General Emotional Spikes in Cube Design

[Grillo_Parlante]

Normally, when we talk about cube design, we come at it from the perspective that technical complexity and balance should be the end result of a "well designed" cube. I've begun to wonder if this isn't largely nonsense, or at least, substantially self-deceptive.

In one of my numerous cross-disciplinary wanderings, I have been introduced to the concept that a substantial amount of decision making and memory is actually driven by emotion spikes. I don't want to drive too deeply into psychological theory, but the idea has me thinking critically at a lot of justifications for card includes/cuts, and wondering if this isn't more of a factor than we've given it credit for.

Take for one the constant bashing of EDH. I was driving to my buddies house on Saturday to cube, and I knew we would be doing multi-player (but not EDH mercifu). As much as I like to pretend that multi-player matches are an inferior form of the game, the truth is that sometimes I just absolutely hate the very idea of playing 1 v 1.

Regardless of whatever it was that WOTC intended when the game was designed, in a certain sense, multi-player is a much better format because it allows for greater emotional highs. Sure you get giant emotional lows too--like sigh nearly dying of starvation while warp world is being resolved--but instead of being hunched over a table, intently focused on a game state, while showing your raw skill of the game in a fair and balanced format, you get to sit back, not pay attention to half the nonsense going on, and just ride a wild roller coaster.

You know, like its your weekend.

And I don't think Spikes are even being completely honest when they say they like fair and balanced magic. They like fair and balanced magic, because fair and balanced allows their heightened skills at the game to increase their chances of winning...and than the act of winning spikes their emotions. Even amongst spikes, I think, regardless of what they might say publicly, that they like some amount of GRBS. For example, we still have people here that run titans in their list, probably on some level knowing that they are BS cards, but not caring

Johnny and Timmy type personalities don't care about this at all, because they are getting their emotional payoff in different ways. This is why they are ok with EDH or other casual formats, which spike despises. One type of player is looking for powerful emotional resonance from the game, while the other is looking at it from the result of the game.

This is also why the holiday cube and its ilk are so popular, where brutal combos and unbalanced cards creates emotion spikes that thrill.

Which brings me back around to this card, which I cut for "balancing reasons", and the concept of running polarizing, or otherwise swingy, cards



There is no 50k purse on the line for winning. I need my players to feel powerful emotional spikes in game. Polarizing cards can be good. Sure, there are limits, winter orb might make me want to take a drill to my eyes, but reasonable negative emotion spikes are better than no emotion spikes at all.

Every single time lumberknot would come down, it would noticeably change the mood of the game. It was probably one of the single most iconic cards of the penny cube, despite being BS with rancor. If my role is to be a GM, and create a memorable game experience, its better to occasionally create an unfair, but memorable experience, than fail to create any experience at all, out of fear of offending the sensibilities of a player.

Here is another one



In terms of fair and balanced magic, this card is BS and completely swingy. Its also produced some of the most memorable and funny game states I've seen in the cube. Why did I cut this?



I have excellent reason to believe that this card is probably not very good, but keep it in anyways. The feeling of hitting somebody with the ninjutsu is amazing, and people get excited about it.

Cutting these types of cards uncritically when they come up has horrible results. Here is an example of such a mistake in action

Out



In



Sure, Living death is a clunky, swingy BS card, but its miles more interesting than the snooze fest that is Ever After, aka, value reanimation spell #92312987898 in your cube. This is how formats can get reduced down to a bunch of dull value plays, and get BREADed (though with the bombs getting slowly neutered in a vicious downward spiral of mediocrity).

And I feel that this carries over into a lot of our decision making as to card choices (I'm looking at you brainstorm). Sure, there is a subclass of support and value cards that elicit little emotional resonance, but actual drafting tends to be driven by a desire to select cards that we emotionally resonant with, and build decks that are capable of delivering on those highs. This is probably a big part of how archetype design should be focused, as well as a huge part of the player's drafting process.

Cards that are somewhat swingy--though perhaps not facilitating the most consistent or skill-testing magic--can play a huge role in player engagement and format longevity.

