General Emotional Spikes in Cube Design

In our cube sessions my reject rare cube has offered me and my gaming group the biggest emotional spikes. People are laughing when drafting. Yelling when they find a stupid synergy that might actually work. Scream in despair from seeing cards like Mammoth Harness.

The game play can be pretty slow at times, since gray ogres are the bread and butter of the format. This gives leeway to wacky interactions that normally couldn't work. People try to pull off Celestial Convergence wins, Laboratory Maniac wins, Shared Fate wins, Infernal Spawn of Infernal Spawn of Evil wins (multiple search effects), Doomsday, Ion Storm, Primal Surge, Helix Pinnacle (happened twice already!) and so forth...

I'm not sure is it that people lay down their arms when they hear we are playing the Reject Rare Cube - or does it happen after they start to draft and see the packs and for quite some time feel moments of despair, because the cube is actually a really tricky one where you have to squeeze every inch of value and synergy out of cards that inherently don't have that much value in them. In this cube, drafting your deck for 2 packs in might seem like you don't really have any clue what your deck will be doing and maybe at that point you kind of realize that the environment isn't that competitive, just the opposite. The mood is way more upbeat when we start to play this cube, it's a great feeling actually. People just KNOW you can build around at your choosing without getting t4 killed every time you are trying to go deep.

Funny enough people still clearly prefer my main cube over Reject Rare Cube even though through laughter and friendly banter you would think otherwise. My gaming group consists of players who are from the both ends of the spectrum. The fun first gamers and the wins first gamers. Still it seems the main cube appeals to all of them over the Reject Rare Cube. Is it because the environment is more "safe" and familiar for them to explore and they don't want to work that hard mentally to achieve their goals in any given game? In short is the main cube more elegant and that's why it appeals more? Is it the shorter play time that matters the most ? Or maybe getting the real value plays are what drives each player the most - drawing 6 cards in a turn with Mulldrifter is a more powerful and rewarding feeling than milling a player out with Timesifter?

Not sure if anyone catches my drift here, i totally just let my mind flow on this post. But now that i think what drives players to a cube might actually be to be in search of "big plays". Playing a dude and putting a sword in his hand doesn't reward as much as drawing millions of card, or using Sun Titan to get something nasty back over and over again. Could there be a format where every card decision would OOZE of big plays without being a power cube... i have to chew on this for a moment, it could lead me to something really sweet.
 
Been lurking awhile on this topic and hope that this ramble is somewhat coherent given my time constraint! (FWIW, I imagine this topic to be a pickup artist spinoff and want to manipulate unsuspecting MTG players into drafting with me and enjoying it.)

Funny enough people still clearly prefer my main cube over Reject Rare Cube even though through laughter and friendly banter you would think otherwise. My gaming group consists of players who are from the both ends of the spectrum. The fun first gamers and the wins first gamers. Still it seems the main cube appeals to all of them over the Reject Rare Cube. [...]

Not sure if anyone catches my drift here, i totally just let my mind flow on this post. But now that i think what drives players to a cube might actually be to be in search of "big plays". [...] Could there be a format where every card decision would OOZE of big plays without being a power cube... i have to chew on this for a moment, it could lead me to something really sweet.


Your player base's buy-in of the reject rare cube is interesting! I wonder if the notion of it disarms what has seemed to be some Magic players' inclinations to shy away from unknown cards when not on equal footing. Let me word this inclination as a paraphrase one of my playtest group said about cubing (but mostly gaming in general) a long time ago:

I don't really enjoy playing board games with [my brother and his group]: either they are playing something for the 15th time and have an understanding much better than me or they are playing sometime for the first time and we have to learn the game together. Usually, when I am looking to play a game, neither of these appeal to me; I want to compete on an equal level with individuals that understand what they are doing.

And despite having played as much Magic as I have, cube boils down to the same types of experiences more often than not.

Part of me wonders how retail drafting/MTGO cubing/competitive MTG would be perceived without the Internet to disseminate strategies and deck lists...

