I won't be impressed til you hit 5 figures.
Card/Deck Vamps
- Thread starter CML
- Start date
CML
Contributor
(I wrote this to respond again)
anyway this has the makings of a great Riptide moment. someone spam Reddit with it
Chris 'cml' Morris-Lent What is your argument? "He tried, and it might not work, but at least he's trying?" You might do a better job of cloaking that your opposition to my post is based on anything other than personal animus.
9 mins · Edited · Like
Chris 'cml' Morris-Lent To address the substance of your evasions: it's funny you accuse me of "lazy" Cube design when I have updated my Cube over 100 times, made 3,000 posts on Riptide Lab, and engaged in these kinds of interactions endlessly. What really IS lazy isn't trying a Vampire theme so much as it is adding it to the Cube in question, you did a terrific job of not addressing my arguments as to why it won't work and it makes me think the changes were not tested because as I said above the theme seems reasonable until you, er, actually try it.
Beyond that, I don't know why you continue to adopt the "Wizards is always right" mindset when you're no longer working for them, but I guess in a sense you still are. Given how extensively I qualified the argument at the end and how you still got butt-hurt about it while really just ignoring it, I think I'm the only one talking about Cube and you're talking about etiquette or context, which is all good and well for you until I point out that the Vampires theme in Cube is maybe the tenth-stinkiest thing about Modo or that Modo as a "business" is a dismal failure compared to what it could be.
To steer the conversation back to Cube, if think multiple fetches helps control more than aggro, then you just haven't tried it and I don't know how you can say you're curious about it when you admit you're ideologically opposed. Now this is a reasonable response when we're talking about an "official Cube," which is why I offered several solutions, including one explicitly with the constraints we have in mind. If you're not interested in what I have to say, that's fine, but at least tell me and don't make a transparently phony claim to want to know. At any rate, saying Vamps will work is as cynical as rebranding the Legacy Cube a “redesign” when you and I both know it retains the vast majority of its design traits, or flaws, though in the context of Magic Online one could be forgiven for not being able to tell the former from the latter.
Chris 'cml' Morris-Lent (Though what else could we expect from a man who publishes pay-to-subscribe articles gushing about decks that go 0-2 in local tournaments?)
anyway this has the makings of a great Riptide moment. someone spam Reddit with it
Chris 'cml' Morris-Lent What is your argument? "He tried, and it might not work, but at least he's trying?" You might do a better job of cloaking that your opposition to my post is based on anything other than personal animus.
9 mins · Edited · Like
Chris 'cml' Morris-Lent To address the substance of your evasions: it's funny you accuse me of "lazy" Cube design when I have updated my Cube over 100 times, made 3,000 posts on Riptide Lab, and engaged in these kinds of interactions endlessly. What really IS lazy isn't trying a Vampire theme so much as it is adding it to the Cube in question, you did a terrific job of not addressing my arguments as to why it won't work and it makes me think the changes were not tested because as I said above the theme seems reasonable until you, er, actually try it.
Beyond that, I don't know why you continue to adopt the "Wizards is always right" mindset when you're no longer working for them, but I guess in a sense you still are. Given how extensively I qualified the argument at the end and how you still got butt-hurt about it while really just ignoring it, I think I'm the only one talking about Cube and you're talking about etiquette or context, which is all good and well for you until I point out that the Vampires theme in Cube is maybe the tenth-stinkiest thing about Modo or that Modo as a "business" is a dismal failure compared to what it could be.
To steer the conversation back to Cube, if think multiple fetches helps control more than aggro, then you just haven't tried it and I don't know how you can say you're curious about it when you admit you're ideologically opposed. Now this is a reasonable response when we're talking about an "official Cube," which is why I offered several solutions, including one explicitly with the constraints we have in mind. If you're not interested in what I have to say, that's fine, but at least tell me and don't make a transparently phony claim to want to know. At any rate, saying Vamps will work is as cynical as rebranding the Legacy Cube a “redesign” when you and I both know it retains the vast majority of its design traits, or flaws, though in the context of Magic Online one could be forgiven for not being able to tell the former from the latter.
