Feature Request: 2 Player Cube Format

[psettle]

Detailed Description

I'd like to add support for a 2 player cube draft format I play quite regularly.

The format goes like this:

1. Make 4 packs of 30 cards
2. Randomly assign 1/4 and 2/3 to each player (The 1/4 player picks first from the 1st and 4th pack)
3. For each pack, lay the pack face up on the table
4. Players alternate 10 picks each from the pack (first picks according to order from step 2)
5. Discard the remaining 10 cards from each pack

I figure to support this I'd need to do these things:

1. Increase the max burn value to 10 (or perhaps just remove the limit on burn value)
2. Add an 'single pack draft' mode, where only 1 pack is drafted at a time
3. When the single pack draft mode is enabled, first picks will cycle all N players forward on the first N packs, then cycle back on the next N packs, and so on

Ideally I'd also like to provide a way to view others' picks, as it's a part of the format, but I imagine this may be quite difficult and also wouldn't scale to many players well, so I don't plan to attempt this.

Further Information

I'd like to add the above and submit a pull request for it, I saw a note to submit a ticket to discuss the feature first though!
Please let me know what you think :)

[tooomm]

Hi psettle and welcome to the dr4ft repo! :)

Does this play mode has a name? Never heard about something like that.
With the shared booster it reminds a bit of Rochester Draft (#997).

[psettle]

We've never named this format, and I haven't heard of anyone else playing it.

It is pretty similar to the Rochester format, the main difference is the pick order is a little different and Rochester doesn't have burn cards.

My understanding is that Rochester adds a reverse to the pick order in the middle of each pack, where the format I proposed doesn't include that.

[psettle]

Did anyone have any other feedback or comments on this idea?

[tooomm]

We've never named this format, and I haven't heard of anyone else playing it.

How do you want to implement it with the UI as it's basically a custom and niche format?
As it's not well known and there is not even a specific name to it - you need to explain it to users.
Also if we want to support such specific and less known game types, it must be ensured that there are not going to be 10 in 2 years - all on the first level - and the user is just overwhelmed by them.

I mentioned the official Rochester format because it should probably be considered when developing something with various similarities to allow for a later expansion.

Did anyone have any other feedback or comments on this idea?

Things move slow around here recently. :)

@ZeldaZach @mixmix

[psettle]

Things move slow around here recently. :)

Ya no worries, didn't mean to pester!

I mentioned the official Rochester format because it should probably be considered when developing something with various
similarities to allow for a later expansion.

I think a reasonable approach here would be to just do the official Rochester format as a checkbox option in the 'packs' menu while setting up a cube draft.

My one concern with this approach is that the pick order for official Rochester is different than I'd like, so I think I could add a checkbox like 'disable pick reverse'. This is probably a good feature in general, because various legitimate sources online disagree on if this reverse is even part of the format:

Pro Reverse:

• https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/serious-fun/you-bust-those-packs-2003-08-05
  • (I think this is as close to an 'official' source as available on the format? The format isn't described in the judge's rulebook or the official MTG rules that I can find)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic:_The_Gathering_formats#Rochester_Draft (The citation on this is broken, but it matches the link above)

Con Reverse

• https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/feature/rochester-draft-primer-2005-01-21
• https://mtg.fandom.com/wiki/Rochester_Draft (This just cites the link above)

(As a side note, there seems to be some trickiness in the existing interface in terms of distinguishing between what format you are playing, and what cards you are playing that format with. For example, if I wanted to do a decadent draft using a pre-defined cube, the UI doesn't support that, or if I wanted to do a burn card on a regular draft, that is also not supported.)

[tooomm]

various legitimate sources online disagree on if this reverse is even part of the format: (...)

Looking at the wizard article from 2005, I think it just doesn't mentions that particular nuance of the format because it focuses on other strategic differences compared to normal draft around availability of information, it feels like it doesn't try to explain all basics - where as the wizards article from 2003 goes into the details of the format itself and explains how it's played:

• "In Rochester Draft, one booster is opened at a time instead of every player opening his or her own pack. Fifteen cards are laid out on the table and players are given about twenty seconds to review their choices. After that, players take turns picking one card at a time to build their decks. So as you can see, the greatest difference between Booster and Rochester formats is the amount of information available to you."

vs.

• "How it works: It's like a booster draft, but only one pack at a time is opened, spread out before the entire table. So the first guy opens his Onslaught pack, and everyone looks at the 15 cards for a few seconds, and then he makes his first pick, and then it goes left (clockwise) all the way around the table until you reach the player to the first player's immediate right. That player ("the wheel") gets two picks, and then picks continue back in the opposite direction. Once the pack is gone, the guy who had the second (and 15th) pick opens his pack...get the idea?"

In #997 (comment) I linked an video from an official Rochester Draft held at Grand Prix Las Vegas in 2018 with Pros in a tournament (they also talk about the ruls and the history of the format).
I think it's a strong hint about what is considered "correct" officially: They do it reverse.

If you want to dig further, maybe there are old rules available that contain details? Some veteran players (especially judges) could probably help here!

As a side note, there seems to be some trickiness in the existing interface in terms of distinguishing between what format you are playing, and what cards you are playing that format with. For example, if I wanted to do a decadent draft using a pre-defined cube, the UI doesn't support that, or if I wanted to do a burn card on a regular draft, that is also not supported.

Yes, #1196 should be the ticket.
#1029 outlined a possible solution - what do you think about it?

[psettle]

I think it's a strong hint about what is considered "correct" officially: They do it reverse.

Ya this all makes sense to me. I would still like to make it a optional setting to support the format I play, but definitely with the default to enable this reversing. How does that sound?

#1029 outlined a possible solution - what do you think about it?

The UI looks good to me! Of course I definitely can't comment on how well that fits with the existing SW architecture.
Is this something you are working on? If you haven't started on it I would like to take a stab at it.

[tooomm]

The UI looks good to me!

There was a redesign in between and the mockup is based on the old design still. (There is a complete new design drafted already (#1095), but only the Create modal is done so far...)
Edit: I updated the mock-up there with the new design

The Idea is to define Main Game Type (Draft, Sealed), Card Pool (Regular, Cube, Chaos...) and Pick Type (only for "Draft") (Regular, Decadent, Glimpse, Rochester...) independently, with each combination having several default-settings and certain additional (advanced) sub-settings. The result should be a better flexibility and more possibilities while keeping things simple for normal users. Lesser known (and even nameless) custom game types like yours could then be archived with a particular combination of various settings.

Of course I definitely can't comment on how well that fits with the existing SW architecture.
Is this something you are working on? If you haven't started on it I would like to take a stab at it.

I assume it requires several changes in the background...
Nobody is currently working on it or has looked into it in detail. We would definitely love some help there!
It would be awesome if you want to give it a try!

I would still like to make it a optional setting to support the format I play, but definitely with the default to enable this reversing. How does that sound?

So you have an UI implementation like this in mind?
For your custom format you would select Draft / Cube / Rochester (with this setup: 2 player, your card list, 4 packs, 30 cards per pack) and adjust the settings for the two new options "max. amount of possible picks per pack" to 20 (or e.g. "discard/burn last remaining cards" to 10) and "pick order" to circular/non-reversal (1-8, 1-8 instead 1-8, 8-1)?
(Note that as I understood it, you are not burning cards with each pick, you simply stop picking at one point and discard the rest to start with the next pack? That's different than how burning currently works I think. There is a dedicated ticket which also asked for "burning" leftover cards at the end of packs: #1504)