Card Classification
32 views
Skip to first unread message
FlowerSunRain
Apr 17, 2013, 2:51:59 PM4/17/13
to
So, I was reading a thread of some minor infamy (the Far // Away SCD on mtgs) and there was a point made that was particularly well made.
Actually, the point the person was trying to make was actually the exact opposite of the conclusion I'm going to draw.
Here is the relevant bit:
"Same goes for the example I stated earlier. Carnophage and Griselbrand are both in the same section. Even though they're completely different cards. They go in opposite decks, have different casting requirements ...nothing about those cards is similar except for the fact that they both require only black mana to get full value from them. So they enjoy the view right next to each other in the black creature section. Similarly, Baleful Strix and Far // Away have quite a few things that make them different from one another. But that doesn't mean that the biggest thing they have in common is where they should be classified. Both cards won't be drafted unless my deck contains both blue and black mana. It's simple enough for me to see that they should be grouped together. " - wtwlf123
How in the world does it make any sense to put Griselbrand and Carnophage in the same section? What meaningful value is there in doing so? If Griselbrand and Carnophage are taxonomical equivalents it seems to me that this classification system is failing to add any value. I don't think I've ever been in a cube design situation where I had a quota for "Black Creatures". The term is too broad to be of any use.
I sympathize with Kojiro's point in this thread. There is no reason to compare Far // Away with Psychatog that makes nay resonant sense to me. They don't do the same thing. What is the point of having a quota of "Dmrir Cards"? The term is to broad to have any meaning. The cards fighting for slots have no business doing so. Far // Away vs. Into the Roil is an interesting comparison and seems like a better place to place one's brainpower. I think strict classification of cards is a bad idea because uses outside arbitration rather then personal insight to guide choices.
Any thoughts on card classification? How do you use classification to help you make your cube better?
Actually, the point the person was trying to make was actually the exact opposite of the conclusion I'm going to draw.
Here is the relevant bit:
"Same goes for the example I stated earlier. Carnophage and Griselbrand are both in the same section. Even though they're completely different cards. They go in opposite decks, have different casting requirements ...nothing about those cards is similar except for the fact that they both require only black mana to get full value from them. So they enjoy the view right next to each other in the black creature section. Similarly, Baleful Strix and Far // Away have quite a few things that make them different from one another. But that doesn't mean that the biggest thing they have in common is where they should be classified. Both cards won't be drafted unless my deck contains both blue and black mana. It's simple enough for me to see that they should be grouped together. " - wtwlf123
How in the world does it make any sense to put Griselbrand and Carnophage in the same section? What meaningful value is there in doing so? If Griselbrand and Carnophage are taxonomical equivalents it seems to me that this classification system is failing to add any value. I don't think I've ever been in a cube design situation where I had a quota for "Black Creatures". The term is too broad to be of any use.
I sympathize with Kojiro's point in this thread. There is no reason to compare Far // Away with Psychatog that makes nay resonant sense to me. They don't do the same thing. What is the point of having a quota of "Dmrir Cards"? The term is to broad to have any meaning. The cards fighting for slots have no business doing so. Far // Away vs. Into the Roil is an interesting comparison and seems like a better place to place one's brainpower. I think strict classification of cards is a bad idea because uses outside arbitration rather then personal insight to guide choices.
Any thoughts on card classification? How do you use classification to help you make your cube better?
Jason Waddell
Apr 17, 2013, 3:09:41 PM4/17/13
to
I'll elaborate more in my set review, but ultimately it doesn't matter. My set is a collection of 360 cards. The drafters don't care where those cards live in some .txt file on my computer. The question is what you are trying to achieve.
Obviously there are reasons for using some "multicolor" classification. Ideally that has something to do with the structure of your set. There's no right or wrong answer, but there are dynamics to consider. Some sets work with lots of multicolor focus (Alara, Ravnica, etc.), some work with none. The density and speed of your fixing plays a large part in determining which dynamics will actually be successful.