Chris 'cml' Morris-Lent (Though what else could we expect from a man who publishes pay-to-subscribe articles gushing about decks that go 0-2 in local tournaments?)
Grillo_Parlante
Contributor
Given how reasonable you were in the actual article (which was great btw) its difficult not to see his post as anything more than an animus driven overreaction.
How nicer can you get than this qualifier:
You cede right off the bat that:
1. There are community expectations constraining design (singleton, power max mindset)
2. This limits the number of available solutions
3. This dosen't reflect negatively on either Randy or Gerry
Yet somehow he manages to get offended, act as if the article is an ad hominem attack on him (and the legacy cube as well it seems), and than ignores the well-reasoned blue print you provide (based on personal experiences) as to what it takes for a tribal theme to work.
Than apparently, as if to reveal the full extent and magnitude of his crush on you, he goes on an unreleated rant about running multiple fetchlands. Based on its vehemency and needlessness, I'm guessing he got in a fight with you in the past about breaking singleton on fetches, which he feels he lost, and now wants to recreate the debate.
How embarrassing (for him).
How nicer can you get than this qualifier:
You cede right off the bat that:
1. There are community expectations constraining design (singleton, power max mindset)
2. This limits the number of available solutions
3. This dosen't reflect negatively on either Randy or Gerry
Yet somehow he manages to get offended, act as if the article is an ad hominem attack on him (and the legacy cube as well it seems), and than ignores the well-reasoned blue print you provide (based on personal experiences) as to what it takes for a tribal theme to work.
Than apparently, as if to reveal the full extent and magnitude of his crush on you, he goes on an unreleated rant about running multiple fetchlands. Based on its vehemency and needlessness, I'm guessing he got in a fight with you in the past about breaking singleton on fetches, which he feels he lost, and now wants to recreate the debate.
How embarrassing (for him).
CML, this is the best thing you've written that I've read of yours. Bravo!
Re: What GT said: Stop describing cube to people as "singleton, with these exceptions", and describe it as "a draft format (etc) that's mostly singleton". This is not hard to understand.
fetchlands: You really can't talk about this without having played it, and you especially can't state "it will help control" in the face of a wealth of real evidence from riptidelab cubes that it really does help aggro. AND it is awesome and fun.
And yeah, I don't really see his point, in the end. He's annoyed about something, that's for sure, and he doesn't like breaking singleton.
fetchlands: You really can't talk about this without having played it, and you especially can't state "it will help control" in the face of a wealth of real evidence from riptidelab cubes that it really does help aggro. AND it is awesome and fun.
And yeah, I don't really see his point, in the end. He's annoyed about something, that's for sure, and he doesn't like breaking singleton.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
Well... He does have a point about your antagonistic online persona. That last comment is pretty unnecessary and contributes nothing to the discussion. I also think his "at least he's trying" argument isn't as dumb as you make it out to be. The guy (Randy) is, after all, actively trying to sculpt a better and better environment, and even though he's not there yet (in Riptide terms at least), you can't deny the new cube is a far cry from and a lot better than the first cube incarnations on MODO. Also, from a business point of view, I can understand why they don't want to offer free cubes (though they occasionally host shadow drafts, which are really cheap, right?), and his argument for why you wouldn't want a million random cubes also makes sense. However, there's a few fallacies in his reasoning that are easy to miss if you are looking at cube drafting in the usual way.
