General Custom Cards: The Lab

Onderzeeboot

Ecstatic Orb
Thanks Suicufnoc. I'm not trying to be unfair Velrun, you're just arguing from a very different point of view. Neither am I calling your view on elegance and design narrow, I am calling your definition of elegance more narrow than mine, which it is if you don't think my design on the right is elegant. For me not adhering to the color pie doesn't automatically mean a card is not elegant.

Lastly, and this is important for me to get across, I do not dislike your honest feedback! Please don't confuse disagreement with dislike :)
 
I think if your argument for elegant is ‘It has less card text.’ then I believe it is a very narrow way of looking at a complex term.

For a card to be elegant:
1. It must serve the right purpose (Set, format, game)
2. It must have a clear card text, brief and precice.
3. It must be very specific in what it does.
4. It must follow the basic rules of the game (mana cost, color pie etc.)
5. It must have a strong yet subtle flavor (artwork, flavor text, lore)

I do not believe short-texted cards are elegant if they are breaking the rules of the game made by the designers of the game. Wizards do not consider that elegant either. Some custom cards designers maybe do.

The card to the left certainly succeeds in 2. Brief text.

I still think it could be good to have in a format. At least some formats. And I would still call it a clear design.

Curious: Have you ever broken the rules before with succes? I have plenty of times (at least in my own opinion) and I am not against it. I do it all the time which makes me a hypocrite right now. Wizards would not like me this way :)
 
Mostly agreed, except that the color pie isn't a basic rules of the game, its a design goal/pattern/something like that.

But I don't understand your definition of narrow. If Onder considers a card to be elegant that meets just 2 of those criteria, and you require all 5 to consider a card elegant, then your definition of elegant is more narrow than his.
His criteria will include all of the cards that meet your criteria, plus the ones that meet just his 2. Much wider class of cards.
 
oh btw my original post i left out the word "basic" on purpose

regarding the "outside the game" wording, i've always found that kind of confusing and wanted to explicitly limit it to sideboards / basic land box
in a sense, that's not outside the game at all, bc the cube draft overall is a larger game, and the game you play is a magic subgame

on that note
Mindswapper {U}{B}{R}
Creature - Demon Rogue
When Mindswapper deals combat damage to a player, exchange that player for yourself. (Exchange ownership of drafted cards, sideboard, turns, life totals, counters, and record in the current draft.)
1/1

this thread is the lab for a reason
 

Onderzeeboot

Ecstatic Orb
Yeah, that's an un-card if ever I saw one, the only thing that's missing is "don't remove this card from your deck if you're not playing for ante" ;)
 
Mostly agreed, except that the color pie isn't a basic rules of the game, its a design goal/pattern/something like that.

But I don't understand your definition of narrow. If Onder considers a card to be elegant that meets just 2 of those criteria, and you require all 5 to consider a card elegant, then your definition of elegant is more narrow than his.
His criteria will include all of the cards that meet your criteria, plus the ones that meet just his 2. Much wider class of cards.

I can’t presume to speak for Ondezeeboot but what we can derive from the debate is that for a card to be elegant the only requirements is ‘few words on the card’ which is as narrow as it gets. That’s what we normally call ‘clean’ because the card looks clean from all the words.

My definition of elegance is much more advanced and it requires more than just few words.

Correct me if I am wrong. I also believe this is what Wizards have always told us.

I personally don’t mind breaking the (design) rules of the game and have done it tons of times.
 

Onderzeeboot

Ecstatic Orb
Google, define narrow!

narrow
ˈnarəʊ/
adjective
1.
of small width in relation to length.
"he made his way down the narrow road"
synonyms: small, tapered, tapering, narrowing, narrow-gauged; More

2.
limited in extent, amount, or scope.
"they ate a narrow range of foods"
synonyms: limited, restricted, circumscribed, straitened, small, inadequate, insufficient, deficient, lacking, wanting; More

See, the basis for our misunderstanding is that we are not using the same definition for narrow. I (and Suicufnoc) are calling your definition more narrow because it's scope is limited. Less cards qualify for the label "elegant" under your definition, therefore it is more narrow. This is the second meaning of the word in the definition quoted above (though please note insufficient, lacking, etc. would not be appropriate synonyms in this case). You are saying my definition is more narrow because it uses less words/rules. You normally wouldn't call this narrow though, you would call my definition simpler, more straightforward, less complex, or less sophisticated than yours, depending on which of the two definitions you liked better.