So, it seems really stupid to me when people worry about having perfectly balanced "multicolor" sections while simultaneously including Hybrids in there, for example. Are you trying to provide more or less color structure in your set? Hybrids are more castable than monocolor cards, and gold cards are less castable. What are you trying to achieve?
Obviously there are reasons for using some "multicolor" classification. Ideally that has something to do with the structure of your set. There's no right or wrong answer, but there are dynamics to consider. Some sets work with lots of multicolor focus (Alara, Ravnica, etc.), some work with none. The density and speed of your fixing plays a large part in determining which dynamics will actually be successful.
So, it seems really stupid to me when people worry about having perfectly balanced "multicolor" sections while simultaneously including Hybrids in there, for example. Are you trying to provide more or less color structure in your set? Hybrids are more castable than monocolor cards, and gold cards are less castable. What are you trying to achieve?
No wrong answers, but you should understand your decision. I want to get the 360 cards that play well together. Maybe I have some idea about rewarding people for going into new colors while not letting everything be splashable. Maybe I care about the speed of the decks, how many cards different archetypes are fighting for in each pack. Those are considerations to make.
But I don't care where these things land in my file. I care how it plays.
FlowerSunRain
Apr 17, 2013, 3:29:47 PM4/17/13
to riptide-l...@googlegroups.com
I agree that it should be obvious that once you are playing the cube, what things are classified as is irrelevant. What I'm angling at is how can classification helps us get to the best finished product that we can sit down and play with.
I really don't classify anything. I change cards around until things work. Having no classification gives me a lot of freedom. But, it also makes things awkward. I doubt its the best approach.
However, when I see people lumping together carnophage with grisselbrand, it seems obvious that bad classification systems aren't helpful.
I'm pondering how people use classifications to help them improve their cube.
I really don't classify anything. I change cards around until things work. Having no classification gives me a lot of freedom. But, it also makes things awkward. I doubt its the best approach.
However, when I see people lumping together carnophage with grisselbrand, it seems obvious that bad classification systems aren't helpful.
I'm pondering how people use classifications to help them improve their cube.
Jason Waddell
Apr 17, 2013, 3:45:33 PM4/17/13
to
I think back here to the design skeleton Wizards uses to create their own sets. They enter with some general ideas about what kinds of effects they want, how much removal, what their curve should be, etc.
Then they playtest. And iterate. And iterate. And iterate. Ultimately it's that hands-on experience that drives the design. So the two are pretty intertwined. If it's irrelevant while playing then it's probably not that relevant while designing. When draftng, do you feel like there is a sufficient density of effects? Are there some cards nobody is drafting? Some effects there are too many of? Gaps in your curve for certain archetypes?
The main benefit about a system is that you give yourself some discipline as a designer. I have played with various densities of gold cards in my cube, and like the current dynamic. Without some structure to how I design, I would be inclined to bloat there because I really love gold cards. Sticking to 360 cards also forces me to bring more clarity to my design. I used to have it at some non-fixed number, and I would toss in cards without taking anything out, slowly reducing the quality and focus of my design.
One thing that Wizards talks about is thinking about the curve of each of your archetypes. I think cubers put a lot of effort into balancing the curve of their color sections, but this can lead to very bad gameplay. A prime example is that people often overly-segment the low portion of their curve as "aggro" cards, and the expensive part as "control" cards. Then you get these terrible games where the decks aren't really interacting. The aggro is trying to score 20 ASAP, and the control deck is not really doing anything. I see a lot of MTGO cube draft games play out this way.
What Wizards does with their real set is think "what's the curve of my cards that support in X archetype". Then, you improve the function of the decks and environment.
The reason people don't do this with cubes is because it's a lot of work.
Then they playtest. And iterate. And iterate. And iterate. Ultimately it's that hands-on experience that drives the design. So the two are pretty intertwined. If it's irrelevant while playing then it's probably not that relevant while designing. When draftng, do you feel like there is a sufficient density of effects? Are there some cards nobody is drafting? Some effects there are too many of? Gaps in your curve for certain archetypes?
