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.
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.
No one but you thinks the data is useless, as far as I can tell. (Unless you're using "useless" to be synonymous with "statistically insignificant", which is true but also needlessly pedantic). In fact, I can tell you quite honestly that the previous iterations of this project were in fact VERY useful, specifically to me.
Here are some of the benefits of doing a Card A > Card B, all else equal:
1) It helps me get a better understanding of this specific community, which is nice because I've been a part of it for years now. And it's also useful information to have when considering card evaluations, especially during spoiler season;
2) It creates a reference guide for new cubers to build their cubes by identifying which cards to include should they want powerful interactions, or which to avoid if they want to nerf power level to hell (even if it doesn't have an N of 10,000, it's still an awesome resource);
3) During drafts and sealed decks, it helps people who don't sit down to cube as often as you do, who might not have as strong a sense about the power level of cards. I can speak from experience that my draft and sealed decks got a lot better once I really studied those previous P1P1 community lists.
And that's just off the top of my head. There are surely more that I'm not considering right now.
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 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"
Please God no....
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. Nothing wrong with trying to build on past efforts to make this better which is why I created this thread beforehand, but I wish there was a bit less of this as it is a bit disheartening at the onset of a project I'm really excited to see through.
I've stated the measures that I intend to use and haven't heard anything for or against them either way. This debate of using just a power level focused or favorite definition is kind of a distraction given that I've already laid out my plan to try to incorporate both to some degree, but with a bit more weight placed upon power level given the general forum philosophy. I hope the definition is a middle-ground that invites people from both camps to participate and really I just want people to have fun with this because that is also why a lot of people are wanting to do this again--it was fun!
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.
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.
1) My point didn't stop at "We've always done it this way". I think you need to include where I said "Nothing wrong with trying to build on past efforts to make this better which is why I created this thread beforehand." I appreciate you are trying to do just that and I feel I've made a strong effort to incorporate your point of view here and use three definitions that can satisfy most and not just continue with the 2016 project definition.
2) There's no vote-shaming here! Just because your card doesn't end up a top 20 card doesn't mean there's any shame to be had. Their vote could very well encourage someone who checks out the accompanying spreadsheet to give the card a whirl whether they know it or not. Also, the spoiler tags have the added benefit of potentially preventing someone from feeling discouraged from putting a card on their list because they just saw 10 lists that don't run it at all.
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.
I'd prefer people are using the same metrics when voting. I want people to consider the three criteria I suggested in conjunction and compile their list accordingly.
One thing I do want to make clear though is that someone who has no experience with a card (Such as Power 9, Moat, Etc.) does not have to vote for it if they don't feel comfortable doing so. Even for myself in the past, it had felt odd ranking cards I've never personally played based on my perception of their impact. To be clear, that is not saying you have to run it to rank it. If you feel comfortable doing so and think it deserves to be ranked regardless of whether you run it then by all means do so.
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.
You've addressed only a minor part of my post, and I feel like you're mostly repeating the argument that I've already replied to, so I will try to keep it short.
You are making a semantical argument. "Cube in general isn't a thing". Ok, so is your argument that I have failed to accurately describe something that definitely exists? What I meant to describe is this: of all the possible themes of cube, if you pitted thousands of players drafting thousands of these cubes against each other playing millions of matches, then the decks drafted from this one particular cube would have the highest winning percentage. Call that cube whatever you want. A cube with a "power level" theme? It is the cube with this theme that seems to be especially popular in this forum, and it just makes sense to compare cubes of a same theme. A lot of posters here have a lot of experience, and I at least am interested to hear everyone's opinion on how this power level-themed cube looks like to them. That includes people who think Crystal Shard is better than Tinker - though not if they do so because they've designed their cube specifically to empower Crystal Shard, because that's not anymore a power-level themed cube.
You could compare cubes of other themes with each other, such as mill-theme cubes or blink-theme cubes, pauper cubes or Modern cubes. I don't think you'd get as big a community response for any one theme as you would for a power level theme. An alternative is to compare cubes of whatever theme together, as you are suggesting, but then you're comparing apples to oranges. 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.
As to the bolded part, if this is a sincere question I encourage you to read my post again, because you have not understood my argument at all.
