I'm confident that this has been addressed in other posts throughout the history of these forums, and I also think it's been a good design principle from my own experience.
I prefer mid-range to control builds in Cube, I'm a little too nervous to go all in on an aggro strategy. We have a pretty sizeable rotating group of players that come through and play my list, so I get tons of perspective and feedback about what is or isn't in the list.
For context, I run a 360 Modern Cube (so nothing that couldn't be legal in Modern with no ban list).
Many players have lamented the quality of counter spells or the quality of definitive finishers that can easily close out games. While tinkering with the list, what I've hit upon (and is the point I was obliquely referencing at the beginning of the post) is that "restrictions breed creativity" and that at least in the context of cube environments, novelty and creativity create lasting impressions and interesting, interactive games.
A good example is the difference between Cancel and Familiar's Ruse/Deprive.
Many control players have mentioned they'd rather see a hard counter they can rely on, rather than a conditional counter that impacts their board state, or in some circumstances they can't even cast.
I've maintained that the conditions on those spells lead to a plurality of more interesting board states and deck construction requirements that make the control builds more than just "Wrath, Go Late, Drop A Finisher, Win". I've been pretty stubborn in refusing to change up the package, and while it's important to listen to your playground, sometimes as a designer you can see through a wider lens than an individual player.
What I've seen, is games where players have been required to play their deck differently to gain access to the type of marquee control effects they're used to. Deprive and Familiar's Ruse as an example, means that the player needs to make a sequence of decisions that is unfamiliar to them, and feels slightly off.
The result is game states that are novel, even if they seem fairly familiar from an archetype perspective. I've watch many games unfold and then be animatedly talked about afterward where the Control player was talking to their opponent about the way they had to troubleshoot limitations on their Control play sequence.
EDIT: Oh, also! And I think this is something Wizard's has learned as well...what player's SAY they want, isn't always what they PLAY. I think our game brains gravitate towards consistency and power in may cases, and the odd perspective is that we derive greater enjoyment from situations where we are delighted and surprised, versus ones where we get exactly what we were expecting.
Anywho, a little long winded and maybe off-topic, but I thought it would be helpful to reiterate the design principle, as it's been a valuable re-learning for myself.
I prefer mid-range to control builds in Cube, I'm a little too nervous to go all in on an aggro strategy. We have a pretty sizeable rotating group of players that come through and play my list, so I get tons of perspective and feedback about what is or isn't in the list.
For context, I run a 360 Modern Cube (so nothing that couldn't be legal in Modern with no ban list).
Many players have lamented the quality of counter spells or the quality of definitive finishers that can easily close out games. While tinkering with the list, what I've hit upon (and is the point I was obliquely referencing at the beginning of the post) is that "restrictions breed creativity" and that at least in the context of cube environments, novelty and creativity create lasting impressions and interesting, interactive games.
A good example is the difference between Cancel and Familiar's Ruse/Deprive.
Many control players have mentioned they'd rather see a hard counter they can rely on, rather than a conditional counter that impacts their board state, or in some circumstances they can't even cast.
I've maintained that the conditions on those spells lead to a plurality of more interesting board states and deck construction requirements that make the control builds more than just "Wrath, Go Late, Drop A Finisher, Win". I've been pretty stubborn in refusing to change up the package, and while it's important to listen to your playground, sometimes as a designer you can see through a wider lens than an individual player.
What I've seen, is games where players have been required to play their deck differently to gain access to the type of marquee control effects they're used to. Deprive and Familiar's Ruse as an example, means that the player needs to make a sequence of decisions that is unfamiliar to them, and feels slightly off.
The result is game states that are novel, even if they seem fairly familiar from an archetype perspective. I've watch many games unfold and then be animatedly talked about afterward where the Control player was talking to their opponent about the way they had to troubleshoot limitations on their Control play sequence.
EDIT: Oh, also! And I think this is something Wizard's has learned as well...what player's SAY they want, isn't always what they PLAY. I think our game brains gravitate towards consistency and power in may cases, and the odd perspective is that we derive greater enjoyment from situations where we are delighted and surprised, versus ones where we get exactly what we were expecting.
Anywho, a little long winded and maybe off-topic, but I thought it would be helpful to reiterate the design principle, as it's been a valuable re-learning for myself.