To touch on power cubing, the unfamiliarity of the card pool always seemed to a smaller concern than the payoff of playing with MTG's iconic posterchildren. At my last real LGS, Standard/EDH players would take breaks to power cube, but they often would not be interested in weirder 'cubes' (aka mine). The endorphins must flow (fire? whatever those happy brain chemicals do) like water when someone opens up P9 in a cube pack or opening-draws one.

From my experience, cubing has been like bringing the next big new thing in cuisine to a potluck. Aunt Sally never had guacamole in the hovel, but damn, even though it looked like a cross between sewage and cut grass, how delicious it was! Onion and cumin and cilantro and lime- so many flavors! With Auntie trying new things, why not try some Marmite? :( Power cube is just some steak and potatoes shit (or eggplant parmigiana or whatever if you're not into meat); players know they'll be happy when they eat it.

My question is, to actually be on-on-topic, what emotions do MTG players want to experience when playing the game? Which of these experiences when combined with the opponent's produce a net positive? How can a cube designer allude to the experience occurring through a few sentences or card choices?

How can you get someone excited with:
 
Your player base's buy-in of the reject rare cube is interesting! I wonder if the notion of it disarms what has seemed to be some Magic players' inclinations to shy away from unknown cards when not on equal footing. Let me word this inclination as a paraphrase one of my playtest group said about cubing (but mostly gaming in general) a long time ago:

I don't really enjoy playing board games with [my brother and his group]: either they are playing something for the 15th time and have an understanding much better than me or they are playing sometime for the first time and we have to learn the game together. Usually, when I am looking to play a game, neither of these appeal to me; I want to compete on an equal level with individuals that understand what they are doing.

And despite having played as much Magic as I have, cube boils down to the same types of experiences more often than not.


This resonates with me. And it might explain why my initial cube experience has not been equaled. Because it was the perfect storm. I built a cube of mostly older cards and played with a bunch of veteran Magic players. And while we all knew how to play Magic, we had never played this collection of cards in this way. So everything was new and yet it was not new.

Then over time, guys starting breaking that cube which led me to my current iteration which I think is much harder to abuse despite being high power level. But the efficiency (not sure that the right word) of deck lists... I don't know... it stifles exploration? It's not that you can't build a ton of viable decks, you just need to stay on the highway. It's a wide highway, but it's still a constraint to some extent. I also have a big advantage because I know the hidden synergies. I don't draft to win really. I don't like losing every match so I avoid making bad decks, but I'm always testing the weak points or pushing things to see how far I can take something (good or bad). At least one person in my group is not a big fan of that. Not sure I have a solution for any of this. Just fun to discuss.
 

Grillo_Parlante

Contributor
Yeah, I like that highway analogy. The formats become focused on a ground game, operating between certain CCs, with more of an emphasis on value generation as a way to incrementally creep ahead. The games move forward (which is good), but they are very non-offensive in nature, and there is a certain consistency to them, their structure, and the cards that comprise them.

Sure, you don't have the problem of the old power cubes, where you min/max the exciting grbs part of the cube and than ignore the other in an unsatisfying binary manner--but thats only because the entire cube structure has been diverted into feeding into this specific form of min/maxing.

ugh/ so complicated.
 
I definitely believe that you can have an enriching and emotion-generating environment in an incremental, non swingy format. I think a big issue is when it becomes the only way to progress, or the cube is entirely focused on one way of play.

Don't punish exploration. And enable exploration. Have some thematic diversity. I think just doing this, putting a limit on how much focus is put into the theme, is a huge step. I'm seeing a perfect example of this developing in the "old borders" cube, where keeping lands in theme might lead to poorer mana bases, and thus less creative freedom. As ahadabans argues, breaking away to put in a nice modern mana base would help a lot with tough mana requirements (less feel bad from screw), enabling more experimentation into three colors, more cool splashes, etc.
 
