General [Design Discussion] Perfect Imbalance

[Diakonov]

What I further liked about this was where he discusses first order optimal strategies, which I find are a plague upon cube, and while this may not represent a format solution, certainly feels like it cheats a format. It also represents natural imbalance within the cube, creating a benefit to running tech that requires the player to adjust their tactics when a first order optimal strategy presents itself. This adds depth to a format both due to the changing card evaluations it demands, but also because it prevents players from experiencing a format through the lens of a rather shallow strategy.

For an (again simplistic) example, let us pretend that my formats first order optimal strategy is to draft hexproof creatures like



Who is again our element A, causing other plays to start thinking of ways to counter that strategy, perhaps by drafting our old standby element B



This causes the troll player to adjust their tactics by drafting



Which causes us to--ok, ok, I'm partially trolling here, but seriously, the bouncelands (of which there are 20 in the cube) kind of were a first order optimal strategy here (though actually transition to being really deep cards: an important distinction), which has triggered a pretty extensive meta strategy chain from the formats inception.

I think that was kind of the missing part of the puzzle from the OP, as far as cube was concerned: to have a meta react there has to be some strategic bulwark its responding to, which is unlikely to exist solely off of troll/edict style relationships (though those relationships are beneficial on a micro scale, just because they provide greater depth to individual cards, which cumulatively is positive for a format). However, when you have a real density of a card type that offers huge rewards, that changes the equation immensely.

Now help me figure out how to do this with higher powered formats

What tools did you supply to handle the bounceland defaulting? Not challenging, just curious. My surface-level guess would be wasteland and friends.

I see where you're coming from, but one potential problem is that an answer to a common strategy isn't necessarily an alternative strategy, but rather specific answers. In other words, perhaps playing a more aggressive strategy counters people abusing bouncelands, but this is probably too broad a response than what you're hoping for, and alternatively players could simply run wasteland effects, but that's likely too specific a response than what you want (since basically any deck could do it).

Since your cubes are so planned out from the ground up it's probably more likely that you can do something with this than most. Although I have loose themes, if someone is playing Dimir in my cube there's a lot of different possibilities for what style of deck they might have built. In your case I think there's a more deterministic game plan for a Dimir deck, comparatively.

In any case, it's a really hard question to answer in general terms. You'd have to come up with a strategy that's ubiquitous enough for players to be able to consistently rely on as a first order optimal strategy (which means they can force it in almost every draft) and then you'd want to have something at least more than half as ubiquitous as that as a counter. I suppose it's theoretically possible, but you're right, it sounds very hard to do...especially with higher powered cards running around.

I can't help but ask, is it really worth it when there are so many other approaches?

If this is the narrative you want though, it's probably best to start with specific hypotheticals. How about using the flying/reach dynamic?

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

What tools did you supply to handle the bounceland defaulting? Not challenging, just curious. My surface-level guess would be wasteland and friends.

I can't help but ask, is it really worth it when there are so many other approaches?

If this is the narrative you want though, it's probably best to start with specific hypotheticals. How about using the flying/reach dynamic?

Yeah, it is 100% worth it. Its a great feeling of accomplishment knowing you have a format that can be considered finished, as is watching players grow and develop with it, especially when it stands up to their attempts to break it.

Wasteland is a card for a completely different format, one where you are looking for higher velocity games, and lots of activity in the opening turns that wants non-spell land destruction. It would be punitive in a bounceland format.

The disruptive package I've been happy with is:





Acidic slime is really pushed for the format, but all of the others move up or down the pick order depending on how bounceland focused the metagame is at that time. We've had some people (such as myself) start to draft around these hate cards, because of how greedy some of these bounceland decks have been getting. This has caused a drafting shift, making the gainlands and scrylands more important. This in turn impacts how valid of a strategy it is to draft around bounceland disrupting cards (yes, I can beat rescind on my scry land ) . Since its likely that we will eventually see a decline in the number of people willing to draft around hate cards, at that point someone (which will be me if no one else does, because I like to win) will start prioritizing the bounce lands again.