The main benefit about a system is that you give yourself some discipline as a designer. I have played with various densities of gold cards in my cube, and like the current dynamic. Without some structure to how I design, I would be inclined to bloat there because I really love gold cards. Sticking to 360 cards also forces me to bring more clarity to my design. I used to have it at some non-fixed number, and I would toss in cards without taking anything out, slowly reducing the quality and focus of my design.
One thing that Wizards talks about is thinking about the curve of each of your archetypes. I think cubers put a lot of effort into balancing the curve of their color sections, but this can lead to very bad gameplay. A prime example is that people often overly-segment the low portion of their curve as "aggro" cards, and the expensive part as "control" cards. Then you get these terrible games where the decks aren't really interacting. The aggro is trying to score 20 ASAP, and the control deck is not really doing anything. I see a lot of MTGO cube draft games play out this way.
What Wizards does with their real set is think "what's the curve of my cards that support in X archetype". Then, you improve the function of the decks and environment.
The reason people don't do this with cubes is because it's a lot of work.
Eric Chan
Apr 17, 2013, 3:49:52 PM4/17/13
to riptide-l...@googlegroups.com
I have a confession to make. I love classifying things.
I like putting some sort of order on what would otherwise be chaos. I like keeping track of what shape my cube has taken, and being able to compare that to past iterations of the cube. I like being able to see, in broad terms, what the cube "looks" like.
I'm of the opinion that as long as we're not a slave to our own classification systems, and don't let the systems define our cube, classification is a good thing.
This is what the first sheet of my cube list on Google Docs always looks like. The numbers are pulled automatically from all of the other sheets, which contain card lists and card attributes.
The numbers I always keep an eye on are the spot removal percentage and mass removal percentage. As my cube balloons or shrinks in size, I want to try and maintain a roughly equivalent amount of removal, so the number helps me to remember to either add or prune some removal spells. Similarly, if I go overboard adding in four sweet new removal spells from the latest set, the number will remind me that some old spells need axing.
I'm not sure that any other part of my classification system actually helps me when it comes to designing my cube. And really, even the removal tally is more of a development issue. But, damnit, I love that histogram.
Jason Waddell
Apr 17, 2013, 4:08:21 PM4/17/13
to riptide-l...@googlegroups.com
Well technically it's more of a bar chart, but as long as we're allowing egregious errors like the incorrect spellings of the word "color", I suppose we can let that one slide too. :)
Eric Chan
Apr 17, 2013, 4:13:55 PM4/17/13
to riptide-l...@googlegroups.com
Sometimes I kick the tyres on new cards of all colours. It's just a thing we do up here.
Peter Angell
Apr 17, 2013, 5:41:16 PM4/17/13
to riptide-l...@googlegroups.com
Personally, I've been leaning towards a more practical approach, and I've thought of a system to classify multicolor cards: Hybrid, Splashable, Un-Splashable. Hybrid cards can be played in a deck with either color, for nearly full value (ex: hybrid cards with less than 2-3 hybrid mana symbols, Fire//Ice). As you might guess, Un-Splashable cards are cards that require a strong commitment to all of the cards colors to be considered for inclusion in "good" draft deck for that cube (Ex: Shadowmage Infiltrator, Kird Ape). And the inverse, Splashable cards are cards that might be snatched up by a player not playing all of a card's colors, but the effect is powerful enough and/or easy enough to warrant a splash (Ex: Ajani Vengant, Simic Sky Swallower, vindicate), or the card is still somewhat useful even if both colors aren't drawn (ex: Lingering Souls, Unburial Rites, Fuse Cards).
I think I'm going to use this lens when evaluating multicolor cards from here on out. Obviously, there's a lot of grey area, and what's "splashable" can vary wildly depending on the cube. And There is merit to including cards that are un-splashable. It has some of the same overlap with the same mindset of including "build-around-cards" which might frequently end up undrafted but can be an all-star when you need them; un-splashable cards can be a reward for being a specific color combo, as you are likely to have them reach you and/or wheel during drafting.
I guess what I'm trying to say is I'd be more impressed by a multicolor section that takes care to even out the number of Un-splashable cards and practices some fuzzy math with the Hybrid and Splashable cards, compared to a multicolor section which just rigidly tries to include "x cards per guild."