I have never lost with nor won against a T3 Ashiok in Cube. Unless you have a way to deal with it in hand, it is one of the most uninteractive cards I've ever played with. 3 mana walkers that jump up to 5 loyalty on deployment are damn near unstoppable that early in the game unless you're playing aggro and have already put 3-4 power on board. If you have ways of protecting it via removal or bodies to stick in front of attackers, it will just carry you to victory. If it was 2UB, I would cube it in a heartbeat. By turn 4, you can expect your opponent to have some board presence unless they're straight up durdle control (which Ashiok was designed to punish). I don't know how many of you have had to deal with a T3, sometimes even a T2, Ashiok on the play but there are fewer things more demoralizing than a card that can kill you without affecting the board or costing additional resources.

It is a cool card that I had a lot of fun with in Standard and own a foil copy because I love the art, but two cube sessions a year and a half back were enough to confirm how busted it was. Maybe if I employed more GRBS it would be tame in comparison, but I don't want to do that.

Huh. I've killed Ashiok a number of times after it was dropped on T3 and have had Ashiok killed out from under me. Sometimes Ashiok survived a turn or two and then died. It usually took some resources, like an attack plus a burn spell, but the game was still winnable afterwards. I also run both Ruinous Path and Hero's Downfall, both of which answer Ashiok cleanly and on curve. It's not impossible, but I cut Ashiok anyway because there were decks that just didn't have any answers to it, period.
 

Eric Chan

Hyalopterous Lemure
Staff member
Ashiok is akin to the planeswalker version of Bribery: they're great against half of the field (especially on the play!), and utterly uesless against the other half. Any green deck leading off with Joraga Treespeaker or the like is probably going to have a rough time against Ashiok, while small weenie decks are thrilled to see an Ashiok on the other side of the table. Really swingy cards like this don't do a whole lot for me - and even when Ashiok is doing their thing, is either player really having that much fun?
 

Jason Waddell

Administrator
Staff member
Haven't been able to read this whole thread yet, but I would like to mention one of my early cube experiments.



When I put these two together, I just felt bad for my opponent. Sometimes it's hard to know how something will play out emotionally until you run it.
 

Grillo_Parlante

Contributor
Anyone have any thoughts on



The ashiok discussion made me think of it

I also thought Chris' opinions on flipped



being unbeatable were interesting
 
Kytheon seems fair enough to me. You almost always have to spend 4 total mana (or more) to make the flip happen, and maybe suicide another creature. Thats standard investment amount for a walker, and his abilities seem to fit that investment just fine. Can even be a poor mana investment if they removal in response to the ability.

Strongly dislike Wasteland in Cube, though. Format safety mechanisms shouldn't have to resort to potentially ultra swingy LD. Great in Legacy, which isn't a draft format, overbearing in a carefully balanced custom environment
 
I wouldn't play Wasteland in a format with bounces but I like it well enough in traditional (Fetch/Shock/ABU) manabases. I mean, you can always fetch basics if you don't want to get Wasted, right?
 

Chris Taylor

Contributor
I wouldn't play Wasteland in a format with bounces but I like it well enough in traditional (Fetch/Shock/ABU) manabases. I mean, you can always fetch basics if you don't want to get Wasted, right?

This. (Not that I'll ever be able to teach my players that. Lucas seems to think the answer is to aggressively hatedraft the wastelands :rolleyes:. Look, no matter how I feel about a card they aren't in my cube for people to NOT play with them.)

But I do understand that if bouncelands are key to the format you're trying to make, you'd sideline wasteland type effects.
Kytheon seems fair enough to me. You almost always have to spend 4 total mana (or more) to make the flip happen, and maybe suicide another creature. Thats standard investment amount for a walker, and his abilities seem to fit that investment just fine. Can even be a poor mana investment if they removal in response to the ability.

