Naming 10 should be pretty fairly easy with some reminders from other peoples lists or simply going through the gatherer. Two of your slots can pretty easily be a talisman and a signet so you are 20% of the way there already.
How many spoilers have we had even just in recent sets (maybe especially in recent sets given the multicolored nature of them) where there are cards that are "so close to testing this" but don't quite make it. Even if you haven't played it you likely gave an opinion that a card was close to cubeable if your gold slot was larger.
While I agree once you get lower down the list it isn't easy to rank one card vs another, its still fairly easy to make a top 10 cards you would add to your cube if you had gold slots to spare.
As an interesting side note I think this highlights a problem in cube where the vast majority of people are too hesitant to test new cards. They read other peoples thoughts on a card in the new cards section, write it off, and never actually test it in their own environment. Testing new cards keeps your cube fresh and you might be surprised what actually works really well in your personal cube vs how it performed in someone else's! (Assuming you actually play, and dont just theorize, which is another problem entirely of itself that has become prevalent in the online cube community)
I can say for each of my top 10 lists I have played every single card in my cube or someone else's cube with the exception of 1 gruul card and 1 dimir card and I didnt even put in talismans or signets because I personally dont think of them as guild cards.
yeah its hard without having thousands of data entries. Also because this is specific to my own cube, maybe the mono white aggro decks are better supported than the types of decks where balance is supported.
I just thought it was cool that the criteria laid out this year happens to be criteria that I have data for from my cube so I thought I would share it.
I do like where the data and the subjective opinion align like with elspeth and a few others.
Putting high weight on maindeck percentage creates more of a "good card for cube" vs "powerful card" rating as well. I think almost all of us value cards that make the main over cards that have raw power but are too narrow. Maybe it shouldnt be called "power" rankings.
Yeah! I decided to maybe go a less traditional route with answering the rankings going purely off the data I have instead of my personal opinions. Will be controversial im sure, but I think it might also highlight some cards that fly under the radar and fill the categories of being an awesome cube card based on the criteria you outlined.
Using the criteria of:
- How critical this card is to winning. (I used my data of how much decks with this card win)
- How frequently you would maindeck this card (I used my data of maindeck percentages)
- How important is this card within your cube. (Here I reserve some consideration for cards that might be narrow affecting its maindeck percentage but help support archetypes and the overall cube environment)
I weighted maindeck percentage and win percentage evenly.
As far as paladin and vanguard being ranked higher, here is how my data resulted in the ranking:
Accorder Paladin:
Main %: 81.82%
Win %: 57.89%
Overall: 69.86%
Adanto Vanguard:
Main %: 72.73%
Win %: 63.83%
Overall: 68.28%
Balance:
Main %: 71.43%
Win %: 58.00%
Overall: 64.71%
Just a little bit of a different take. I was surprised at some of the results and it was hard to not just change my rankings based on opinion vs actual cube performance in my list. Never realized how much cast out gets played and wins.
I like your idea for the prompt ranking cards based on winning percentage, main deck percentage, and cube importance. I think the maindeck percentage speaks to the cards cube importance for the most part, but that does address cards like entomb that are important to supporting an entire archetype but maybe arent represented in the maindeck percentage as highly.
I am going to base my rankings this year off of an equal weighting of main deck percentage and win percentage taken from the stats of my personal cube.
jeez so much arguing over nothing. unless you keep stats from real data it doesnt matter what metric you use because its all subjective. Any opinions given in this ranking that arent based off of hard recorded data is flawed. Picking your favourite 20 is just as bad of data as picking what you believe are the strongest 20.
The project is for fun to see what cubers personal rankings are, not factual rankings. If it was based on factual rankings the lists would look a lot different.
For example: Its pretty unanimous that balance is one of the top (if not the top) white card in "power rankings" yet looking at actual cube data, balance isnt even represented in the top 10 white cards in the 3-0 archives despite being in cubes since the beginning of time. In my own personal cube where data from every game and deck is recorded its win percentage ranks it only the 23rd white card overall. Decks running Gisela, the broken blade win almost 20% more games than decks that run balance. Does this mean that I am going to rank Gisela ahead of balance in my ranking? No, because the rankings arent based on real data.
There is a massive difference between perceived power and actual performance.
How many spoilers have we had even just in recent sets (maybe especially in recent sets given the multicolored nature of them) where there are cards that are "so close to testing this" but don't quite make it. Even if you haven't played it you likely gave an opinion that a card was close to cubeable if your gold slot was larger.
While I agree once you get lower down the list it isn't easy to rank one card vs another, its still fairly easy to make a top 10 cards you would add to your cube if you had gold slots to spare.
As an interesting side note I think this highlights a problem in cube where the vast majority of people are too hesitant to test new cards. They read other peoples thoughts on a card in the new cards section, write it off, and never actually test it in their own environment. Testing new cards keeps your cube fresh and you might be surprised what actually works really well in your personal cube vs how it performed in someone else's! (Assuming you actually play, and dont just theorize, which is another problem entirely of itself that has become prevalent in the online cube community)
I can say for each of my top 10 lists I have played every single card in my cube or someone else's cube with the exception of 1 gruul card and 1 dimir card and I didnt even put in talismans or signets because I personally dont think of them as guild cards.
I just thought it was cool that the criteria laid out this year happens to be criteria that I have data for from my cube so I thought I would share it.
I do like where the data and the subjective opinion align like with elspeth and a few others.
Putting high weight on maindeck percentage creates more of a "good card for cube" vs "powerful card" rating as well. I think almost all of us value cards that make the main over cards that have raw power but are too narrow. Maybe it shouldnt be called "power" rankings.
Using the criteria of:
- How critical this card is to winning. (I used my data of how much decks with this card win)
- How frequently you would maindeck this card (I used my data of maindeck percentages)
- How important is this card within your cube. (Here I reserve some consideration for cards that might be narrow affecting its maindeck percentage but help support archetypes and the overall cube environment)
I weighted maindeck percentage and win percentage evenly.
As far as paladin and vanguard being ranked higher, here is how my data resulted in the ranking:
Accorder Paladin:
Main %: 81.82%
Win %: 57.89%
Overall: 69.86%
Adanto Vanguard:
Main %: 72.73%
Win %: 63.83%
Overall: 68.28%
Balance:
Main %: 71.43%
Win %: 58.00%
Overall: 64.71%
Just a little bit of a different take. I was surprised at some of the results and it was hard to not just change my rankings based on opinion vs actual cube performance in my list. Never realized how much cast out gets played and wins.
I am going to base my rankings this year off of an equal weighting of main deck percentage and win percentage taken from the stats of my personal cube.
thanks for taking this on BlackWaltz!
The project is for fun to see what cubers personal rankings are, not factual rankings. If it was based on factual rankings the lists would look a lot different.
For example: Its pretty unanimous that balance is one of the top (if not the top) white card in "power rankings" yet looking at actual cube data, balance isnt even represented in the top 10 white cards in the 3-0 archives despite being in cubes since the beginning of time. In my own personal cube where data from every game and deck is recorded its win percentage ranks it only the 23rd white card overall. Decks running Gisela, the broken blade win almost 20% more games than decks that run balance. Does this mean that I am going to rank Gisela ahead of balance in my ranking? No, because the rankings arent based on real data.
There is a massive difference between perceived power and actual performance.