Card/Deck Single Card Spotlight

[ahadabans]

I think you have to make sure you are appealing to different types of players. You personally might not think it's fun having your opponent peek at your hand, but as a control or combo player I certainly do want to know what you are playing so I can prioritize how I sequence my plays. This is extremely important with combo decks in particular because if you interrupt my important card (counter, force discard, removal, whatever) it really hurts me. With something like storm for example, I can be 95% certain of going off on T5 but only 50/50 on T4. Knowing what you are holding tells me if I have to risk the T4 play or if I have some time and can push my move to T5.

It's a different approach to the game but there are definitely people who are going to find value in having that option available to them. I see probe as a filler card less than a synergy card. I don't play it because it combos with things in my deck. I play it because I want the cantrip and seeing my opponents hand is very often useful.

 

[Salmo2]

I wasn't answering whether it was fun or not, but even then I think it's fun too for both sides. I think it *adds* tension, almost an elephant in the room of sorts, that comes with both players knowing exactly what one player does, but only one player knowing which cards are being added that point going forward. Makes you wonder, why are they holding this? Why aren't they playing that land? Or on the other land, how will my opponent play around what they know? How can I take advantage of that? The opponent doesn't stop drawing cards after probe is cast, and it's that much more information to play with and process.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

All three abilities on Gitaxian Probe are extremely good in a combo deck. It draws a card, it doesn't cost you any (relevant) resources, and you get to know whether you can go off. It's essentially a "get out of jail free" card for combo decks. This is something I dislike, so I have to agree with Raveborn here. Useful does not equal good for the game.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

one interesting thing I discovered from the gitprob ban in modern was that the thing a lot of casual players hated about git prob was the act of revealing their hand. People spend a lot of time building a creative or exciting deck, and it spoils the punch line when probe gets fired.

Casual players also tend to benefit less from hand knowledge, as they are bad at the game, and its not fun being reminded of that by senior spike diligently leaning over to write down the contents of their hand, giving mum indications of approval or disapproval of its contents.

Not saying ahada is right or wrong on a logical end, just a quirk I noticed about these hand revealing spells that might be relevent to a group

 

[ahadabans]

FWIW, I think the information you glean with probe in cube is often a lot weaker than in constructed. Simply because any cube deck will have 23 unique spells versus a constructed deck running multiples and half that many unique cards? On the peek, some decks can be spotted easily (RDW... uh oh...), most decks I feel though are somewhat mysterious. So seeing someone's hand with a bunch of stuff in it might tell me little about how the deck actually plays or what it's ultimate goal is. Maybe I learn about colors (all they have in play is an Island but they also have red and white cards in hand). This is less true in combo focused cubes clearly where build arounds give away what your deck focus is, but in a midrange list? Every deck looks similar. So other than seeing a counter or removal spell or whatever (that I need to worry about interfering with my game plan in the next couple turns), is anything really being spoiled?

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

Its not a logical response, its an emotional one.

Logically, you would think that when you asked a player about the git prob ban in modern the response would revolve around the way combo decks were condensing the format or hurting brewing, but it revolved more around just hating the act of revealing their hand to another player.

And on a very rooted level I suppose that makes some sense, as hidden information is a basic axiom of the game--it violates a basic sense of how the game is supposed to be played. I also read on (i think a mothership article) that the design of git prob and (or maybe IOK don't remember) was supposed to invoke a sense of intrusion and violation with the player, which thematically makes sense with either one of those villians.

It is very much a pure spike card, which is going to generate a lot of natural push back in cube, just fyi.

 

[Salmo2]

It is very much a pure spike card, which is going to generate a lot of natural push back in cube, just fyi.

Depending on your definition. I know it's a little different around here, but cube has really been a very pro-spike format since its first days. You don't design a format based on all the best/powerful cards because you hate to win. Doing cool, powerful stuff has been a benchmark of cubing since cubing was a thing, which is very Spike even if it does delve into other territories.

