General Defining & Optimizing Complexity
- Thread starter landofMordor
- Start date
The person who didn't talk about how cool it is gets to come up with an embarrassing nickname for that creature, which is now its legal name for the rest of the game.
Eww, sticker mechanics.
landofMordor
Administrator
I played Unfinity Sealed yesterday with my partner. We had a good time -- games 1 and 2 were "ships in the night", then game 3 was a slogfest. Talking this morning, we both agreed that our recent Midnight Hunt sealed yielded better gameplay. And that made me reflect on why:
Unfinity, though fun and cute, is very complex, leading to relatively quick decision/analysis fatigue:
- Attractions require a whole different deck, a new "phase" to track, a new zone ("the junkyard")
- Tickets are an outside-the-game resource to track
- Stickers are (yet another) resource outside the game, and they dynamically modify creature stats. Their effect is combinatoric -- the decision space increases exponentially with each new eligible creature and each sticker sheet.
- "Hat tribal" and "vowels-matter" require the player to give every card their full attention. With traditional X-matters synergies, you just read the typeline for "Elf" and call it a day, or you glance at the art to see if it's glowing with blue Spirit-magic or shambling like a Zombie. Without this grokkability, UNF magnifies the problems of Llorwyn's "jobs-matter" tribal.
- UNF asks us to parse meaningless data (individual letters) to track letters-matter cards. This is a slower visual processing task than using context clues to skim over a grouping of letters for its English meaning. (Time yourself: It'll take you ~10 seconds to find how many "e"s are in this parenthetical, but only 2 seconds to read it normally!)
- Dice-rolling, a major feature of the set, requires many more words than traditional templates. Contrast Hordeling Outburst to Circuits Act. They're 90% the same card, but the latter design requires 3 lines of text just for instructions for resolution.
And those are just the features I noticed. Even so, the art in this set is awesome (the full-art Attractions are a treat, as are the basics), and the in-jokes are charming. The individual designs can be really awesome in small doses -- I think I'm likely to introduce an Un-module to my battlebox to spice things up (and enable 4-player Magic with that list). I just am not sure I want to do Sealed with 6x UNF packs again.
Unfinity, though fun and cute, is very complex, leading to relatively quick decision/analysis fatigue:
- Attractions require a whole different deck, a new "phase" to track, a new zone ("the junkyard")
- Tickets are an outside-the-game resource to track
- Stickers are (yet another) resource outside the game, and they dynamically modify creature stats. Their effect is combinatoric -- the decision space increases exponentially with each new eligible creature and each sticker sheet.
- "Hat tribal" and "vowels-matter" require the player to give every card their full attention. With traditional X-matters synergies, you just read the typeline for "Elf" and call it a day, or you glance at the art to see if it's glowing with blue Spirit-magic or shambling like a Zombie. Without this grokkability, UNF magnifies the problems of Llorwyn's "jobs-matter" tribal.
- UNF asks us to parse meaningless data (individual letters) to track letters-matter cards. This is a slower visual processing task than using context clues to skim over a grouping of letters for its English meaning. (Time yourself: It'll take you ~10 seconds to find how many "e"s are in this parenthetical, but only 2 seconds to read it normally!)
- Dice-rolling, a major feature of the set, requires many more words than traditional templates. Contrast Hordeling Outburst to Circuits Act. They're 90% the same card, but the latter design requires 3 lines of text just for instructions for resolution.
And those are just the features I noticed. Even so, the art in this set is awesome (the full-art Attractions are a treat, as are the basics), and the in-jokes are charming. The individual designs can be really awesome in small doses -- I think I'm likely to introduce an Un-module to my battlebox to spice things up (and enable 4-player Magic with that list). I just am not sure I want to do Sealed with 6x UNF packs again.
Last edited:
loooooathe keeping track of other people's graveyards. even for my own GY, on/off things like delirium/threshold are a little more forgivable than counting creature cards or whatever.
Goyfs are cool.... in digital formats
Goyfs are cool.... in digital formats
landofMordor
Administrator
Honestly, I'm pretty sure the only reason I'm still on Goyf is that my format has a healthy amount of Delve and other grave-eaters, such that graveyards are rarely more than 5-6 cards deep. I couldn't handle an EDH-sized graveyard.
It helps that Draft libraries usually aren’t more than 40 cards. You’re almost never going to have an EDH graveyard by virtue of your deck being a limited size.
See what I did there? 
landofMordor
Administrator
i mean, your players are just gonna use facedown sideboard cards anyways to represent tokens...
part of me thinks that means "go crazy adding tokens and your players will be fine", but another part of me knows how hard it is to parse a battlefield with 6 mechanically unique tokens represented by facedown cards.
part of me thinks that means "go crazy adding tokens and your players will be fine", but another part of me knows how hard it is to parse a battlefield with 6 mechanically unique tokens represented by facedown cards.