FWIW, I'm in the same camp as wtwlf on thinking that the data we're mining here is mostly insignificant (at least to me). Sure, the mining part is fun. Who doesn't like making lists? Lists are great! But I don't think an average top 20 list for any given section in cube will be relevant to me. Odds are I'm already running the cards on these lists and I don't think specific rankings will have any bearing on how I personally evaluate specific cards.
I'll advocate again for top X for each casting cost in each color. While this would be a much bigger project, I think the resulting data would be much more useful for cubers of all experience levels. For someone who's been cubing for years, it's nice to see a list of the best options for a specific cost if you're maybe looking for new options. For someone who's just beginning, a list like that is a nice resource for where to start. Not only this, but this is a project we haven't taken on for nearly ten years now and I, for one, would be very interested in seeing that those lists look like now.
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.
I think Calibretto's idea will be the most useful. The current project is less for experienced cubers that are heavily enfranchised in the community and more for newcomers. I also don't foresee it being very useful for me in terms of cube construction. This is about passing our knowledge to others.
Similarly, Wtwlf, I don't really see what is the value in the method you are suggesting, but that doesn't mean there isn't one for someone. I encourage you to run this project after this one is concluded. I'll vote!
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.
Well it certainly isn't perfect, I agree with you there.
I'll happily participate in the "top X for each casting cost in each color." and I really hope you'll be a part of this even if the data we collect will only be more of an interesting read than a valuable read for your purposes. It's nearly time to wrap up discussion on this. I'll make a quick post summarizing the ideas from here and how they will be incorporated on the actual voting threads and I'll launch the first voting thread either late tonight or tomorrow morning. (Also I'll tally the dang Hierarch classification votes for green and bant from this thread and let you know where it is going....lol).
Alright, first things first. Here is a quick run through of the things we determined for the ranking project:
1) Voting: M-F (Though I will create the White voting thread tonight). I'm not gonna be so much of a stickler that if someone submits their votes overnight between Friday and Saturday morning it won't count, but your vote is not guaranteed to count after Friday.
2) These will be the respective voting sections and order:
White/Blue/Black/Red/Green/Colorless/Lands (All 20 slots)
Allied Guilds/Enemy Guilds (10 Slots for Each of the five guilds in each grouping)
Tricolor (2 slots per shard/Wedge)
3) We are only ranking cards that have been printed through M20. If something incredible comes out in the next 10 weeks it is going to have to appear in the 2020 ranking project or whenever someone else gets round to doing this again.
4) Spoiler Tags - All lists should be submitted using spoiler tags. Please do so as a courtesy. I'm not going to disinclude a list for not doing so, but I will make a stern face that you will feel from hundreds of miles away....grrr.
5) Cards that do the same thing will be placed in the same slot together. E.G. Armageddon and Ravages of War go in the same slot. Don't list both separately. (New this year: Wrath of God and Day of Judgment also share a slot).
6) Color Classification - Is going to be the same as it was in 2016. I will include the guide Spike Rogue provided then to help people. If people have questions on this they can always ask me too. Newcomers Bomat Courier and Scrapheap Scrounger are Red and Black respectively. Noble Hierarch is (Drumroll Please....by a vote of 6-3 (BlackWaltz3,Steve_Man, MetaMind, Hoodwink, allred123, PersononMTGS)(Wtwlf123, calibretto, rantipole)....Green!
7)Voting Criteria Definition: The prompt will read as follows:
Please rank the top 20 cards in cube in consideration of the below factors:
- How critical this card is to winning.
- How frequently you would maindeck this card in a deck playing this color/guild/shard/wedge (or just in general if colorless).
- How important is this card within your cube.
This criteria is designed to give more weight to power level, but also be inclusive of cubes that place more weight upon other factors for any reason (favors a particular archetype, budget, etc.).
I am also going to include the following statement: "You do not have to vote for options you do not personally have experience with, but you certainly may if you feel comfortable doing so."
8) Thank you so much for the very passionate feedback. I hope some of you will find the project to be more worthwhile than you have predicted here, but either way I hope you participate, if only for the fun of it.