Secondly, I never said few words was the only requirement for elegance. That's a pretty big assumption to make. Case in point, I wouldn't call the card below elegant, even though it uses even less words that my original modification of Anotak's card.

Elegance to Smithereens.jpg

I wouldn't be able to put my definition of elegant into words as elegantly as you do, but the color pie is not factored in as heavily as it is in your definition, because, as Suicufnoc pointed out, it isn't a basic rule of the game, but more of a guiding principle. On occasion, it's right to break the color pie, and this does not automatically mean a card is not elegant for me. In addition, while flavor and purpose help add elegance, they are not absolutely required for me. While a blatant flavor mismatch is often inelegant, bland cards can still be elegant to me if they're clean executions with a clear purpose.
 
Less cards qualify for the label "elegant" under your definition, therefore it is more narrow.

What? Less cards? What are you talking about? My my definition shared by those who make the game has many requirements. Therefore a card cannot be elegant if it only succeeds on one account and fails on others.

I never said few words was the only requirement for elegance. That's a pretty big assumption to make.

It was not an assumption since I did not assume it (hence the word.) I derived it from the debate and told you all to correct me if I got it wrong.

Since you DO think your original right card is ‘elegant’
Since you DO NOT think the last posted card is elegant
And since you DO NOT think the only requirement for a card to be elegant is the length of the card text, could you please tell me your requirements for a card to be elegant since you appearently do not agree with me and Wizards?

For reference here you are saying the right card is elegant:
View attachment 1684 View attachment 1685

One respects the color pie but is clunky as shit, the other "breaks" the color pie, but is elegant, and does, for almost all intents and purposes, exactly the same as the clunky card.

For reference here you are saying the last posted card is not elegant:

I wouldn't call the card below elegant, even though it uses even less words that my original modification of Anotak's card.

View attachment 1686

I believe this debate comes from the situation where I called both your designs inelegant because they fail several of the requirements for an elegant design if you ask me. I can see it has short text and that is it but that is not enough in my book. Calling it elegant based upon that would be extremely narrow if you ask me. Can you explain to me how you would define a card elegant since you have the skill to call some cards elegant and others not? There must be a way to define it if you have the ability to call the cards either.
 

Onderzeeboot

Ecstatic Orb
What? Less cards? What are you talking about? My my definition shared by those who make the game has many requirements. Therefore a card cannot be elegant if it only succeeds on one account and fails on others.

Yes, less cards. Given 100 random designs, using your very strict definition of elegance, less cards out of those 100 would be called elegant by you than by me. That is, you might find 50 out of 100 cards of that sample elegant, while I might find 60 of those 100 elegant.

I don't have a straight up definition for elegance, because much of it is eyeballing it, a card feels elegant to me or not. I am not checking some rule set inside my head to see if I should find a card elegant or not, I either do or do not, but clear and concise rules text plays a large part in my "definition" of elegance.

You also seem very intent on calling out that your definition is the same as Wizards' definition. I very much doubt this, as WotC is a multifaceted organization with a lot of people who all have their own internal "definition" of elegance. It might be very close to what MaRo feels about elegance (though I'ld love to see a link where he sums up the same definition as you do), but surely it's not a universal truth.
 
Oh and I still think it’s an interesting design. Something I have done before and I find it cool.

It interesting, original, clean and one could even call it a great design. Someone should test it :p
 
Just wanted to show some designs that felt very close to the ones debated recently.

As regard to finding lands outside the game, we've had this guy in the Fantasy Cube for some time. In our environment you draft the basic lands with the cards.
2.png


As regard to Ancient Wurm that grows over the course of the tournament we've had this guy in our cube since Conspiracy 1 came out.

1.png

And finally we've had this guy in our cube for exactly one tournament. Remember how everyone praises the OP conspiracies to actually be OP picks? Well not anymore :p (They're still OP during the actual gameplay.)

3.png

Feel free to comment, critique and debate honestly :) We thrive on the feedback.
 

