The reveal of enemy manlands bumps down the new duals into slots 5 to 8 I think. At that range, you're competing with painlands, filterlands, scrylands, checklands, fastlands and karoos. Signets as well, if you count them as mana-fixing. That is a ton of choice available at this point, although filterlands and karoos have fallen by the wayside. Ultimately, at that range I think the basic land type is going to be more relevant than whatever benefit your worst slot provides. Throw in the slow fetches from Mirage (Bad River and friends) and we have the makings of a pretty incredible manabase for drafts. I would actually really like enemy slow fetches at this point to help keep things even!
Aside from green's Forests-matter theme, there are small incidental synergies that increase their value. I don't think it's a "host" of other cards, but small stuff like Snuff Out or Daze will make me happy even if I have to play the land tapped. Liliana of the Dark Realms or Lashwrithe could be worth revisiting for swamps matter. Chained to the Rocks is more viable as removal. Fireblast gets better if you like RDW. Flinthoof Boar is a teensy bit better. Wild Nacatl is the bee's knees, as are kird creatures in general (Kird Ape, Loam Lion). Eternal Dragon gets a bit more mileage from plainscycling. Knight of the White Orchid and Kjeldoran Outpost too, but those are a bit underpowered and don't benefit as much. Blue doesn't have much, but damn if Vedalken Shackles doesn't get even bombier.
Checklands gain value, although I suspect their inclusion will mostly be restricted to the slightly weaker enemy color sections.
And BfZ has landfall with land-type matters, so if we get only one cubeable card with the mechanic, it will also raise the stock of these new duals
I think one cycle of fetchlands to two cycles of fetchable duals is a good ratio. I'd rather have a second cycle of fetchlands than a third cycle of fetchable duals. Especially since I still think that this particular cycle is worse than checklands (which are currently my sixth cycle of mana fixing lands).
Okay. I have been thinking about adding some of these as the 7th land in the corresponding guild in my cube. The problem is that I currently only play 6 lands currently and 5 vivids.
So I'd like your guys' opinion whether to include (in a 720 card cube) A) 6 2-color land + 5 vivids
- or B)7 2-color lands (+0 vivids)
Bonus info:
- 30 guild lands in 360 is 8,333%
- 40 guild lands in 450 is 8,889%
- 50 guild lands in 540 is 9,259%
- 60 guild lands in 630 is 9,523%
- 65 guild lands in 720 is 9,027% (with vivids)
- 70 guild lands in 720 is 9,722%
I guess I am afraid that 70 guild lands will provide too much fixing and force players too much to draft 3+ colors.
You can try the configuration with 7 per guild and no Vivids and see how it does. Even though the percentage is higher, the amount of universal fixing will go down, and you may see the same results in terms of fixing lands per deck.
I've always wondered where the 8-10% fixing land number came from. I used to run that but it didn't work well over here. I personally feel it should be higher.
I understand the idea that you want people to have to make choices during drafting, but at the same time I feel you should be able to make a fairly consistent two color deck with very little effort (i.e. minimal prioritizing of fixing lands). How many fixing lands does a reasonably consistent two color deck require? I'm thinking at least 5, but probably 6.
If you break that down, that means you should wind up with between 5 and 6 of your 45 drafted cards as fixing lands (11-13%). Even the lower of those two numbers is higher than the highest traditionally accepted fixing number (per the above anyway).
So a good target for fixing IMO is somewhere around 12%. in a 450 list, that would be roughly 55 fixing lands. I run 60 at that size (plus 3 city of brass style lands) and am pretty happy with how that is working out. Mana bases are very good obviously but having games decided by mana screw really isn't fun so I choose to error on the side of more fixing. Mana bases are more constructed than limited but in cube that feels more appropriate honestly.
And it's not completely devoid of strategy running a higher percentage either. To splash a third color and not run into mana problems, you really have to pick up some fixing lands earlier than you might want and potentially pass on some playables in the process (and hope they wheel). 4-5 color decks are possible, but you really have to prioritize fixing to do it and you will end up losing out on some of the stronger cards in your colors (unless literally no one is in one of your colors).
I have 10.7% fixing lands in my 540 and it allows for consistent 2-color decks without having every splash be free or allowing players to have free access to 4-5CC decks with no effort. I ran into multiple undesirable issues each and every time I experimented with a noticeably higher percentage.
I have 10.7% fixing lands in my 540 and it allows for consistent 2-color decks without having every splash be free or allowing players to have free access to 4-5CC decks with no effort. I ran into multiple undesirable issues each and every time I experimented with a noticeably higher percentage.
How is that possible though? That's roughly 58 fixing lands. But you draft 8 man right? So you only see on average 2/3's of your fixing. Let's call it an even 40 for simplicities sake (it's a tad less). That means each player gets 5 fixing lands if everyone equally prioritizes (that feels bear minimum for most 2 color decks, and light if you are aggressive). Anyone going 3 color has to pick lands much higher which means either mono colored decks are a thing or some guys at the table are consistently winding up with really bad mana bases (and probably losing drafts regardless of what they try to draft).