On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 3:42:58 PM UTC-4, Jason Waddell wrote:
I think I'm going to use this lens when evaluating multicolor cards from here on out. Obviously, there's a lot of grey area, and what's "splashable" can vary wildly depending on the cube. And There is merit to including cards that are un-splashable. It has some of the same overlap with the same mindset of including "build-around-cards" which might frequently end up undrafted but can be an all-star when you need them; un-splashable cards can be a reward for being a specific color combo, as you are likely to have them reach you and/or wheel during drafting.
I guess what I'm trying to say is I'd be more impressed by a multicolor section that takes care to even out the number of Un-splashable cards and practices some fuzzy math with the Hybrid and Splashable cards, compared to a multicolor section which just rigidly tries to include "x cards per guild."
On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 3:42:58 PM UTC-4, Jason Waddell wrote:
I think back here to the design skeleton Wizards uses to create their own sets. They enter with some general ideas about what kinds of effects they want, how much removal, what their curve should be, etc.
Then they playtest. And iterate. And iterate. And iterate. Ultimately it's that hands-on experience that drives the design. So the two are pretty intertwined. If it's irrelevant while playing then it's probably not that relevant while designing. When draftng, do you feel like there is a sufficient density of effects? Are there some cards nobody is drafting? Some effects there are too many of? Gaps in your curve for certain archetypes?
The main benefit about a system is that you give yourself some discipline as a designer. I have played with various densities of gold cards in my cube, and like the current dynamic. Without some structure to how I design, I would be inclined to bloat there because I really love gold cards. Sticking to 360 cards also forces me to bring more clarity to my design. I used to have it at some non-fixed number, and I would toss in cards without taking anything out, slowly reducing the quality and focus of my design.
One thing that Wizards talks about is thinking about the curve of each of your archetypes. I think cubers put a lot of effort into balancing the curve of their color sections, but this can lead to very bad gameplay. A prime example is that people often overly-segment the low portion of their curve as "aggro" cards, and the expensive part as "control" cards. Then you get these terrible games where the decks aren't really interacting. The aggro is trying to score 20 ASAP, and the control deck is not really doing anything. I see a lot of MTGO cube draft games play out this way.
What Wizards does with their real set is think "what's the curve of my cards that support in X archetype". Then, you improve the function of the decks and environment.
The reason people don't do this with cubes is because it's a lot of work.
On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 9:29:47 PM UTC+2, FlowerSunRain wrote:
Christopher Morris-Lent
Apr 17, 2013, 5:48:08 PM4/17/13
to riptide-l...@googlegroups.com
i just divvy em up by guild and count each card as half a card for each color, hybrid or otherwise. so both spitting image and trygon predator are .5 U and .5 G. this is a reasonably accurate and practical system for color-balancing. 3c cards still get .5 per color.
i also like not being too literal with the colors. kird ape is a gruul card, loam lion is selesnya, and both souls and rites are orzhov. is this close to 'color identity'? did edh players actually come up with a good idea?
Eric Chan
Apr 17, 2013, 6:04:24 PM4/17/13
to riptide-l...@googlegroups.com
I do something really similar to Chris for tallying up my multicolor cards. The gory details are in this thread.
Christopher Morris-Lent
Apr 18, 2013, 1:09:03 AM4/18/13
to riptide-l...@googlegroups.com
eric -- thanks for the link to that thread, a lot of sweet ideas in there (the notion of 'rotating slots,' which i'm a big fan of for fatties and walkers), and jason's land epiphany, which i'm going to try soon.
i strongly agree that precise color-balancing is a waste of time, given that most cubes are poorly designed in far more important ways. i have made colors too weak in the past before, though, due to a lack of slots and / or overzealous nerfing (sorry, black!) when i'm just winging it, i have a tendency to take out blue and black cards and add in green. now since i like green i'm happy having it be the best, but when nobody wants to play a certain color or archetype the night ends up being lamer. so it's nice to have some method of "counting" to use for non-evil purposes
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages