General Size Matters: How do you get so small?!

[RavebornMuse]

Hello, my fellow beautiful Riptwits

In this thread, I'd love to hear your thoughts and opinions on how to adjust cube size.

I've recently been thinking of both scaling back my cube's size, and perhaps putting in a few more duplicates, to help support particular themes (perhaps we should have another new thread about what duplicates people are liking now? It's been a while!). I've found that, when drafting with three, really gorgeous thematic decks can emerge in my environ, but, as you all have probably heard me say by now, I draft with just myself and one other most often, and we do this all the time. We've tried a few formats which improve deck quality, and we've enjoyed those, but I'd really like to be able to see about maybe trimming back a bit. We like the high variance, because seeing the same cards all the time is a drag when you're usually two, but there's also a distinctly awesome feel to picking up both copies of CoCo and going crazy in 3-Drops & Anthems City. I'm thinking if I can push my list to be a bit tighter, I cooler decks might come about more often, and I'd like that. Decks are always good, but, surely, reducing in size could make them better, right? (Right?)

My biggest issue with cutting back my cube size is that the most attractive cards to cut are typically 2 or 3 drops; 1-drops tend to feel too necessary, and 4+ tend to be cream of the crop playables. But at the same time, I prefer a tighter, faster curve.

I suppose my top question is this:
How do you reduce your cube size without hurting aggro decks?

I'd love to hear what your experiences were with reducing your cube size; what did you cut initially, what did you find yourself needing to put back, and how did it change the sorts of decks you saw?

The opposite experience would also be informative; how did expanding your list change your format, and what did you do to adjust?

 

[Onderzeeboot]

I started from scratch with a 360 cube, making painful cuts to get the leanest cube possible that reflected my idea of an ideal draft environment. Then I expanded to 450 by adding cool cards I wanted to run, even though they were by no means essential.

 

[Jason Waddell]

Two thoughts:
1) aren't smaller cubes better for aggro in singleton?
2) in non-singleton does size affect balance?

 

[ahadabans]

This is the dilemma I had and what pushed me to explore the idea of modularizing. So you still have a 450 cube (or whatever size), but you always draft a small portion of it (specified by your module breakout - however you choose to do it). There's a great article on this site somewhere about it I recommend you read if you haven't already.

My experience is 360 is super tight but it loses too many "fun" cards. It also is a little more stale since you can make very efficient decks based on tried and true strategies which hurts some of the off-road experimentation you see in looser lists. If I had to choose, I'd go big because I prefer the sloppier draft experience myself. I don't have enough experience yet with the modular concept to properly make comparisons, but I feel like it should be better overall.

 

[RavebornMuse]

Two thoughts:
1) aren't smaller cubes better for aggro in singleton?
2) in non-singleton does size affect balance?

1) I would suggest that smaller lists are theoretically better for anything due to their improved consistency. The problem is that there isn't exactly a guide for how to move down in size. I could have easily(?) just proportionally scaled down my cube, but, I figured a thread might be more interesting and provide some good insight on how to go about doing that. For example, so far, I've essentially been told that it's probably not worth it, which makes me more inclined to cut conservatively and maybe just slide down to 450~440 for now instead of going full-on for 400~420 as I was initially considering.

2) The key difference between singleton vs non-singleton is that non-singleton offers the advantage of bolstering themes not well-supported by singleton, which can only bolster themes formally supported via functional or near-functional reprints; other than that, I don't think there is actually a meaningful distinction between them, so I'm not sure I understand this question.

 

[shamizy]

I did the same as Onderzeeboot. I began with a 360 list and refined it until I had a base that I wanted to work off. After a few drafts, I saw certain decks come together time after time (Birthing Pod, Recursive Aggro, etc.) and it felt a little same-y after a while. I then increased my Cube's size to 400 because there were like 15 cool new cards I wanted to add, and then I just extended a few themes and threw in some cool three color cards I wanted to play with (Abzan Charm, Jeskai Ascendancy, etc.). I've since jumped up to 420 with a few more additions and I'm pretty happy with where my Cube is. There are some cuts and refinements to be made post-BFZ, but its pretty decent now. I'm liking where my non-singleton choices are, I still need to add in two more Wastelands that I haven't gotten around to and a few other interesting cards that I've got lying around in my binder.

Smaller lists are nicer for cohesion and seeing your themes at work, but too small and you'll see the same decks over and over if there's good enough support for it. For me 400-420 is right in the sweet spot where I see enough of my archetype defining cards without seeing the same decks all the time.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

Here is a pretty interesting article which should be applied to cube.

It compares vintage and legacy, where the power level of the cards have effectively constricted the card pool down to a managable size, with pauper and modern which tend to have very expansive formats due to the size of the card pool and the relatively flatter power level of the cards, and than compares those with carefully curated standard formats. In the end it asks questions about what sorts of checks and balances these formats use to maintain a healthy and competitive meta.

Legacy and vintage is ubiquitous answers (wasteland/FOW), standard is wizards loving hand, modern is silver bullet sb cards that no one has enough sb space for due to how diverse the format is, and pauper is screwed.

This makes me wonder about a few things when applied to cube:

1. Breaking singleton as a means to artifically shrink a formats size down, than revolving the format around a handful of powerful cards that balance one another. This seems to be, not surprisingly, the direction that "legacy-lite" formats went.

2. Running a smaller cube as a way to, again, keep format diversity to a managable level.

On the flip side, expanding the cube size so as to maximize the amount of format diversity, but sacrifice format balance in order to have a free range environment. This makes me think of meltyman and his massive 720 size cubes.

3. Running a smaller cube with singleton maximization to promote format diversity, while still being small enough to have an easier time maintaining meta checks on powerful interactions.

4. Our rational behind cuts and adds.

I think more to your specific issue, is the question:

5. How do you promote metagame checks?

You have a balancing issue, and I would imagine as you constrict the format down, your cards bump up against one another and start solidifying around focused strategies, as the number of possible card combinations shrink, triggering a format wide survival of the fittest. Cards that fit more marginally in the new order are pushed out, lacking the large unstable metagame that gave them space to perform well.

We've not really focused on metagame development, or how to promote tech to prey upon various strategies.

With aggro strategies, I usually find it best to compare how you want your threats to interact with their answers: where you want to create space with removal conditions, where you want to blank removal or strengthen it , and how you want to distribute tempo generation and card advantage tools.

It just becomes a much more focused discussion at a smaller size, with less room for filler cards, or quirky cards.

 

[ahadabans]

I'm going to be honest. I'm under no illusion personally that my cube gets played enough or by good/diverse enough players to believe for one second I've actually balanced it. Nor am I under any false impression that I'm capable enough to do that sort of thing even if I had the data.

My guess is my meta is very broken. But that fact isn't being exploited (nor will it be) simply due to the fact that no one is actively looking to do that. For a prime example, it took me a good two years to see how broken Recurring Nightmare is (and for my group to start taking advantage of it), and up until a couple months ago I still thought Opposition was OK to run. With the rate at which cards are rotating now (and after the power purge I did), I don't think the recurring nightmare situation is going to pop up much going forward.

I would worry less about "balance" (which I honestly think is way beyond what most of us can realistically achieve) and focus more on what you want out of your draft experience personally. My 2 cents.

 

[Alfonzo Bonzo]

Two thoughts:
1) aren't smaller cubes better for aggro in singleton?
2) in non-singleton does size affect balance?

For some reason I read this hearing Carrie Bradshaws voice.