My experience was that mana bases were weak on average at percentages under 12-13%. I'm running probably a bit too much fixing (almost 15% I think), but it leads to more competitive games of Magic simply because its hard to wind up with a completely unplayable pile of lands for whatever cards you end up drafting.
How is that possible though? ... That means each player gets 5 fixing lands if everyone equally prioritizes (that feels bear minimum for most 2 color decks, and light if you are aggressive).
5 fixing lands in a 40-card deck builds a 12/10 mana base, which is really strong. You don't even need that many sources of both colors if you draft accordingly. That allows 1XX and 2YY cards in the same deck to both be able to be cast reliably, which is more than you need to cast all your spells in a well-built deck, and overboard for decks that are actually drafted with mana costs in mind.
An aggro deck with 5 fixers can build a 13/8 mana base with only 16 lands, which is just fantastic. It allows you to play CC 2-drops in your main color, every card from your secondary color, and have room for colorless lands as a 17th land if you need 'em.
And this is all assuming you have 0 non-land fixing cards. Diamond, Heart, Lens, Relic, Green Cards, etc. all give you extra sources of colored mana too, and they're not even calculated here.
The biggest issue drafters have is not understanding how to draft with mana costs in mind. They take their Vendillion Cliques and Ash Zealots in the same deck and scratch their heads when they can't curve from 1 card into the other. Draft better, and mana problems for 2-color decks disappear. That's a much better solution than saturating the cube with fixing so people can draft all the terribly built decks they want and still be able to cast everything.
A 13/12 manabase needed to reliably cast both a XX card and a 1YY card needs EIGHT mana fixing lands to do this. Not even 12-13% fixing is going to save bad decks from themselves. Even if I increased to 13% fixing, my drafts would have less than 6 lands per player. So it wouldn't allow me to execute poorly-built decks. I'd have to run ~16% fixing in order to allow players to always cast whatever they want without having to care about mana costs or mana fixing. That's an absurd number of lands, with all negative consequences for including them in that quantity.
I wrote an article on understanding mana demand in this format. If you're interested, there's a link in my sig.
I have 10.7% fixing lands in my 540 and it allows for consistent 2-color decks without having every splash be free or allowing players to have free access to 4-5CC decks with no effort. I ran into multiple undesirable issues each and every time I experimented with a noticeably higher percentage.
How is that possible though? That's roughly 58 fixing lands. But you draft 8 man right? So you only see on average 2/3's of your fixing. Let's call it an even 40 for simplicities sake (it's a tad less). That means each player gets 5 fixing lands if everyone equally prioritizes (that feels bear minimum for most 2 color decks, and light if you are aggressive). Anyone going 3 color has to pick lands much higher which means either mono colored decks are a thing or some guys at the table are consistently winding up with really bad mana bases (and probably losing drafts regardless of what they try to draft).
Another thing to consider is not just the amount of lands you are running but making sure people get the right lands. Due to only playing part of the cube at your size I would would be tempted to run the full set of tri-lands since they can go in 3 different 2 color decks each. Not a glamorous solution but certainly something I would do to attempt to cover fixing in that environment without it overwhelming the draft.
My experience was that mana bases were weak on average at percentages under 12-13%. I'm running probably a bit too much fixing (almost 15% I think), but it leads to more competitive games of Magic simply because its hard to wind up with a completely unplayable pile of lands for whatever cards you end up drafting.
I run 9.3% (42 in 450) so I am a tad lower than others. But much of this comes down to philosophy, your play group, and incentives. I feel that multicolor decks (especially 3 color) need to be paying a cost for access to a larger set of spells and powerful gold options. Drafts where everyone could just take whatever they wanted didn't promoted signally or the deck balance I wanted. I also have an above average amount of players and decks that are monocolor or mostly monocolor. It is neither a good or a bad thing but it I had to make adjustments to keep duals from being free. Also at a higher cube size the impact of green creatures, rocks, and other fixing is less so it might be a good exercise to examine all the cards used in your cube for fixing. I would definitely be playing the vivids in a cube of your size ( I play them now) and some of the BfZ baselands, but it comes down to taste when you are at 60-70 lands.
Yes people occasionally get mana screwed but when that bant player doesn't get to curve mother of runes into strangleroot geist into true name nemesis I am not faulting my cube.
All good discussion. I am always interested in hearing different perspectives on cube design.
A common thread I see (and also experienced) was the 3+ color goodstuff.dec problem which is definitely encouraged by additional fixing. I can't argue that. With a lower power curve however, I have found it to be less of a problem overall since deck quality is generally more synergy based now (it's more important how the pieces fit together than the individual pieces - less about bombs).
Back on the land percentage thing... I arrived at a higher percentage by applying the same basic principle that brought cube design to it's current place with mana curve. When cube started, it was top heavy. Too many 5-6 drops and not enough 1-2 drops, right? People asked themselves how many 1-2 drops you needed to properly represent basic mana curves in an evenly distributed meta. And the number was much higher than people were generally running, so everyone increased them and drafts improved. Are people intentionally running fewer 1 drops than aggro decks need in order to force them to make compromises during drafts? So why are we doing it with basic fixing?
