrigger is unplayable as well, since the drawback easily pushes it below average. like -1.5 for denying a card and another -2 for being a 1 turn creature only. you dont even understand the system in the first place, nor any idea of pauper cubes.
a 4/1 first strike is unplayable as well.
and i evaluate commons, the amount of effects that cant directly related to spells is probably around 30. we also already evaluated the "bazillion" amount of commons individually, so it should be a problem to rate the interesting ones again.
but you either contribute in a constructive way or stay to peasant topics, thanks. youre not welcome to troll pauper threads.
Since this is basically a linear weights exercise, I think it might be necessary to introduce the idea of cross products to reflect that some stats/abilities are contingent on each other (for example, 4/1 first strike). That makes things far less intuitive however.
For example, if you used Colored mana*CMC, a GG cost would be the same as W3. Of course even that is likely inadequate since it puts UUU as less of drawback than RR3.
look, its even stated in the opening that rating random abilities is slightly subjective. Its not based on feelings because i can either relate to my own experiences with the card or relate to the old evaluation rating to find a fitting value. Once you "bend" (adjust) the system its working fine on cards with same abilities. Again you argue against something you dont even understand.
That said, the system exactly proofes on cards like Archaeomancer that its working as intended. I also ran the card for while, but in the end it got dropped from both my cubes and wont probably even be played on Tier3 level either. The body is completely useless, it has a double blue cost and there are basically no spells in pauper you want to waste a turn on to get it back. If you want to combo (which also adds value as stated) youre better off with Mnemonic Wall and Scrivener. Since they all share a similiar ability I can assume the ability is worth 4 (both are borderline), so the Mancer ends below average and is clearly overrated.
The only threads that have to be moderated are usually the ones where random peasant dudes post on pauper topics which im usually a part of.
Since this is basically a linear weights exercise, I think it might be necessary to introduce the idea of cross products to reflect that some stats/abilities are contingent on each other (for example, 4/1 first strike). That makes things far less intuitive however.
For example, if you used Colored mana*CMC, a GG cost would be the same as W3. Of course even that is likely inadequate since it puts UUU as less of drawback than RR3.
Sorry, might be my lack of english, but I dont get what you say here. Can you give an example?
Barony Vampire - exactly borderline
Perilous Shadow - depends on how high you rate the pumpability. compare to Basking Rootwalla and Darkthicket Wolf. generally speaking this card is overrated as well.
Giant Cockroach - borderline. interesting find and id probably wont cosider it. but its a great clock if youre high on removal.
i pretty much like how the system works actually
anyway. ***** on some other persons projects, i wont reply to you anymore.
Since this is basically a linear weights exercise, I think it might be necessary to introduce the idea of cross products to reflect that some stats/abilities are contingent on each other (for example, 4/1 first strike). That makes things far less intuitive however.
For example, if you used Colored mana*CMC, a GG cost would be the same as W3. Of course even that is likely inadequate since it puts UUU as less of drawback than RR3.
Sorry, might be my lack of english, but I dont get what you say here. Can you give an example?
Basically, instead of introducing modifiers, you multiply two things together to reflect that they influence each other.
Since this is basically a linear weights exercise, I think it might be necessary to introduce the idea of cross products to reflect that some stats/abilities are contingent on each other (for example, 4/1 first strike). That makes things far less intuitive however.
For example, if you used Colored mana*CMC, a GG cost would be the same as W3. Of course even that is likely inadequate since it puts UUU as less of drawback than RR3.
Sorry, might be my lack of english, but I dont get what you say here. Can you give an example?
Basically, instead of introducing modifiers, you multiply two things together to reflect that they influence each other.
since i found that white also has a bear as a basic creature, i already went back to the even simpler system of just counting stats and no additonal modifier. the results are almost the same and its much easier and probably more correct. i was thinking too complicate
I created a spreadsheet for this project and it actually reveals very little by itself except stat disparities (and that is subjective itself since without an empirical guide to assigning weights to power and toughness).
After you enter casting cost, power/toughness, and the list of keyword abilities, I created an X-factor listing which was the evaluation of the rest of the cards abilities. It turns out that the ranking of the cards hinges almost entirely on that "X-factor" entry.
For instance, almost every white 1 drop is a 1/1. The difference between Doomed Traveler and Goldmeadow Harrier comes down to how you weight their abilities. This is assuming there is a fixed weight table for keywords (ex: Akrasan Squire).