 

[ahadabans]

Normally, when we talk about cube design, we come at it from the perspective that technical complexity and balance should be the end result of a "well designed" cube. I've begun to wonder if this isn't largely nonsense, or at least, substantially self-deceptive.

It is definitely nonsense, but IMO for different reasons. I don't think it's actually possible to design a balanced cube because the game itself is too complex and the power level we are working with invites degeneracy no matter how flat we make our curve. Not saying we can't improve our cubes and make them more balanced (or at least more fun to play). But even that is not straight forward. For me, it's illustrated by this cold hard fact... when I first built my cube and it was a pile of randomness... it was the most fun I've had playing Magic. I'm not convinced with all these changes and rewrites I've done over the years that I've topped some of those first cubing sessions. So what does that say for all this "balancing" I keep doing?

In one of my numerous cross-disciplinary wanderings, I have been introduced to the concept that a substantial amount of decision making and memory is actually driven by emotion spikes. I don't want to drive too deeply into psychological theory, but the idea has me thinking critically at a lot of justifications for card includes/cuts, and wondering if this isn't more of a factor than we've given it credit for.

This is definitely true. And I think we have a predisposition to certain conclusions and are drawn to certain cards based on the type of player we are. And when something we want to have happen happens, we remember that over the times it didn't work the way we wanted. And we end up where we end up, which can ultimately be two steps forward and three steps back. I have a hard time being totally objective with my cube. That's not a coincidence.

I just absolutely hate the very idea of playing 1 v 1.

I understand this. There's something a lot more casual (read: fun) about multi-player. It's why my spike friend hates it and why some of my other players love it. I have mixed feelings. I like the social aspect of multi-player and not having to take things seriously, but some of the core mechanics of the game simply don't work well with more than 2 people. And that annoys me.

And I don't think Spikes are even being completely honest when they say they like fair and balanced magic. For example, we still have people here that run titans in their list, probably on some level knowing that they are BS cards, but not caring

They aren't. Spikes want to win. Whatever gives them that advantage, they will generally rationalize. To some extent, it's like corporate America and how unethical things get justified in the name of the bottom line.

Johnny and Timmy type personalities don't care about this at all, because they are getting their emotional payoff in different ways.
This is also why the holiday cube and its ilk are so popular, where brutal combos and unbalanced cards creates emotion spikes that thrill.

And it might also explain why I think I have fonder memories of my first broken cube because it felt like a combo cube (versus what I have now that is annoyingly efficient).

Which brings me back around to this card, which I cut for "balancing reasons", and the concept of running polarizing, or otherwise swingy, cards

EXAMPLES

Cards that are somewhat swingy--though perhaps not facilitating the most consistent or skill-testing magic--can play a huge role in player engagement and format longevity.

I almost wonder if we should be trying to rotate unbalanced cards in our cubes. Knowing full well that they lead to swingy games and tend to attract specific deck building. As long as you aren't seeing the same thing every week and there is some variance to this, maybe that is the right place to get to? Stop striving for that perfect balanced state and instead intentionally insert unbalanced cards - cards we know generate fun game states even if they are more powerful than other things happening in the cube.

This is what for me when the "Pandora Pack" got introduced. Small sample set here, but having this relatively balanced cube with a much flatter power curve and suddenly introducing 15 completely ridiculous cards to it. It totally turned the draft upside down, but not in a way that felt negative. Quite the opposite. There was excitement over these cards. I'm not even clear how many of them wound up winning games. That wasn't the point. Some guy had Wurmcoil Engine in his deck so maybe he draws it and nothing you just did the last 5 turns is going to matter? Is that good Magic? No. Did it create a fun situation? Probably.

Not sure any of my rambling was helpful or not. I know we aren't always on the same page with everything. But I enjoy your posts as I find them well written and thought provoking. You also clearly play a lot more Magic than I do these days, so to some extent I get to live vicariously through your cube group. Cheers.

 

[Meltyman]

I agree with your points. Having something that annoys the opponent can make a good kind of tention to the board state. If you have something like a Thrun in play which i loathe so much in cubes nowadays, i will be dancing around the table when i get that sucker out of the board. It made me have a minor victory inside a game. Having lots of those situations in a game feels rewarding.

Living Death LOVE IT. It's swingy but you can't stuff it in every black deck in existence and expect it to shine every time you cast it. Mindshrieker is just a vanilla dude which can kill the opponent with one attack if you invest all your mana on it and get lucky. Mindshrieker is fine, you can interact with it.

What i don't like is that every time i visit a cube that has 360 cards i know i will see that sucker every time i play (okay not 100% but most likely someone will have it in their deck). This makes me like the cube less. I know what i have to face "every" time. I rather see interesting cards every time than midrangey stufftheminifyouarethatcolor -type of nonsense that are too hard to deal with. I would even argue that spikes don't really like to play something like Thrun, True-Name Nemesis. They play them because they know what it means to resolve them - you will get that much closer to winning the game soon after. To me hating these stupid good cards root from the fact that i have seen them enough on both sides of the table in constructed and i really don't want to explore their "depth" in my limited environments because to me they really mostly generate frustration. Do you really enjoy having Troll Ascetic in your deck ??? I most certainly don't. I pick it so i don't have to play against it and that if i pair it with rancor i'm really close to winning. It's just so out of place in your cube... it hurts my eyes... i don't understand... why isn't it mentioned in your article, but Lumberknot is... this is a mystery to me... help me understand once again


EDIT:

I understand this. There's something a lot more casual (read: fun) about multi-player. It's why my spike friend hates it and why some of my other players love it. I have mixed feelings. I like the social aspect of multi-player and not having to take things seriously, but some of the core mechanics of the game simply don't work well with more than 2 people. And that annoys me.

I've played many types of multiplayer games in the past. Emperor, 2hg, star, EDH, chaos magic (my favorite that i still could play in the right mood). The fun to time spent ratio to me isn't worth it most of the time and that is why i stopped playing multiplayer magic.
I might sound like a broken record, but trying out Cosmic Encounter the board game is something i HIGHLY HIGHLY HIGHLY recommend over multiplayer magic. The game inspired Garfield to make MtG what it is today. The game is really different every time you play and it generates those wacky swingy situations that you can have in multiplayer magic. You also get to do stuff when it's not your turn, so it's not sitting and waiting for your tun. I want to convert every MtG player to this game, it's so awesome i can't recommend it enough.

 

[James Stevenson]

I suppose this is why I run some of the jank I run.

 

[sigh]

Glad to see my multiplayer struggles are not in vain .

Think there's a lot to this. It's why we still run stuff lime Living Death and Gifts Ungiven and Cruel Ultimatum, that might not 100% gel with the rest of the cubes plan but are evocative, fun, memorable, etc.

Turns out that designing a cube is Hard.

 

[ahadabans]

Turns out that designing a cube is Hard.

Amen to this.

Part of me misses the early days of cube design when you really didn't have a lot of choices because the pool of powerful cards was much smaller than it is today.

 

[Meltyman]

Amen to this.

Part of me misses the early days of cube design when you really didn't have a lot of choices because the pool of powerful cards was much smaller than it is today.

Exactly what i have thought
http://www.cubetutor.com/visualspoiler/51383

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

A lot to unpack, so I'll have to get to some of the other posts later, but wanted to single this out.

And it might also explain why I think I have fonder memories of my first broken cube because it felt like a combo cube (versus what I have now that is annoyingly efficient).

What I encountered was that trying to emphasis fairness just ended up being a downward spiral. I'm sure there is some half-way point, but basically, if you cut one layer of "unfair" cards, their will always be something else for someone to complain about.

Thats not to say that their aren't cards that are stifling and should go, it just is that correctly identifying those cards is hard, as a lot of times when someone wants a card cut its just because of some personal negative reaction they have to the card, and there will always be cards that someone will have a personal negative reaction towards.

In addition, the more "fair" you make the cube, the more repetitive and creature focused the play patterns seem to become. The easiest way to not offend anyones sensibilities is through predictability. I feel like a lot of play complexity in cube has the danger of getting boiled down to:

1. Establish early board pressure, use bounce or cheap spot removal to maintain pressure.
2. Abuse value from ETBs/planeswalkers to generate value while maintaining pressure.

