Grillo_Parlante
Contributor
Saw this article on channel fireball which really framed the synergy vs. power schools of design surprisingly well.
Part of the problem is that synergy isn't actually a real word--its just a neologism invented by corporate culture, and tends to function more as a buzzword than anything concrete or meaningful. However, I will persist in using it.
Regrettably, the article kind of wanders around a bit, so I've pulled out the central premise and heavily edited it for consumption:
"R&D wants to drive sales with exciting cards, so they make some of the cards so powerful that you'd be a fool not tobuy play with them. This creates a broad power band. However, when cards have lower variance in power level, it takes creativity to find the synergies and combinations that make a deck work.
'Who wore it best' Standard'—means that there are some cards or combinations of cards that are obviously above the power level of contemporaneous cards--a wide power band. Not only are they more powerful, but they also snowball—when they aren't dealt with properly, they can't be stopped. Because of the way new cards are designed, trying to find new, interesting interactions between whacky cards becomes harder, and new cards have to be viewed through a different lens. When you narrow it down this far, the discussion is not about a new deck or certain strategy, but rather which cards you should be playing, and what is the best shell for them."
Or to sum: is your format about:
1. Decks not cards (synergy); or
2. Cards not decks (Power max/tasteful power max)
So say for example, I have two cubes: one which is to be billed as a "synergy cube" the other a "tasteful power max" format. I still want to have all 10 color combinations represented. The way I would design a UG archetype for each cube would be fundamentally different.
A. Synergy cube--narrow power band. Provide reasonable cards, but the cards populating the card pool struggle to win games individually. The format is about drafting a "team" of cards that play well together. Winning decks reflect teamwork to achieve a result greater than the sum of its parts. A format like this is going to be populated by a large percentage of reasonable nuts-and-bolts pieces. Drafting is a creative process of looking at the potential "players" for a "team" and recognizing the way different players mutually support one another to affect a strategy. Archetypes are built by given different pieces of the puzzle to different colors: A+B. Drafter signaling is maybe done with a multi-color piece, so this isn't a complete science project.
This is hard design to do.
B. Tasteful Power Max--Fairly broad power band. Provide a density of cards that have a high probability of winning the game on their own. The format is about figuring out what the best "shell" is for the bombs populating the list. Winning decks are the decks best able to be built around their accumulated bombs, and the best at enabling them to win the game. Archetype design is basically providing the bomb card(s), and making sure that the best shell for it is the color combination we want to push. Drafter signaling is pretty obvious.
And it turns out UG is a good shell for that.
This is easier design, and exciting. I'm not casting judgment (though I am thinking it), but bringing it up because I think there are a lot of designers that want a "decks not cards" format, but are building/maintaining a "cards not decks" format, or --perhaps worse-- have muddled intents.
It is perfectly fine to want to go with a bomb based format: its very light, accessible and people tend to find it exciting--perfect for some casual audiences, and cube is a casual format. Its fine if you want to go with a synergy format: lower variance means tighter games, more skilled players will enjoy it, and there is a lot of creative depth. Also note this isn't a power level issue: its a philosophical issue regarding power variance, the way we want cards to overlap or not overlap, and how that impacts archetype design.
You could hardly be blamed if you were running a cards not decks format: after all, cube historically was a power max format, and thats reflected everywhere in the way cube designers have a general preference for discussing specific cards over decks.
At the end of the day, however, its probably good to have a clear intent as to what you want for your format in the initial design; and especially important if you are having issues with certain guilds being over-represented or under represented--because the approach you should be taking to patch those archetypes won't be relative across cube-types.
Part of the problem is that synergy isn't actually a real word--its just a neologism invented by corporate culture, and tends to function more as a buzzword than anything concrete or meaningful. However, I will persist in using it.
Regrettably, the article kind of wanders around a bit, so I've pulled out the central premise and heavily edited it for consumption:
"R&D wants to drive sales with exciting cards, so they make some of the cards so powerful that you'd be a fool not to
'Who wore it best' Standard'—means that there are some cards or combinations of cards that are obviously above the power level of contemporaneous cards--a wide power band. Not only are they more powerful, but they also snowball—when they aren't dealt with properly, they can't be stopped. Because of the way new cards are designed, trying to find new, interesting interactions between whacky cards becomes harder, and new cards have to be viewed through a different lens. When you narrow it down this far, the discussion is not about a new deck or certain strategy, but rather which cards you should be playing, and what is the best shell for them."
Or to sum: is your format about:
1. Decks not cards (synergy); or
2. Cards not decks (Power max/tasteful power max)
So say for example, I have two cubes: one which is to be billed as a "synergy cube" the other a "tasteful power max" format. I still want to have all 10 color combinations represented. The way I would design a UG archetype for each cube would be fundamentally different.
A. Synergy cube--narrow power band. Provide reasonable cards, but the cards populating the card pool struggle to win games individually. The format is about drafting a "team" of cards that play well together. Winning decks reflect teamwork to achieve a result greater than the sum of its parts. A format like this is going to be populated by a large percentage of reasonable nuts-and-bolts pieces. Drafting is a creative process of looking at the potential "players" for a "team" and recognizing the way different players mutually support one another to affect a strategy. Archetypes are built by given different pieces of the puzzle to different colors: A+B. Drafter signaling is maybe done with a multi-color piece, so this isn't a complete science project.
"UG Says--Build a horizontal board state and kill the opponent with it"
This is hard design to do.
B. Tasteful Power Max--Fairly broad power band. Provide a density of cards that have a high probability of winning the game on their own. The format is about figuring out what the best "shell" is for the bombs populating the list. Winning decks are the decks best able to be built around their accumulated bombs, and the best at enabling them to win the game. Archetype design is basically providing the bomb card(s), and making sure that the best shell for it is the color combination we want to push. Drafter signaling is pretty obvious.
"Opposition Says--Build a horizontal board state and kill the opponent with it"
And it turns out UG is a good shell for that.
This is easier design, and exciting. I'm not casting judgment (though I am thinking it), but bringing it up because I think there are a lot of designers that want a "decks not cards" format, but are building/maintaining a "cards not decks" format, or --perhaps worse-- have muddled intents.
It is perfectly fine to want to go with a bomb based format: its very light, accessible and people tend to find it exciting--perfect for some casual audiences, and cube is a casual format. Its fine if you want to go with a synergy format: lower variance means tighter games, more skilled players will enjoy it, and there is a lot of creative depth. Also note this isn't a power level issue: its a philosophical issue regarding power variance, the way we want cards to overlap or not overlap, and how that impacts archetype design.
You could hardly be blamed if you were running a cards not decks format: after all, cube historically was a power max format, and thats reflected everywhere in the way cube designers have a general preference for discussing specific cards over decks.
At the end of the day, however, its probably good to have a clear intent as to what you want for your format in the initial design; and especially important if you are having issues with certain guilds being over-represented or under represented--because the approach you should be taking to patch those archetypes won't be relative across cube-types.