Yeah, but the point was basically to show off that I can do basic arithmetic, in case any of you had doubts. 
Article ChannelFireball: Utility Land Draft
- Thread starter Jason Waddell
- Start date
Chris Taylor
Contributor
Color me impressed then
Chris Taylor
Contributor
Ladies and gentleman I think we have our first in joke
CML
Contributor
Tried this yesterday, playgroup liked it, may do again.
How many lands are y'all having your drafters take? I think the right number is 3 (fail-to-finds due to a lack of basics are so awful) but i end up doing 4 because i'm not sure how to do 3 in an equitable way and i hate it less than 2. I guess I should also ax what drafting method y'all do, I do snake
Snake is the only acceptable answer.
I find that three is the best; any more than that, and people start making suboptimal choices like playing a colorless land or a Bojuka Bog over the basic Swamp they so desperately need.
I saved an algorithm on my phone for three lands with either eight or nine players, let me type it out
EIGHT PLAYER
A 1 6 7
B 2 7 5
C 3 8 2
D 4 1 8
E 5 2 6
F 6 3 4
G 7 4 3
H 8 5 1
NINE PLAYER
A 1 6 8
B 2 7 6
C 3 8 4
D 4 9 2
E 5 1 9
F 6 2 7
G 7 3 5
H 8 4 3
I 9 5 1
A-H are the players, 1-9 is their draft order in any particular round of the utility draft
Admittedly kind of a pain in the ass to execute as only you know the order, so you have to keep track of who's gone and call out the next person's turn. But if you're anal enough, at least it's fair!
I saved an algorithm on my phone for three lands with either eight or nine players, let me type it out
EIGHT PLAYER
A 1 6 7
B 2 7 5
C 3 8 2
D 4 1 8
E 5 2 6
F 6 3 4
G 7 4 3
H 8 5 1
NINE PLAYER
A 1 6 8
B 2 7 6
C 3 8 4
D 4 9 2
E 5 1 9
F 6 2 7
G 7 3 5
H 8 4 3
I 9 5 1
A-H are the players, 1-9 is their draft order in any particular round of the utility draft
Admittedly kind of a pain in the ass to execute as only you know the order, so you have to keep track of who's gone and call out the next person's turn. But if you're anal enough, at least it's fair!
Eric I think that's bad, I would hate to be player I. The average may be the same in pick index, but not in average pick value, which is a function of the value of the distribution of power level in your draft pool. Statistically speaking, this is a bad idea.
Imagine that you assigned point values to each land. The highest one being 100 (or whatever), and the next 80, then 75, whatever. The lands do not all have equal value. The players will start by taking the most valuable lands, and eventually the value will kind of level off. By giving somebody the 9th overall pick, then the 14th overall, they will be getting much less value than say, somebody getting 6th and 10th.
Just snake it is the TL DR version.
Just snake it is the TL DR version.
FlowerSunRain
Contributor
With three picks, depending on how much variance there is between the top picks and the subsequent picks, you may be better served with the distribution from Ra (Board game by Knizia) then a snake.(Ra is an auction game rather then a draft, so this is an approximation based on the concept)
The player who gets the first pick in the first round gets the last pick in the second AND third round. The player who gets the last pick in the first round gets the first pick in the second AND third round. And so on.
But, yes, Just Snake It is the correct choice basically all the time, with the only exception being if the draft has super important high picks that will be fought over and give a significant advantage.
The player who gets the first pick in the first round gets the last pick in the second AND third round. The player who gets the last pick in the first round gets the first pick in the second AND third round. And so on.
But, yes, Just Snake It is the correct choice basically all the time, with the only exception being if the draft has super important high picks that will be fought over and give a significant advantage.
I get that snake works for an even number of rounds, but isn't it much worse for an odd number? Somebody would get 1st, 16th, & 17th, while some other poor schmuck would end up with 8th, 9th, & 24th.
I think there's merit in FSR's idea. With the value of lands going down by the later rounds, I suppose it's important to snake the first set of even numbered rounds, and then by the final round the order doesn't matter so much. Going in reverse order is probably fine.
I think there's merit in FSR's idea. With the value of lands going down by the later rounds, I suppose it's important to snake the first set of even numbered rounds, and then by the final round the order doesn't matter so much. Going in reverse order is probably fine.
CML
Contributor
wadds's idea is germane for cube design in general since, for example, in a normal set, the power curve for the first ten picks in a given pack may look like
10, 7, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 5, 5, 4
so in a five-person snake players 1 through 5 will get respectively picks of quality 14, 12, 11, 12, 12.
i think about this all the time within the context of Fantasy Football, where there is perennially some debate over snake versus auction. obviously auction is great fun if you use the nfl.com software for it once a year and dagger people, which is not how cube drafting is experienced over here. however, some NFL drafts will look more like
8, 8, 7, 7, 7, 7, 6, 5, 4, 4
so then players 1 through 5 will have 12, 12, 12, 13, 14 and it's advantageous to pick later. (injuries play a role in making the curve look like this, i wonder what injuries would look like in MTG draft?)
i talk a lot about the joys of 'flat power curve' but from a practical standpoint it's impossible to make all cards equally strong in a vacuum (maybe also undesirable? this is a rich topic of course) so i'd greatly prefer my cube's curve to look like the latter and not the former. it's possible eric's idea is statistically defensible for a given power curve, but nobody will ever want to do it in draft, i'd much rather snake two picks then have a round of chessboxing determine who gets the last lands in event of conflicting interests
but yeah, i was gonna ask how we snake with 3 picks, or if we're gonna do 4 picks, if anyone's tried "45-card decks" before. i really like the 45-card deck idea fwiw and will probably try it even if it gets negative feedback here.
