So all the drafts matters cards are supposed to be voted on then? Since they're not conspiracies or Un- cards? For future threads, "Vintage Legal" is a nice clean way to illustrate this (unless you want Holiday promos, dexterity cards and ante cards to be included). Just a suggestion.
It means they aren't included in the ranking project I am currently doing. I don't think there is nearly as much interest in that list. I have run conspiracies < 10 times and don't run any un-cards/holiday promos. If someone else wants to do this add-on module right after this concludes, that's fine. It shouldn't be very difficult given that it is likely to get far less votes.
What I mean, is that it doesn't say in your prompt that those kinds of cards are supposed to be excluded. I'm not asking about a separate list, I'm asking about integrating those cards into your current lists. If you don't want people to be able to vote on Un- cards and stuff, you might want to specifically disallow it.
Changing the subject, what are we doing with the draft-matters cards and the conspiracies?
I think we could do a Top 20 (or even maybe 25) Conspiracy / Draft Matters / Un-Cards, since a lot of cubers choose to lump these types of cards together into a separate add-on module and not cube with them all the time.
I like the idea of ranking them in their own list too.
But those numbers don't mean anything either. For example, Gisela gets points for simply being in a winning deck, whether she ever resolved or not or put in any work isn't being measured. So what's important isn't how many winning decks the card is present in, it's how powerful is the card when it actually gets to show up. Balance is 10x stronger than Gisela in the instances where you actually get to draw and cast it in the right windows in the right deck, and that impact isn't measurable by anything other than first-hand experience. A card being present in a winning deck doesn't make it critical to winning. There are a ton of scenarios that any ol' creature would've done just fine in games I win with Gisela, whereas there are games I have no business of winning at all, but win solely because of how busted Balance is. Another thing that's failed to be measured in win percentage-based evaluation.
And I don't think maindeck percentage is an ideal way to measure power either. The most powerful card and the most maindeckabble card aren't the same metric at all. Opt can get played in every blue deck. Tinker can only go in decks that are engineered to make Tinker work. By a MD% logic, Opt is a more powerful cube card than Tinker ...which is false. Tinker is infinitely more powerful, but that won't necessarily be reflected in MD%. I think maindeck percentage is a great justification for including cards in the cube, but a poor way to measure how powerful they are.
And this is exactly my point. Each cube manager should get to decide by what metrics they rank their "best" cube cards. Since there's massive pros and cons to each way to organize them.
Luckily the prompt is still ambiguous enough to let people vote how they need to to at least attempt to properly answer the question. The "how important it is to the cube" is a tremendous failsafe that will hopefully be used by every voter to accurately capture cards that would otherwise be unable to be properly measured without it. Again, props to BlackWaltz3.
Look, my point is that you can't accurately build a prompt that will ask a universally meaningful question that can be answered in a way to provide meaningful compiled data in such a small sample size. There are too many variables in cube design and subjective opinions regarding what makes something the "most powerful" card to be able to get a list that will be true for any given cube, even of all of those cubes share a similar philosophy. For example, even "power maxing" a cube is still contingent on the limitations of the format. Is it vintage legal or legacy legal? Is it focussed on combo play or interactive combat? You can have "power maxed" cubes that fit into any of those combinations, and the Top X Card lists will have tremendous variation from one of those lists to the next. So with a sample size as small as we're running (less than 25 voters per section), how do you suggest we design a prompt that irons out those inconsistencies? I haven't seen a single suggestion to date that addresses those shortfalls.
My argument is that my Top X list is more valuable to someone drafting my cube than the compiled data list will be for someone drafting a random cube. If I was going to draft your cube, I would want to adhere to your list. Because the data is absolutely contingent on the specific environment that the opinions are derived from. "All other things being equal" sounds great on paper, but doesn't work in practice.
But it doesn't matter. The guy running the project agrees with you, so my issues with the data being mined are irrelevant.
I'm not sure what value there is to a list that has one person arguing that Ancestral Recall is better than Brainstorm, because it is more powerful, and another arguing the reverse because he prefers to play Legacy or pauper cube. And I'm not saying that one opinion is more valuable than the other. What I'm saying is that usefully comparing opinions in this way requires far more context and background than you get from a numerical list ordering cards by their name and nothing else.