I'm personally of the opinion that a similar exercise really needs to be done for land. Since cubes are generally drafted like limited environments, I think we have largely been thinking in the mindset of a limited mana base (which is generally pretty bad). With the much higher power level and speed of cube, I don't think that makes as much sense. It really should look more like constructed in my mind. How much fixing is the average constructed deck running? Way more than 5 fixing lands (even if you inflate that number for 60 vs 40 card decks).
I don't think you can realistically include enough lands to build constructed mana bases without running a ridiculous percentage of fixing. I get that. But I don't think most people are running enough either. I constantly hear how great a CC 2 drop needs to be to make the cut in cube, and I really think a large part of that has to do with the scarcity of fixing in your average cube.
The problem with aggro one drops and fixing comparison is that there is basically a finite number of one drops that you will even draft or play in a deck. With lands I will potentially give nthe opportunity run 14+ nonbasics in a deck if there were enough available in a draft. You have to limit it somewhere, beyond simply providing enough ammo to the decks that need them (i.e. the case with the aggro drops). The other issue with fixing saturation is that it limits the number of actual playables, potentially resulting in fewer cuts having to be made from decks and more chaff/fringe deck inclusions.
I am running quite a lot of fixing lands in total since I am (will be) playing the manlands as well as ABU/Shock/Fetch combo, plus I have a lot of utility and 5CC lands. So I see where you're coming from. But there is certainly such a thing as too much.
Are people intentionally running fewer 1 drops than aggro decks need in order to force them to make compromises during drafts? So why are we doing it with basic fixing?
We're not doing it with fixing. We're running the exact amount of fixing needed to allow people to build competitive decks, without providing an overabundance that can cause issues. The same is applied to aggro creatures, removal spells, sweepers, disenchants, and every other aspect of cube design. I run exactly the number of aggro creatures needed for aggro decks to function properly, and I run exactly the amount of fixing lands I need to have the decks work properly.
Saying that spells are hard to cast so add more fixing is like adding more volume of water to a leaking bucket to solve the problem. Fix the leak rather than throwing more resources at the problem. Teach your drafters the math behind colored mana symbols, and their decks will improve, and won't have an unreachable fixing demand.
Are people intentionally running fewer 1 drops than aggro decks need in order to force them to make compromises during drafts? So why are we doing it with basic fixing?
We're not doing it with fixing. We're running the exact amount of fixing needed to allow people to build competitive decks, without providing an overabundance that can cause issues. The same is applied to aggro creatures, removal spells, sweepers, disenchants, and every other aspect of cube design. I run exactly the number of aggro creatures needed for aggro decks to function properly, and I run exactly the amount of fixing lands I need to have the decks work properly.
Saying that spells are hard to cast so add more fixing is like adding more volume of water to a leaking bucket to solve the problem. Fix the leak rather than throwing more resources at the problem. Teach your drafters the math behind colored mana symbols, and their decks will improve, and won't have an unreachable fixing demand.
We don't fundamentally agree on how much fixing is required for everyone to make consistent decks, so we'll have to do what we usually do (agree to disagree). IMO, it's not a matter of educating drafters. I honestly don't believe you can build 8 solid mana bases out of 40 fixing lands unless you really have a large concentration of mono (or heavily mono) colored decks or a very heavy reliance on fixing mana rocks and/or green fixing.
I rarely see people go one color (mono red or black maybe - my blue devotion experiment has never really caught on and white/green have no incentive to be mono). I'd like mono color to be a thing but it's not super compatible with drafting if I'm being honest so there would have to be huge carrots to make it worth hyper focusing in drafts (and those do not really exist outside red/black). So most play 2 colors and a light splash from a third (one or two cards single mana symbol). We never draft with 8 though and that certainly plays a role here. Still, if the average deck is going to have a 3rd color splash, you need more fixing to properly enable that. 5 per drafter really isn't good enough, especially if you end up with one or two that offer only partial fixing (it happens).
I honestly don't believe you can build 8 solid mana bases out of 40 fixing lands unless you really have a large concentration of mono (or heavily mono) colored decks or a very heavy reliance on fixing mana rocks and/or green fixing.
You can. I just showed you the math above about how you can. We don't ever draft mono-colored decks, and mana-fixing isn't an issue for my drafters. I just posted the numbers in the post above. 5 mana fixing lands in a deck is MORE than adequate to build a fantastic manabase from, assuming that you draft appropriately. In fact, 3-4 lands is more than adequate if you build a deck with reasonable mana costs from your secondary color. 3 fixers builds a 12/8 manabase, which is more than enough for 1XX and Y (or easier) mana demands. If you draft appropriately, your mana can do a lot of work for you.
Quote from ahadabans »
IMO, it's not a matter of educating drafters.
