General Flat Power level vs. Less Flat Power Level

[Suicufnoc]

I'm not sure how to start a conversation on this but the thread on MTGS has gone on for 2 months and gone nowhere. Seems like it should be worthy of discussion.

I prefer the power level outliers in my cube to be on the weaker end of the power spectrum, but "breakable" (or at least playable with the right synergies). I don't mind there being a few cards in the cube that are obviously not first pickable, but I don't like there being a lot of cards that are obvious first picks.

While at first it might seem like the best way to reduce the number of first pickable cards is to add more cards that are first pickable to increase competition, you can also just cut the first picks.

Let me expand slight on the sound mixing console example from the Oppressive Cards article (who wrote that?) I happen to be a pro sound engineer. A beginner's instincts, if they can't hear a guitar, tell them to turn the guitar up. This is not always wrong, but is often incorrect. If you can hear a guitar, you ask yourself what is drowning it out, and turn those things down. You can now hear the guitar, but haven't raised the overall volume level of your mix.

(also I've just realized that the slippery slope argument sort of applies to power maxing. They have to cut the weakest cards for more powerful cards every time wizards releases a set, with no end in sight)

 

[ahadabans]

I'm fully in support of a flatter power curve. I still want a little slope to it though. There's something cool about opening a pack and seeing a great card you'd never pass. As long as it doesn't lead to a degenerate meta. And that's the harder part I think.

When I first built a cube, it was power max because that's the prominent philosophy out there. And it's a fun format regardless even if you have a horribly degenerate meta. But after awhile you see these problems and they wear on you (or they did me at least). Cards that essentially warp your meta. Once you've removed those cards, then it gets more interesting and I agree it starts to become a slippery slope. How far do you go with that?

I like your analogy about mixing (I've done a little of that myself so know what you are talking about). It's appropriate to designing cube because if you have arch types you want supported, you can only support them to a certain level and in order to make them playable you often have to turn other dials down (removal for example).

I'm not adding anything with this post that others haven't stated in other threads honestly. I like this forum because of all the creative ideas that get posted. Very little of what I've done in my cube is original. I see good ideas and I steal them. So thank you to everyone who continues to enable that behavior. I appreciate it.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

I prefer to have a range, with some lower pick cards wheeling to enable certain decks (e.g. throne of geth, gnaw to the bone), and some higher power/build around cards to provide direction to the draft.

 

[FlowerSunRain]

The problem I have with this conversation is that it misses some of the big issues.

The non-flat power-max paradigm and the flat paradigm both are inherently flawed because they don't let you control where you want the power level in your cube. In a power-max paradigm, you have to play the cards that are powerful, so you are locked into certain assumptions by virtue of the cards that exist. By contrast, in a flat paradigm you are intentionally avoiding power fluctuation and are giving that up as a lever. Controlling the level of power on different effects in an immensely useful tool that lets you truly customize your environment. You shouldn't make it black and white whether your cube uses powerful cards or doesn't, that isn't the heart of the matter. The heart of the matter is figuring out where in your cube you push the power level and where you hold it back. You don't want to get stuck on the treadmill of endless "upgrades" (which is seriously asinine) and equally you don't want to give up your control over your environment over the sake of "balance".

 

[Eric Chan]

That Oppressive Cards article was most likely written by Jason, as part of the Cube Academy series of articles that he put together, with Dom pitching in as well. That was a well-intentioned and ambitious project to have a comprehensive resource for novice cube designers to reference, but it kinda ran out of steam at some point.

From a practical standpoint, I think it's more or less impossible to have an actual flat power level. It's not realistic to try and identify 360 cards that are even approximately equivalent in power to one another, no matter what metric for power you use. The best you can do as a cube designer is to sand down the rough edges both at the top and the bottom of your structure, which hopefully leaves you with multiple cards that are first-pickable when presented with any given pack. I find it's important to avoid having "feel-bad" auto first picks - cards which both go into nearly every deck, and exist at a much higher power level than the majority of the card pool, enough so that your drafters feel actively guilty about passing them. Wurmcoil Engine, Batterskull, Umezawa's Jitte, the Swords, and even Elspeth, Knight-Errant (!) are some of the more egregious examples for a traditional singleton cube. Like FSR mentions, from the remaining batch of cards, you can then handpick exactly the ones that you want to be the flagpoles of your environment, and those cards should hopefully sing their message loud and clear.