Obviously it won't be an actual cycle (really though, its close enough), but there will be a sort of hemispheric tug and pull between different parts of the cube, and because its rooted in the mana base, those ripples are pretty far reaching. Seeing as I'm still relatively a novice at that type of design, I'm sure there are other ways to implement it even better into an environment.

I'm actually still mildly obsessed with fetchlands, and would like some better ways to tie them into a format (that doesn't involve landfall or brainstorm).

 

[Quirk]

This in turn impacts how valid of a strategy it is to draft around bounceland disrupting cards (yes, I can beat rescind on my scry land ) . Since its likely that we will eventually see a decline in the number of people willing to draft around hate cards, at that point someone (which will be me if no one else does, because I like to win) will start prioritizing the bounce lands again.

Grillo, take your designer hat off and put your player hat on.

Most of these cards are not "bounceland hate" over here in Playersville. They're answers to non-creature permanents. They're not going away. Getting a bounceland isn't even Magical Christmas Land with Mold Shambler; blowing up a white enchantment and getting my best creature back is closer. The worst case always was a basic land. The evaluation no more than twitches if we remove all the bouncelands from the format; if I think someone becomes 20% less likely to put them in their deck, the effect there is entirely negligible.

Think about this: as a player, are you really concerned that there are bouncelands in other people's decks when you draft? Bouncelands don't need answering. If you saw Spreading Seas in a pack you'd probably pass it.

This is what I mean about cards being evaluated against the format as a whole. Yeah, Riftwing Cloudskate makes bouncelands worse, but that's not why you pick it. You pick it because it's broadly useful against many things you will face. A card so narrow that it only punishes bouncelands is really embarrassing against any deck without them.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

Grillo, take your designer hat off and put your player hat on.

Most of these cards are not "bounceland hate" over here in Playersville. They're answers to non-creature permanents. They're not going away. Getting a bounceland isn't even Magical Christmas Land with Mold Shambler; blowing up a white enchantment and getting my best creature back is closer. The worst case always was a basic land. The evaluation no more than twitches if we remove all the bouncelands from the format; if I think someone becomes 20% less likely to put them in their deck, the effect there is entirely negligible.

Think about this: as a player, are you really concerned that there are bouncelands in other people's decks when you draft? Bouncelands don't need answering. If you saw Spreading Seas in a pack you'd probably pass it.

This is what I mean about cards being evaluated against the format as a whole. Yeah, Riftwing Cloudskate makes bouncelands worse, but that's not why you pick it. You pick it because it's broadly useful against many things you will face. A card so narrow that it only punishes bouncelands is really embarrassing against any deck without them.

If you don't want to engage in the conversation you don't have to post. You keep on expecting me to prove a negative, which I can't do, and it just isn't possible to have a productive conversation on these terms.

I very clearly stated that the evaluations of the cards changed in response to bouncelands becoming more popular. They may have started as just "answers to non-creature permanents" but when resolving one became a viable strategy in itself against decks that are being greedy with their manabase, that changed the card evaluation and moved it up the pick order.

If you want to have a conversation we can have a conversation, but you'll going to have to be a bit more open minded. I just simply don't have the time or energy to devote to proving a negative, and it just makes for boring reading anyways.

 

[Jason Waddell]

Let's calm it down bros. Good points on both sides, we all love each other, etc. et al

 

[ahadabans]

Its a great feeling of accomplishment knowing you have a format that can be considered finished, as is watching players grow and develop with it, especially when it stands up to their attempts to break it.

This is the penny pincher cube, right? I'm kind of curious about this comment. How are you defining finished? Does that mean you aren't adding any new cards to it at all? Or just that the themes are set and at this point you are just swapping like cards if something gets printed that fits better than what you have?

