CML
Contributor
yeah it's pretty dumb but i try not to use it as an excuse to become everything i hate (and often fail)
General CBS
- Thread starter James Stevenson
- Start date
yeah it's pretty dumb but i try not to use it as an excuse to become everything i hate (and often fail)
Laz
Developer
I suspect some of this lack of alignment stems from how much emphasis is on the draft dynamics as opposed to the in-game dynamics in Cube design.
From randomly drafting cubes on Cube Tutor, I have noticed that they isn't very much emphasis on creating competing demand for cards or mechanics, and so manoeuvring the draft is kind of 'auto-pilot'. The recent featured Tribal Cube is one of the worst offenders of this nature I have witnessed, and Cube Tutor makes this very apparent. The decks at the end look interesting and seem like they have heaps of cool interactions, but the draft is basically 'Am I being cut in my tribe? Ok, what now?', where there is massive reward to being in an open tribe, and huge difficulty in transitioning, because most of the interactions involve a critical density of mediocre cards. I am convinced the games are a blast to play, but the draft is really kind of boring.
Sure, a more typical Cube doesn't have the issue of mediocre cards which are dependant upon one another, which allows for an easier transition, but it does suffer from lack of flexible mana-fixing. Rather than being stuck in a tribe, you tend to become stuck in a colour or two, as there simply isn't enough fixing to branch out. This is less true of control decks, I suspect because they don't care as much about CIPT lands and have time to find their mana. It is absolutely the case in aggressive decks, where the curse of being cut out of mono-red aggro is a real one, simply because there isn't the density of fixing to enable a transition to Rakdos, Boros, etc. These emerge as gameplay dynamics, but are actually issues with drafting dynamics.
This is not as pronounced as the fabled 'poison-principle', which tends to apply to there being no demand for narrow archetypal cards, but is rather more subtle than that. I find it hard to elucidate, but hopefully someone else here can translate my strange hunch into something clearer and more formal.
From randomly drafting cubes on Cube Tutor, I have noticed that they isn't very much emphasis on creating competing demand for cards or mechanics, and so manoeuvring the draft is kind of 'auto-pilot'. The recent featured Tribal Cube is one of the worst offenders of this nature I have witnessed, and Cube Tutor makes this very apparent. The decks at the end look interesting and seem like they have heaps of cool interactions, but the draft is basically 'Am I being cut in my tribe? Ok, what now?', where there is massive reward to being in an open tribe, and huge difficulty in transitioning, because most of the interactions involve a critical density of mediocre cards. I am convinced the games are a blast to play, but the draft is really kind of boring.
Sure, a more typical Cube doesn't have the issue of mediocre cards which are dependant upon one another, which allows for an easier transition, but it does suffer from lack of flexible mana-fixing. Rather than being stuck in a tribe, you tend to become stuck in a colour or two, as there simply isn't enough fixing to branch out. This is less true of control decks, I suspect because they don't care as much about CIPT lands and have time to find their mana. It is absolutely the case in aggressive decks, where the curse of being cut out of mono-red aggro is a real one, simply because there isn't the density of fixing to enable a transition to Rakdos, Boros, etc. These emerge as gameplay dynamics, but are actually issues with drafting dynamics.
This is not as pronounced as the fabled 'poison-principle', which tends to apply to there being no demand for narrow archetypal cards, but is rather more subtle than that. I find it hard to elucidate, but hopefully someone else here can translate my strange hunch into something clearer and more formal.
CML
Contributor
the thing about power-max cubes is that the decks are inconsistent to the point of being terrible. broadly speaking, their curves are a little zaftig at 4, their risk of color-screw is high, and their cards are inflexible w/r/t context or what point in the game it is.
there was a discussion on a Seattle grognard's wall the other day about what lands to keep in a powered cube, someone advocated for bouncelands and laid out a convincing case that they work well there, though i'd argue it's not so much 'card advantage' that matters here but 'hitting land drops / colors.' in other words, old-Ravnica block commons that would just be bad in Rip cubes are an essential part of an environment that includes Black Lotus and Ancestral Recall.
let us all meditate for a minute on that absurdity
there was a discussion on a Seattle grognard's wall the other day about what lands to keep in a powered cube, someone advocated for bouncelands and laid out a convincing case that they work well there, though i'd argue it's not so much 'card advantage' that matters here but 'hitting land drops / colors.' in other words, old-Ravnica block commons that would just be bad in Rip cubes are an essential part of an environment that includes Black Lotus and Ancestral Recall.
let us all meditate for a minute on that absurdity
I've never run a normal cube, but if I were running the MTGO cube I'd be cutting the Karoos just because every single draft I've ever watched someone has mentioned how much they hate the Karoo lands. Nobody willingly takes them, ever.