Thanks all! Going to start on the White Voting thread now!
jeez so much arguing over nothing. unless you keep stats from real data it doesnt matter what metric you use because its all subjective. Any opinions given in this ranking that arent based off of hard recorded data is flawed. Picking your favourite 20 is just as bad of data as picking what you believe are the strongest 20.
The project is for fun to see what cubers personal rankings are, not factual rankings. If it was based on factual rankings the lists would look a lot different.
For example: Its pretty unanimous that balance is one of the top (if not the top) white card in "power rankings" yet looking at actual cube data, balance isnt even represented in the top 10 white cards in the 3-0 archives despite being in cubes since the beginning of time. In my own personal cube where data from every game and deck is recorded its win percentage ranks it only the 23rd white card overall. Decks running Gisela, the broken blade win almost 20% more games than decks that run balance. Does this mean that I am going to rank Gisela ahead of balance in my ranking? No, because the rankings arent based on real data.
There is a massive difference between perceived power and actual performance.
I like your idea for the prompt ranking cards based on winning percentage, main deck percentage, and cube importance. I think the maindeck percentage speaks to the cards cube importance for the most part, but that does address cards like entomb that are important to supporting an entire archetype but maybe arent represented in the maindeck percentage as highly.
I am going to base my rankings this year off of an equal weighting of main deck percentage and win percentage taken from the stats of my personal cube.
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.
I kid, but in all seriousness being a cube manager requires a certain pedantic quality which contributes to very detailed debates over minutia.
You mentioned that you wouldn't rank Gisela over Balance just because it wins more, but your list does put Accorder Paladin and Adanto Vanguard before Balance. I'm not criticizing, but I'm genuinely curious as to what your line of thinking was to reach that result?
Yeah! I decided to maybe go a less traditional route with answering the rankings going purely off the data I have instead of my personal opinions. Will be controversial im sure, but I think it might also highlight some cards that fly under the radar and fill the categories of being an awesome cube card based on the criteria you outlined.
Using the criteria of:
- How critical this card is to winning. (I used my data of how much decks with this card win)
- How frequently you would maindeck this card (I used my data of maindeck percentages)
- How important is this card within your cube. (Here I reserve some consideration for cards that might be narrow affecting its maindeck percentage but help support archetypes and the overall cube environment)
I weighted maindeck percentage and win percentage evenly.
As far as paladin and vanguard being ranked higher, here is how my data resulted in the ranking:
Accorder Paladin:
Main %: 81.82%
Win %: 57.89%
Overall: 69.86%
Adanto Vanguard:
Main %: 72.73%
Win %: 63.83%
Overall: 68.28%
Balance:
Main %: 71.43%
Win %: 58.00%
Overall: 64.71%
Just a little bit of a different take. I was surprised at some of the results and it was hard to not just change my rankings based on opinion vs actual cube performance in my list. Never realized how much cast out gets played and wins.
Yeah! I decided to maybe go a less traditional route with answering the rankings going purely off the data I have instead of my personal opinions. Will be controversial im sure, but I think it might also highlight some cards that fly under the radar and fill the categories of being an awesome cube card based on the criteria you outlined.
Using the criteria of:
- How critical this card is to winning. (I used my data of how much decks with this card win)
- How frequently you would maindeck this card (I used my data of maindeck percentages)
- How important is this card within your cube. (Here I reserve some consideration for cards that might be narrow affecting its maindeck percentage but help support archetypes and the overall cube environment)
I weighted maindeck percentage and win percentage evenly.
As far as paladin and vanguard being ranked higher, here is how my data resulted in the ranking:
Accorder Paladin:
Main %: 81.82%
Win %: 57.89%
Overall: 69.86%
Adanto Vanguard:
Main %: 72.73%
Win %: 63.83%
Overall: 68.28%
Balance:
Main %: 71.43%
Win %: 58.00%
Overall: 64.71%
Just a little bit of a different take. I was surprised at some of the results and it was hard to not just change my rankings based on opinion vs actual cube performance in my list. Never realized how much cast out gets played and wins.
I like objective, hard data.
But the reality is, even with a pretty large sample size there are going to be lots of flukes and oddities - it's simply unavoidable.