My thought on this is that no format is every truly finished. It can always be improved. Wizards only finishes a block because they print it. But even the best block ever printed (insert whatever you feel that is), if you take a postmortem you will be able to point out things that didn't work or could have been improved. Even my beloved Ravnica block, Radiance was kind of lame. Since cubes never have a "release date" per se, in my mind they can continually be improved over time no matter how well you dial them in.

 

[FlowerSunRain]

This is the penny pincher cube, right? I'm kind of curious about this comment. How are you defining finished? Does that mean you aren't adding any new cards to it at all? Or just that the themes are set and at this point you are just swapping like cards if something gets printed that fits better than what you have?

My thought on this is that no format is every truly finished. It can always be improved. Wizards only finishes a block because they print it. But even the best block ever printed (insert whatever you feel that is), if you take a postmortem you will be able to point out things that didn't work or could have been improved. Even my beloved Ravnica block, Radiance was kind of lame. Since cubes never have a "release date" per se, in my mind they can continually be improved over time no matter how well you dial them in.

There is something to be said for a finished product. You know for certain every time you play it, it will be the game you remember. Your knowledge and experience playing the game never becomes irrelevant. The flaws in the game can become part of the unique charm rather then something that must be fixed. You can really sit down an study the game without having to worry whatever you find will be patched out. You can talk to anyone whose ever played the game at any point in the game's existence and know you are actually discussing the same thing. You can have a definitive opinion on the product and know with certainty what its role in your collection is. You can grow with the game and watch as you change in relation to it. At some point the incremental benefits of improving the game no longer seem worth what you lose by changing it.

I can safely say there are a lot of games that I enjoy that I would have significantly less (possible no) interest in if they were "unfinished".

 

[Jason Waddell]

There is something to be said for a finished product. You know for certain every time you play it, it will be the game you remember. Your knowledge and experience playing the game never becomes irrelevant. The flaws in the game can become part of the unique charm rather then something that must be fixed. You can really sit down an study the game without having to worry whatever you find will be patched out. You can talk to anyone whose ever played the game at any point in the game's existence and know you are actually discussing the same thing. You can have a definitive opinion on the product and know with certainty what its role in your collection is. You can grow with the game and watch as you change in relation to it. At some point the incremental benefits of improving the game no longer seem worth what you lose by changing it.

I can safely say there are a lot of games that I enjoy that I would have significantly less (possible no) interest in if they were "unfinished".

This is kind of how Melee is. Nobody is arguing that it couldn't be improved, but its imperfections have come to represent part of its charm. The fact that the game continues to evolve despite 0 code updates is a testament to the community.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

Its at a point where the amount of inertia to overcome for a new card to enter it is very high. Because of the ways cards interact with another, I would fight most cuts at this point (you could probably convince me on goldnight commander and maybe triad of fates). In the Penny cube, card interactions are latticed (as described here), which is where a lot of the inertia to new includes or cuts comes from.

That being said, since I don't have to submit it, I'm ok with making occasional updates (though, like I said, lots of inertia to doing this). For a variety of reasons, I am also comfortable with people making tweaks to the gold section to keep things feeling fresh. This way I can have my cake and eat it too.

Also, what this guy said:

There is something to be said for a finished product. You know for certain every time you play it, it will be the game you remember. Your knowledge and experience playing the game never becomes irrelevant. The flaws in the game can become part of the unique charm rather then something that must be fixed. You can really sit down an study the game without having to worry whatever you find will be patched out. You can talk to anyone whose ever played the game at any point in the game's existence and know you are actually discussing the same thing. You can have a definitive opinion on the product and know with certainty what its role in your collection is. You can grow with the game and watch as you change in relation to it. At some point the incremental benefits of improving the game no longer seem worth what you lose by changing it.

I can safely say there are a lot of games that I enjoy that I would have significantly less (possible no) interest in if they were "unfinished".

There is also kind of an ethical aspect for me, since each of my cubes has been built by someone else, and when you know that someone is putting down real money on a design, its ramps up the pressure to have it deliver on their investment in your ideas. I don't like it when someone copies a format that I feel is in a state of perpetual beta testing (which is kind of how I feel about the innistrad theme cube at this point). Its important to me that after they get done with the discovery phase of the format, that the raw mechanics can support the format in a self-contained fashion, and players don't become immediately bored.

