General Rethinking Color Mana Curve

[ahadabans]

So, this is something that I started thinking about after deciding I was going to break singleton. When you look at most cubes, I think you find that more aggressive colors have lower curves. Red for example, usually runs more 1 and 2 drops than any other color (and so it has a lower overall CMC).

I don't think there is anything wrong with that approach. I've been doing it and it sort of plays into the colors strengths in a way. But at the same time, don't you open up more options if you treat each color the same? And by that I mean, run the same number of cards at each casting cost. Now, blue is still going to have a control slant to it. While Red is running stuff like Goblin Guide, blue is going to be running card draw and what not. It's not like blue is suddenly going to become RDW.

One of the the things that kept me from doing this in the past was the fact that even if I wanted to run more blue 1 drops, my options were awful past 8 or 9 cards. But if I'm breaking singleton, I can just double and triple up. I'm not forced to run bogus crap to fill out 12 one drop slots, etc.

I'm just wondering if I make each color essentially neutral from a mana curve perspective (let's say somewhere around 2.8-2.9), do you think this would improve drafts or hurt them? Do I get more interesting decks or just fewer cards for the most commonly played arch types?

Thoughts?

 

[anotak]

yeah ive been aiming for this to some degree with me and my friend's custom cube

i don't like hard and fast rules though so its not scientific

 

[CML]

The kinds of 1's each color plays are also completely different. I like lowering the curve as much as possible but Swords to Plowshares ≠ Brainstorm ≠ Thoughtseize ≠ Lightning Bolt ≠ Experiment One

 

[ahadabans]

The kinds of 1's each color plays are also completely different. I like lowering the curve as much as possible but Swords to Plowshares ≠ Brainstorm ≠ Thoughtseize ≠ Lightning Bolt ≠ Experiment One

Yeah, I know. I'm just trying to shake things up a bit.

I don't expect all the colors to play the same. They still have a unique identity, I would just not be forcing things as much. Right now, my mana curves in each color almost force you to play a certain style. Red is somewhere in the 2.5 range while blue is 3.2 I think. Would I be forced to rethink how each of those colors played if I had to make their curves the same? Would red control get more love? Would blue tempo decks suddenly be more appealing? I don't know honestly, just playing with different ideas.

 

[Jason Waddell]

I don't think the curves need to be identical (or all that similar) to get the benefits of what you are proposing. I've been a proponent of having attacking decks and controlling decks be possible in all colors.

For what it's worth, back when Eric and I were studying retail limited environments, one of the things that became clear was that even there the curves between colors are not identical.

Personally I would start with a question like "how can I give red control more love" and solve it from that angle, rather than enforce some rigid restriction and see what shakes up.

 

[Changling Bob]

Weren't they talking during Innistrad about how each colour pair got a 'slow' strategy and a 'fast' strategy, for some given value of slow and fast? That feels like a better way of determining where your curves need to be for each colour than having them all line up perfectly.

 

[Jason Waddell]

Weren't they talking during Innistrad about how each colour pair got a 'slow' strategy and a 'fast' strategy, for some given value of slow and fast? That feels like a better way of determining where your curves need to be for each colour than having them all line up perfectly.

Innistrad did indeed have a lot of this going on. It also had an intentional mix of open-ended and linear strategies (e.g. some decks just wanted to buy time with stuff like Silent Departure and figure out the late game later).

I think one area where cube design could improve is in thinking about the "open-ended" strategies more. It's far easier to tackle something linear, both as a player and as a designer.

 

[anotak]

what does "open-ended" mean in this context? example?

 

[Changling Bob]

A bunch of walls, some bounce, some permission, and something to end the game with eventually. I feel the poster child cards for the strategy are Ludevic's test subject and rite of replication. Spider spawning does it a bit as well, but you need to self mill a bunch. Stocking up on defensive creatures and permanents and flame fusillading would be similar, if it wasn't also a giant blowout any time you cast flame fusillade?

 

[Changling Bob]

Unless I'm misinterpreting what Jason's saying.

 

[anotak]

what's the difference between that and control

 

[Changling Bob]

I feel like control isn't going 'I'll stop you doing your thing and figure out what to do later', and is going more 'I'm going to out-value your thing by screwing it up'?

 

[Jason Waddell]

what's the difference between that and control

I don't know if there necessarily is a difference, I just am saying that I don't think anywhere near the magnitude of thought power has been put towards "how to design control" as "how to design aggro".

 

[ahadabans]

I don't think the curves need to be identical (or all that similar) to get the benefits of what you are proposing. I've been a proponent of having attacking decks and controlling decks be possible in all colors.

For what it's worth, back when Eric and I were studying retail limited environments, one of the things that became clear was that even there the curves between colors are not identical.

Personally I would start with a question like "how can I give red control more love" and solve it from that angle, rather than enforce some rigid restriction and see what shakes up.

That's the essence of what I'm after. The only reason I'm trying to throw some rigidity in there is because I need some kind of rule set to build a cube around (talking me personally). If I can literally do anything (any mana curve, as many of any card as I want, any card from history, etc), it's too polarizing. How do I even begin that mission?