I think everybody here should take the realistic view that no matter what approach is settled on, the results may be interesting and informative but they will have their flaws and imperfections.
I view Accorder Paladin being ranked over Balance as one such fluke. Not only is that result in strong disagreement with my prior (subjective, personal) belief, but it's also in strong contradiction to other metrics with reasonably large sample size.
Once again though - nothing against your approach - more power to you.
yeah its hard without having thousands of data entries. Also because this is specific to my own cube, maybe the mono white aggro decks are better supported than the types of decks where balance is supported.
I just thought it was cool that the criteria laid out this year happens to be criteria that I have data for from my cube so I thought I would share it.
I do like where the data and the subjective opinion align like with elspeth and a few others.
Putting high weight on maindeck percentage creates more of a "good card for cube" vs "powerful card" rating as well. I think almost all of us value cards that make the main over cards that have raw power but are too narrow. Maybe it shouldnt be called "power" rankings.
Changing the subject, what are we doing with the draft-matters cards and the conspiracies? They really change the draft environment and play sort of like some Unglued cards. I don't think any of the colored ones are good enough to make it in, but the colorless ones are powerful. However, many cube managers have made a choice not to play them or to only play them at certain times because of the weird drafts they create.
I'd prefer to keep them separate from other cards. If we include them, then stuff like Backup Plan is going to place highly and kick other, more commonly run cards off the list. Having conspiracies on the list doesn't help anyone who has made a decision to not run them. I'd like to exclude them or vote on them separately.
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!
No one but you thinks the data is useless, as far as I can tell. (Unless you're using "useless" to be synonymous with "statistically insignificant", which is true but also needlessly pedantic). In fact, I can tell you quite honestly that the previous iterations of this project were in fact VERY useful, specifically to me.
Here are some of the benefits of doing a Card A > Card B, all else equal:
1) It helps me get a better understanding of this specific community, which is nice because I've been a part of it for years now. And it's also useful information to have when considering card evaluations, especially during spoiler season;
2) It creates a reference guide for new cubers to build their cubes by identifying which cards to include should they want powerful interactions, or which to avoid if they want to nerf power level to hell (even if it doesn't have an N of 10,000, it's still an awesome resource);
3) During drafts and sealed decks, it helps people who don't sit down to cube as often as you do, who might not have as strong a sense about the power level of cards. I can speak from experience that my draft and sealed decks got a lot better once I really studied those previous P1P1 community lists.
And that's just off the top of my head. There are surely more that I'm not considering right now.
My Cube on Cube Tutor
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!
Please God no....
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. Nothing wrong with trying to build on past efforts to make this better which is why I created this thread beforehand, but I wish there was a bit less of this as it is a bit disheartening at the onset of a project I'm really excited to see through.
I've stated the measures that I intend to use and haven't heard anything for or against them either way. This debate of using just a power level focused or favorite definition is kind of a distraction given that I've already laid out my plan to try to incorporate both to some degree, but with a bit more weight placed upon power level given the general forum philosophy. I hope the definition is a middle-ground that invites people from both camps to participate and really I just want people to have fun with this because that is also why a lot of people are wanting to do this again--it was fun!
Cheers.
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!
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!
1) My point didn't stop at "We've always done it this way". I think you need to include where I said "Nothing wrong with trying to build on past efforts to make this better which is why I created this thread beforehand." I appreciate you are trying to do just that and I feel I've made a strong effort to incorporate your point of view here and use three definitions that can satisfy most and not just continue with the 2016 project definition.
2) There's no vote-shaming here! Just because your card doesn't end up a top 20 card doesn't mean there's any shame to be had. Their vote could very well encourage someone who checks out the accompanying spreadsheet to give the card a whirl whether they know it or not. Also, the spoiler tags have the added benefit of potentially preventing someone from feeling discouraged from putting a card on their list because they just saw 10 lists that don't run it at all.
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!
One thing I do want to make clear though is that someone who has no experience with a card (Such as Power 9, Moat, Etc.) does not have to vote for it if they don't feel comfortable doing so. Even for myself in the past, it had felt odd ranking cards I've never personally played based on my perception of their impact. To be clear, that is not saying you have to run it to rank it. If you feel comfortable doing so and think it deserves to be ranked regardless of whether you run it then by all means do so.