Even if these sorts of meta relationships aren't cyclical in nature, if they facilitate good raw mechanical interactions thats great; this helps set the stage for the post-discovery phase of the cube's life cycle, which is more about how well you can execute established strategies than discovering new ones. If they also extend out the discovery phase of the cube than thats even better.

 

[sigh]

I very clearly stated that the evaluations of the cards changed in response to bouncelands becoming more popular.

I can confirm the opposite of this too, with bouncelands going out in an overall speed-up of my environment during overhaul. Getting that pillage isn't quite as cool anymore, and cloudskate targets other things more than it used to (For two examples). And I can confirm that I did actually pick cloudskate over other things just because it had the added "gotcha" of bouncelands.

Even if these sorts of meta relationships aren't cyclical in nature, if they facilitate good raw mechanical interactions thats great

Yes. And I do like what's been said above and in other threads about maximizing interaction, lowering curves, and pushing complexity. Too much of a good thing is of course something to watch out for, but I think striving for such an environment (up to the limit of "good") is a important Step 0 if you will.

 

[Quirk]

If you don't want to engage in the conversation you don't have to post. You keep on expecting me to prove a negative, which I can't do, and it just isn't possible to have a productive conversation on these terms.

Sorry.

I didn't mean to rile, but I'm looking back at my last post, and the words "terse" and "combative" seem fair descriptions of it, and I feel like I didn't accord you enough respect.

To try and explain where I'm coming from: the Extra Credits crew are now kind of on probation with me, having been caught peddling the game theory equivalent of pseudo-science, and I'm a bit sensitive to discussions phrased in their terms, and assuming that their models are substantially valid. In particular, I'm dubious about their assertions about "metagames" given the weakness of their model of "strategy". So when I saw a list of "hate cards" which included a number of cards I'd probably pick quite highly in a non-superpowered cube, and a description that discussed them using a "metagame" model, I went off, perhaps a bit unfairly. I do think "draft around those hate cards" might have been a slight overstatement from you; I would have expected a slight increase in pick order once people appreciated that bouncelands were in the format, not a "plan" built around expensive land destruction.

The controversial bit for me was the assertion that you not prioritising bouncelands will affect other players to the point that they will stop "drafting round these hate cards". I perceive most of these cards as well above the threshold of runnable without bouncelands, and "bouncelands leaving the format" and "some of the other players are picking them at a lower priority" are to me very very different things. The first changes the format, and we'll all agree that that changes evaluations; whether the second changes evaluations enough to be visible in a typical cube environment, well, I think the jury's kind of out.

And yes, you clearly stated that "the evaluations of the cards changed in response to bouncelands becoming more popular". If you'd begun with empirical data, and details on how they changed, and showed that it was really current popularity rather than improved understanding of the format, I would have bought it. But we started with a story based on the models of folk whose excuse for empirical evidence is frankly crap, and it's hard for me to judge how much confirmation bias is coming into play here.

And as Jason says: I love you, bro. If you think the conversation's too heated, we can break it off. If the explanation helps, maybe we can carry it on more coolly. If the explanation irritates, I probably shouldn't have typed it with a beer in me, and I apologise again, for being a boor, and I'll shut up.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

Its ok, honestly I was rather enjoying you and fsr's deconstruction of the extra credits episodes, which was actually very helpful.

Because of all of the bouncelands and other CIPT lands, the format is slower, so our turn 4 feels somewhat approximate to a normal formats turn 2, in the sense that most decks are starting to become very active turns 3-4, after spending turns 1-2 on development. The land disruption package (and especially the land destruction) has been very carefully vetted, because one of the underlining game principles of the format was to reduce negative variance. I still wanted (needed) a disruption package, but not one priced so low that it blows people out of the game. Thankfully because the format is slower, I can run higher CC land destruction, which makes land destruction in general feel much less punative than in faster formats.