I'm not even sure that aggro, midrange, or control actually exist in cube, or are just sort of rhetorical labels we apply out of necessity to decks that are actually focused on generating crude pressure or value, in the most efficient way there limited format allows. In that context, having someone resolve a doomsday is refreshing, as it knocks the dust off of otherwise stale patterns.

I think you kind of need both though to create contrast, otherwise plays or cards intended to create emotional resonance would just kind of get drowned out as everything comes up to the same level of experience, and plays that would be exciting or unique spikes just become the new common. I also don't think you want to go to the extreme of some of the Modo cubes, where it feels like half the cube is just a giant trap. So balancing is still going to be important, ironically, in order to maintain the polarization of a roller coaster ride.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

For example, and to sort of bring this back down to earth, in the middle of playing on Saturday, I started to wonder why I hadn't opted to run these two cards:



These are both simple cards that create giant emotion spikes: the excitement of hitting some critical spell with such an easy to play around counter, and the devastation of losing a critical spell in such a silly way.

 

[sigh]

The big question that's always rolling around in the back of my mind is "how?". How do we actually go about implementing this sort of thought process? Its getting darn close to 'I need to do market research on my fricking cube group' territory... do we simply need to go deeper? Make our power bands a little broader? I am all for my format being as deep and exciting as humanly possible, so.. how?

I think (hope?) this is definitely power level independent. What is 'slightly unfair' or 'wacky and evocative' enough to have that cool feel changes based on what your average is. One card that I'm hoping beyond hope makes this category for me is

The hope/idea being that drafter X loves zombies as a tribe, and that its enough of a legit card that drafter X can build a solid zombie deck and have a blast with it. But also that the twins are a solid role player for someone looking to have fun with Sidisi, or with Gifts Ungiven or whatever.

For example, and to sort of bring this back down to earth, in the middle of playing on Saturday, I started to wonder why I hadn't opted to run these two cards:



These are both simple cards that create giant emotion spikes: the excitement of hitting some critical spell with such an easy to play around counter, and the devastation of losing a critical spell in such a silly way.

Think these are a great example. One of my drafters plays Mana Tithe like 80% of the time, and loves it every time. I've moved up to both not long ago and haven't looked back.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

The big question that's always rolling around in the back of my mind is "how?". How do we actually go about implementing this sort of thought process? Its getting darn close to 'I need to do market research on my fricking cube group' territory... do we simply need to go deeper? Make our power bands a little broader? I am all for my format being as deep and exciting as humanly possible, so.. how?

I don't think its actually too bad. We have a lot of users here with cards that are polarizing or which get them excited. A couple examples




All of those mini-game cards are pretty cool.

I also like the micro-combo interactions, stuff like mystical tutor/vamp tutor + terminus. You can take a very liberal definition of the term combo, and thats probably pretty healthy, and a better descriptor of where most of us want to by with synergy anyways (thats what I get for using a crap neologism).

You know, stuff like sun titan + laboratory maniac/animate dead/saffi eriksdotter. Nothing is so narrow like true combo, but you get a similar thrill.

Karmic guide is another good card for fostering micro-combos.

tbh with the good limited formats, they are sprinkled with well though-out micro interactions. Madness, for example, is basically a combo mechanic, or blink effects + morphs in time spiral limited.

 

[japahn]

Other nice minigames, not all of which are necessarily healthy:


I too believe "swingy" is not an inherently bad characteristic, and "fun" is underrated.

 

[sigh]

I really like micro-interactions as a concept. I also believe they are a solid basis for cool limited formats. I've been poking around for some cool instances of two card strong interactions and one sweet one I found mentioned a few places on here was:

This card is a beauty in its own right, maybe even too good for my format, definitely testable though. But then it can be paired with a couple oft-run cards for awesome value:

Titania is approaching combo level, but it requires a good bit of setup for things to go perfectly. The Gitrog Monster is just a ton of value. So cool. Life from the Loam is again pure gravy value, keeping your land count up while fueling your super-spellskite.