Also, I devised a minor formula for making colored mana cost drawbacks: (colored mana-1)/(cmc-1). For cmc=1 I set this value to 0.
the method is decidedly not perfect especially because it evaluates cc, ccc, cccc, ccccc, all as -1 but its better than a flat -1 across the board without regard to whether cmc=1 or cmc=10
I created a spreadsheet for this project and it actually reveals very little by itself except stat disparities (and that is subjective itself since without an empirical guide to assigning weights to power and toughness).
After you enter casting cost, power/toughness, and the list of keyword abilities, I created an X-factor listing which was the evaluation of the rest of the cards abilities. It turns out that the ranking of the cards hinges almost entirely on that "X-factor" entry.
For instance, almost every white 1 drop is a 1/1. The difference between Doomed Traveler and Goldmeadow Harrier comes down to how you weight their abilities. This is assuming there is a fixed weight table for keywords (ex: Akrasan Squire).
Also, I devised a minor formula for making colored mana cost drawbacks: (colored mana-1)/(cmc-1). For cmc=1 I set this value to 0.
the method is decidedly not perfect especially because it evaluates cc, ccc, cccc, ccccc, all as -1 but its better than a flat -1 across the board without regard to whether cmc=1 or cmc=10
having random modifier of .33 or .67 will just make the math more complicate, without getting more exact i guess. Although you use it in an excel table. Also you will notice that those modifier are even worse than a flat -1. CCC1 is uncastable but has less penalty? There are none at common anyway. And those numbers are out of the blue, since ive already shown that double mana relates to stats 1:1.
I also still wonder how actual game experience differ so much, since i cut almost all double costed cards from my cubes because theyre so inconsistent (up to CC5)
Like I said, there's definitely a solution and I'm just tossing things out there to think about so the numbers aren't set in stone, but perhaps the solution is raising your amount for 'staple' the higher you get on the curve, or changing those numbers that I suggested. Yes, it will have an impact to have one vs another, but in practice a two color Gx deck will barely notice the difference between Sentinel Spider and Bitterbow Sharpshooters, at least not enough to reduce it by 10%/etc.
Frankly, there *should* be a lot of cards close to staple status at the higher cost since there are less spots, kind of like white 5s in a regular cube, at least in comparison percentage-wise to the lower-curved spots. Just because there are better options doesn't mean the older options are so much worse now. Like, when Sentinel Spider hits the battlefield, it's the same card as Bitterbow Sharpshooters, and the only thing stopping it from doing that is variance which should have an impact but really not that big of one between 4G and 3GG. The only reason Spider is no longer a staple is the proverbial gun-to-the-head that Sharpshooters forces you to put there, and they don't feel ~10% different in actual practice. Outside of horrendous variance, I don't think I've ever missed the GG aspect of Sentinel Spiders by a turn I should've cast them, and that's even more true since it's a green card and is often cast off an elf. (Yet another wrinkle that needs to be addressed, how less weight you need to put on 4+ costed creatures with multiple green symbols in their cost due to elves.) I don't think that's as much of a problem as you're making it out to be, some sections aren't going to be even and the amount of staples (or close to) will be higher in some sections than others.
Also, follow us on twitter! @TurnOneMagic
uhm if anything there should be way less staples at higher cost because there are way less spots??!!
we have agree to disagree here, because the 10% difference is real and you might want to observe your next drafts or watch some on twitch how reliable you hit doubleX on your 5th land drop. or you can bring some math to the table how reliable you hit XX or not. (i bet its somewhere around 10% difference)
T2 powpercube Value https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/37t
Not true, the number of spots you have don't determine the quality of the card, which is why what a 'staple' is probably needs to be higher than what you have for a 5 drop vs a 2 drop if the numbers come together the same way i.e. the average. Just because there are less spots doesn't mean that the number of staple-quality cards don't exist beyond that number of spots. If there are 20 incredible green creatures that all rate similarly, I'm not running 20, I'm running the amount that I want for green 5s in my cube. So if your criteria for a staple is 9+ and there are 10 9+ cards, then saying that they all grade as 'staples' means you have to adjust the numbers after the fact way more so than however you got those average numbers. Add to that it being easier to print stronger cards at higher costs because they have less of an impact on limited/constructed formats generally, and it makes a lot of sense to have an abundance of options for higher costs vs typically a number of cards you'd happily cut at lower costs.