I can't be alone in that thought process either. I think that is why a certain large group of people on another forum Which Shall Not Be Named cling so hard to the singleton/power max philosophy - because it gives you a very structured rule set by which to design your cube. There isn't one right answer (at least for fringe cards and arch type support), but there are tons of wrong ones and so you have a clear path to the end result and a finite number of configurations (and you can be elitist about it too, which is definitely a bonus). With a super open cube design though, you could literally build a cube where squire worked (well, maybe not squire but you get the idea).

Another issue I have (somewhat related) is that I simply can't dedicate enough time to testing. So while the optimal mana curves in each color are likely not identical, finding that sweet spot that drafts the best is simply not within my time/resource constraints. I need to narrow the design rules down so the number of things I have to figure out is manageable.

With all that said, maybe my starting point could be a set (and unique) mana curve for each color? I'm still tempted to make all of them the same and see how many more 1 drops I'd need to run in blue and how many more 5+ drops I'd need to run in red and then see what cards could fill those slots (and how that would impact the meta - theoretically). I have a few days off, so I think I'm going to see where that thinking takes me.

For sure, lowering mana curves has helped my cube. But there is likely a point where you get diminishing returns on that (and even a negative effect). Don't know where that point is though.

 

[Goldenpineapple]

When I first made my list (without doing a single bit of research) I gave the colors strong identities/curve, then sprinkled support for archetypes to flavor.

Red and white were both very front-heavy, average cmc was something like 2.2 in 120 cards (both colors).
Blue and black were very bell-curve, with a ton of 2-for-1s and cantrip VALUE cards.
Green was the sole source of ramp, had no early threats but the most fat.

It actually played fairly alright, every two-color deck had a relatively unique feel to it. The games just got really stale really fast, and it was easy to try and push a deck that was getting cut by others just enough that you got left with effectively scraps. Aggro takes so many more cards to actually work that it eventually became undraftable as everyone forced midrange juggernauts. There was a brief period where people consistently drafted what looked liked kitchen table decks (playing elite vanguard and sun titan in the same deck, to give you an idea) and those games actually panned out pretty well, looking back. No exciting or weird interactions, and very few technically-challenging plays or board states, but very reminiscent of how I played magic in 1999.

Now that I think about it I was unintentionally trying to make something like what the THS block limited is starting to look like. Lots of cards that fit in many different two-color decks, and some gold/off-color activation cards that help define those decks. Of course my extremely-sloppy pile was basically the opposite of tuned, but it was fun for a while.

TL;DR do a better job than I did when I wasn't even sure I knew what a cube was and I think it could be great.

 

[CML]

Mimicking the curve of constructed is impossible, since cube will never be close to low enough to be even "Standard" (in general, not saying "Cube RDW" isn't faster than "Junk Reanimator,") but, I think it's a goal well worth pursuing. FWIW Ano though I think one-mana spells of all kinds are super-important and fun, 1-drop creatures are more important than others. I guess one way of bringing about a good dynamic iteratively would be to stock up on "one-drop guys," then cut the bad ones / add "one-cost removal" so the 1-drop guys aren't too good, add some more 1-drop guys, add card manipulation and hand disruption at 1, etc.

One design fallacy I have fallen prey to is not "ruthlessly discriminating against 4's" but "having basically no standards for 1's at all" to the point where "hey Spikeshot Elder and Ulvenwald Tracker are going 14th and 15th again!"

 

[ahadabans]

I've been studying your list CML. I like it. You have interesting choices in there and I'm stealing a couple for my next update actually.

 

[Jason Waddell]

I'm convinced that most cubers saw Spikeshot Elder do something useful once and then keep him in for years out of a sense of obligation. I guess he was a little better in SOM draft...

 

[CML]

with barbed battlegear it was basically like skullclamp except you didn't draw two cards

 

[Chris Taylor]

For reference: in my list (with double rancor, bonesplitter and wargear, among other things) he's usually 6-8th, and goes up hard when you have a density of those effects

 

[ahadabans]

I'm convinced that most cubers saw Spikeshot Elder do something useful once and then keep him in for years out of a sense of obligation.

So am I. I took him out a long time ago. It was cute throwing basilisk collar on him and all, but without help he is really underwhelming. There are just too many other red one drops I would rather run.

 

[Tom]

So am I. I took him out a long time ago. It was cute throwing basilisk collar on him and all, but without help he is really underwhelming. There are just too many other red one drops I would rather run.

Agree as well. I tend to like 1 drops with 2 power.

 

[ahadabans]

2 power one drops are important for aggro... Conventional wisdom that I do think holds weight. But I personally prefer interesting 1 mana cards that do powerful things. Like welder, DRS, mother.

Part of that is because my play group durdles a bit. My first cut at a proper cube had aggro fully supported and every pack had savannah lions and jackal pups going last pick. I stopped fighting it after awhile. There's still a traditional aggro deck in there but you have to dig for it now.

 

[CML]

Part of (all of) why I kept Spikeshot in is that I tried doubling up on the other Red 1's and nobody liked it. Happier experiences elsewhere?

 

[Jonas]

I jsut threw it in to try it out now, and haven't had it in a draft yet, but I've never really liked the cost of the ability. Will see if I change my mind after actually seeing him in a draft.