You've addressed only a minor part of my post, and I feel like you're mostly repeating the argument that I've already replied to, so I will try to keep it short.
You are making a semantical argument. "Cube in general isn't a thing". Ok, so is your argument that I have failed to accurately describe something that definitely exists? What I meant to describe is this: of all the possible themes of cube, if you pitted thousands of players drafting thousands of these cubes against each other playing millions of matches, then the decks drafted from this one particular cube would have the highest winning percentage. Call that cube whatever you want. A cube with a "power level" theme? It is the cube with this theme that seems to be especially popular in this forum, and it just makes sense to compare cubes of a same theme. A lot of posters here have a lot of experience, and I at least am interested to hear everyone's opinion on how this power level-themed cube looks like to them. That includes people who think Crystal Shard is better than Tinker - though not if they do so because they've designed their cube specifically to empower Crystal Shard, because that's not anymore a power-level themed cube.
You could compare cubes of other themes with each other, such as mill-theme cubes or blink-theme cubes, pauper cubes or Modern cubes. I don't think you'd get as big a community response for any one theme as you would for a power level theme. An alternative is to compare cubes of whatever theme together, as you are suggesting, but then you're comparing apples to oranges. 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.
As to the bolded part, if this is a sincere question I encourage you to read my post again, because you have not understood my argument at all.
I'll advocate again for top X for each casting cost in each color. While this would be a much bigger project, I think the resulting data would be much more useful for cubers of all experience levels. For someone who's been cubing for years, it's nice to see a list of the best options for a specific cost if you're maybe looking for new options. For someone who's just beginning, a list like that is a nice resource for where to start. Not only this, but this is a project we haven't taken on for nearly ten years now and I, for one, would be very interested in seeing that those lists look like now.
MTGS Average Peasant Cube 2023 Edition
Follow me. I tweet.
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!
Similarly, Wtwlf, I don't really see what is the value in the method you are suggesting, but that doesn't mean there isn't one for someone. I encourage you to run this project after this one is concluded. I'll vote!
The list on cube cobra
Read my blog on cube - Latest post June 2nd 2022
Well it certainly isn't perfect, I agree with you there.
1) Voting: M-F (Though I will create the White voting thread tonight). I'm not gonna be so much of a stickler that if someone submits their votes overnight between Friday and Saturday morning it won't count, but your vote is not guaranteed to count after Friday.
2) These will be the respective voting sections and order:
White/Blue/Black/Red/Green/Colorless/Lands (All 20 slots)
Allied Guilds/Enemy Guilds (10 Slots for Each of the five guilds in each grouping)
Tricolor (2 slots per shard/Wedge)
3) We are only ranking cards that have been printed through M20. If something incredible comes out in the next 10 weeks it is going to have to appear in the 2020 ranking project or whenever someone else gets round to doing this again.
4) Spoiler Tags - All lists should be submitted using spoiler tags. Please do so as a courtesy. I'm not going to disinclude a list for not doing so, but I will make a stern face that you will feel from hundreds of miles away....grrr.
5) Cards that do the same thing will be placed in the same slot together. E.G. Armageddon and Ravages of War go in the same slot. Don't list both separately. (New this year: Wrath of God and Day of Judgment also share a slot).
6) Color Classification - Is going to be the same as it was in 2016. I will include the guide Spike Rogue provided then to help people. If people have questions on this they can always ask me too. Newcomers Bomat Courier and Scrapheap Scrounger are Red and Black respectively. Noble Hierarch is (Drumroll Please....by a vote of 6-3 (BlackWaltz3,Steve_Man, MetaMind, Hoodwink, allred123, PersononMTGS)(Wtwlf123, calibretto, rantipole)....Green!
7)Voting Criteria Definition: The prompt will read as follows:
Please rank the top 20 cards in cube in consideration of the below factors:
- How critical this card is to winning.
- How frequently you would maindeck this card in a deck playing this color/guild/shard/wedge (or just in general if colorless).
- How important is this card within your cube.
This criteria is designed to give more weight to power level, but also be inclusive of cubes that place more weight upon other factors for any reason (favors a particular archetype, budget, etc.).
I am also going to include the following statement: "You do not have to vote for options you do not personally have experience with, but you certainly may if you feel comfortable doing so."
8) Thank you so much for the very passionate feedback. I hope some of you will find the project to be more worthwhile than you have predicted here, but either way I hope you participate, if only for the fun of it.
Thanks all! Going to start on the White Voting thread now!
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!
The project is for fun to see what cubers personal rankings are, not factual rankings. If it was based on factual rankings the lists would look a lot different.
For example: Its pretty unanimous that balance is one of the top (if not the top) white card in "power rankings" yet looking at actual cube data, balance isnt even represented in the top 10 white cards in the 3-0 archives despite being in cubes since the beginning of time. In my own personal cube where data from every game and deck is recorded its win percentage ranks it only the 23rd white card overall. Decks running Gisela, the broken blade win almost 20% more games than decks that run balance. Does this mean that I am going to rank Gisela ahead of balance in my ranking? No, because the rankings arent based on real data.
There is a massive difference between perceived power and actual performance.
I am going to base my rankings this year off of an equal weighting of main deck percentage and win percentage taken from the stats of my personal cube.
thanks for taking this on BlackWaltz!
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!
Welcome to the cube forum!
I kid, but in all seriousness being a cube manager requires a certain pedantic quality which contributes to very detailed debates over minutia.
You mentioned that you wouldn't rank Gisela over Balance just because it wins more, but your list does put Accorder Paladin and Adanto Vanguard before Balance. I'm not criticizing, but I'm genuinely curious as to what your line of thinking was to reach that result?
Using the criteria of:
- How critical this card is to winning. (I used my data of how much decks with this card win)
- How frequently you would maindeck this card (I used my data of maindeck percentages)
- How important is this card within your cube. (Here I reserve some consideration for cards that might be narrow affecting its maindeck percentage but help support archetypes and the overall cube environment)
I weighted maindeck percentage and win percentage evenly.
As far as paladin and vanguard being ranked higher, here is how my data resulted in the ranking:
Accorder Paladin:
Main %: 81.82%
Win %: 57.89%
Overall: 69.86%
Adanto Vanguard:
Main %: 72.73%
Win %: 63.83%
Overall: 68.28%
Balance:
Main %: 71.43%
Win %: 58.00%
Overall: 64.71%
Just a little bit of a different take. I was surprised at some of the results and it was hard to not just change my rankings based on opinion vs actual cube performance in my list. Never realized how much cast out gets played and wins.
I like objective, hard data.
But the reality is, even with a pretty large sample size there are going to be lots of flukes and oddities - it's simply unavoidable.
I think everybody here should take the realistic view that no matter what approach is settled on, the results may be interesting and informative but they will have their flaws and imperfections.
I view Accorder Paladin being ranked over Balance as one such fluke. Not only is that result in strong disagreement with my prior (subjective, personal) belief, but it's also in strong contradiction to other metrics with reasonably large sample size.
Once again though - nothing against your approach - more power to you.
360 card powered Chicago cube:
https://cubecobra.com/cube/overview/e7r
2020 Numerical Power Rankings:
https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-card-and-archetype/817969-2020-numerical-cube-power-rankings
2018 CubeTutor Power Rankings:
https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-card-and-archetype/803301-cubetutor-power-rankings-2018-by-color-and-cmc
I just thought it was cool that the criteria laid out this year happens to be criteria that I have data for from my cube so I thought I would share it.
I do like where the data and the subjective opinion align like with elspeth and a few others.
Putting high weight on maindeck percentage creates more of a "good card for cube" vs "powerful card" rating as well. I think almost all of us value cards that make the main over cards that have raw power but are too narrow. Maybe it shouldnt be called "power" rankings.
I'd prefer to keep them separate from other cards. If we include them, then stuff like Backup Plan is going to place highly and kick other, more commonly run cards off the list. Having conspiracies on the list doesn't help anyone who has made a decision to not run them. I'd like to exclude them or vote on them separately.
Cheers,
rant
My Cube
CubeCobra: https://cubecobra.com/cube/overview/5f5d0310ed602310515d4c32
Cube Tutor: http://cubetutor.com/viewcube/1963