I already run the bottom three, so just the addition of the Safekeeper would open up (at least) three mini interactions, not even counting stuff I care about like Delirium. Seems like all the ingredients for a fruitful addition. If its not too overbearing, of course...

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

Titania seems like a really cool "combo" card. It has some other interactions that I really like:



Thats not too bad density at 360, and you can grab zuran orb with trinket mage, and green has a bunch of fun tutor effects to find titania herself.

Another cool micro combo card:

 

[Dom Harvey]

I wonder to what degree your perspective is informed by your experience with an explicitly low-powered Cube. The cards that fit within the space of 'too good/damaging for my Cube, but appealing on the surface such that I'd want to include them at first' will be qualitatively different for you then for the majority of Cubes, even here (and obviously you've seen the discussions and so on, I'm not saying you're ignorant of all of that). Lumberknot is a card that, even in 'toned-down' Cubes I've dabbled with, I'd cut for not being good enough at 3 mana. It's not a card that inherently warps games of Magic, it demands attention in the context of your environment (and it sounds like the offender there is Rancor, a top-tier card in almost any Cube, but I'll defer to you on that).

I bring this up because, when the more Spike-y members here talk about keeping things fair/balanced, we're mainly referring to cards that scrunch the game up and throw it in the bin - Channel -> Emrakul, Mana Crypt into nonsense - and these aren't even in the same universe as Lumberknot's tyranny. With these cards the emotional spikes are only ever one-sided on the positive end, and whatever pleasure they give is short-lived as they end the game by preventing meaningful counterplay. I guess there's a rush of endorphins or whatever when you Reanimate a Sundering Titan on T2, but there's no lasting sense of accomplishment; I like winning games that are contested, where it comes down to an inventive play or lucky draw in a crucial moment. Nobody objects to the Force Spikes/Mana Tithes of the world - most of us load up our Cubes with them! - because it's ultimately just a 1-for-1 trade that happens to manifest in an exciting way. Go into any of the Cube blogs and you'll see the OP talk about wanting cards that create unique/memorable experiences or interesting subgames. It's just that the stakes are 'higher' in a sense when the most swingy cards literally ruin games instead of having unusually good stats.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

I'm not following you. The thread is about the way that emotional resonance impacts decision making, and framing it as whether or not to run channel -> emrakul is far too narrow. The more nuanced discussion we had yesterday about why to run or not run brainstorm is more where we should be, or the living death discussion (which I referenced in the post)

fwiw you don't want to have those types of channel plays, because while it create an emotional spike, it also fast forwards to the end of the movie, which is counter to most players subjective anticipation of what the game will be like. Its more satisfying to have a longer game with some highs and lows.

 

[ahadabans]

Exactly what i have thought
http://www.cubetutor.com/visualspoiler/51383

I'm really inspired by this. I've always wanted to make an old bordered cube. Do you have a blog detailing the process you followed? I might start a new blog just to get some ideas. If you wanted to contribute that would be sweet.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

I bring this up because, when the more Spike-y members here talk about keeping things fair/balanced, we're mainly referring to cards that scrunch the game up and throw it in the bin - Channel -> Emrakul, Mana Crypt into nonsense - and these aren't even in the same universe as Lumberknot's tyranny. With these cards the emotional spikes are only ever one-sided on the positive end, and whatever pleasure they give is short-lived as they end the game by preventing meaningful counterplay.

Let me try to respond to this again, as it warrants some further discussion, and I have a bit more time.

The idea that cards/interactions being one sided on the positive end (cards that result in "feel bads" in this forums parlance) being sufficient reason for a cut, isn't really true. Emotion spikes are important to the game state, and this includes negative emotions as well.

And you're doing that here, by over emphasizing the one player's positive emotions, and assuming that the other player's negative emotion spike, should strongly count against running this interaction: it isn't, and the analysis should be more involved. I like the fact that each player is experiencing a giant emotion swing, but what I don't like is the turn in which it is occurring, for reasons already stated. In a more casual, or diverse player group, I might be ok with a polarizing interaction like this, provided that I can run it later in the game. An example of a hard polarizing card I run is persecute, which I think is a more relatable example, though perhaps for players with somewhat different tastes.