Its hard to talk about empirical data from a format so structurally different from what everyone else is used to (as the above attests to), and I was hoping to sort of ease into that conversation, or better yet, transition to more relatable cards.

Perhaps the way I want to describe this, is having disruptive elements in the cube, that are reasonable against the field, but tailored to be especially effective against a specific element.

 

[ahadabans]

I'm getting lost in all this abstract discussion going back and forth. How about we talk specific applications? I'm totally willing to accept that you've spent enough time with the Penny Pincher cube that you have been able to apply these ideas and do this:

Perhaps the way I want to describe this, is having disruptive elements in the cube, that are reasonable against the field, but tailored to be especially effective against a specific element.

So, where do we take this at higher power levels?

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

I'm getting lost in all this abstract discussion going back and forth. How about we talk specific applications? I'm totally willing to accept that you've spent enough time with the Penny Pincher cube that you have been able to apply these ideas and do this:

So, where do we take this at higher power levels?

I've tried to make some sketches, here, but the harder part is that higher power cards are so much more nuanced that lower power cards, that fully understanding everything they can do, and presenting it in a way where plays will understand it, I'm finding hard. Theres only one eternal format I'm familiar with that has this type of disruption lattice (if we want to term it as such) and that is legacy. Porting those exact ideas over to a cube format is really difficult.

There are a few, however, that I have been looking at:

1. dash creatures vs. sorcery speed mass removal, vs. instant speed removal
2. X/1 based strategies vs. damage division burn vs. cheap vertical growth threats. Stuff like mana dork, vs. forked lightning, vs. goyf.
3. Removal resistant threats vs. tailored answer. This could be stuff like finks vs. magma spray, or thrun vs. edict. The finks/thrun deck can run physically larger creatures or relevant fodder (like finks itself) to create negative removal spaces. Or languish vs. indestructible creatures.
4. Tap effects vs. untap effects. Stuff like dungeon geists vs. er... something. Not sure quirion ranger cuts it here.

I would also like to see the army-in-a-can and token strategies reworked away from boring stuff like anthems and spectral procession, more to where they provide defensive applications against certain types of removal, as well as playing a board control plan, or supplementing sacrifice strategies.


I've also been brainstorming cards (besides wasteland) to support a non-basic mana disruption plan.

 

[ahadabans]

You've done a great job keeping this conversation going. 5 pages now of (at times) pretty abstract stuff. And yet guys are still posting novels.

I'm very interested in ways to do tokens differently. A big problem I find is any amount of support for that strategy almost requires sweeper effects or it boils games down to is your strategy against tokens faster/more powerful (no? then you lose). And it's a pretty polarizing situation a lot of times too. Even with a lot of spot removal, it's highly ineffective against things like Lingering Souls + Anthem. I'm resorting to running a bunch of sweeper effects in testing, but it's heavy handed and I'm open to other solutions.

In a different thread, I tossed out Suture Priest to which I got a pretty lukewarm response (probably justifiably), but it would technically punishes token decks that played against it. The cool part is it's not a heavy handed card for non-token decks the way sweepers can be. Suture Priest specifically hurts token strategies more (while still being something you could play in a token deck).

 

[anotak]

"game theory" isn't at all the same thing as game design or game studies

also i'll get around to responding to that pm at some point

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

You've done a great job keeping this conversation going. 5 pages now of (at times) pretty abstract stuff. And yet guys are still posting novels.

I'm very interested in ways to do tokens differently. A big problem I find is any amount of support for that strategy almost requires sweeper effects or it boils games down to is your strategy against tokens faster/more powerful (no? then you lose). And it's a pretty polarizing situation a lot of times too. Even with a lot of spot removal, it's highly ineffective against things like Lingering Souls + Anthem. I'm resorting to running a bunch of sweeper effects in testing, but it's heavy handed and I'm open to other solutions.