Aside from having a relatively flat power curve, there's the other matter of where you want your cube to lie on the spectrum of power. From the vehement disagreements about this subject on this site alone, I'm starting to believe that this comes down entirely to personal preference (though others might have you believe otherwise). With a cube like Jason's, most of the stops are pulled out, leading to decks that are passable imitations of their Legacy counterparts. Other designers seek to craft environments based on a combination of some of the best retail limited formats, which can enable entirely new classes of cards to be playable (things like combat tricks and auras, among others) as well as new archetypes (funky graveyard shenanigans, or even just the spells matter theme). There's probably no real 'right' answer here, other than the one that's suitable for you and your playgroup.

 

[Diakonov]

I always try to have a uniform distribution of cards on the following spectrum:

Easy to implement anywhere & Fairly Strong < ------- > Weak if implemented incorrectly & Very Strong if implemented correctly

An example of this would be:

Blade Splicer < -------- > 2-squadron of Life From the Loam

I like to reward the Johnnies if they do it right.

 

[ahadabans]

I love synergistic cards, but I have had to pull back a bit on that because I think you can take it too far. I see combos all over the place and I want more to see how far I can take it and make a winnable deck. More often than not (especially recently) I've wound up with inconsistent piles because I tried to stretch my deck into too many ideas.

So I like what Diskonov said. I'm now trying very hard to include strong cards that are just good on their own (without being oppressive), and cards that are slightly weaker but have a higher ceiling if you really push the synergy they offer. I think that is a design sweet spot that appeals to multiple player types.

And I don't think the swords are oppressive. They are expensive and as long as you have enough disenchant effects in your cube, I don't think they warp the meta. They are certainly strong, but I don't always first pick them (sometimes I just don't feel like playing a sword deck). But maybe I'm underrating them. I'm only running the original two right now (had it down to one for awhile and have contemplated going to zero - I actually think the warhammer is more fun anyway and there's no room if I run swords).

 

[Eric Chan]

Also, I just re-read the original post, and... people post on forums other than this one? BLASPHEMY!!

 

[shamizy]

I try hard to balance cards within my cube such that there aren't too many cards that are just unanswerable. I like to reward good deckbuilding/drafting as well, so there are a ton of synergies to unearth within the cube. It's nice to have powerful cards and all, but I don't like having too many that are always P1P1 material. You need an equal balance of buildarounds and niche cards. Just having everything be powerful or along the same spectrum can cause issues during the actual draft imo. Oppressive unanswerable cards are a big problem, I try to avoid as many of them as I can.

I personally feel swords are just GRBS. It doesn't matter which one it is, there's always going to be a matchup where it just destroys the competition and they can't do anything at all. I've seen an interesting match between U/B Fliers vs. Mono-Red become utter shit once a Sword of War and Peace was attached to Serendib Efreet. I don't want to see that happen. What should have been a decision-filled game (Do I sit back on defense and ping myself with Efreet? Can I draw into burn to push through damage? etc. ) turns into a one-sided ass kicking. Protection is just so uninteractive and turns fun games into a one-sided match unless they have an answer right then and there. Barring some wacky shenanigans, a single unimpeded swing puts the opponent up so high against a deck that they have protection against. It's just so easy to pick one and play it no questions asked.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

And I don't think the swords are oppressive. They are expensive and as long as you have enough disenchant effects in your cube, I don't think they warp the meta. They are certainly strong, but I don't always first pick them (sometimes I just don't feel like playing a sword deck). But maybe I'm underrating them. I'm only running the original two right now (had it down to one for awhile and have contemplated going to zero - I actually think the warhammer is more fun anyway and there's no room if I run swords).

Did I ever mention how much I hate permanent sources of protection from a color on this forum. Yes, yes, I'm fairly sure I did. Swords can just ruin a game of Magic by completely locking a player out. "But he should have drafted Disenchant effects!" Sure, he should have. But should the punishment for not doing so (or not drawing the Disenchant at the right time) really be playing a game of not-Magic, because that is what games where my opponent has a Sword of X and Y and where X and Y are the colors I just so happened to draft feel like to me. I hate the Swords in limited formats, and they will never get anywhere close to my cube.

 

[Lucre]

great thread concept, I'll have to think about this more when I'm less tired.

One thing that occurs to me is that many archetypes are more reliant on having spiking cards and being able to stave things off / put them together than others. It's also really dumb to try to get a flat read on a card's power level as many cards that seem obviously powerful are weak in a variety of situations, and a number of cards that are obviously out classed by the likes of baneslayer angel are way better than it in many decks and parts of the game.