And then there's the other issue of how the grades play out, like is Silent Artisan really a 7.5 when Sentinel Spider is an 8?! That seems absurd. Sentinel Spider is barely above average? It's Borderline? It may be worse than other green 5s, but it as a creature is not bad and it sends a weird message to see it so close to something I wouldn't play in any deck ever. You might want to finish a project like this before sharing it, because the results for what you have so far make it tough to put much weight behind it if Sentinel Spider is borderline and something like Silent Artisan is average, because if that was the conclusion I came to on my own I would immediately say 'ok something isn't right here'. I mean, it seems like you have two cubes' worth of green 5s, and you would be hard-pressed to get a similar ratio with lower parts of your curve in green.
And it's like +75% to hit X by turn 5 if I have 9 sources of X mana according to wtwlf's mana short article, which is pretty reliable. Obviously it would be more for X, but it's not hard to get 9 sources of green in a green deck between elves/the limited number of duals/other fixing. Even without any elves or fixing--which is the most massive stretch to make for a green deck, but still--I don't think a 9/8 split would be asking a lot, and that's an absolute floor. Maybe put less weight on GG costs at higher CMC vs other colors?
Also, follow us on twitter! @TurnOneMagic
T2 powpercube Value https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/37t
I'm quoting your previous page, where you list it as a 7.5. You list how you factor in the mod for Grizzly Bears, so it would be a safe assumption to say you did that for all of them.
And if that's the case, then Sentinel Spider is 1.5 above and is therefore a staple if it's an 8 and the average is actually 6.5.
Might be a good idea to complete this project instead of the piece meal you have here, seeing how these numbers shake out would be a lot better than the theory-crafting that's going on. You clearly have an idea for how you want this to play out, maybe remove this and re-visit this thread when it's actually done so we can debate the results and not the process? Because the process is flawed being that you're assigning objective values to what ends up being more difficult to do than not, but if the results actually carry weight then it mitigates a lot of the flawed process.
Also, follow us on twitter! @TurnOneMagic
maybe you just dont argue over 2 pages when the title says under construction and the thread is in progress? its easier for me to actually edit a running topic than to try to edit it in word or something.
it definitely was a mistake to remove you from my ignore list and start replying..
T2 powpercube Value https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/37t
Hey man, if you don't want to discuss these types of projects, sharing them on a discussion board might not be the best course of action. When I say 'complete the project', it's not to be snarky but it comes from a place of experience as someone who has written a guide on cube and wanted to do it a specific way, and I wasn't willing to debate the process but was happily willing to debate the results, so I didn't share a word of it until I felt it was ready to be shared. Because it would be silly to share my idea and then get mad when people poked hole in the ideas, when in reality I just wanted to do it my way and discuss the end result, like you clearly want to do here.
I've really been civil other than in response to that snarky comment you made about the math, say whatever you want but I didn't do anything wrong here. If you want to share your project, be ready to discuss it, but don't get mad just because we're finding flaws.
And, emphasis on the 'we' here--I'm not the only one pointing this stuff out.
Also, follow us on twitter! @TurnOneMagic
T2 powpercube Value https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/37t
I disagree that it's nitpicking, the details are important when you assign number grades to cards instead of loose justifications. I can get behind 'cubeable' and 'staple' without concrete values, but the values mean things when you assign them and as someone who is excited to see the end results of this project I would be remiss to not mention the lack of weight certain values carry.
But again, this is why you complete projects like these before sharing them, since the 'nitpicking' occurs a bit less when the cards have actual values to weigh against each other, or rather you can actually have justifications for arguments against the nitpicking other than 'I'm not done yet', in which case there's not really much point to sharing the project if you don't want to discuss it beyond that yet. When you decided to share this on the forums, you decided to let me and others put our input in; you may not have literally said that, but MTGSalvation is a public forum and there's no rule saying I can't give input onto a project, and I don't think anyone would want that rule to exist because that would be crazy.
Again, this comes from experience! If I could go back in time, there are a million projects I would've shown to nobody because I would want the final product to be the discussion instead of the breaking down of the variables, and I think this would be better for this too. But when you share only the process for something as exciting as this, then you get comments on the process--like it or not, but that's how it goes.
Also-also: I'm not your enemy or adversary, man, I talk to you like I'd talk to anyone else, and if you attach negative tone then you're adding something that is generally never there. Whatever happened in the past is the past if you're willing to bury the hatchet like I already have--I give criticism because I'm passionate about cubes of all types, and if someone shares something like this then I expect them to be ready to engage in conversation about the work.