Ironically, I do run the Karoo lands in my cube and they're considered decent because I don't really run lands that demand answers and thus, I don't really run land destruction either.
Ironically, I do run the Karoo lands in my cube and they're considered decent because I don't really run lands that demand answers and thus, I don't really run land destruction either.
VibeBox
Contributor
wrongo.
modo is full of guppies. plenty of free wins to be had blowing people out because they still think bouncelands are good.
though admittedly the last time cube was up there did seem to be at least somewhat of a dropoff in use.
i actually feel bad for bouncelands though because ravnica was the funnest shit ever and it fucking ruled to have your deck come together in pack three with like mad azorius chancerys and simic growth chambers after enduring a desolate pack 2.
I'm sure there are people that take them, but they aren't the people recording their matches and posting on YouTube. I should have been more specific -- the public face of MTGO cubing (the people posting on YouTube and/or Twitch) universally hate them.
I haven't bitten the bullet and done utility drafts yet, but I thought they weren't for fixing lands? Karoos are pretty clearly meant for fixing primarily...
if you mean you can spend a pick on forcing your opponent to run them, sure
I think that what most people have found is that a limited set of fixing in utility draft can be beneficial, when the cards just don't fall your way during the actual draft. The fixing in the utility pile would have to be of lower quality than that in the main list to prevent everyone from procrastinating on fixing, and to provide tension between picking spell lands and fixing lands.
I currently run a cycle of painlands in the utility draft, but was looking for something more control-friendly.
I currently run a cycle of painlands in the utility draft, but was looking for something more control-friendly.
FlowerSunRain
Contributor
Bouncelands see play in my land drafts. The drawbacks don't come up nearly as often as people make them out to. There are plenty of times when I'm deckbuilding that I plan on taking the bounceland (as opposed to simply taking it because the checkland and temple were gone).
That said they are low picks the are basically never contested and I highly doubt I would ever dedicate an actual cube slot to them.
That said they are low picks the are basically never contested and I highly doubt I would ever dedicate an actual cube slot to them.
the theros temples fill the control friendly role much better.
as far as how common the downsides are, its more about when they do happen, how truly unfun and awful they are. the only way i'd run them is if i didn't have cards like acidic slime. and i'd much rather have slime and friends than bouncelands
as far as how common the downsides are, its more about when they do happen, how truly unfun and awful they are. the only way i'd run them is if i didn't have cards like acidic slime. and i'd much rather have slime and friends than bouncelands
Chris Taylor
Contributor
Who are his friends by the way? Avalanche riders?
off the top of my head: avalanche riders, venser, wasteland, tectonic edge, flickerwisp, ghost quarter, capsize, and fulminator mage. i'm sure there's plenty more relatively commonly cubed cards that just murder you for trying to merely fix your mana with a bounceland
CML
Contributor
FlowerSunRain
Contributor
I think there is some memory bias here. There are plenty of games someone has won because they were able to hit a critical land drop thanks to a bounceland that no other land would have been able to achieve, but people only remember the crucial damnation/living death/grave titan and not that fact that if Dimir Aqueduct had been Underground Sea they would have been one short and lost the game.
Bouncelands add risk, but they add real, tangible, gamewinning rewards too.
Bouncelands do more then fix mana and if all you want to do is fix mana, you should play something else. I think the criticism is fair in traditional cubes, because you only get so many fixing slots and bouncelands are a bad fit for that, but in the utility land draft, they are perfect.
Bouncelands add risk, but they add real, tangible, gamewinning rewards too.
Bouncelands do more then fix mana and if all you want to do is fix mana, you should play something else. I think the criticism is fair in traditional cubes, because you only get so many fixing slots and bouncelands are a bad fit for that, but in the utility land draft, they are perfect.
let's look at bouncelands
reward: fixing, getting the extra land drop you need assuming no discard shenanigans
downside: coming into play tapped, bouncing a land
risk: getting it blinked by a flickerwisp or similar can be brutal, getting it bounced is beyond brutal, and getting it acidic slimed is just .... lol yeah ok
let's look at temples
reward: fixing, digging through your deck for the extra anything you need, doesn't have to be land.
downside: coming into play tapped
risk: almost none, same as any cipt land. getting it blinked or bounced means you get another scry trigger, sweet.