Chris Taylor
Contributor
You know I've got a bigass pile of tokens with color coded sleeves for my players, but maybe this shit's unrelatable because I draft my cube consistently
Infinitokens are great, big ups to them. They solved every single problem I had with tokens and then some, while remaining perfectly futureproofed. https://www.infinitokens.com/
It's the cube curator's conundrum. Put in all the work to assemble a legit token box with copies of each random and specific token, but most of your players will most likely never go through the trouble of picking them out of the box. I think splitting the difference with those quick dry erase blanks might actually be the best solution nowadays.
Throw money at the problem, hire a croupier to walk around the tables handing out tokens.
I try to get people to search the pile and keep the tokens their deck uses in their sideboard, it works alright for my group. If you keep it in a box though, no one will touch it - the pile has to be on the table.
Dom Harvey
Contributor
aaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhsfjsdfjlskdjsdglkjkjhkljl my biggest pet peeve
I hate it too.
And now I'm looking up what cards make 2/2 tokens... because you might as well have all face-down cards share the same stats.
Chris Taylor
Contributor
Also I hate to rain on any hypothetical parades but MOST of my attempts to make a custom card which is mechanically identical save for the type of token it makes have been less than sucessful.
Maybe that's me, maybe that's my drafters (it's probably me) but I figured y'all should know
Maybe that's me, maybe that's my drafters (it's probably me) but I figured y'all should know
Luckily there's a backup solution for that.
landofMordor
Administrator
On ONE and "poisonous" mechanics:
How are linearity and complexity related?
ONE's premier mechanics (Toxic, Corrupted) and similarly linear mechanics (Jason called them "poisonous", but I'm going with MaRo's definition) want you to play with a sufficient density of similar abilities. In this case, Poison. Many cube designers dismiss these mechanics out of hand, saying it's impossible to generate good gameplay using these linear ingredients. However, individual cards with linear mechanics may still have modular designs!
Imagine Mother of Runes with Infect or Toxic 1. She's still a modular design, even though she's been given a linear mechanic. (Infect might even improve the design, as its all-or-nothing nature would disincentivize Mom's controller from putting their shield down by attacking.) And conversely -- Savannah Lions is a very linear design despite the lack of any rules text, modular or otherwise.
Play pattern is generated by mechanics interacting with card design. A linear mechanic doesn't necessitate linear cards. As cube designers, we say we dislike linear mechanics, when we often mean linear play patterns.
But there's something else implied by "I dislike linear mechanics," and that's how Linearity meets Complexity. Look at Anoint with Affliction, a Smother variant with 2 forms of pure upside (exile, and Corrupted). If Smother is strong in a cube, then Anoint would be, too. The linearity of Corrupted won't affect the play patterns of Anoint. But as I argue in the OP, irrelevant rules text is strictly negative from a complexity standpoint. Anoint is the proof of that statement. Without Poison in a cube, there's literally 0 ways to turn on Corrupted, meaning that Corrupted is at best meaningless and at worst actively confusing or misleading.
That's why Melira irks me so much in my own cube, when another recent "watchwolf with negligible upside" like Hajar, Loyal Bodyguard doesn't. Melira makes it obvious that she's adding complexity with zero upside to my format. Hajar at least allows me to delude myself that I'll get some novel play patterns (even if I suspect it's a 5% likelihood at best).
What other cards offer lots of complexity for minimal upside? What's the inflection point when that complexity/novelty tradeoff converges to just being another Corrupted?
[partial repost from my cube blog, re-posting here because Corrupted's effect in a non-Poison cube was such a stark example of needless complexity.]
How are linearity and complexity related?
ONE's premier mechanics (Toxic, Corrupted) and similarly linear mechanics (Jason called them "poisonous", but I'm going with MaRo's definition) want you to play with a sufficient density of similar abilities. In this case, Poison. Many cube designers dismiss these mechanics out of hand, saying it's impossible to generate good gameplay using these linear ingredients. However, individual cards with linear mechanics may still have modular designs!
Imagine Mother of Runes with Infect or Toxic 1. She's still a modular design, even though she's been given a linear mechanic. (Infect might even improve the design, as its all-or-nothing nature would disincentivize Mom's controller from putting their shield down by attacking.) And conversely -- Savannah Lions is a very linear design despite the lack of any rules text, modular or otherwise.
Play pattern is generated by mechanics interacting with card design. A linear mechanic doesn't necessitate linear cards. As cube designers, we say we dislike linear mechanics, when we often mean linear play patterns.
But there's something else implied by "I dislike linear mechanics," and that's how Linearity meets Complexity. Look at Anoint with Affliction, a Smother variant with 2 forms of pure upside (exile, and Corrupted). If Smother is strong in a cube, then Anoint would be, too. The linearity of Corrupted won't affect the play patterns of Anoint. But as I argue in the OP, irrelevant rules text is strictly negative from a complexity standpoint. Anoint is the proof of that statement. Without Poison in a cube, there's literally 0 ways to turn on Corrupted, meaning that Corrupted is at best meaningless and at worst actively confusing or misleading.