Careful now, you're starting to sound like me. I already know that the data is going to be flawed in this way, which is why I'm suggesting asking better questions.
1. That wasn't a direct response to you. "We've always done it this way" is my thoughts on why it should be changed. We've done it that way before and I think there are significant shortcomings. We've never run it the other way before, and maybe it would work out better.
2. You say that, but there is. If you read the comments in this thread, it's already happening, lol.
One of my past proposals involved letting the voters decide on what determines "best" for them. That way, if you want to vote on P1P1 quality, intrinsic powerlevel, a>b, contextual powerlevel, build-around potential or whatever, you still can, but if you consider the fun and enjoyment that you have with a card as a metric for it being "best" you can vote that way too. Is something like that off the table? Might be a good compromise.
As I said before, I'll participate and vote regardless of what metrics you choose. I don't want to discourage you from running the project for us; I was just trying to change the metrics to something that I've felt for a while would work a lot better. Again, I'm in the minority on this so it's no big deal. This isn't the first time I've suggested using different metrics that are more inclusive and mine different sets of data. I'm apparently the only one that actually wants them. Oh well.
"We've always done it this way" ...is exactly the reason why it should be changed.
I have to admit I'm mildly miffed by some of the comments suggesting the data we are embarking to obtain using similar definitions to that which we used in 2016 will provide "useless" data when we seemed to be fine with it then.
FWIW, I wasn't fine with it then either. I've been vocal about making changes to our voting criteria the last several times these projects have been run. My opinions are nothing new, and I'm not the only one that has expressed a desire to search out different datasets. Just my $0.02.
it was fun!
It is fun! I also think it might be even more fun to try and identify what all my favorite cards are from each section. The cards that I enjoy seeing and resolving the most, the cards that excite me about cubing ...hell, there's a huge correlation between the "best" cards and my "favorite" cards. I think it would be fun to put together a list that's a good mixture of both. I just think it's time to move away from any kind of activity that promotes the mentality that someone else's opinion is objectively wrong, and vote-shame people into conforming to our viewpoints about cube. I think it's time to be more inclusive and let all votes be equally valued and valid. But again, I seem to be in the minority on this too, and we should be more concerned with keeping the "Shard" voters out of our "Tinker" camp.
First, I don't consider identifying data that's "statistically insignificant" as being needlessly pedantic. I think it's important to recognize how flawed the data we're attempting to assemble is.
As for your points:
1. First off, Does it? I don't think that an average picture is an accurate snapshot of the community. Secondly, why would we want that? Isn't the idea to grow and expand the community by inviting people with differing opinions to feel comfortable voting?
2. I would hesitate to use this data to make actual changes to your cube. Or to decide what to include. Since the data is mined from tons of different cube philosophies, the fundamentally flawed data doesn't gel well together. Making a change to your cube should be based off of interactions and performance within your cube. Not because the average results of like 16 people voting about cards from their own cubes tells you you're wrong.
3. I would hesitate to base pick order off of these lists, considering how contextual pick orders should be from cube to cube, and how wildly different from one another the lists they're voting off of really are, and how different everyone's definitions/philosophies are on P1P1 card selection.
..........
Basically, throughout the history of this forum, I've been seen as the one championing for these kinds of lists. At least, that's the public perception of me. I have tried to tell people in the past that their placement of "Shard over Tinker" (as an example) is somehow objectively wrong. It's time to stop those kinds of viewpoints, IMHO. I've been championing a change in the voting criteria for years now, and the community still choses to vote on "best" cards anyways. The project is always fun, but the data is always bad. I'm trying to campaign for something new, that could be both inclusive and potentially a lot more valuable. The data's value would be less impacted by both its statistical insignificance and would actually be made better by outlying votes. It could include votes from people managing and playing all kinds of cubes; and there might just be something worth learning from the results. I already know the results from this top 20 ranking will have ZERO impact on drafting/designing/updating my cube. However, there's something to be said about finding out what people actually love to cube with. That's data worth mining, IMO.
If he argues that it is more powerful in cube in general, he would be wrong.