First, breaking singleton isn't as hard to sell as it seems. You shouldn't bill it as "a singleton draft format, except for...", you should bill it as something like "Cube is a fantasy draft format where the owner of the cube has free control over the cards in the draftpool. There are no hard and fast rules for constructing your cube. A cube can be singleton in nature for example, or it can consist of only commons and uncommons, or be built around a central theme, or none of these things. Anything goes, as long as your drafters are having a blast drafting your cube. The MODO cube aims to offer a draft format with constructed-level card quality, without broken or narrow cards. The focus lies on good cards, interesting interactions, and fun games. You might end up with a 5-color Cruel Ultimatum deck, a Birthing Pod deck with multiples of its namesake card, a mono-red aggro deck, or the incidental zombie tribal deck. Whatever the case, we're dedicated to offering you the best draft experience possible and we wish you a lot of fun drafting the MODO cube!" See? It doesn't have to be complex. Breaking singleton isn't inherently more complex than not breaking singleton, but certainly less arbitrary.
Gerry's comment on lazy cube design is also way off, but he wouldn't know that until he actually tried that. The singleton paradigm is still very strong outside our little bubble. Someone should point him to a Frank Karsten article on mana bases. Smooth mana is actually waaaaay more important for aggro decks, because you don't have the time to pull out of a color screw. Unlike for midrange and control decks, for an aggro deck it's absolutely critical that you hit your one-, two- and three-drops, and you will fail at that relatively often (compared to a monocolor deck) if you are playing a multicolor deck with bad fixing or a lot of etb tapped lands. Thus, in traditional cubes with bad fixing, aggro decks are condemned to be single color, which also explains why mono-red was the dominant aggro deck in the previous MODO cube, while in Riptide cubes the dominant aggro decks are seldom monocolored. It's true that every archetype benefits from better fixing, but it's not hard to see how aggro decks need good fixing the most.
Edit: He's guilty of the same discussion-ruining insinuations as you by the way, but decidedly less uncouth
First, breaking singleton isn't as hard to sell as it seems. You shouldn't bill it as "a singleton draft format, except for...", you should bill it as something like "Cube is a fantasy draft format where the owner of the cube has free control over the cards in the draftpool. There are no hard and fast rules for constructing your cube. A cube can be singleton in nature for example, or it can consist of only commons and uncommons, or be built around a central theme, or none of these things. Anything goes, as long as your drafters are having a blast drafting your cube. The MODO cube aims to offer a draft format with constructed-level card quality, without broken or narrow cards. The focus lies on good cards, interesting interactions, and fun games. You might end up with a 5-color Cruel Ultimatum deck, a Birthing Pod deck with multiples of its namesake card, a mono-red aggro deck, or the incidental zombie tribal deck. Whatever the case, we're dedicated to offering you the best draft experience possible and we wish you a lot of fun drafting the MODO cube!" See? It doesn't have to be complex. Breaking singleton isn't inherently more complex than not breaking singleton, but certainly less arbitrary.
Gerry's comment on lazy cube design is also way off, but he wouldn't know that until he actually tried that. The singleton paradigm is still very strong outside our little bubble. Someone should point him to a Frank Karsten article on mana bases. Smooth mana is actually waaaaay more important for aggro decks, because you don't have the time to pull out of a color screw. Unlike for midrange and control decks, for an aggro deck it's absolutely critical that you hit your one-, two- and three-drops, and you will fail at that relatively often (compared to a monocolor deck) if you are playing a multicolor deck with bad fixing or a lot of etb tapped lands. Thus, in traditional cubes with bad fixing, aggro decks are condemned to be single color, which also explains why mono-red was the dominant aggro deck in the previous MODO cube, while in Riptide cubes the dominant aggro decks are seldom monocolored. It's true that every archetype benefits from better fixing, but it's not hard to see how aggro decks need good fixing the most.
Edit: He's guilty of the same discussion-ruining insinuations as you by the way, but decidedly less uncouth
Phantom draft events (like cube) are (IIRC, the WotC info knowledgebase seems devoid of details on them) 16 phantom points or 10 tickets. So, $10. Given that pack prices of normal sets regularly hit the 2.5 tix range, it's about average price for a MTGO draft event.
FlowerSunRain
Contributor
The phrase "lazy design", as far as I can tell from my exposure to it basically means "a simple design that accomplishes its purpose extremely well, but I'm not going to acknowledge that and pretend I don't like it because I didn't think of it or am irrationally opposed to it."