In a different thread, I tossed out Suture Priest to which I got a pretty lukewarm response (probably justifiably), but it would technically punishes token decks that played against it. The cool part is it's not a heavy handed card for non-token decks the way sweepers can be. Suture Priest specifically hurts token strategies more (while still being something you could play in a token deck).

The problem I have with suture priest, is where else does it go? Token decks.

There are a bunch of different approaches you can take. Wide token mechanics are very strong against most forms of spot removal by design. Any sort of pinging effect, pyroclasm effect, mass bounce, or damage split effect is pretty good. Some of those more limited wraths more at instant speed too. I can't recommend a card like darkblast highly enough.

You could also cut the anthems, tokens are fine without them, and I find anthems very boring in general.

 

[Diakonov]

I've also been brainstorming cards (besides wasteland) to support a non-basic mana disruption plan.

I've been doing the same. Fulminator Mage has been in my cube for a while now and is solid. I've been strongly considering Anathemancer. For the moment I'm testing out Ruination...we'll see how that goes. Armageddon is busted but I do miss that sort of effect.

I'm very interested in ways to do tokens differently. A big problem I find is any amount of support for that strategy almost requires sweeper effects or it boils games down to is your strategy against tokens faster/more powerful (no? then you lose). And it's a pretty polarizing situation a lot of times too. Even with a lot of spot removal, it's highly ineffective against things like Lingering Souls + Anthem. I'm resorting to running a bunch of sweeper effects in testing, but it's heavy handed and I'm open to other solutions.

This is one reason why I've held onto Detention Sphere and Maelstrom Pulse. Also, you've got:



I guess some of these may qualify as sweepers, but I don't think of Ratchet Bomb as heavy handed.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

The thing that I really like about fulminator Mage is that you can use it with rise // fall or kolaghan's command in an unearth recursion style deck.

The neat thing about having tokens in the format, is that you can run a broader suite of disruptive removal.



Also, if you are looking for an anthem for your tokens, I would cut the white ones and run



Thats a good opportunity to create some negative space that rewards them for going into black.

 

[ahadabans]

Thanks for all the input. I'm really happy actually because I arrived at much of this on my own during iterative testing, and to see others posting the same provides some validation. I do not want to continue to derail the thread though (something I do too much of around here), so I will post in my cube thread at some point and for those who want to provide feedback I happily invite you to do so. Cheers.

 

[safra]

For the moment I'm testing out Ruination...we'll see how that goes. Armageddon is busted but I do miss that sort of effect.

I have the card you're actually looking for:

 

[ahadabans]

How about Cataclysm? There are a lot of interesting strategies you can build around that card. Undying/persist creatures play nice with it. Pants style decks (single badass creature with equip + aura), etc. It's powerful but is harder to break than Armageddon.

 

[shamizy]

Yes, I'd go with safra's suggestion. Ruination is a very feelbad card if you end up going 3 colors. You get punished so hard for trying to fix your mana. If you don't want your drafters to hate you, run the fairer version of it so that you don't have as many non-games. Using a Cataclysm or Armageddon on board is one thing, but it's just so much more demoralizing to see your opponents landbase left untouched.

 

[Quirk]

I think the concept forming in my head round this, based in large measure on Grillo's description, is what I guess I'd call "cohesive diversity" - varying themes supported by multiple cards which have distinct payoffs when drafted together but also distinct weaknesses that can be exploited. Tokens are perhaps a good example of such a theme, with their weakness to bounce and blink effects, though a problem with tokens cards is that most of them create multiple bodies, which pushes sweepers - already excellent cards. The trick is to find ways for your themes to interact naturally.

I think the cohesiveness is harder with more powerful cards because the choice of A-class cards is narrower than B-class cards - you get powerful but diverse effects which pull you in different directions and no real alternatives at the same power level that support cohesiveness of themes better.

 

[Jason Waddell]

I feel like there's some vague relation to sideboarding in this thread but I can't quite come up with anything useful.

Cataclysm is cool, I should probably put it back in my list. There are a lot of different ways to break the symmetry, and each feels fairly unique.