I'm not fully sure how to verbalize this concept. When playing
@Chriskool's Meddling Mage Grid, I really appreciated the design. There were tons of cool synergies and interesting interactions that unfolded as we played. But even though there were plenty of strong cards around, something about it felt... dry? I don't really mean that in a negative way, but I got a similar feeling from when I played Pauper constructed. There are interesting decks, interesting lines, but I could feel that, for my personal taste, I gravitate towards something a bit splashier and swingier. At the same time, there are cubes I've played that I feel like go too far in the other direction. Again, for my personal, 'optimal taste'.
There's probably some correlation with power (lower power cubes are more likely to be 'drier'), but mostly I'm feeling like I don't fully have the terminology I want to dig into this. Does anyone have thoughts on the subject?
@landofMordor care to lay out some new verbiage?
I feel like there is a lot of garbage in this response, as it is in by no means succinct (and half proofread). Please, forgive me (even though y'all need to be forgiven for trying to turn cube into something thirsty)!
By my count, there are 89 unique cards (8 of which are lands, appx 15 each color) in the Invitational Limelight grid. Only a subset of these are interactive beyond being a creature (low variety of interaction, flatter power band through less variety), but playing a hetfy number of multiples means the density of interaction is high.
A constructed pauper deck might be 10-20 unique cards pre-SB. I assume the successful decks have a pretty consistent powerband in how they approach the metagame (and there is also a low variety of cards played).
In the grid, assuming I'm approaching my design goals, every proactive play pattern should have a response & the small card pool combined with the open information lends both players to metagaming (similar to a known Constructed format). The gameplay threat-response should be similar to how top-tier decks are constructed in established metagames. Compound this with the grid draft experience involving only a single opponent: there is no need to hedge against multiple unknowns (only specific unknowns given the cards the opponent drafted versus what they play).
So given the design approach of the aforementioned grid, how does that approach compare to (loaded word warning) "normal"-ish cubes?
I assume that even singleton-breaking "normal" cubes will have a large variety of unique cards per color pair (and shock/dual/fetch manabases will lend players to splashing). The viable combinations of cards are most likely much greater under these construction rules.
Lastly, in my observation of "normal" cubes, interactive spells are often lower in density and have a large variety of attributes by how they interact. Under these constraints, proactive strategies have more room to flourish.
I assume that the variety of both (1) cards included and (2) plausible proactive lines are going to be greater in a "normal" cube looking to highlight certain cards or combinations over an environment with less variety of spells and supported strategies.
...
I think the grid experience for the Invitational Limelight will be much closer to battling "World Championship" decks against one another while something like the M-Origins grid is more like playing head-to-head Whatever Masters draft. I could see grid approaching the "normal"-ish cube experience as well, but the dynamics of grid drafting will always diverge from the 3x15 draft experience against multiple (somewhat unknown) opponents.
Some cubes like the Inventors' Fair has a lot of variety in sheer numbers like a "normal" cube, but it looks to an overabundance of glue in a flatter power band to enable synergy-based gameplay. And again, the interaction is limited such that synergy has a place in the format.
If I had to put words in your mouth, I'd wager you like more potent variety in your drafting and game play. The grid you played (and thank you again for playing it and sharing thoughts), Pauper decks and the Inventors' Fair cube are all well-seasoned but are never going to yield the flavor of a big mana Jund resolving
Kozilek, Butcher of Truths into
Fractured Identity counterplay out of a Boros deck with
Lightning Greaves to quickly turn the tables (or whatever big splashes might happen). Just compare some "normal" cube plays (that may lead you to think "wow" if you see a screenshot) to
Unmarked Grave for
Nether Spirit with
Murderous Cuts' delve to unlock the spirit's returning ability and
Cabal Therapy and
Repeal in hand to dismantle the opponent's offense; this is a cool chain of events much each component feels relatively tame.
Maybe the axes to discuss are preferences for "variety" and "magnitude of impact" among different classes of cards within a card population. Strixhaven's Mystical Archives adds a lot of both variety and magnitude of impact as does the "Learn/Lesson" mechanic, and say what you will about MDFCs, but those legendary novellas of rules text had some interesting and powerful abilities! (I really loved Strixhaven draft; I could see it being an all-time great draft format despite some color power imbalances and the feel-bad rares that are just to be expected when playing draft.)
Talking with
@Chriskool, he said: {extremely butchered English language}
I need to stop attempting to converse on mobile