Strongly dislike Wasteland in Cube, though. Format safety mechanisms shouldn't have to resort to potentially ultra swingy LD. Great in Legacy, which isn't a draft format, overbearing in a carefully balanced custom environment
Maybe this was more of an issue to me because of the presence of R1 make two raging goblins, and partially it was probably because of a few ways he could swing through undeterred (usually there to help boost the low creature count prowess decks, eg: Emerge Unscathed), but I found that he was basically a perfectly solid (maybe a little above average) 2/1 for W, with the upside of about 20% of the time, he flipped, made something valuable indestructible, was completely unassailable as a result, and often the person still had 2-3 mana left over, where casting anything else put the game well out of reach.

I had the same problem with flip jace actually, where he's this fine 2 mana blue creature but sometimes you untap t4 and flashback the wrath that they spent a whole turn duressing, making their turn 1 completely useless, or sometimes they don't have a great board, so you flip him and nullify one of their creatures entirely, leaving this 6hp walker on their board which now has 1 less threat AND YOU HAVEN'T EVEN SPENT ANY MANA YET GODDAMNIT.

Well, I suppose he causes an emotional spike. I mean it's the same way I feel when someone reanimates a T1 Elesh Norn, which I don't think is the good kind but hey :p
 

Grillo_Parlante

Contributor
To clarify, the wasteland quarry was assuming a non-bounceland format.

Its a card naturally prone to feel bads, as I think its very results based to ever fetch a non-basic in formats with two-four copies. Are those feel bads enough of a reason not to run it? I know for some formats its an incentive card for aggro, and fills a policing role.
 

Chris Taylor

Contributor
To clarify, the wasteland quarry was assuming a non-bounceland format.

Its a card naturally prone to feel bads, as I think its very results based to ever fetch a non-basic in formats with two-four copies. Are those feel bads enough of a reason not to run it? I know for some formats its an incentive card for aggro, and fills a policing role.

Oh, okay.

Wasteland is a pretty key disruptive tool for aggressive strategies mostly because of its colorless nature. Key observations:
  1. So few decks are capable of running multiples due to mana requirements that usually the 2nd or 3rd wasteland in a game is because of cards like eternal witness. This can feel bad, but also doesn't happen a lot, given how aggressive decks love running 2/1s for 3 with long game style upside :p
  2. It feels a lot more like a key player in a format where manlands are a common occurrence (I run 14/45o, and they're all certainly powerful enough people will slant their decks to include them). Expecting the control deck to just deal with 2-3 more threats per game while they have celestial colonnade in their library somewhere seems a tad unfair, so wasteland can bridge the gap by playing doom blade to treetop village.
  3. The difference in disruptive effect between wasteland and tectonic edge is essentially 100%. I've playtested tectonic edge, and the change in timing and cost to destroy a land essentially relegated them to killing manlands and occasionally color screwing people in really long games, rather than buying turns between you and stabilizing cards like wrath of god or control magic
  4. I've found very few experiences of wasteland causing people to lose games they would otherwise have won, in the 5 years I've been cubing with it. While there are times where people get their second land wastelanded and never come back, very few times has it happened were they actually would have put up a fight with one more land in play; they were screwed no matter what, but wasteland just made it more clear. Like you lose games where you only cast 1 spell before you die, but you still lose games where you cast 2 and they cast like 5. Is it better that wasteland cuts short what are likely forgone conclusions? That's up to you, but any game where someone could have come back were it not for wasteland, they aren't drawing so horribly that it's totally out of the question. (This does hinge on interaction being cheap and abundant, so don't assume this will be the case if removal spells are closer to rite of the serpent than doom blade, and blue is the only color remotely capable of affecting its draw.)
I think the big thing is that if point #4 ever happens to a player, even if it's 1 player in 1000, they seem to remember forever and never forgive you, even if they were going to lose anyways, so it sticks out. It's possible I experience an above average amount of this complaining, since my friends are all hearthstone players so it galls them to have lands in their deck at all :rolleyes:
Pro:



Con:
Now all that being said, I have decided to try and solve a problem that doesn't really need solving, and I'm currently running these instead of wastelands:
LDMA48W.jpg
tOR7mHv.jpg

And lovingly referred to them as wastelands, which I'm sure makes them feel welcome, unique, and as if I pay attention to them :p

Of the two, I feel like (myself in the pro wasteland camp, just in case that wasn't clear) Colonist Camp is the more interesting card to run, both in terms of decisions, and in that it actually does something on turn 10. (Cradle at that point essentially reads "Return target land to it's owners hand")

Also do note that if you're going to use cradle instead that I somehow forgot to mention the player does need to reveal the land, so you should probably fix the templating.
 