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
Well, that's how much time I spend on MODO! Phantom, not shadow, and it costs a lot of money anyway.
CML
Contributor
i could've added the additional qualifier that (a) the modo cube might have to be 600 cards (b) so that further qualifies the limitations of our solutions, but i added a lot of qualifiers already.
extent of past history w/ gerryt includes just two matches of magic and the extent of my reputation. after the second match i argued Dig Through Time is underpowered in Legacy, mainly because I was trying to be a gracious winner. i think there was also some discussion about the martyr decklist he'd featured the previous day on SCG, i argued mine was better, which it is.
so there was no previous fight or anything, but i do think the mindset of the crew in charge is so insecure and paranoid that they assume every argument against anything they do is provocation for a fight. this holds especially true for me because i am sometimes a prick on the internet, except in the initial article i just ... wasn't. so when i write something like that and get that kind of response it kills my motivation to even try to improve magic outside of the culture, the culture dictates my efforts will not work so i just descend to the lower level of discourse and thereby blow my chances to influence the people i argue with, which were already ~0 as the initial reaction indicates so i'm not wasting time at least. i'm sure there's a self-justifying element to that but by and large it's true.
CML
Contributor
anyone who knows me in person or on this forum knows my disregard for sycophants and desire for friends but it does not seem this is mirrored by the people in charge.
at any rate i don't want this to degenerate into a wholesale indictment of magic culture and internet etiquette with plenty of self-justification from both sides. the article is about why vampires are a bad design choice in a particular context and i've already posted too much off-topic and regret it.
at any rate i don't want this to degenerate into a wholesale indictment of magic culture and internet etiquette with plenty of self-justification from both sides. the article is about why vampires are a bad design choice in a particular context and i've already posted too much off-topic and regret it.
well like I've said this before but zombie tribal doesn't feel like you should think of it as a zombies deck so much as a aggro / attrition / graveyard strategy. This includes a couple vampire cards. I mean, what specifically likes vampires that you feel like enables a more interesting / diverse array of decks in your cube?
Grillo_Parlante
Contributor
There really aren't a lot of cards that reward you for having multiple vampires while not being poisonous. The best you are going to get is bloodline keeper, and I can speak from personal experience that decks running stromkirk noble or falkenrath aristocrat are going to be more interested in just killing you than messing around with a durdly 4 mana flying dude.
That was a great article CML, probably the best thing of yours I've read so far. I don't get why Gerry decided to get personal there at all, you were being completely civil.
I especially like his claim of multiples of card being lazy cube building. There are multiples in there specifically because we've put in the time to see whether it actually works and leads to better gameplay. It's a stark contrast to cube-building methodologies of power-maxing or putting in inferior cards just to push a particular theme. I just feel like most people are just way too transfixed on traditional cube norms that they're just unwilling to even explore the possibility of breaking singleton. Somehow it violates some weird principle when really they should be working on creating the best environment possible. You can't really make the argument that Card X and Y are both necessary within a given design if two copies of X would lead to more innovative deck-building and open up more deck possibilities. It just doesn't make sense to limit yourself to such narrow boundaries when there are so many sweet cards out there with interactions to be explored.
I dunno, I just wish more people had a Riptide mindset when it came to experimentation instead of just being a bunch of sheep.
I especially like his claim of multiples of card being lazy cube building. There are multiples in there specifically because we've put in the time to see whether it actually works and leads to better gameplay. It's a stark contrast to cube-building methodologies of power-maxing or putting in inferior cards just to push a particular theme. I just feel like most people are just way too transfixed on traditional cube norms that they're just unwilling to even explore the possibility of breaking singleton. Somehow it violates some weird principle when really they should be working on creating the best environment possible. You can't really make the argument that Card X and Y are both necessary within a given design if two copies of X would lead to more innovative deck-building and open up more deck possibilities. It just doesn't make sense to limit yourself to such narrow boundaries when there are so many sweet cards out there with interactions to be explored.