Consider trying to win the game against steady, recurring pressure with a mitt full of efficient removal spells. Those suckers aren't really stopping anything or attacking or getting you very much closer to your own pressure.

I also think in a flattened power level you may have issues running cards like elite vanguard. 2/1s for one are tough to fight in a field full of heroe's downfall, Mist Raven, Boarderland Ranger and say morphs. And do you really want your players cubing 1/1s for 1? What happens to aggro?

What is a ramp or control deck shooting for in a flattened power level environment? Do you want it to be like traditional draft where the advantage is that they get to play costly spells at all / multiple cards per turn at some point they've survived to? How do you account for the existence of rare and uncommon power spikes when comparing to that model?

 

[James Stevenson]

And I don't think the swords are oppressive. They are expensive and as long as you have enough disenchant effects in your cube, I don't think they warp the meta. They are certainly strong, but I don't always first pick them (sometimes I just don't feel like playing a sword deck). But maybe I'm underrating them. I'm only running the original two right now (had it down to one for awhile and have contemplated going to zero - I actually think the warhammer is more fun anyway and there's no room if I run swords).

There was this one time I played BW and lost both games to Sword of Light and Shadow. After that I cut the swords. Now that all the decks I draft are 4 or 5 color Ion Storm monstrosities I suppose protection from two colors isn't what it used to be.

edit:

say morphs

morphs

 

[Chris Taylor]

Did I ever mention how much I hate permanent sources of protection from a color on this forum. Yes, yes, I'm fairly sure I did. Swords can just ruin a game of Magic by completely locking a player out. "But he should have drafted Disenchant effects!" Sure, he should have. But should the punishment for not doing so (or not drawing the Disenchant at the right time) really be playing a game of not-Magic, because that is what games where my opponent has a Sword of X and Y and where X and Y are the colors I just so happened to draft feel like to me. I hate the Swords in limited formats, and they will never get anywhere close to my cube.

Swords are this weird combination of Powerful, Uninteractive, Midrangey and Colorless, each element of which is not particularly egregious, but together add up to a card barely worth the fun

• They've all got strong triggers that can take over a game or close one out quickly, often after 1-2 hits
• Double Protection means occasionally your opponent has zero outs (never fun)
• They're at this awkward spot on the curve where you want to play + equip, but they don't win you the game immediately, so you're going to be getting to turn 6-7 if they're your main plan, so you play a higher curve, so you end up playing a more boring deck etc etc etc
• And since they're colorless, anyone at the table playing creatures should at least consider them

I'd say it's a fairly different discussion to have then the flat power curve thing, since while they are shitty they're shittier in different ways, but yeah

 

[Rasmus Källqvist]

Without adding more than a curious remark, the way that aggressive power maxing behaves doesn't seem that unlike the loudness war of music mastering, where expressive quality and volume dynamics are scarified in favor of getting more volume out of the same speaker levels. There is an upper bounds of volume you can get before things start getting squashed and weird, the same goes for magic.

 

[ahadabans]

Alright, maybe I'm undervaluing swords a little. They haven't really been a problem though (not like Jitte anyways - that's not coming back), but as we draft only half the cube at a time and I was down to just one of them for quite awhile, it really wasn't a huge issue. I also run a fairly large amount of removal (including instant speed creature removal). I do agree that the double protection is just a bad mechanic. Protection in general is just bad and I've tried to remove most of the creatures that have it as well. So OK, maybe I'll take another look at what the swords bring and do I really need that effect. Honestly, they are popular cards from a nostalgic point of view and that is why I find them hard to eliminate completely. At least one drafter would be upset about it.

And I fully agree on the comments made about the endless power max "upgrade" mentality. To me, it doesn't make a lot of sense running the best cards in every slot because you basically have no design space at all. The meta is whatever the meta is when you put all the best cards together. There's nothing inherently balanced about it IMO. From a design standpoint I just find it an uninteresting way to do things.

 

[Jason Waddell]

This is an interesting discussion.

I'd say, you specifically don't want a "completely flat" power level. Sometimes we lose track of the fact that draft formats are exceptionally complicated, and differences in power both guide your players (pick the best card and head in that direction) while keeping the drafting process from being overwhelming. I want decisions for most picks, but I don't want my drafting to be an analysis paralysis mess.

Also, players should feel good about taking cards. I've played environments where, when things are too flat, you feel like your picks don't really matter. Sure, there are some subtle synergistic advantages, but...

 

[ahadabans]

All really good points Jason. Another thing we probably lose sight of is how well we know our cubes and the game. When I look at a pack, I can pretty quickly recognize what the best synergistic cards are and as I see more and more packs, I can usually tell where the power actually is and how to maximize my picks. When I draft with that mindset I tend to do really well at the table. But I have a lot of unfair advantages.

Other players do not have the advantage of being this intimate with both my cube and the game of Magic (even though they have my list and access to the internet same as me). But they don't spend countless hours on gatherer looking through cards, or the forums reading posts like this. So I suspect that a lot of my players just pick stuff that looks fun and they try to build a deck in 2 or 3 colors with fun cards they like. While they aren't actively trying to build goodstuff.dec and ignore all the cool synergies I've tried to support, that is where a lot of drafting ends up.

I think that's why I'm always on the fence about adding too many narrow cards (or cards that need a lot of support to be good), and why I think Jason's argument about have some more obvious choices you can feel good about is probably ideal. Much of the success of this boils down to the sophistication level of your group.

You could probably build a super flat power level, ultra-convoluted, mega synergy MENSA style cube and as long as the guys drafting it were dudes from this or other similar forums, you probably wouldn't have any issues. No analysis paralysis or guys winding up with steaming piles for decks. Take that same cube however and draft it with a bunch of weekend warriors at your local FNM, and it would probably be a lot less fun than just using a vanilla power max cube.

So I'm not sure it's black and white I guess is what I'm trying to say.

 

[Rasmus Källqvist]

For all the talk we have on this forum about really intricate design and deep themes, in the end maybe the existence of good stuff decks help glue together a cube with a bunch of complicated synergies? Like, every now and then people are going to build these mazes of interactions, but its good to let people just pick cards and play magic. Kind of like how we're pretty strict about having aggressive styles compliment the slower styles.

 

[ahadabans]

Everything in moderation is probably sensible in the end.

 

[Chris Taylor]

For all the talk we have on this forum about really intricate design and deep themes, in the end maybe the existence of good stuff decks help glue together a cube with a bunch of complicated synergies? Like, every now and then people are going to build these mazes of interactions, but its good to let people just pick cards and play magic. Kind of like how we're pretty strict about having aggressive styles compliment the slower styles.

Neither Modern Masters nor 8th Edition are good limited formats

 

[Eric Chan]

Even for people 'in the know' about Magic and cube design, it's hard to walk into a new cube and know what's what. The advantage of sticking to the time-tested singleton power-max doctrine is that your knowledge of the cube format can carry over from one list to the next, whether that's in a different store or town. Aggro is bad except for mono-red; control and midrange are both very good, so try to go over the top; the more powered the list, the more you should be seeking out unfair strategies; and so on. All of that knowledge goes out the window when the cube designer is actively managing the cube design, rather than simply throwing in the latest powerful cards that Wizards has printed. Even staring at the list for twenty minutes on CubeTutor doesn't help very much when you open a pack and are presented with a dozen cards you've only heard about, but have never run before.

In these cube environments, it's even more important for the cube designer to include 'handholds' that are both familiar to Magic players, and are things they can grab onto and hopefully draft around. "I don't know what's supported in this list, but starting with this Dark Confidant at least gives me a direction to go in." That sort of thing. I think that the more custom a cube environment, and the more it strays away from your traditional singleton power-max mantra, the more important it is to not have a perfectly flat power level.

 

[Diakonov]

Most of my favorite games gave me some analysis paralysis the first time I played them. Once I became a bit more familiar with them, things went much smoother. If you have a semi-consistent playgroup, then I think it's OK to have a fairly flat power level in hopes that they will adjust. I agree that completely flat isn't ideal, but I'm not too worried about that being a problem yet.

 

[Jason Waddell]

Good Stuff is the flue that holds together all draft formats (retail ones included). They are functional cards with inherent competing demand.

Kitchen Finks is pretty perfect in this vein. You can draft it hoping to go into a Pod / Blink / +1/+1 Counter / Multicolor Matters / Lifegain archetype or whatever, and if that fails you still have a card that yields good value.

 

[spicewitch]

Neither Modern Masters nor 8th Edition are good limited formats

I've heard people say MMA is great, better than Vintage Masters, but they were stoners on Cockatrice soooo.... I guess it's still important to keep those kinda people in mind if they might end up drafting your cube, but you might be able to sate them just by including any Timmy cards at all, not necessarily needing to include real, actual power-max cads.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

I liked MMA, but the game where my opponent happened to draw his Sword of My First Color and My Second Color in both games was lame as heck. Other than that, yeah, I enjoyed it.