Except you can't make this argument, because "cube in general" isn't a thing.
For example, a card like Glimpse the Unthinkable isn't a good cube card in general. But in a cube that supports a mill theme, it can be a 1st pick. Objectively, it's one of the most powerful cards in its environment, if you elect to support it. So if you exclude it from your list of the most powerful cards, you're now the one that's objectively wrong.
Everything is context. And since we can't possibly create a prompt that incorporates every variable, or poll enough people to eliminate outlying data, objectively useful data cannot be extracted by asking the "best cards" question.
However, a list of favorite cards could provide new (and veteran!) cube managers with great information. If they want to learn about which 20 white cards other cube players/managers love, and which potentially fun and exciting cards might enrich their cubing experience, they can get that from the list. Even though the prompt is subjective, the data provides information that encourages people using the data to explore the reasons why folks love those cards. Whereas with the "best card" voting, all you get is flawed data that doesn't really matter.
You already said that "I will never sit down with team Shard". If that's the case, why is anyone else's voting relevant to you? The only Top X list that matters for your cube is yours.
For example, if someone wanted to sit down and draft my cube, they should use my voting rankings, since those are the only ones that will be accurate to my specific list and playgroup. A list of compiled data between like 20-25 different cube managers is not helpful to anyone, if the goal is to determine objective powerlevels for pick orders and stuff (if we could get 100,000 votes in each section and have it all be contextualized around a single cube list, it would actually be informative). However, if the goal is to find out what other cube players and managers enjoy cubing with in an attempt to identify cards you might want to test out for yourself, asking about "favorite cube cards" perfectly fits the bill.
Basically, I'd rather ask a subjective question that provides people with useful information than an attempt to create an objective prompt ...that winds up generating useless data.
All the best.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
What I mean, is that it doesn't say in your prompt that those kinds of cards are supposed to be excluded. I'm not asking about a separate list, I'm asking about integrating those cards into your current lists. If you don't want people to be able to vote on Un- cards and stuff, you might want to specifically disallow it.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
So what does that mean for Conspiracies, Un- cards, holiday promos, drafts matter cards and the like?
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
I like the idea of ranking them in their own list too.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
And I don't think maindeck percentage is an ideal way to measure power either. The most powerful card and the most maindeckabble card aren't the same metric at all. Opt can get played in every blue deck. Tinker can only go in decks that are engineered to make Tinker work. By a MD% logic, Opt is a more powerful cube card than Tinker ...which is false. Tinker is infinitely more powerful, but that won't necessarily be reflected in MD%. I think maindeck percentage is a great justification for including cards in the cube, but a poor way to measure how powerful they are.
And this is exactly my point. Each cube manager should get to decide by what metrics they rank their "best" cube cards. Since there's massive pros and cons to each way to organize them.
Luckily the prompt is still ambiguous enough to let people vote how they need to to at least attempt to properly answer the question. The "how important it is to the cube" is a tremendous failsafe that will hopefully be used by every voter to accurately capture cards that would otherwise be unable to be properly measured without it. Again, props to BlackWaltz3.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
My argument is that my Top X list is more valuable to someone drafting my cube than the compiled data list will be for someone drafting a random cube. If I was going to draft your cube, I would want to adhere to your list. Because the data is absolutely contingent on the specific environment that the opinions are derived from. "All other things being equal" sounds great on paper, but doesn't work in practice.
But it doesn't matter. The guy running the project agrees with you, so my issues with the data being mined are irrelevant.
Careful now, you're starting to sound like me. I already know that the data is going to be flawed in this way, which is why I'm suggesting asking better questions.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
2. You say that, but there is. If you read the comments in this thread, it's already happening, lol.
Any thoughts on the proposed compromise above?
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
As I said before, I'll participate and vote regardless of what metrics you choose. I don't want to discourage you from running the project for us; I was just trying to change the metrics to something that I've felt for a while would work a lot better. Again, I'm in the minority on this so it's no big deal. This isn't the first time I've suggested using different metrics that are more inclusive and mine different sets of data. I'm apparently the only one that actually wants them. Oh well.
"We've always done it this way" ...is exactly the reason why it should be changed.