Obviously, this is a nuanced discussion, and I am anticipating that if you are participating, that you are going to appreciate that and not starting trending towards broad generalities. I'm not going to say that anyone should run mind twist, for example, but I might be open to balance, and perhaps Armageddon in certain settings.

There is good magic, and there is fun magic (as it tends to be presented), and an over emphasis on good technical play tends to close minds to cards that tend to polarize people, and sometimes polarizing cards are really good for the enjoyment of the game, due to the memorable scenarios they are so good at proctoring.

Even this analysis, for example, I feel is a misstatement.

Nobody objects to the Force Spikes/Mana Tithes of the world - most of us load up our Cubes with them! - because it's ultimately just a 1-for-1 trade that happens to manifest in an exciting way.

First, I didn't say that people were objecting to spike/tithe, just relaying a light-hearted personal epiphany. However, my epiphany wasn't that they should be ran because its "ultimately a 1-for-1 trade" (again, the technical play first emphasis) that just "happens" to be fun. It was that these cards have greater value because of the positive and negative emotional spike they trigger--the exciting gameplay stories they elicit. I could analysis these cards in a state largely, or entirely, apathetic to whether they have actual good game value or not (or are intrinsically fair) and focus entirely on the strong positive/negative feelings they elicit as reasons to include them.

Thats a completely different emphasis than what you presented above. Now we can have a discussion (hopefully nuanced) about the various merits of these approaches, but people don't tell me this approach is a given on this (a particularly anti-EDH) board. If other boards have threads like this, I am very happy for them, and happy that we can have something like that here.

 

[Aston]

I don't agree that tight technical play and emotional spikes are incompatible. For me, the strongest engagement with the game comes when I think I'm close to locking up a game through incremental advantage and I just have to fade two draw steps to close it out. I don't think that it's the act of winning that gets Spikes going, it's the process of manoeuvring through numerous interactions over several turns, stacking the +1% chances and converting them into a win. If you look at the current definition of the psychographics (leaving how useful they are as tools to one side), Spike plays not to win but to prove something. They want to prove they are better than whoever they are sat across from, and whilst a part of that is winning, I think it mainly comes from winning a game that perhaps not everyone would have won given the same tools. Owen Turtenwald puts it far more succinctly in this video.

If you include swingy cards that can decide the game by themselves, you take away some of the chance for the tight interactive games that give me the emotional high. Mindshrieker is a perfect example of this, and Grillo I think you cut it because of my moaning about it after the grid draft league. Sometimes it comes down, gets in one attack without blockers and kills the opponent from 10 life due to lucky hits, and by doing so invalidates a large amount of the game that has been played. Sure, this might give the defending player an emotional spike of frustration or anger, but I don't play Magic to feel those emotions. I also don't feel much of a sense of accomplishment when I'm on the other end of the interaction, so all in all it's a black hole of negativity.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that designing a cube for strong technical play and for emotional spikes aren't necessary at odds with one another as you seem to make out.

 

[sigh]

Turns out that designing a cube is REALLY hard: everyone plays the game and derives enjoyment from it for their own reasons

 

[James Stevenson]

I play magic to feel real emotions, powerful, passionate, whether in frustration or ecstacy. I want to escape the innanity of modern life and, even for one brief evening, to forget the longing for something meaningful, to forget the boredom that pervades my every minute. So when I die to grave titan yet again, tears in my eyes, or I return Cruel Ultimatum to my hand for a third time, cackling with glee, I am thankful that I can still find an emotional spike in this world. Thank you magic, thank you.

(Post coauthored by a glass of wine and being really tired.)

 

[Meltyman]

I'm really inspired by this. I've always wanted to make an old bordered cube. Do you have a blog detailing the process you followed? I might start a new blog just to get some ideas. If you wanted to contribute that would be sweet.