It 100% IS a matter of educating your drafters, because if they're playing 2-color decks that are incapable of reliably casting their spells when they have 5 mana fixing lands available, they drafted with a gross misunderstanding of how mana works.
You can. I just showed you the math above about how you can.
And I disagree with your math. No big deal. I don't think there's anything wrong with disagreeing here.
It 100% IS a matter of educating your drafters, because if they're playing 2-color decks that are incapable of reliably casting their spells when they have 5 mana fixing lands available, they drafted with a gross misunderstanding of how mana works.
I've played enough games of Magic to know how much fixing you need to run to get color screw at a place I like it to be (which is very low), and it's more than 5 fixing lands if you splash a third color. If you don't try any XX and YY 2 drop shenanigans (running both), 5 is enough for a 2 color deck but again. That isn't what people wind up with in your average draft in my experience. That third color light splash is pretty common. So I choose to run more fixing so it's nonissue in games. I didn't always and I wasn't a fan of the consistency.
Again, we disagree. Totally healthy to have differing opinions especially over something like fixing. Different strokes for different folks.
Just a side-note: I have found that it is sometime easier to find fixing for three color deck, than two color. Instead of just having one guild worth of fixing available to you, you now have three guild's fixing. In my experience, this usually means that light splash for 3rd doesn't require drafting fixing that much higher compared to two color deck.
Just a side-note: I have found that it is sometime easier to find fixing for three color deck, than two color. Instead of just having one guild worth of fixing available to you, you now have three guild's fixing. In my experience, this usually means that light splash for 3rd doesn't require drafting fixing that much higher compared to two color deck.
I agree that it's easier to be able to pick up the fixing you need for the three color decks. There will be more packs where you can choose that dual over spells, and inversely since you are in 3 colors there are more packs where you can find a spell to fall into your 23 spells.
However, it's a lot more punishing to have a poor mana abase in a 3 color deck than 2 color. If I only pick up 2 pieces of fixing for that 3 color deck, I am in trouble, whereas the two color deck will be happy to have those two and will have no problem playing most of their spells most of the time. So you still need to prioritize the fixing, but there are more opportunities in general where you can do that prioritizing.
What percent chance do you want of being able to cast XX spells on curve for you to consider it consistent?
I've seen these numbers posted before but I don't have them handy. If you do and want to post the numbers (lands vs percent of casting various CC costs on different turns), I wouldn't mind looking at them again. I'm open to the idea I'm running more land than I need.
With that said, building mana bases is part art and part science, so it's not just about numbers. From my experience, 10% wasn't enough to enable what was a common deck list in draft (2+splash). And I want that to be something people don't have to fight heavily over to realistically achieve. In my mind, losing games of Magic to mana issues is the worst possible outcome and I'd rather overshoot than undershoot.
My concern with riding a super fine line on fixing is that if someone grabs 8 fixing lands, that means at least one person (or maybe two people) will wind up with crap mana bases. And you can blame that on education and prioritization if you want, but all that does is make the importance of drafting land more important than trying to draft your deck pieces. Not what I personally want my drafts to feel like. I want guys to explore different combination of colors and be able to easily assemble mana for a two color deck even if someone else wants to prioritize a few extra land picks and push fully into 3 colors.
How many times have you looked at a pack and not really seen anything you wanted to commit to, so you grabbed a dual land? Then later in the draft you were getting passed sweet cards in a color different than the dual land and so that is where you ended up at the end of the draft. So now you have this dual land that you can't use that won't be in someone else's deck either. So it really isn't even reasonable to say you have 40 fixing on average so that's 5 per player (plenty for two color decks). Sure it's plenty, if no one makes a single mistake in drafting and everyone plays their own color combination and there's complete coordination. That's magical Christmas land, the draft version. Otherwise, some guys will have bad mana bases and lose some games to mana screw and weak decks from having to exclude an entire color or some stronger heavy mana cards.
I understand guys that want a more competitive environment where mana is scarce. I don't want that and this is where we simply aren't going to agree I think. Further debate is pretty pointless since we disagree fundamentally about what focus we want in draft. And that's OK.
I understand guys that want a more competitive environment where mana is scarce.
It's not about making it scarce. It's about having a number that makes it important to prioritize, not overabundant, but still provides all the players with enough fixing to build a competitive deck.
Quote from ahadabans »
I've seen these numbers posted before but I don't have them handy. If you do and want to post the numbers (lands vs percent of casting various CC costs on different turns), I wouldn't mind looking at them again. I'm open to the idea I'm running more land than I need.
They're all in my article. But you said that you "disagree with the math" and I'm wondering what you mean by that. Your playgroup requires more fixing than statistics suggest? The question was, what percent chance do YOU want for casting your CC spells, since it sounds like the mathematical averages aren't enough for you guys?
Basically, it looks like your numbers are A) too much for a well drafted deck and B) not enough for a poorly drafted deck. I think you're throwing resources at trying to fix the wrong problem. If 11% wasn't enough for your group, it's probably because they're drafting decks with an awfully tough mana demand, in which case 12-13% isn't going to help either.