That's why Melira irks me so much in my own cube, when another recent "watchwolf with negligible upside" like Hajar, Loyal Bodyguard doesn't. Melira makes it obvious that she's adding complexity with zero upside to my format. Hajar at least allows me to delude myself that I'll get some novel play patterns (even if I suspect it's a 5% likelihood at best).
What other cards offer lots of complexity for minimal upside? What's the inflection point when that complexity/novelty tradeoff converges to just being another Corrupted?
[partial repost from my cube blog, re-posting here because Corrupted's effect in a non-Poison cube was such a stark example of needless complexity.]
I think it comes down to the expectations you'd like to present to your drafters. Unnecessary fluff on cards creates distractions that you as the cube designer can just gloss over due to so much exposure with your own list, but the same cannot be expected of players that might draft your cube a few times a year. They're going to do what they normally do in a limited draft and look for synergies between cards.
If I have a card like Harbin, Vanguard Aviator in my cube the first thing that drafters notice isn't going to be the upside of a 3/2 flyer for two mana but rather that it cares about soldiers. If I can jump through this hoop, I get even MORE upside and that's definitely what I should be aiming for. Then in subsequent packs they will be on the lookout for other soldiers, maybe end up with a few incidentally, but then ultimately wind up disappointed that they couldn't really reach the final destination of a functional U/W soldiers deck. I don't think you ever want your players to feel like they got "tricked" while going down a path during the draft process.
I feel like a good comparison to focus on are two red one drops while we're at it: Falkenrath Pit Fighter and Falkenrath Gorger. At their core the two of these cards are 2/1s for 1 that promote additional upside. The difference to me is that Gorger seems to hint more towards a dedicated Madness or Vampire theme whereas Pit Fighter does it less so as it can always be cashed in as a Tormenting Voice variant by itself. It's a self-contained card that doesn't rely upon others for the rest of the text to be relevant, but can promote additional upside in some scenarios. Kind of like how Falkenrath Aristocrat has additional upside if you sac a Human to it. That's the main reason I was excited to run it once it got printed whereas Gorger wasn't worth the explanation of no, there aren't actually that many vampires in this cube.
You just never want to mislead your drafters. Putting in a bunch of cool cards is fun and all, but mixing up disparate mechanics and qualifiers and additional lines of text does become draining to all but the most experienced of drafters. It's one thing if a player doesn't end up with the critical density necessary for an established archetype, another thing when they feel like they were given the wrongs signs to follow. I try to avoid that second scenario as much as possible.
If I have a card like Harbin, Vanguard Aviator in my cube the first thing that drafters notice isn't going to be the upside of a 3/2 flyer for two mana but rather that it cares about soldiers. If I can jump through this hoop, I get even MORE upside and that's definitely what I should be aiming for. Then in subsequent packs they will be on the lookout for other soldiers, maybe end up with a few incidentally, but then ultimately wind up disappointed that they couldn't really reach the final destination of a functional U/W soldiers deck. I don't think you ever want your players to feel like they got "tricked" while going down a path during the draft process.
I feel like a good comparison to focus on are two red one drops while we're at it: Falkenrath Pit Fighter and Falkenrath Gorger. At their core the two of these cards are 2/1s for 1 that promote additional upside. The difference to me is that Gorger seems to hint more towards a dedicated Madness or Vampire theme whereas Pit Fighter does it less so as it can always be cashed in as a Tormenting Voice variant by itself. It's a self-contained card that doesn't rely upon others for the rest of the text to be relevant, but can promote additional upside in some scenarios. Kind of like how Falkenrath Aristocrat has additional upside if you sac a Human to it. That's the main reason I was excited to run it once it got printed whereas Gorger wasn't worth the explanation of no, there aren't actually that many vampires in this cube.
You just never want to mislead your drafters. Putting in a bunch of cool cards is fun and all, but mixing up disparate mechanics and qualifiers and additional lines of text does become draining to all but the most experienced of drafters. It's one thing if a player doesn't end up with the critical density necessary for an established archetype, another thing when they feel like they were given the wrongs signs to follow. I try to avoid that second scenario as much as possible.
landofMordor
Administrator
+1 to this! With the acknowledgement that drafters are unpredictable and will sometimes mislead themselves, no additional help needed. (Last month, a drafter literally played Mono-White [to decent success] in my cube built around 3-color decks. How they didn't pick any dual lands at all is beyond me.)
But even worse than misleading, IMO, is confusing my drafters. Like, it's fine for them to explore the untraveled path once in awhile. But I feel most miserable when I see my drafters cringing during gameplay because I underestimated their cards' complexity:
- "You'll just have to trust me that this is what Foretell without reminder text means. No, you can't cast it this turn"
- "Yes, crystallinegiant.com is necessary for me to track this game piece"
- "What do you mean, you take the Initiative from me?"
- "I didn't know that's what Daybound meant, I would have acted differently..."
- "See, you can't actually open that Attraction because you didn't draft at least 3 of them..."
That's a bit of a tangent from the Toxic/Corrupted discussion, as those are mechanics which are less likely to confuse and more likely to mislead. I just bring it up because it is experience I try to avoid even more than my drafters pursuing an unsupported deck.
Last edited: