By: Jason Waddell

The fifth installment of ChannelFireball’s “Channel Cube Cast” is online, and it’s of special interest to me as it discusses a pair of articles I wrote about remodelling my cube, with a focus on bringing black aggro up to par. As of this moment, I haven’t had time to listen to it, but look forward to their comments. Listening to the Channel Cube Cast always reminds me that cube design, like any design, is a very cultural thing, shaped by your experiences. I can imagine that cubing in a Magic hotbed like San Jose is significantly different than cubing in Antwerp, Belgium.

When I wrote the articles, I got an email back from editor Andy Cooperfauss with a message along the lines of “thank goodness you wrote these, I was about to have to write them so that we could discuss them on the podcast”. Of all the cube writers, Andy’s design approach is the closest fit to mine philosophically. He is very environmentally concerned, and will disregard traditional “cube design rules” to create a better experience. His cube plays not only Rebel errata, but also errata on things like Cursed Scroll (activation cost of two).

It’s also pure conjecture, but I imagine they might take issue with some of my card choices. Something like Reins of Power is super unconventional, and I’ve left out some “obvious” archetype cards like Graveborn Muse. I stand by the approach of design not always giving players exactly the best tool, opting for cards that have a bit higher fun and splash factor (Disciple of Bolas).

All said, I’m really looking forward to listening to the podcast later today, and as a designer there’s nothing more flattering or useful than having other players take the time to really dissect your design elements. This is the third time they’ve discussed one of my articles, and it’s always a joy to listen to.

I’ll post more detailed thoughts in the forums later on, but for now, feel free to share your opinions in this thread.

Update, 12:44 – After giving the podcast a lunchtime listen, I realize this podcast was structured a little differently than the previous ones. The conversation focused more on Andy’s ventures into his black section renovation, and less on the actual articles referenced. I agreed with many of Andy’s conclusions, and although he mentioned in the podcast that he doesn’t find breaking singleton necessary for the archetype to work, he is running 2 copies of Bloodghast and 3 copies of Gravecrawler in his current cube list.

If there is one critique to be made, it’s that I get the impression that the cubes in that region have very isolated archetypes. There was an entire podcast about whether mono-color or multicolor aggro was better, for example, which I found hard to relate to. Perhaps the better question is, from a design standpoint, which works better in a draft environment? This is an item I touched on in The Poison Principle, and I think that having the strength of your cube being in monocolored archetypes leads to more problematic drafting dynamics.

I left the following comment:

If I were to pick one bone, it’d be with the notion that the black cards are creating just another “mono red” or “mono white” deck. Like any set design, it depends on what you do with the rest of the set. It can be pigeonholed if you only include one player’s worth of sacrifice cards, but if you increase the critical mass and make it a more central part of your cube-wide design, you end up with multiple players fighting for the same materials to use in decks that have very different texture.

To take a ridiculous example, you could make a Metalcraft archetype in cube (or any other set) and fill it with only cards that a single deck wants, or make artifacts a more critical part of your design (ala Scars of Mirrodin) without that same sort of mechanical isolation.

The “pigeonholing” of archetypes is one of the worst elements of MTGO Cube design, and with real sets there’s a much greater emphasis on finding ways for the various parts to fit together rather than just making “the ___ deck” work.

There was also a nice comment left by Frodie Brancis:

tl;dr – hypothesis: cubes need to be redesigned from the perspective of giving each colour some identity thing to actually do, as opposed to just the best cards from each colour, as black will always be on the bottom of that barrel.

Cube design is definitely shifting from its roots of jamming the best context-independent cards, and as was pointed out in the podcast, this approach lets you dig deep into Wizards’ cardpool and pull out fun cards like Pawn of Ulamog for inclusion. They also mentioned Puppeteer Clique, which is a card that had been suggested to me that I simply never got around to finding a copy of. I’ve put it on my list for my next order, and look forward to trying it out.

Last of all, Andy touched on a really important aspect of these aggro-sacrifice decks. They’re fun to draft! They’re fun to play! They work as “aggro-combo” decks, without the baggage of problems that are typically associated with cube combo archetypes. It’s really entertaining to play an attacking deck with so many lines, so much versatility, and the ability to play beatdown and board control at the same time. When we’re looking for updates to our cubes, this is what I think we should be striving for. Not just balance of colors and archetypes, but introducing strategies that are exciting and splashy at the same time.

By: Jason Waddell

Last week, Justin Parnell wrote a nice article on supporting aggro in cube. I must confess, I was prepared not to like this article. The cube community long been over-saturated with articles that emphasize the importance of supporting aggro while simultaneously kind of missing the point.

While there are many tools at a cube designer’s disposal, at an abstract level most of the ways to bolster aggro boil down to:

1.   Making aggro stronger
   
2.   Making anti-aggro weaker

Under many cubers constraints, item 1 isn’t even an option. If you build your cube under the constraints of singleton power-maximization, you’ve likely already hit aggro’s power ceiling, or come close to it. Of course, if you ignore those restrictions other options open up. Andy Cooperfauss famously included a Rebel creature type errata to his cube, and my own approach has been to turn the aggro dial up to 11 (or more) by breaking singleton.

Parnell’s article primarily focuses on the second option, and he identifies well the types of cards that can disrupt the balance of your environment.

He then states:

I’m not suggesting you specifically cut these types of cards from your cube; rather, I want you to learn to manage their numbers so you don’t choke out aggro decks before they can even get off of their feet.

This is a good point. Hard design rules are rarely optimal. In my own cube, I run some of his identified cards, and omit others. Gideon Jura currently sits on my chopping block.

All in all, his article made me feel very optimistic. It was positively received on StarCityGames, and there doesn’t appear to be a vocal backlash against the suggestion that cards like Wurmcoil Engine or Thragtusk could be cut for balance concerns. Simply “pushing aggro” isn’t enough. I’ve played many cubes where all the best aggro cards were there, but the aggro decks simply couldn’t fight through a field of Moats and Walls of Reverence.

At the same time, it’s a little disappointing that it’s taken so long to get to this point. Imagine you were designing a brand-new Magic-like game, and for years playtest information reported that aggro was underpowered. This would be unthinkable. You’d either make aggro stronger, make anti-aggro weaker, or both. Achieving a balanced environment isn’t terribly difficult. Once you get past the basics of how to balance an environment, you can turn your attention towards finding the most fun ways to balance your environment.

Discuss this article in our forums.

By: Jason Waddell

Before I got involved in the Magic scene, I worked as a writer for Major League Gaming. One of MLG’s primary contributions, beyond organizing the logistics of an annual competitive video game Pro Circuit, was to tweak the rule sets of games to make them more enjoyable when played at a high level. Out of the box, the gameplay of games like Halo 2 and Super Smash Bros. Melee crumbled when played by players with sufficiently high skill. The strategic depth of the default developer settings was low, and the games became increasingly frustrating as your personal skill level increased.

So MLG changed the settings, removing the sources of frustration.

Naturally, this caused a great deal of tension within each game’s community. Casual players viewed MLG’s actions as “stripping away the fun” and going against “developer intent”, and competitive players saw a game that was inherently broken.

Of course, this divide doesn’t have to exist.

The above image is from David Sirlin’s handout ‘Balancing Competitive Multiplayer Games‘, and touches on a lesson that I feel is generally well understood within the halls of Wizards R&D. In Magic’s design, there’s a systematic push to make any given format’s Tier 1 strategies interactive, keeping the hardcore satisfied. Quirkier strategies, like drafting a mill deck, are still available, but kept in check at a notably lower power level.

Regrettably, this understanding does not appear to have been applied to Wizard’s cube design. I frequently read posts by pro players lamenting the quality of Wizards’ cube design and the fact that such a design is used in high-stakes tournament environments like the MOCS and Players Championship. The same sort of community divide plays out once again, with some players calling for the removal of frustrating design elements and another contingency that views the exclusion of cards like Channel and Tinker as “stripping away the fun”.

Perhaps the worst assumption one can make is that the two are mutually exclusive. There’s room in the community for both schools of design to coexist.

That said, I do agree with David Sirlin’s sentiment that Blizzard’s handling of game design captures the best of both worlds. Starcraft 2 can be played by seasoned professionals with a hundred thousand dollars on the line, or by a couple amateurs slinging goofy strategies in Bronze League. There’s no divide because the game works for everyone, with no need for an organization like Major League Gaming to tweak the various strategies.

For a more thorough exploration of the subject, check out this article I wrote for MLG.

Discuss this article in our forums.