Quote from ahadabans »
So it really isn't even reasonable to say you have 40 fixing on average so that's 5 per player (plenty for two color decks). Sure it's plenty, if no one makes a single mistake in drafting and everyone plays their own color combination and there's complete coordination.
5 lands is overkill for a well-built 2-color deck. With 3 lands, you can build a 10/10, 11/9, 12/8 or 13/7 manabase, which is above standard expectation for casting 1XX or Y spells (or better) on curve for the entire game. It's not about an abundance of fixing lands, it's about drafting cards with the proper mana demand. Because a deck with a bad demand is going to have mana problems no matter how many fixing lands you try to throw at the problem.
5 lands is overkill for a well-built 2-color deck. With 3 lands, you can build a 10/10, 11/9, 12/8 or 13/7 manabase, which is above standard expectation for casting 1XX or Y spells (or better) on curve for the entire game. It's not about an abundance of fixing lands, it's about drafting cards with the proper mana demand. Because a deck with a bad demand is going to have mana problems no matter how many fixing lands you try to throw at the problem.
Here's where I disagree with your math. Not that you calculated the percentages wrong, but that those mana base splits are good. 12/8 (13/7 even) is weak sauce if you want to cast a T2 CC card in your main color. If I'm two colors with heavy requirements for my primary color, I want 16 mana sources for that color ideally (not realistic I get, but this is ideal right?). That's the consistency I want (much more constructed than limited). Counterspell should be available on T2 with a high degree of consistency (90%), but I shouldn't be forced to grab every fixing land in each pack I see to make that happen (and I should be able to run 2 colors with maybe a third splash). We don't agree on this. I keep saying that. We aren't going to agree on it. We can keep going, but it's pretty futile.
Another bone of contention I have is the reality of the fixing you end up with at 10%. You are talking about 3 lands (forget about 5), which at your cube size is all anyone can even expect to see on average in a typical draft for their specific color combination. You ONLY RUN 5 lands for each guild in your entire 540 cube, so an 8 man draft with 66% of the card pool will only see between 3-4 BG lands for example. And you only get all of them if they show up in the draft pool (not guaranteed) and you get to those fixing lands first (not guaranteed). If anyone else is playing you color combination, you most likely won't even get a shot at all of them. That has nothing to do with draft ability or priority at all. Statistically speaking, in this scenario it's unlikely you will be able to assemble an ideal mana base regardless of how highly you try and draft it. There isn't enough of it.
If you're glimpse drafting a 540 cube with 4 people, you use the entire cube, which absolutely makes a difference in your land composition. If you're glimpse drafting consistently with a cube that size and that many players, you can expect to see everything in some shape or form, even if a lot of it is getting burned.
Most cubes have absolute ***** mana and curves that are way too high. If I'm playing with a randos cube, I just take every land I see and shoot for the lowest curve possible. It usually wins.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Aside from green's Forests-matter theme, there are small incidental synergies that increase their value. I don't think it's a "host" of other cards, but small stuff like Snuff Out or Daze will make me happy even if I have to play the land tapped. Liliana of the Dark Realms or Lashwrithe could be worth revisiting for swamps matter. Chained to the Rocks is more viable as removal. Fireblast gets better if you like RDW. Flinthoof Boar is a teensy bit better. Wild Nacatl is the bee's knees, as are kird creatures in general (Kird Ape, Loam Lion). Eternal Dragon gets a bit more mileage from plainscycling. Knight of the White Orchid and Kjeldoran Outpost too, but those are a bit underpowered and don't benefit as much. Blue doesn't have much, but damn if Vedalken Shackles doesn't get even bombier.
Checklands gain value, although I suspect their inclusion will mostly be restricted to the slightly weaker enemy color sections.
And BfZ has landfall with land-type matters, so if we get only one cubeable card with the mechanic, it will also raise the stock of these new duals
My Cube (DeckStats)
My Pauper Cube: 540 (CubeTutor link!)
Level 1 Judge
Uril, the Miststalker RGW -- Ulamog, the Infinite Gyre C -- Vhati il-Dal BG -- Jor Kadeen, the Prevailer RW -- Animar, Soul of Elements URG
Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker R -- Maga, Traitor to Mortals B -- Ghave, Guru of Spores BGW -- Sliver Hivelord WUBRG
I used to write cube articles on StarCityGames, now for GatheringMagic and podcast about cube (w/Antknee42.)
So I'd like your guys' opinion whether to include (in a 720 card cube)
A) 6 2-color land + 5 vivids
- or
B)7 2-color lands (+0 vivids)
Bonus info:
- 30 guild lands in 360 is 8,333%
- 40 guild lands in 450 is 8,889%
- 50 guild lands in 540 is 9,259%
- 60 guild lands in 630 is 9,523%
- 65 guild lands in 720 is 9,027% (with vivids)
- 70 guild lands in 720 is 9,722%
I guess I am afraid that 70 guild lands will provide too much fixing and force players too much to draft 3+ colors.