 

[Salmo2]

That's part of the beauty of cube--there really is something for everyone. There's the win-at-all-costs cards, the win-in-a-cool-way cards, and certain archetypes you can include that give the players a puzzle they can solve that might not be the strongest but can be the most fun. To imply that cube isn't a place for spikes to dwell naturally really doesn't do the format justice, as there is something for everyone and even specific cards can appeal to multiple types of players. Like Upheaval is very spikey since it's an insane card that is hard to beat, appeals to timmys as it's a powerful really one-sided effect, and appeals to johnnys in that it's a very unique way to win and you have to find the right window for when it does the most damage.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

Yeah, I wouldn't define that as spikeish at all. Spikes are competitive players, and want formats that minimize randomness and highlight their ability to consistantly outplay a less skilled opponent, climbing a competency hierachy.

Casual players like the highs and lows of randomness and variance, which keeps games exciting, and allows them to win against more skilled opposition.

The power maxing in cube always results in these unbalanced formats that are miserable for competitive play. Theres a reason we've only seen cube draft once on the competitive circuit, despite its popularity, and its always limited to kitchen tables.

 

[ahadabans]

I don't know about that. I think cube has been relegated to kitchen tables because it undermines the money making engine that the game flourishes on (buying packs). There's literally no incentive at all for Wizard's to push cube even though it's the best version of the game by a country mile.

 

[Salmo2]

Perhaps you're right, so excuse me.

But even then, there's still always going to be the 'best deck'. For example, the legacy cube's best deck was RDW for a long time. In fact 29 of the top 30 cards that appeared in 3-0 decks were red cards. (It's from this podcast: http://mtgcast.com/mtgcast-podcast-...box-episode-6-the-legacy-cube-w-randy-buehler)

I think ultimately cube is a hybrid format. Spike players want to figure out what the absolute best is there, but they can also do that in an interesting way, or when they aren't drafting the best deck they can still do something powerful that has a chance to beat whatever that best deck is. I was def wrong about it being only-spikey or heavy-spikey, but all the 'spikes' that I know love cube and it ultimately derives from it being a casual format that can play super competitively due to the serious decisions that need to be made and the complexity that can occur in the games due to all the interactions.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

You would have to redesign cube for competitive play, which I actually think they should do using a pool of standard legal cards. Making that the competitive format would solve most of their current problems, while still preserving the rest of the card pool for casual players, while achieving their marketing goals.

The current kitchen table cubes are not acceptable instruments once money is introduced into the equation, however.

 

[ahadabans]

I've argued many times against the basic power max design philosophy for that reason (RDW being the best deck is a symptom of this flawed design concept). There's simply no rational reason to believe choosing the most powerful cards and putting them together will create a balanced environment. So you have to balance by either cutting powerful cards or limiting the availability of support for archetypes. This is an unavoidable reality. But once this reality is accepted, we can go so many different directions with cube. Including a highly spike-friendly environment. It's basically limitless.

Essentially, cube has the benefit of all the lessons learned from other formats over the years. Cards that are good. Decks that dominate. Etc. We get to take all that and make our own custom environment from it. Cube is basically a "best of" Magic the gathering, customizable to whatever you think is best about the game. Asking Wizards to make other formats or the game itself better than cube is like asking Van Halen to release a new album that is better than their greatest hits album. Pretty much can't be done.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

There's clearly some spikey players who really, really enjoy cubing, judging by all the vids online, including content by CFB, who have a vested interest in a thriving competitive play environment.

 

[ahadabans]

Cube has so much deep gameplay, I think it really appeals to good players. As much if not more than to casuals even.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

Guys, spikes can like whacky casual kitchen table formats too, just not when they are competiting at a high level.

once your financial health and/or social status depends on the game outcome, that "fun" cube format you liked last week starts to look a lot less appealing.

 

[ahadabans]

But is it less appealing because pros can't make money playing cube? I think that's what I'm arguing at least. If Wizards had a cube format and it was basically something competitive like other formats, are you suggesting it wouldn't attract the best players? Because I think it probably would. There would likely be people that enjoyed constructed too much to leave that for a limited based format, but I think they'd probably be in the minority.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

If you made a cube specifically structured for low variance competitive play that would be my ideal ideal competitive format, even over their current offerings. Such a cube, however, does not currently exist, and likely will never exist, as cube fills a purely casual niche in the minds of most mtg players.

 

[ahadabans]

I agree it won't exist, but only because Wizards is not interested in it existing. The online incarnations I believe are intentionally flawed (or catered towards casual gameplay). Wizards could build a super tight competitive cube, but again what is their incentive to do this? Most cubes you find on forums are better constructed than Wizard's offerings. Is it because we are all Magic savants? Or is there another reason?