FWIW, I wasn't fine with it then either. I've been vocal about making changes to our voting criteria the last several times these projects have been run. My opinions are nothing new, and I'm not the only one that has expressed a desire to search out different datasets. Just my $0.02.
It is fun! I also think it might be even more fun to try and identify what all my favorite cards are from each section. The cards that I enjoy seeing and resolving the most, the cards that excite me about cubing ...hell, there's a huge correlation between the "best" cards and my "favorite" cards. I think it would be fun to put together a list that's a good mixture of both. I just think it's time to move away from any kind of activity that promotes the mentality that someone else's opinion is objectively wrong, and vote-shame people into conforming to our viewpoints about cube. I think it's time to be more inclusive and let all votes be equally valued and valid. But again, I seem to be in the minority on this too, and we should be more concerned with keeping the "Shard" voters out of our "Tinker" camp.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
As for your points:
1. First off, Does it? I don't think that an average picture is an accurate snapshot of the community. Secondly, why would we want that? Isn't the idea to grow and expand the community by inviting people with differing opinions to feel comfortable voting?
2. I would hesitate to use this data to make actual changes to your cube. Or to decide what to include. Since the data is mined from tons of different cube philosophies, the fundamentally flawed data doesn't gel well together. Making a change to your cube should be based off of interactions and performance within your cube. Not because the average results of like 16 people voting about cards from their own cubes tells you you're wrong.
3. I would hesitate to base pick order off of these lists, considering how contextual pick orders should be from cube to cube, and how wildly different from one another the lists they're voting off of really are, and how different everyone's definitions/philosophies are on P1P1 card selection.
..........
Basically, throughout the history of this forum, I've been seen as the one championing for these kinds of lists. At least, that's the public perception of me. I have tried to tell people in the past that their placement of "Shard over Tinker" (as an example) is somehow objectively wrong. It's time to stop those kinds of viewpoints, IMHO. I've been championing a change in the voting criteria for years now, and the community still choses to vote on "best" cards anyways. The project is always fun, but the data is always bad. I'm trying to campaign for something new, that could be both inclusive and potentially a lot more valuable. The data's value would be less impacted by both its statistical insignificance and would actually be made better by outlying votes. It could include votes from people managing and playing all kinds of cubes; and there might just be something worth learning from the results. I already know the results from this top 20 ranking will have ZERO impact on drafting/designing/updating my cube. However, there's something to be said about finding out what people actually love to cube with. That's data worth mining, IMO.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
Except you can't make this argument, because "cube in general" isn't a thing.
For example, a card like Glimpse the Unthinkable isn't a good cube card in general. But in a cube that supports a mill theme, it can be a 1st pick. Objectively, it's one of the most powerful cards in its environment, if you elect to support it. So if you exclude it from your list of the most powerful cards, you're now the one that's objectively wrong.
Everything is context. And since we can't possibly create a prompt that incorporates every variable, or poll enough people to eliminate outlying data, objectively useful data cannot be extracted by asking the "best cards" question.
However, a list of favorite cards could provide new (and veteran!) cube managers with great information. If they want to learn about which 20 white cards other cube players/managers love, and which potentially fun and exciting cards might enrich their cubing experience, they can get that from the list. Even though the prompt is subjective, the data provides information that encourages people using the data to explore the reasons why folks love those cards. Whereas with the "best card" voting, all you get is flawed data that doesn't really matter.
You already said that "I will never sit down with team Shard". If that's the case, why is anyone else's voting relevant to you? The only Top X list that matters for your cube is yours.
For example, if someone wanted to sit down and draft my cube, they should use my voting rankings, since those are the only ones that will be accurate to my specific list and playgroup. A list of compiled data between like 20-25 different cube managers is not helpful to anyone, if the goal is to determine objective powerlevels for pick orders and stuff (if we could get 100,000 votes in each section and have it all be contextualized around a single cube list, it would actually be informative). However, if the goal is to find out what other cube players and managers enjoy cubing with in an attempt to identify cards you might want to test out for yourself, asking about "favorite cube cards" perfectly fits the bill.
Basically, I'd rather ask a subjective question that provides people with useful information than an attempt to create an objective prompt ...that winds up generating useless data.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!