I dunno, I just wish more people had a Riptide mindset when it came to experimentation instead of just being a bunch of sheep.
MtG(as decribed by its own color pie)
A blue mage's game where almost everyone thinks they're a blue mage because they're "a little better than the rest". In truth, most are actually anything but blue(or better than anyone). But the ones that think they are blue are usually arrogant black mages, rule-nazi white mages, or overconfident red mages. Real blue mages are few and far between. Most green mages are extremely friendly but hard to like casual derps that have been convinced by a snobby black mage with a sad excuse for a vintage deck that "commander is fun", just before said black mage combos out with memnarch for the thirtieth time in a month. Creators of MtG are thought of as only the most brilliant of izzet minds, but are closer to resembling an azorius sockpuppet being controlled by dimir and obzedat hands. There's also a lot of green mages running around flinging crap into everything. CML is the only colorless character I can think of, as he said "fuck this shit" long ago but still continues to play in hopes something might change.
A blue mage's game where almost everyone thinks they're a blue mage because they're "a little better than the rest". In truth, most are actually anything but blue(or better than anyone). But the ones that think they are blue are usually arrogant black mages, rule-nazi white mages, or overconfident red mages. Real blue mages are few and far between. Most green mages are extremely friendly but hard to like casual derps that have been convinced by a snobby black mage with a sad excuse for a vintage deck that "commander is fun", just before said black mage combos out with memnarch for the thirtieth time in a month. Creators of MtG are thought of as only the most brilliant of izzet minds, but are closer to resembling an azorius sockpuppet being controlled by dimir and obzedat hands. There's also a lot of green mages running around flinging crap into everything. CML is the only colorless character I can think of, as he said "fuck this shit" long ago but still continues to play in hopes something might change.
I remember being resistant to breaking singleton. The truth is that it appears random and inelegant from the outside, but that's not really a worthwhile argument point, so I found myself resisting by defaulting to other explanations that sounded better but were ultimately poor reasonings as well. Looking at six Brainstorms in a list that is mostly singleton DOES look awkward, but it looks and feels a lot better when you actually see them in packs instead.
Breaking singleton means that suddenly there are 300+ more knobs you can turn and that makes people uncomfortable. Singleton provides the safe haven of explaining away gameplay inconsistencies as "design constraints," which further supports people's mega egos and allows them to pretend they've made perfect cube design choices. It is much easier to attack singleton-breaking philosophy than to admit to yourself that you aren't willing or might even be incapable of dealing with the massive complexity of multiples, or to have the humility to admit that your cube will not be "perfect" even after doing so, even though it will improve the gameplay.
Breaking singleton means that suddenly there are 300+ more knobs you can turn and that makes people uncomfortable. Singleton provides the safe haven of explaining away gameplay inconsistencies as "design constraints," which further supports people's mega egos and allows them to pretend they've made perfect cube design choices. It is much easier to attack singleton-breaking philosophy than to admit to yourself that you aren't willing or might even be incapable of dealing with the massive complexity of multiples, or to have the humility to admit that your cube will not be "perfect" even after doing so, even though it will improve the gameplay.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
I think it's funny/sad to see how ready we all are to condemn Gerry's response, when it's clear that he put a lot of thought and effort in the reply. Certainly we don't feel like cubers who don't follow the Riptide school of thought are beneath us, right? Just because his point of view is narrow (ironically, given the fact that he calls your article narrow) and rife with typical cube maxims that don't actually foster a good drafting environment, doesn't mean we should ridicule him at will.
Anyway, the article (unlike the later replies) is seriously great, and I hope it inspires some people to break the mold and build an awesome cube unrestricted by the shackles of conformism.
Anyway, the article (unlike the later replies) is seriously great, and I hope it inspires some people to break the mold and build an awesome cube unrestricted by the shackles of conformism.