 

[Aston]

All the people I know who like cube the most, including myself, are super spikey. I think the reason that cube is not seen at high level events is because it has practical difficulties in running it, it doesn't make for good viewing as people are going to be less familiar with the cards and interactions, and as ahadabans said it's not good marketing, not because it doesn't appeal to spikes.

I mean, I think for many spikes/pros limited in general is their preferred format, and that wouldn't be the case if they only wanted to play formats with low variance. Having some variance doesn't stop you outplaying your opponent.

 

[Aston]

I agree it won't exist, but only because Wizards is not interested in it existing. The online incarnations I believe are intentionally flawed (or catered towards casual gameplay). Wizards could build a super tight competitive cube, but again what is their incentive to do this? Most cubes you find on forums are better constructed than Wizard's offerings. Is it because we are all Magic savants? Or is there another reason?

I think the reason is that Wizards can't devote the time or resources to creating a good cube. I've been working on mine for close to ten years and unfortunately they don't have the luxury of that much time on one project.

 

[Salmo2]

Peasant or pauper lists with the obvious offenders banned are probably the closest to this format being described. That's a pretty blanket statement, sure, but the most consistent amount of 'interesting' games have come from those cubes vs others.

 

[ahadabans]

I think the reason is that Wizards can't devote the time or resources to creating a good cube. I've been working on mine for close to ten years and unfortunately they don't have the luxury of that much time on one project.

I don't buy this. I've been working on my lists for close to 10 years too. With maybe a dozen test sessions a year (in a good year), a staff of one working occasional nights and weekends. I'm dedicating so few resources to this project, it's an embarrassment. And even with that level of anemic commitment I think my cube is better than what Wizards is putting out (and there are plenty of others here and on other forums running much tighter lists than I am). You'd need a couple full-time employees and some regular testers and you'd have a stupidly good cube that would blow away literally ever other limited environment Wizards has ever designed. Again though, doing that would be stupid from a business standpoint. And so they won't.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

All the people I know who like cube the most, including myself, are super spikey. I think the reason that cube is not seen at high level events is because it has practical difficulties in running it, it doesn't make for good viewing as people are going to be less familiar with the cards and interactions, and as ahadabans said it's not good marketing, not because it doesn't appeal to spikes.

I mean, I think for many spikes/pros limited in general is their preferred format, and that wouldn't be the case if they only wanted to play formats with low variance. Having some variance doesn't stop you outplaying your opponent.

It doesn't appeal to spikes as a serious competitive format. Based on the feedback I got from you when we did the penny league, I'm really surprised to see you dispute this. You pretty much wanted to cut all of the fun high variance cards, and when I did, my core casual audience threw a fit and I had to add them back in.

Outside of running a powered cube draft at worlds in 2012 (which mysteriously never came back), the last time WOTC ran a high variance eternal format on the competitive circuit (modern) the only people that were really happy about it were casual modern players that weren't playing in the event. WOTC hated it because it hurt their ability to market cards, and pro players hated it because the format was too high variance in matchups, which coupled with limited sb space, made tournament outcomes more dependent on lucky pairings than player skill.

Think of it, what spike, in a competitive setting, is going to seriously tell you that they want to introduce formats and mechanics that reduce the skill threshold and warp the game around random luck.

I don't think Magic has not aged well as an e-sport. Its way too high variance for the payouts you can make, and its pretty much impossible to make a stable living off of the game. If we've going to say that a format like legacy, with its wasteland induced negative variance and turn 1-2 combo kills, is indicative of a well balanced competitive format, or even a reasonable competitive format at that, we have to talk about what we mean by pro play and good e-sports.

But like I said, cube can appeal to competitive play, but it would have to be designed for it, and I think it would be actively good for WOTC to replace their current competitive circuit offerings with a proctored standard cube. This provides a consistent competitive format, and allows WOTC to market new printings. They could keep the current standard structure for FNMs, but rename it core. WOTC appears to have gone in a different--immensely awkward-- direction however, so cube is going to be left to kitchen tables and internet forums for the time being.

I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with either WOTCs need to market cards, or the pro players need to make a living, but their has to be some kind of compromise or negotiation so both sides can mutually achieve their goals. This current system kind of lets down everyone.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

As chance would have it, I just remembered that Owen Turtenwald has this article from 2015. He ranks his 5 best/worst formats of all time; note a repeated theme.