so, i definitely want risk in my games of magic. but i don't want my LANDS to be the source of huge risk to me. if a card gives great risk it needs to give great reward to be fun. Greatness, at any cost and all that jazz. not manafixing at any cost. it's a very scary source of variance causing your whole gameplan falling apart, and control decks want to exactly minimize that kind of thing. the thing is, it's just 100% a "did my opponent draw X" type thing. on the other hand, temples have a lot of play to them, choosing the tempo advantage of running them out early before you need the mana vs when to need the scry, not to mention the scry itself.
i don't believe in only designing for the average, often you have to consider outliers too. of course there's some memory bias, you can't fight perception too much. if they are perceived as unfun, they are probably unfun. if people remember the very unfun outlier more than anything, then that's something undesirable.
with regard to this, i'll cite Maro. i think the section "Mistake #3 – Don’t Put Things They Care About Out of Their Control" is very very very applicable to the bouncelands
http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr253
reward: fixing, getting the extra land drop you need assuming no discard shenanigans
downside: coming into play tapped, bouncing a land
risk: getting it blinked by a flickerwisp or similar can be brutal, getting it bounced is beyond brutal, and getting it acidic slimed is just .... lol yeah ok
let's look at temples
reward: fixing, digging through your deck for the extra anything you need, doesn't have to be land.
downside: coming into play tapped
risk: almost none, same as any cipt land. getting it blinked or bounced means you get another scry trigger, sweet.
so, i definitely want risk in my games of magic. but i don't want my LANDS to be the source of huge risk to me. if a card gives great risk it needs to give great reward to be fun. Greatness, at any cost and all that jazz. not manafixing at any cost. it's a very scary source of variance causing your whole gameplan falling apart, and control decks want to exactly minimize that kind of thing. the thing is, it's just 100% a "did my opponent draw X" type thing. on the other hand, temples have a lot of play to them, choosing the tempo advantage of running them out early before you need the mana vs when to need the scry, not to mention the scry itself.
i don't believe in only designing for the average, often you have to consider outliers too. of course there's some memory bias, you can't fight perception too much. if they are perceived as unfun, they are probably unfun. if people remember the very unfun outlier more than anything, then that's something undesirable.
with regard to this, i'll cite Maro. i think the section "Mistake #3 – Don’t Put Things They Care About Out of Their Control" is very very very applicable to the bouncelands
http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr253
A benefit you're missing (which is the reason I play them in my cube) is that they tap for two. Anything that untaps a land gets a marginal but real benefit from that. I do understand that my cube is in the minority in this regard.
that's actually a quite huge benefit, and the main reason i run and abuse the hell out of them in edh. i didn't mention it because that's quite difficult to make into a significant theme in the power level of most of the cubes around here, unless you just go all out on it as an uninteractive combo deck. palinchron and frantic search and friends say hi
For me it's Rewind, Snap, Treachery, and Voyaging Satyr. They admittedly aren't super great with only those, but any time I grab a Rewind or Treachery I keep an eye out for karoos.
I've noticed that we're increasingly disagreeing with each other on stuff and that seems wonderful.
Laz
Developer
The article he links to in that is amazing in regard to cube design!
Come Together: Modularity and Linear Mechanics in Set Design
My two cents is that bounce lands are fine in an environment with very little, if any boomerangs or land D. It's just much easier to cut the lands and play one of the other thousand cycles of fixing lands than to restrict the other, more interesting effects. Assuming you're still on the singleton plan, you have access to six untapped cycles and many more tapped cycles, you shouldn't have to play karoos for fixing.
I think that underscores our difference of opinion. I don't find land destruction "interesting." I would probably find it interesting if it only ever hit cards like Celestial Colonnade instead of things like duals. It's because I don't want good land destruction in that I cut too-good lands.
Karoos, on the other hand, I do find interesting. They help with landfall, they potentially allow you to cut your land count, they allow you to replay ETB lands like Halimar Depths or a scry land, they can help with sunburst, it's harder and more skill-testing to pick when you actually have an appropriate time in your curve to play them. They are nowhere near as good as a shockland or an ABU dual. But they do lead to more interesting decisions, which is what I like out of cube. I'm realizing more and more that I run a lot of suboptimal cards simply because they lead to more interesting choices.
Karoos, on the other hand, I do find interesting. They help with landfall, they potentially allow you to cut your land count, they allow you to replay ETB lands like Halimar Depths or a scry land, they can help with sunburst, it's harder and more skill-testing to pick when you actually have an appropriate time in your curve to play them. They are nowhere near as good as a shockland or an ABU dual. But they do lead to more interesting decisions, which is what I like out of cube. I'm realizing more and more that I run a lot of suboptimal cards simply because they lead to more interesting choices.