It's a work under construction still. I'm missing 300 cards and all the sleeves from this cube at the moment. I was planning to make it to my 30th birthday, but i can't make it in time because i have to have my birthday (excuse to play all weekend) a few months early

I will happily oblige and fling ideas with you if you start making it also. The plan is to celebrate magic where spells are king and planeswalkers non-existent.

I made a blog, but there isn't much info on it since i don't have any info: http://riptidelab.com/forum/threads/old-borders-power-cube.1369/

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

If you include swingy cards that can decide the game by themselves, you take away some of the chance for the tight interactive games that give me the emotional high. Mindshrieker is a perfect example of this, and Grillo I think you cut it because of my moaning about it after the grid draft league. Sometimes it comes down, gets in one attack without blockers and kills the opponent from 10 life due to lucky hits, and by doing so invalidates a large amount of the game that has been played. Sure, this might give the defending player an emotional spike of frustration or anger, but I don't play Magic to feel those emotions. I also don't feel much of a sense of accomplishment when I'm on the other end of the interaction, so all in all it's a black hole of negativity.

Sure, and I regret that cut. It was not a popular cut over here, and its absence has made the format worse in many ways. A lot of the cuts that I made for balancing purposes after those drafts made the format feel more bland. I probably should have done the opposite, taken melty's advice, and put more raw efficiency cards under the microscope. I derived the wrong lesson.

I understand what you mean, and I agree that this isn't a strict dichotomy, but one perspective does tend to get put on a pedestal, and the other side has a point that shouldn't be dismissed. This also do compete as we are seeing here. Your reaction to mindshrieker, for example, was really alien to me (and still is to an extent). Even in the penny league matches, i felt it was often times the most entertaining thing going on in a given game state.

Deciding whether to cut or not cut it, should have been more a nuanced decision on my part, rather than just focusing on its ability to abruptly end games, and writing it off as a feel bad. Thats on me.

I don't think that it's the act of winning that gets Spikes going, it's the process of manoeuvring through numerous interactions over several turns, stacking the +1% chances and converting them into a win.

Even here the emphasis is on the ultimate act of winning, and this is very much an outcome focused way of enjoying the game. I don't think there is anything wrong with acknowledging that, or that it diminishes spikes in any way.

 

[GiftsForgiven]

-From a Johnny's perspective:

I think it's worth considering that people fundamentally have more visceral and emotional reactions to things they put effort into. This effects cube design in a number of ways. One of the pairs of cards mentioned earlier in this thread is balance vs. Armageddon. Balance is by no means a fair card, and has the potential to be even more devastating than armageddon, but my playgroup has had much better reactions to the card when it's pulled off.

The person who plays balance is more satisfied than if they had played Armageddon, because of the work it took to make it work (greater gargadon/putrid imp/etc.)
The person who gets balance(d) is less angry, for that same reason.

This is why I recently cut sword of body and mind from my cube. The deck that ran it last weekend went 3-0, and the person running the deck confessed to me that he didn't feel -good- about winning via that strategy. This was on top of the grumbling that his opponents had, of course. Very little comparative effort needed to be put in on the part of the player wielding the sword.

I think the balance between effort input and power output is probably one of the most difficult in magic, and cube design. Getting it wrong makes for unhappy players (either they feel unrewarded, or dissatisfied) but getting it right is what makes for some of the best experiences I've ever had.

 

[FlowerSunRain]

The thrill for me comes from the both the conversation with the opponent via the game mechanics and the battle with my own limitations as I struggle to unravel the language of the game itself. Sure, I get cheap kicks like everyone else when something cool happens due to randomness, but those feelings are relatively interchangeable and moreso they distract from the deeper, more satisfying feelings that great games can provide.

I when I think back of my favorite memories of gaming, all of them involve a growth of understanding between the players involved, having an experience that would have been impossible without the game as a vehicle for it. Emotional spikes keep you playing, chasing the next high like a slot machine. It's effective, but its not a design goal I want to follow. I don't need encouragement to play, I need a quality experience or I'll just play something else. I already enjoy the act of playing games, I don't needed to bribed into it.