Best Formats

#5 MTGO Holiday Cube Draft

This is Magic in its purest form. I don’t think it’s a good format to be played for high stakes but to relax and play a draft you can’t really beat the Holiday Cube. It brings Jon Finkel out of retirement to stream and force Storm for hours on end, how can that not be great? It was also fun to explore which combos were the best and I felt satisfied when my strategy became to ignore 70% of the cards and never consider drafting them or putting them in my deck. Many of the cards were so bad that it was to your advantage to not pick them so other players might take and play them, like Banners in Khans, also Blazing Salvo in triple-Odyssey.

#2 Innistrad Draft

This format was amazing. None of the rares were too good and there was no obvious broken deck, it was one of those formats where at any given time you could play almost any card. Every color was deep and had good commons and almost any color combination was viable. In addition to that, the more you played the format the more interesting it became. At first it was all Travel Preparations all the time, and green/white beatdown was considered the best deck, but at the end of the format people were in love with Spider Spawning and there were long debates over the proper way to draft and build those decks. Did you prioritize Ghoulcaller's Bell? Dream Twist?Gnaw to the Bone? Dark Ascencion was kind of a stinker, so if you’re looking to retro draft it I would say steer clear of that and stick to triple-Innistrad.

Worst Formats

#4 Modern

Yep you heard me, current Modern is one of the worst formats I have ever played in my life. After Day One of the Pro Tour the two players at 8-0 were playing Infect and Burn and I wasn’t the least bit surprised. The format rewards non-interaction and the decks that best ignore everything the other players are doing are the most successful. The games end on turn four a remarkably high percentage of the time and the number of gameplay decisions that matter is low. I get that people love Modern, but if you want the Pro Tour to be decided by skill you can't use Modern to do it.

#3 Fate Reforged Draft

I don’t want to pick on Khans here because I actually liked that format, so I’m going to single outFate Reforged by itself and to an extent FRF in Sealed Deck. Almost every rare is a bomb, you get more shots at them than in draft, and you can have multiples which is extremely rare for draft. The games are truly awful to play as well. Every game is decided by a rare and the commons are so low power that it almost doesn’t even matter what happens before the rares are cast.

The skill in the format is in being lucky enough to open the better rares and resolving them before your opponent can resolve his. I suppose there's also some small amount of skill in realizing that commons that can trade for rares go up in value as well such as Disdainful Stroke, Return to the Earth, and Diplomacy of the Wastes. Those last three are all cards you should be maindecking in Sealed that you might not be.

#2 Holiday Cube Sealed

Wait so the Holiday Cube is one of the best formats of all time and one of the worst formats of all time? At the same time? Yes.

I have an unsubstantiated theory about the way the packs are collated on MTGO for the Holiday Cube and I believe it’s such that the power cards are all clustered together in the print runs. I saw way more packs that had either zero power cards or multiple power cards than I did packs with exactly one. When I say power cards, I mean the actual Power 9 in addition to Time Vault, Mana Crypt, Library of Alexandria, Mind Twist, and Jace, the Mind Sculptor.

I believe this was done intentionally so that you could get a piece of Power even if you didn’t open one in a pack yourself. When there’s three Moxen in one pack it’s impossible to not get one 3rd pick assuming that's where you’re seated in the draft.

This is all well and good and a great idea for the draft, but it made Sealed highly stupid. Some people would get 6 packs with no power and others would have 4-8 pieces and have 40-card Vintage decks. On top of all that, the reason the draft format was fun was because it was played for peanut, while the Sealed format was used in two different Magic Online Championship Qualifiers. A friend of mine won a Cube Sealed MOCS, and while he's a great player, he had multiple Moxen, Black Lotus, and Mana Drain in his Sealed deck and executed multiple turn two kills in the Top 8. This wasn’t even that uncommon. That’s the format the MTGO team decided they would use to see who wins $25,000. What a joke.

So thats that. Its difficult to imagine a player like this being excited at the prospect of contemporary cube design being the basis for high stakes competitive play--even riptide designs i.m.o are too high variance. Now, if anyone wants to build something for competitive play, than you might be able to sell it to those players; but you also have to be able to sell it to WOTC, as a valid marketing piece, if you want their wallet to back it.