Chris Taylor

Contributor
boys, you dont have to fight over me

Ancient Wurm {1}{G}
Creature - Wurm
~ has power and toughness equal to the number of games you’ve played in this cube draft. (Including the current one.)
*/*

So in the middle of round 1, this seems halfway reasonable, being a bear or a 3/3. But a 9.9 for 1G by the end of the night? Jesus...
Hell even a 6/6 is usually bigger than goyf gets
 
So in the middle of round 1, this seems halfway reasonable, being a bear or a 3/3. But a 9.9 for 1G by the end of the night? Jesus...
Hell even a 6/6 is usually bigger than goyf gets
imagine an environment where more things ramp up over the period of the draft and not just this one card
 

Chris Taylor

Contributor
I'm...skeptical. There's not a lot of effects in magic that really work scaling 1-9.

Even then, doesn't that just mean there's a ton of broken things in the draft? Is the focus on drafting enough regular cards to win round 1, and enough of these that you're playing triple power magic in the later rounds?
 
What about:

Critter - 1G
When you cast a spell, put a +1/+1 counter on.
When an opponent casts a spell remove one.
Counters stay on critter across all zones, games, and matches
 
I'm...skeptical. There's not a lot of effects in magic that really work scaling 1-9.

Even then, doesn't that just mean there's a ton of broken things in the draft? Is the focus on drafting enough regular cards to win round 1, and enough of these that you're playing triple power magic in the later rounds?
to elaborate my previous post: yes the numbers are off but what about the mechanical space itself of decks changing throughout the draft

is that worth even thinking about

have any of us explored anything like that?
it seems like it could have some potential to me to be interesting
but maybe it's just extra complexity that muddies card evaluation and forces ppl to spend extra time messing around with the sideboard
 

Onderzeeboot

Ecstatic Orb
I do not belief it's worth it, because it doesn't reward drafting well. I don't know if that made sense, let me try to put it into different words. The draft itself is half the fun, building a deck from your draft pile and playing games is almost an afterthought at times. Swapping decks means you invalidate the most important part of the draft, and having to work with someone else's card pool almost turns the experience into sealed deck. I think it undermines an important aspect of what draft is about.
 
I do not belief it's worth it, because it doesn't reward drafting well. I don't know if that made sense, let me try to put it into different words. The draft itself is half the fun, building a deck from your draft pile and playing games is almost an afterthought at times. Swapping decks means you invalidate the most important part of the draft, and having to work with someone else's card pool almost turns the experience into sealed deck. I think it undermines an important aspect of what draft is about.
was sort of more speaking about counting # games or # rounds and using that to alter cards

i think the mindswapper design is tbh bad in a lot of the same ways ante is bad
it hits all sorts of negative loss aversion type feelings in people and throw them out of their comfort zone in a bad way
i was more thinking of it for the pure shock value of seeing it, which is valuable in its own way? but tbh i dont think it can be reasonably included in a cube?
 
Yes I have experience with that effect. Some like it and some don’t. Almost nobody cares when it’s just a few points of life but almost everyone hates it when it’s an evergrowing Hydra.

Some say it does not feel fair to be on the receiving end of something that is stronger based on the opponent’s previous opponents. I feel like it is an interesting mechanic but it should not be overdone. And if you are already in the final then you should expect your opponent to have good cards and play well.

The only card left in our cube with that mechanic is the conspiracy you see above The Mighty Becomes Mightier.

I will say this: We have the advantage of being able to design cards for exactly three (or whatever) rounds of tournament game-play. Wizards do not so maybe there is even more to explore here.
 

Onderzeeboot

Ecstatic Orb
was sort of more speaking about counting # games or # rounds and using that to alter cards

i think the mindswapper design is tbh bad in a lot of the same ways ante is bad
it hits all sorts of negative loss aversion type feelings in people and throw them out of their comfort zone in a bad way
i was more thinking of it for the pure shock value of seeing it, which is valuable in its own way? but tbh i dont think it can be reasonably included in a cube?

Ah, sorry, I was replying to the earlier Mindswapper idea. You're a bit prolific at the moment :p

I haven't tried anything that gets better based on the number of wins, but I think Suicufnoc's idea of counting played rounds instead is better because it's less volatile in a three round format.
 
Top