General Creating a synergistic cube, as opposed to good-stuff
- Thread starter Gozmit97
- Start date
I'd say there's a good thread on that here: http://riptidelab.com/forum/forums/cube-talk.5/
In all seriousness, though, this is a very broad question.
To laser in on one piece of it, to lessen the format feeling like it's on rails, have more than one thing for each color pair to do. Masters formats can feel "on-rails" because wizards really hammered one theme into each pair, so it overwhelms anything else you might try, and the theme forms itself. This is good to create a clean environment, but can hurt re-playability and exploration, which we want to avoid in cube. I'd say the obvious next step is to have two themes per color pair. This immediately opens the door to much more mixing and matching, exploring, etc.
The basis of the above is the concept that the cube format should effectively be structured/designed around the two color pairs, rather than looking at colors/decks in a vacuum.
I'd say another good way to attck this question is to get a cube blog going with a draft of what you are working with. This will let us see/draft sample decks, discuss particular cards to see what is or isn't working, etc. etc.
In all seriousness, though, this is a very broad question.
To laser in on one piece of it, to lessen the format feeling like it's on rails, have more than one thing for each color pair to do. Masters formats can feel "on-rails" because wizards really hammered one theme into each pair, so it overwhelms anything else you might try, and the theme forms itself. This is good to create a clean environment, but can hurt re-playability and exploration, which we want to avoid in cube. I'd say the obvious next step is to have two themes per color pair. This immediately opens the door to much more mixing and matching, exploring, etc.
The basis of the above is the concept that the cube format should effectively be structured/designed around the two color pairs, rather than looking at colors/decks in a vacuum.
I'd say another good way to attck this question is to get a cube blog going with a draft of what you are working with. This will let us see/draft sample decks, discuss particular cards to see what is or isn't working, etc. etc.
Grillo_Parlante
Contributor
What worked for me ultimately was focusing on vague mechanical density in rooted wedges/shards, connected to something core to BREAD game mechanics, than having more defined themes nested beneth the wedge/shard in the color pairs. So, Grixis broadly becomes focused on sifting/looting (card quality), and all of the 2 color pairs beneath that focus on something more specific (discard triggers/madness/spells in graveyard etc)
So kind of a vague mechanical presence at the top, and it becomes more centralized the more focused the colors become.
That way you have a certain amount of flexibility from the Wedge/Shard, but still get definition from the color pairs. You avoid the ill-definied nothiness, while also avoiding suffocating structure.
So kind of a vague mechanical presence at the top, and it becomes more centralized the more focused the colors become.
That way you have a certain amount of flexibility from the Wedge/Shard, but still get definition from the color pairs. You avoid the ill-definied nothiness, while also avoiding suffocating structure.
Which one?
All of them. That was the whole point of the link. The entire Riptidelab is about making synergestic cubes as opposed to good-stuff cubes.
That means all the key points can be found all over this website and not just be described in one short message.
I feel like there are a hundred different ways to approach it honestly. In my mind, the key component is making it so that your draft picks matter. If any 4 drop will work in your deck, that to me is the very definition of "good stuff". On the other side of this, if this 4 drop only works in Bu Pox Madness.dec, then maybe you've got an "on rails" problem.
I'd try to focus on cards that in a vacuum are not super powerful but when combined with other things get much better. Run as many of those types of cards as you can and find a balance between how much all this overlaps so that you have to put energy into unlocking synergy. Avoid narrow cards or cards that truly suck without synergy. Get your overall curve low (around 3.0). You can make probably 500+ completely different cubes under those parameters and they will all be fun. Focus on themes and archetypes you and your group enjoy drafting and you're all set. If cubing has taught me one thing, it's that it's very forgiving and ultimately just a really fun way to play Magic.
I'd try to focus on cards that in a vacuum are not super powerful but when combined with other things get much better. Run as many of those types of cards as you can and find a balance between how much all this overlaps so that you have to put energy into unlocking synergy. Avoid narrow cards or cards that truly suck without synergy. Get your overall curve low (around 3.0). You can make probably 500+ completely different cubes under those parameters and they will all be fun. Focus on themes and archetypes you and your group enjoy drafting and you're all set. If cubing has taught me one thing, it's that it's very forgiving and ultimately just a really fun way to play Magic.
It's a common word of advice to consider how much removal you're running, but there are other numbers many cube designers don't track that are also important. I'd recommend anyone serious about making a good cube to take into account:
On the flip side, you'll also want to be vigilant for where you need to increase redundancy. The pants deck might not need 6 3-drop auras, but it certainly wants more than just one Rancor. Similarly, if your theme is self-mill, you're going to need more than just a Nephalia Drownyard to support it. Consider while you tune your redundant cards how they compare, power-wise, to each other. For example, Seasons Past is a popular and powerful card for a deck oriented around recursion, but it can make Gaea's Blessing and Revive seem extremely lackluster in comparison, to the point where drafters might never actually consider picking them.
(edit: lmao just realized this was a bit of a necro but w/e)
- how much card advantage and virtual card advantage each color has
- how many mana sinks each color has
- where the removal falls across the mana curve for each color and how conditional it is
- how much evasion is in each color and where it is on the mana curve
- how much token production is in the format
On the flip side, you'll also want to be vigilant for where you need to increase redundancy. The
pants deck might not need 6 3-drop auras, but it certainly wants more than just one Rancor. Similarly, if your theme is self-mill, you're going to need more than just a Nephalia Drownyard to support it. Consider while you tune your redundant cards how they compare, power-wise, to each other. For example, Seasons Past is a popular and powerful card for a deck oriented around recursion, but it can make Gaea's Blessing and Revive seem extremely lackluster in comparison, to the point where drafters might never actually consider picking them.(edit: lmao just realized this was a bit of a necro but w/e)