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 understand the idea that you want people to have to make choices during drafting, but at the same time I feel you should be able to make a fairly consistent two color deck with very little effort (i.e. minimal prioritizing of fixing lands). How many fixing lands does a reasonably consistent two color deck require? I'm thinking at least 5, but probably 6.
If you break that down, that means you should wind up with between 5 and 6 of your 45 drafted cards as fixing lands (11-13%). Even the lower of those two numbers is higher than the highest traditionally accepted fixing number (per the above anyway).
So a good target for fixing IMO is somewhere around 12%. in a 450 list, that would be roughly 55 fixing lands. I run 60 at that size (plus 3 city of brass style lands) and am pretty happy with how that is working out. Mana bases are very good obviously but having games decided by mana screw really isn't fun so I choose to error on the side of more fixing. Mana bases are more constructed than limited but in cube that feels more appropriate honestly.
And it's not completely devoid of strategy running a higher percentage either. To splash a third color and not run into mana problems, you really have to pick up some fixing lands earlier than you might want and potentially pass on some playables in the process (and hope they wheel). 4-5 color decks are possible, but you really have to prioritize fixing to do it and you will end up losing out on some of the stronger cards in your colors (unless literally no one is in one of your colors).
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/modular-cube-5-colors.800/
Retro combo cube thread
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/retro-combo-cube.1454/
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!
How is that possible though? That's roughly 58 fixing lands. But you draft 8 man right? So you only see on average 2/3's of your fixing. Let's call it an even 40 for simplicities sake (it's a tad less). That means each player gets 5 fixing lands if everyone equally prioritizes (that feels bear minimum for most 2 color decks, and light if you are aggressive). Anyone going 3 color has to pick lands much higher which means either mono colored decks are a thing or some guys at the table are consistently winding up with really bad mana bases (and probably losing drafts regardless of what they try to draft).
My experience was that mana bases were weak on average at percentages under 12-13%. I'm running probably a bit too much fixing (almost 15% I think), but it leads to more competitive games of Magic simply because its hard to wind up with a completely unplayable pile of lands for whatever cards you end up drafting.
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/modular-cube-5-colors.800/
Retro combo cube thread
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/retro-combo-cube.1454/
thats my cube
5 fixing lands in a 40-card deck builds a 12/10 mana base, which is really strong. You don't even need that many sources of both colors if you draft accordingly. That allows 1XX and 2YY cards in the same deck to both be able to be cast reliably, which is more than you need to cast all your spells in a well-built deck, and overboard for decks that are actually drafted with mana costs in mind.
An aggro deck with 5 fixers can build a 13/8 mana base with only 16 lands, which is just fantastic. It allows you to play CC 2-drops in your main color, every card from your secondary color, and have room for colorless lands as a 17th land if you need 'em.
And this is all assuming you have 0 non-land fixing cards. Diamond, Heart, Lens, Relic, Green Cards, etc. all give you extra sources of colored mana too, and they're not even calculated here.
The biggest issue drafters have is not understanding how to draft with mana costs in mind. They take their Vendillion Cliques and Ash Zealots in the same deck and scratch their heads when they can't curve from 1 card into the other. Draft better, and mana problems for 2-color decks disappear. That's a much better solution than saturating the cube with fixing so people can draft all the terribly built decks they want and still be able to cast everything.
A 13/12 manabase needed to reliably cast both a XX card and a 1YY card needs EIGHT mana fixing lands to do this. Not even 12-13% fixing is going to save bad decks from themselves. Even if I increased to 13% fixing, my drafts would have less than 6 lands per player. So it wouldn't allow me to execute poorly-built decks. I'd have to run ~16% fixing in order to allow players to always cast whatever they want without having to care about mana costs or mana fixing. That's an absurd number of lands, with all negative consequences for including them in that quantity.
I wrote an article on understanding mana demand in this format. If you're interested, there's a link in my sig.
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 run 9.3% (42 in 450) so I am a tad lower than others. But much of this comes down to philosophy, your play group, and incentives. I feel that multicolor decks (especially 3 color) need to be paying a cost for access to a larger set of spells and powerful gold options. Drafts where everyone could just take whatever they wanted didn't promoted signally or the deck balance I wanted. I also have an above average amount of players and decks that are monocolor or mostly monocolor. It is neither a good or a bad thing but it I had to make adjustments to keep duals from being free. Also at a higher cube size the impact of green creatures, rocks, and other fixing is less so it might be a good exercise to examine all the cards used in your cube for fixing. I would definitely be playing the vivids in a cube of your size ( I play them now) and some of the BfZ baselands, but it comes down to taste when you are at 60-70 lands.
Yes people occasionally get mana screwed but when that bant player doesn't get to curve mother of runes into strangleroot geist into true name nemesis I am not faulting my cube.
A common thread I see (and also experienced) was the 3+ color goodstuff.dec problem which is definitely encouraged by additional fixing. I can't argue that. With a lower power curve however, I have found it to be less of a problem overall since deck quality is generally more synergy based now (it's more important how the pieces fit together than the individual pieces - less about bombs).