If you think I'm attacking you in the future, do the Mr. Rogers test: if you read what I say in the Mr. Rogers voice and it somehow still sounds aggressive, then maybe it is and at that point I need to chill the **** out, but most of the time that's never the case since magic players are more robotic then anything when talking about the cards (myself included), and if you hear the sentences with a positive tinge behind them--even if they're being critical--then it's harder to go down the paths that you've been going during this conversation. Like when I say 'finish the project first', it's said in a positive tone, despite whatever may be attached there that, while I'm not surprised is attached, is off.
Also, follow us on twitter! @TurnOneMagic
My High Octane Unpowered Cube on CubeCobra
also its pretty obvious there is a pointystem working in the background as i proofed on page 1.
besides, dont come up with uncommons since a different system is working on them. wtf
T2 powpercube Value https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/37t
a 4/1 first strike is unplayable as well.
and i evaluate commons, the amount of effects that cant directly related to spells is probably around 30. we also already evaluated the "bazillion" amount of commons individually, so it should be a problem to rate the interesting ones again.
but you either contribute in a constructive way or stay to peasant topics, thanks. youre not welcome to troll pauper threads.
T2 powpercube Value https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/37t
For example, if you used Colored mana*CMC, a GG cost would be the same as W3. Of course even that is likely inadequate since it puts UUU as less of drawback than RR3.
look, its even stated in the opening that rating random abilities is slightly subjective. Its not based on feelings because i can either relate to my own experiences with the card or relate to the old evaluation rating to find a fitting value. Once you "bend" (adjust) the system its working fine on cards with same abilities. Again you argue against something you dont even understand.
That said, the system exactly proofes on cards like Archaeomancer that its working as intended. I also ran the card for while, but in the end it got dropped from both my cubes and wont probably even be played on Tier3 level either. The body is completely useless, it has a double blue cost and there are basically no spells in pauper you want to waste a turn on to get it back. If you want to combo (which also adds value as stated) youre better off with Mnemonic Wall and Scrivener. Since they all share a similiar ability I can assume the ability is worth 4 (both are borderline), so the Mancer ends below average and is clearly overrated.
The only threads that have to be moderated are usually the ones where random peasant dudes post on pauper topics which im usually a part of.Strike 1 for flaming
- Steveman
T2 powpercube Value https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/37t
Sorry, might be my lack of english, but I dont get what you say here. Can you give an example?
T2 powpercube Value https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/37t
Perilous Shadow - depends on how high you rate the pumpability. compare to Basking Rootwalla and Darkthicket Wolf. generally speaking this card is overrated as well.
Giant Cockroach - borderline. interesting find and id probably wont cosider it. but its a great clock if youre high on removal.
i pretty much like how the system works actually
anyway. ***** on some other persons projects, i wont reply to you anymore.
Strike 2 for flaming.
- Steveman
T2 powpercube Value https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/37t
Basically, instead of introducing modifiers, you multiply two things together to reflect that they influence each other.
since i found that white also has a bear as a basic creature, i already went back to the even simpler system of just counting stats and no additonal modifier. the results are almost the same and its much easier and probably more correct. i was thinking too complicate
T2 powpercube Value https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/37t
After you enter casting cost, power/toughness, and the list of keyword abilities, I created an X-factor listing which was the evaluation of the rest of the cards abilities. It turns out that the ranking of the cards hinges almost entirely on that "X-factor" entry.
For instance, almost every white 1 drop is a 1/1. The difference between Doomed Traveler and Goldmeadow Harrier comes down to how you weight their abilities. This is assuming there is a fixed weight table for keywords (ex: Akrasan Squire).
Also, I devised a minor formula for making colored mana cost drawbacks: (colored mana-1)/(cmc-1). For cmc=1 I set this value to 0.
penalty table
cc=-1
cc1=-.5
cc2=-.33
ccc1=-.67
cc3=-.25
ccc2=-.5
the method is decidedly not perfect especially because it evaluates cc, ccc, cccc, ccccc, all as -1 but its better than a flat -1 across the board without regard to whether cmc=1 or cmc=10
Also, follow us on twitter! @TurnOneMagic
having random modifier of .33 or .67 will just make the math more complicate, without getting more exact i guess. Although you use it in an excel table. Also you will notice that those modifier are even worse than a flat -1. CCC1 is uncastable but has less penalty? There are none at common anyway. And those numbers are out of the blue, since ive already shown that double mana relates to stats 1:1.
I also still wonder how actual game experience differ so much, since i cut almost all double costed cards from my cubes because theyre so inconsistent (up to CC5)
T2 powpercube Value https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/37t