10, 7, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 5, 5, 4
so in a five-person snake players 1 through 5 will get respectively picks of quality 14, 12, 11, 12, 12.
i think about this all the time within the context of Fantasy Football, where there is perennially some debate over snake versus auction. obviously auction is great fun if you use the nfl.com software for it once a year and dagger people, which is not how cube drafting is experienced over here. however, some NFL drafts will look more like
8, 8, 7, 7, 7, 7, 6, 5, 4, 4
so then players 1 through 5 will have 12, 12, 12, 13, 14 and it's advantageous to pick later. (injuries play a role in making the curve look like this, i wonder what injuries would look like in MTG draft?)
i talk a lot about the joys of 'flat power curve' but from a practical standpoint it's impossible to make all cards equally strong in a vacuum (maybe also undesirable? this is a rich topic of course) so i'd greatly prefer my cube's curve to look like the latter and not the former. it's possible eric's idea is statistically defensible for a given power curve, but nobody will ever want to do it in draft, i'd much rather snake two picks then have a round of chessboxing determine who gets the last lands in event of conflicting interests
but yeah, i was gonna ask how we snake with 3 picks, or if we're gonna do 4 picks, if anyone's tried "45-card decks" before. i really like the 45-card deck idea fwiw and will probably try it even if it gets negative feedback here.
FlowerSunRain
Contributor
45 cards decks is making a lot of sense to me. Obviously since expelling lands into the side cube, people end up with more playables in their pile. Drafting less picks makes less of the cube come out during the draft, which is undesirable. So, why not 45 card decks? Its a great compromise!
I do snaking with 4 picks.
Something I realized when doing 15-card decks is that the diversity and focus of my decks dramatically increased. I could pull off super powerful Delver decks. I could go all in on weird interactions. I believe that as you increase deck size you more greatly emphasize "good stuff" piles. Any synergies you draft are less likely to be drawn together, and the value of your deck is more strongly tied to raw card power.
Consider me in the camp that this is a "Bad Idea".
Also, CML, I don't know that I'm on board with the flat power curve argument. An inherent part of the drafting experience is that you have a range of power levels in each color. By spending picks on fixing, you allow yourself access to more colors. There's a trade-off. You spend on fixing, but your average card quality can increase. If we're flat in power level we lose out on that incentive.
Something I realized when doing 15-card decks is that the diversity and focus of my decks dramatically increased. I could pull off super powerful Delver decks. I could go all in on weird interactions. I believe that as you increase deck size you more greatly emphasize "good stuff" piles. Any synergies you draft are less likely to be drawn together, and the value of your deck is more strongly tied to raw card power.
Consider me in the camp that this is a "Bad Idea".
Also, CML, I don't know that I'm on board with the flat power curve argument. An inherent part of the drafting experience is that you have a range of power levels in each color. By spending picks on fixing, you allow yourself access to more colors. There's a trade-off. You spend on fixing, but your average card quality can increase. If we're flat in power level we lose out on that incentive.
I do, however, like the idea of you assigning a letter to each player, and the chaos of trying to organize everybody to take their picks correctly while they're all distracted and annoyed that you tried to force a really arbitrary system on them. Like, jesus, it can be hard enough to get my players to their seat assignments, let alone follow an algorithm for land picks.
LOL. It is true that while nobody directly questioned what my arbitrary system actually was as I called out seemingly random names, they were convinced I was cheating somehow, and that I would end up with the best land picks. Which, since I ended up in position A at least once, they were right about.
CML
Contributor
i am not sure this has to be the case, dipping into other colors could be due to "synergy." maybe one red drafter has taken pyroclasm and wants cryptic command, while another has gone with imperial recruiter and wants a different color with birthing pod, and yet another has taken purphoros, god of the forge and wants to stay in a single color with ash zealot. it's possible that all the first picks are equally powerful, and that the second picks are too, but pyroclasm into birthing pod and purphoros, god of the forge into cryptic command aren't the best idea. just one of the complexities of draft to think about.
this is one theoretical justification for big gold sections, though your reason -- 'extra colors is greater power' -- is also true, as the power level of Shards block draft is the highest of all time, incentivizing fixing within single cards.
Laz
Developer
What have I done?!
We just roll dice for pick order... Primative, but those dnd polyhedrals have got to earn their keep somehow... Also, we tend to do 6 man drafts more commonly than 8, so being sixth is far less punishing than eighth.
Yeah, I mean, it exists. Proliferate that shit.
It's really pretty.