Back on the land percentage thing... I arrived at a higher percentage by applying the same basic principle that brought cube design to it's current place with mana curve. When cube started, it was top heavy. Too many 5-6 drops and not enough 1-2 drops, right? People asked themselves how many 1-2 drops you needed to properly represent basic mana curves in an evenly distributed meta. And the number was much higher than people were generally running, so everyone increased them and drafts improved. Are people intentionally running fewer 1 drops than aggro decks need in order to force them to make compromises during drafts? So why are we doing it with basic fixing?
I'm personally of the opinion that a similar exercise really needs to be done for land. Since cubes are generally drafted like limited environments, I think we have largely been thinking in the mindset of a limited mana base (which is generally pretty bad). With the much higher power level and speed of cube, I don't think that makes as much sense. It really should look more like constructed in my mind. How much fixing is the average constructed deck running? Way more than 5 fixing lands (even if you inflate that number for 60 vs 40 card decks).
I don't think you can realistically include enough lands to build constructed mana bases without running a ridiculous percentage of fixing. I get that. But I don't think most people are running enough either. I constantly hear how great a CC 2 drop needs to be to make the cut in cube, and I really think a large part of that has to do with the scarcity of fixing in your average cube.
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/modular-cube-5-colors.800/
Retro combo cube thread
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/retro-combo-cube.1454/
I am running quite a lot of fixing lands in total since I am (will be) playing the manlands as well as ABU/Shock/Fetch combo, plus I have a lot of utility and 5CC lands. So I see where you're coming from. But there is certainly such a thing as too much.
On spoiled card wishlisting and 'should-have-had'-isms:
We're not doing it with fixing. We're running the exact amount of fixing needed to allow people to build competitive decks, without providing an overabundance that can cause issues. The same is applied to aggro creatures, removal spells, sweepers, disenchants, and every other aspect of cube design. I run exactly the number of aggro creatures needed for aggro decks to function properly, and I run exactly the amount of fixing lands I need to have the decks work properly.
Saying that spells are hard to cast so add more fixing is like adding more volume of water to a leaking bucket to solve the problem. Fix the leak rather than throwing more resources at the problem. Teach your drafters the math behind colored mana symbols, and their decks will improve, and won't have an unreachable fixing demand.
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!
We don't fundamentally agree on how much fixing is required for everyone to make consistent decks, so we'll have to do what we usually do (agree to disagree). IMO, it's not a matter of educating drafters. I honestly don't believe you can build 8 solid mana bases out of 40 fixing lands unless you really have a large concentration of mono (or heavily mono) colored decks or a very heavy reliance on fixing mana rocks and/or green fixing.
I rarely see people go one color (mono red or black maybe - my blue devotion experiment has never really caught on and white/green have no incentive to be mono). I'd like mono color to be a thing but it's not super compatible with drafting if I'm being honest so there would have to be huge carrots to make it worth hyper focusing in drafts (and those do not really exist outside red/black). So most play 2 colors and a light splash from a third (one or two cards single mana symbol). We never draft with 8 though and that certainly plays a role here. Still, if the average deck is going to have a 3rd color splash, you need more fixing to properly enable that. 5 per drafter really isn't good enough, especially if you end up with one or two that offer only partial fixing (it happens).
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/modular-cube-5-colors.800/
Retro combo cube thread
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/retro-combo-cube.1454/
You can. I just showed you the math above about how you can. We don't ever draft mono-colored decks, and mana-fixing isn't an issue for my drafters. I just posted the numbers in the post above. 5 mana fixing lands in a deck is MORE than adequate to build a fantastic manabase from, assuming that you draft appropriately. In fact, 3-4 lands is more than adequate if you build a deck with reasonable mana costs from your secondary color. 3 fixers builds a 12/8 manabase, which is more than enough for 1XX and Y (or easier) mana demands. If you draft appropriately, your mana can do a lot of work for you.
It 100% IS a matter of educating your drafters, because if they're playing 2-color decks that are incapable of reliably casting their spells when they have 5 mana fixing lands available, they drafted with a gross misunderstanding of how mana works.
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 disagree with your math. No big deal. I don't think there's anything wrong with disagreeing here.
I've played enough games of Magic to know how much fixing you need to run to get color screw at a place I like it to be (which is very low), and it's more than 5 fixing lands if you splash a third color. If you don't try any XX and YY 2 drop shenanigans (running both), 5 is enough for a 2 color deck but again. That isn't what people wind up with in your average draft in my experience. That third color light splash is pretty common. So I choose to run more fixing so it's nonissue in games. I didn't always and I wasn't a fan of the consistency.
Again, we disagree. Totally healthy to have differing opinions especially over something like fixing. Different strokes for different folks.
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/modular-cube-5-colors.800/
Retro combo cube thread
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/retro-combo-cube.1454/
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 agree that it's easier to be able to pick up the fixing you need for the three color decks. There will be more packs where you can choose that dual over spells, and inversely since you are in 3 colors there are more packs where you can find a spell to fall into your 23 spells.