Grillo_Parlante
Contributor
Thats just the thing though, he didn't. Go take a look at it again, and look how he structured it. Of the eight paragraphs, five of them are either outright ad hominems directed at CML, or at least include some sort of passive jab at him. Paragraph 2 is a defense of Randy, which would be fine, accept Randy was never attacked in CMLs article. Only two of the paragraphs actually address the article, and they are again, defensive pieces, ignoring the central topic of building tribal in cube.
And thats the strange thing about this reply. Its as if he never actually read the article, or that he just skimmed it, and than read into it an attack that wasn't there. The article was never an attack on Randy, the MODO cube, or Gerry himself. It was a reflective piece about the difficulties of building tribal in cube, prompted by recent experiences with the legacy cube. If anything, the piece comes across as sympathetic and understanding.
Yet, Gerry responds to it in a completely irrational manner. Thats why I assumed their had to be some sort of ugly history between the two. Its just weird.
Laz
Developer
I don't know about that... I distinctly remember something somewhere in which CML strung together a stream of reasoning that equated Green Sun's Zenith with the rise of College Libertarianism. Or possibly, in my mind, those two items reflect CML's strongest feelings?
I am enjoying this as it develops, and hope that this debate can stir some interesting discussion. Unfortunately I think it will go towards the 'I guess we will beg to differ, but I like my design than you very much', but I hold out hope.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
Yeah, in hindsight it's certainly not Gerry's finest moment, but ad homineming it right back at him isn't going to help the argument either. I'ld much rather we convince WotC and others with good arguments that the existing cube paradigms are keeping it down from the great environment it can be than resort to ridiculing them. I guess I was just saddened by CML's vitriolic response to Gerry and the likes CML's post got from multiple Riptide regulars. I mean, this is just not how you treat other people in general (at least not in my book), and it's certainly not supportive of a broader acceptation of our (i.e. Riptide's) cube philosophies. And that is sad, because I firmly believe people would have a lot more fun drafting cubes around the world if they did embrace those philosophies.
I believe keeping it civil and not bashing others is more important than converting others to our cause though. It's all too easy to verbally abuse people over the internet, where we can hide semi-anonimously behind our online persona.
From the (Unreleased) Vault: Cube (MSRP $49.95)
Tired of lazy cube design? Coming Winter 2015, ten (10!) exciting new designs to spice up your cube! From the (Unreleased) Vault: Cube cards are not legal in any constructed format.
From the (Unreleased) Vault: Cube hails from such design triumphs as Searing Spear and Lightning Strike, WOTC is proud to announce new creativity-enabling tools for cube design.
Azorius Strand
, Pay 1 life, Sacrifice Azorius Strand: Search your library for a Plains or Island card and put it onto the battlefield. Then shuffle your library.
Dimir Delta
, Pay 1 life, Sacrifice Dimir Delta: Search your library for a Island or Swamp card and put it onto the battlefield. Then shuffle your library.
Rakdos Mire
, Pay 1 life, Sacrifice Rakdos Mire: Search your library for a Swamp or Mountain card and put it onto the battlefield. Then shuffle your library.
Gruul Foothills
, Pay 1 life, Sacrifice Gruul Foothills: Search your library for a Mountain or Forest card and put it onto the battlefield. Then shuffle your library.
Selesnya Heath
, Pay 1 life, Sacrifice Selesnya Heath: Search your library for a Forest or Plains card and put it onto the battlefield. Then shuffle your library.
Simic Rainforest
, Pay 1 life, Sacrifice Simic Rainforest: Search your library for a Forest or Island card and put it onto the battlefield. Then shuffle your library.
Orzhov Flats
, Pay 1 life, Sacrifice Orzhov Flats: Search your library for a Plains or Swamp card and put it onto the battlefield. Then shuffle your library.
Izzet Tarn
, Pay 1 life, Sacrifice Izzet Tarn: Search your library for a Mountain or Island card and put it onto the battlefield. Then shuffle your library.
Golgari Catacombs
, Pay 1 life, Sacrifice Golgari Catacombs: Search your library for a Forest or Swamp card and put it onto the battlefield. Then shuffle your library.