Wasteland and Strip Mine without Loam and Crucible of Worlds to me are just really dull picks. It rarely generates interesting situations. You either sucker punch a mana screwed player or you just slowed someone a little, big deal..
Wastelands seem to be in cubes just to answer creaturelands, which also to me are dull picks since they are multicolor cards that are close to vanilla creatures. Creature lands also feel kind of cheesy, because you can just wait for ever with them and kill the opponent when each player are hellbent. I don't understand the fun in creaturelands and neither in Wastelands i rather have some more flashy cards over them any day of the week.

By the way having Wasteland that gives an Eldrazi Token after destroying a land would be a nice one also. Sometimes you can destroy your own land to get a chump blocker ;)
 
It rarely generates interesting situations. You either sucker punch a mana screwed player or you just slowed someone a little, big deal...
Definitely agree with Meltyman, especially in this regard. They really aren't useful enough to aggro or anyone else to justify being either feel bad or meh, imo. Even if the person was going to lose.anyways, at least let them feel like they played their part. I'd rather have something like mutavault that an aggro deck can use post-wrath or as reach, or that a slow-game deck can use for finishing purposes.
 

Grillo_Parlante

Contributor
Wasteland and Strip Mine without Loam and Crucible of Worlds to me are just really dull picks. It rarely generates interesting situations. You either sucker punch a mana screwed player or you just slowed someone a little, big deal..
Wastelands seem to be in cubes just to answer creaturelands, which also to me are dull picks since they are multicolor cards that are close to vanilla creatures. Creature lands also feel kind of cheesy, because you can just wait for ever with them and kill the opponent when each player are hellbent. I don't understand the fun in creaturelands and neither in Wastelands i rather have some more flashy cards over them any day of the week.

By the way having Wasteland that gives an Eldrazi Token after destroying a land would be a nice one also. Sometimes you can destroy your own land to get a chump blocker ;)

I kind of agree with you on manlands, kind of don't. In slower more grindy formats, you can get these very fair midrange decks that are overly dependent on the quality of their top decks while being fairly mana hungry. Giving those decks the ability to artificially increase their spell count makes them less likely to have effectively lost to themselves at the start of the game, based solely on the way their TOL shuffled out and their opening hand lined up.

But in pretty much every other setting, yeah, I agree with you. Also, note they don't really need wasteland as an answer, because they are vulnerable to instant speed removal.
 

Jason Waddell

Administrator
Staff member
Manlands can make for super interesting games. I don't think the hellbent scenario is the only one that applies.
 
Manlands can make for super interesting games. I don't think the hellbent scenario is the only one that applies.
Well any card can make for super interesting games given the right circumstance? Sometimes you might have to think should you pay mana to kill a planeswalker even though your opponent might have removal or something, but still creaturelands should probably always be saved for the very end of the game where the opponent probably doesn't have much answers to your land?
How are creaturelands interesting in the drafting phase in your opinion ? Do you pick them highly or do you just take them when you don't have much else to take from the pack ?
 

Onderzeeboot

Ecstatic Orb
Creature lands, at least the fair ones, and that mainly excludes Colonnade, which is just bonkers, are good in and against decks with wraths. As such, they do fill a niche imho.
 
Creature lands have provided some really fun moments for me and mine. For being lands that can go into fixing sections, its pretty cool when one can turn into some beast or another and keep you in the game for the turn or two you needed to find that answer (Shambling Vents), or hold off some behemoth with the threat of death (hissing quagmire), or what have you. With a land! Neat. Sure sometimes they are just finishers, but every color combo appreciates that.
 
Top