However, it's a lot more punishing to have a poor mana abase in a 3 color deck than 2 color. If I only pick up 2 pieces of fixing for that 3 color deck, I am in trouble, whereas the two color deck will be happy to have those two and will have no problem playing most of their spells most of the time. So you still need to prioritize the fixing, but there are more opportunities in general where you can do that prioritizing.
Also, follow us on twitter! @TurnOneMagic
I've seen these numbers posted before but I don't have them handy. If you do and want to post the numbers (lands vs percent of casting various CC costs on different turns), I wouldn't mind looking at them again. I'm open to the idea I'm running more land than I need.
With that said, building mana bases is part art and part science, so it's not just about numbers. From my experience, 10% wasn't enough to enable what was a common deck list in draft (2+splash). And I want that to be something people don't have to fight heavily over to realistically achieve. In my mind, losing games of Magic to mana issues is the worst possible outcome and I'd rather overshoot than undershoot.
My concern with riding a super fine line on fixing is that if someone grabs 8 fixing lands, that means at least one person (or maybe two people) will wind up with crap mana bases. And you can blame that on education and prioritization if you want, but all that does is make the importance of drafting land more important than trying to draft your deck pieces. Not what I personally want my drafts to feel like. I want guys to explore different combination of colors and be able to easily assemble mana for a two color deck even if someone else wants to prioritize a few extra land picks and push fully into 3 colors.
How many times have you looked at a pack and not really seen anything you wanted to commit to, so you grabbed a dual land? Then later in the draft you were getting passed sweet cards in a color different than the dual land and so that is where you ended up at the end of the draft. So now you have this dual land that you can't use that won't be in someone else's deck either. So it really isn't even reasonable to say you have 40 fixing on average so that's 5 per player (plenty for two color decks). Sure it's plenty, if no one makes a single mistake in drafting and everyone plays their own color combination and there's complete coordination. That's magical Christmas land, the draft version. Otherwise, some guys will have bad mana bases and lose some games to mana screw and weak decks from having to exclude an entire color or some stronger heavy mana cards.
I understand guys that want a more competitive environment where mana is scarce. I don't want that and this is where we simply aren't going to agree I think. Further debate is pretty pointless since we disagree fundamentally about what focus we want in draft. And that's OK.
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/modular-cube-5-colors.800/
Retro combo cube thread
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/retro-combo-cube.1454/
It's not about making it scarce. It's about having a number that makes it important to prioritize, not overabundant, but still provides all the players with enough fixing to build a competitive deck.
They're all in my article. But you said that you "disagree with the math" and I'm wondering what you mean by that. Your playgroup requires more fixing than statistics suggest? The question was, what percent chance do YOU want for casting your CC spells, since it sounds like the mathematical averages aren't enough for you guys?
Basically, it looks like your numbers are A) too much for a well drafted deck and B) not enough for a poorly drafted deck. I think you're throwing resources at trying to fix the wrong problem. If 11% wasn't enough for your group, it's probably because they're drafting decks with an awfully tough mana demand, in which case 12-13% isn't going to help either.
5 lands is overkill for a well-built 2-color deck. With 3 lands, you can build a 10/10, 11/9, 12/8 or 13/7 manabase, which is above standard expectation for casting 1XX or Y spells (or better) on curve for the entire game. It's not about an abundance of fixing lands, it's about drafting cards with the proper mana demand. Because a deck with a bad demand is going to have mana problems no matter how many fixing lands you try to throw at the problem.
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!
Here's where I disagree with your math. Not that you calculated the percentages wrong, but that those mana base splits are good. 12/8 (13/7 even) is weak sauce if you want to cast a T2 CC card in your main color. If I'm two colors with heavy requirements for my primary color, I want 16 mana sources for that color ideally (not realistic I get, but this is ideal right?). That's the consistency I want (much more constructed than limited). Counterspell should be available on T2 with a high degree of consistency (90%), but I shouldn't be forced to grab every fixing land in each pack I see to make that happen (and I should be able to run 2 colors with maybe a third splash). We don't agree on this. I keep saying that. We aren't going to agree on it. We can keep going, but it's pretty futile.
Another bone of contention I have is the reality of the fixing you end up with at 10%. You are talking about 3 lands (forget about 5), which at your cube size is all anyone can even expect to see on average in a typical draft for their specific color combination. You ONLY RUN 5 lands for each guild in your entire 540 cube, so an 8 man draft with 66% of the card pool will only see between 3-4 BG lands for example. And you only get all of them if they show up in the draft pool (not guaranteed) and you get to those fixing lands first (not guaranteed). If anyone else is playing you color combination, you most likely won't even get a shot at all of them. That has nothing to do with draft ability or priority at all. Statistically speaking, in this scenario it's unlikely you will be able to assemble an ideal mana base regardless of how highly you try and draft it. There isn't enough of it.
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/modular-cube-5-colors.800/
Retro combo cube thread
http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/retro-combo-cube.1454/
Also, follow us on twitter! @TurnOneMagic