Boros Mesa
, Pay 1 life, Sacrifice Boros Mesa: Search your library for a Mountain or Plains card and put it onto the battlefield. Then shuffle your library.
Tired of lazy cube design? Coming Winter 2015, ten (10!) exciting new designs to spice up your cube! From the (Unreleased) Vault: Cube cards are not legal in any constructed format.
From the (Unreleased) Vault: Cube hails from such design triumphs as Searing Spear and Lightning Strike, WOTC is proud to announce new creativity-enabling tools for cube design.
Azorius Strand
Dimir Delta
Rakdos Mire
Gruul Foothills
Selesnya Heath
Simic Rainforest
Orzhov Flats
Izzet Tarn
Golgari Catacombs
Boros Mesa
Orzhov Flats sounds like a crazy place to crash after a booze cruise.
In all seriousness, I'm really tired of this conversation. I think it's easy enough to brand cube as a "custom draft format", and as far as explanations go, that's a lot clearer than trying to explain Vintage Masters or many of the online-only Masters draft formats they come up with.
I don't think hosting a cube list online should necessarily be free. I would envision something like a "cube hoster's license", costed at a price to keep people from flooding MTGO with excessive queues. No, I don't expect them to implement a Utility Land Draft or whatever.
I think if you charge $50-$100 to host cube drafts, and then charge drafters at the same rates that you would charge for phantom drafts. I don't know if that is financially desirable for WOTC, so I can't really speak to that.
It is interesting that MODO cube is finally embracing some of the "what is good in your cube isn't necessarily good for your cube", instead of a simple Powered / Unpowered dichotomy, so in that sense they're on par with what I published in my first article in February 2013.
After browsing through lots of posts and discussions for years, the only anti-singleton argument I've seen that holds any water is that "there's more that can go wrong". And that's true. But...
Okay, I'll put this in mathematical terms. Imagine you have some multidimensional function that you want to optimize. If you highly constrain your parameters, you are likely not to capture the true maximum. If you leave your parameters unconstrained, you should be able to find the maximum anyways (but, practically, it will take longer).
Here our function to maximize should be fun. If the most fun designs are singleton, we'll naturally gravitate there. Singleton cubes are a subset of unconstrained cubes.
However, given how culturally ingrained the defense of singleton is, I can understand how diversions might not maximize profits. I have, however, played my cube with dozens of uninitiated players, people whose only notions of cube design come from what they've heard from MODO, and not one of them has bat an eye at multiple fetchlands or other cards.
I don't think hosting a cube list online should necessarily be free. I would envision something like a "cube hoster's license", costed at a price to keep people from flooding MTGO with excessive queues. No, I don't expect them to implement a Utility Land Draft or whatever.
I think if you charge $50-$100 to host cube drafts, and then charge drafters at the same rates that you would charge for phantom drafts. I don't know if that is financially desirable for WOTC, so I can't really speak to that.
It is interesting that MODO cube is finally embracing some of the "what is good in your cube isn't necessarily good for your cube", instead of a simple Powered / Unpowered dichotomy, so in that sense they're on par with what I published in my first article in February 2013.
After browsing through lots of posts and discussions for years, the only anti-singleton argument I've seen that holds any water is that "there's more that can go wrong". And that's true. But...
Okay, I'll put this in mathematical terms. Imagine you have some multidimensional function that you want to optimize. If you highly constrain your parameters, you are likely not to capture the true maximum. If you leave your parameters unconstrained, you should be able to find the maximum anyways (but, practically, it will take longer).
Here our function to maximize should be fun. If the most fun designs are singleton, we'll naturally gravitate there. Singleton cubes are a subset of unconstrained cubes.
However, given how culturally ingrained the defense of singleton is, I can understand how diversions might not maximize profits. I have, however, played my cube with dozens of uninitiated players, people whose only notions of cube design come from what they've heard from MODO, and not one of them has bat an eye at multiple fetchlands or other cards.