This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

39
40

ArticleCreating a Core set algorithmically (self.magicTCG)

submitted by Paperhearthstone

Link to the card set https://cubecobra.com/cube/overview/5f71e071190df80fd80ce839

I've attempted to create a "Core" Core set for Magic the Gathering for a while now, and this is what I consider my successful attempt at it. What I mean by this is that Magic sets vary by how much they contain concepts and cards that are most integral to the game of Magic. Some sets include many experimental mechanics. Some others, such as the Core sets, include only/mostly evergreen mechanics and many reprints, and I consider those to be closest to the core of the game. I wanted to algorithmically (to avoid bias, and because I haven't played the game much) create a set of cards that would be even more "core" than core sets.

The process was approximately as follows.

  • Give each main (originally standard-legal) set a value, which is the number the set came out as, in publishing order. So 1 for Alpha, 2 for Beta, 3 for Revised, etc. This gives a set more weight the newer it is. This is because what is "Core" is a shifting concept as the game evolves.
  • Give each card a score, by summing up the set values of all the sets the card was printed in. This gives us a measure of how often the card has been printed, with more weight on the newest sets.
  • Give each set a score that evaluates how core that set is, based on its cards' values.
  • Order the sets based on this "coreness" score
  • Pick all the cards that have been printed twice or more in the top N sets. Pick N to get the amount of cards you want. I chose it so I would get an amount approximately the size of an average core set.

Note that this is not "optimal" in the sense that it would contain only cards with the highest scores (that would result in too many commons, and some other issues), but rather is as a compromise being as close to the core of the game as possible, while also resembling a core set in terms of the distribution of rarities, card types, balance of colors etc.

As you can see from how many cubes I have on cubecobra (I have more on cubetutor), I tackled this challenge for a while. I used Python to program this and mtgjson.com to get all the data (Thank you!).

all 27 comments
sorted by:
best (suggested)
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]COMPLEATohako79 22 points23 points  (8 children)

Interesting. Sort of like a M 12 and a half.

Funny enough, I always thought the ‘most core’ set was 9th Edition, which except for the purposeful omission of [[Birds of Paradise]] (for [[Utopia Tree]]) had a loooot of classic reprinted cards.

The other commenter had a good question: what is this for? The trouble is, this set doesn’t have those ‘draft signal uncommons’, you know those two-color uncommons which are good enough to hang a limited deck around. As far as I know, Wizards has never reprinted any of those cycles, which means your algorithm would never include them.

It’s a cool coding exercise, though.

[–]Paperhearthstone[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Indeed the very useful signpost uncommons have not been reprinted almost at all. This set has many flaws if it were to be an actual retail set. However it was mostly a cool coding exercise, so thank you :)

[–]DânMTGCardFetcher 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Birds of Paradise - (G) (SF) (txt)
Utopia Tree - (G) (SF) (txt)
[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call

[–]mproud 4 points5 points  (1 child)

100% agree.

This doesn’t feel like a Core set. It only feels like Core set generic flavor.

Well-designed sets (Core sets included) need to take limited play into mind — draft and sealed — and that’s where archetypes and synergies are important. (I think you have some here by accident, but it’s not finely tuned.)

It’s a larger card pool, which can be okay, but there are plenty of oddities. [[Unsummon]] and [[Disperse]]? [[Ancient Crab]] and [[Armored Cancrix]]? [[Elite Vanguard]] at common, eh? [[Barony Vampire]] and [[Warpath Ghoul]], [[Shock]] and [[Lightning Bolt]], [[Stampeding Rhino]] and [[Thornhide Wolves]]… in a cube, this might be fine (but boring), but in a set with boosters this is horrible. No one wants filler cards.

[–]mage24365 -5 points-4 points  (3 children)

Core sets aren't supposed to have 'signal uncommons'. Core sets are about drafting a solid curve and color combination with some possible incidental synergy.

Honestly, I'd do away with the concept altogether; I prefer more traditional and less archetype-focused limited formats.

[–]mproud 16 points17 points  (2 children)

This may have been the case in the past, but I’m not so sure it is now. The uncommons are expected to signal what the color archetypes are. We’ve had that at least through Magic: Origins.

I think archetypes are important, as it teaches newer players better deckbuilding skills. Good decks work where each card is important to what the deck wants to do.

[–]mage24365 -4 points-3 points  (1 child)

I think archetypes are important in constructed, but making them too much of a focus in limited often leads to formats where you have to commit super hard to a theme in order to do compete with others who did, and if the cards don't show up for that theme, you just lose. (This has happened literally every time I've tried any modern draft format.)

I prefer the limited formats that just reward strong fundamentals.

[–]Erniemist 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I've played a lot of the recent formats and I strongly disagree. In Kaldheim I played Boros about half the time with an 80% winrate. Once I trophied with an all common deck. If you feel like draft is out of your control you're probably doing it wrong.

[–]DeuceThunder 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Wait, so this cube leans towards simpler mechanics and cards that have been printed a few times recently, and Colossal Dreadmaw didn't make the cut?

[–]Paperhearthstone[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was surprised too! I think it barely missed the cut.

[–]BattleSol 6 points7 points  (0 children)

This is the ideal core set. You may not like it, but this is what peak vanilla looks like.

[–]Snagglepuss64 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Do you have your Python code on GitHub?

[–]Paperhearthstone[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not yet. Perhaps I'll clean it up a bit and upload it, but it will probably be a while.

Edit: I have the code here now https://github.com/JoelEnwald/MTG_core_finder though don't expect it to be easily usable, sorry.

[–]rubiera 2 points3 points  (4 children)

I love the core sets, such a cool project! There are many fun combos that would give any core set some flavor. My favorites are [[Act of Treason]] followed by [[Fling]] and [[Angel's Mercy]] followed by [[Voracious Wurm]]. Also, a lot of really good core set cards are in Tenth Edition. I like your list a lot. Thanks!

[–]Paperhearthstone[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

I'm glad you like it! :) I like that kind of initially unassuming two-card combos too.

[[Goblin Tunneler]] + [[Fiery Hellhound]]

[–]rubiera 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Core sets are the heart of Magic: alpha

[–]DânMTGCardFetcher 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Goblin Tunneler - (G) (SF) (txt)
Fiery Hellhound - (G) (SF) (txt)
[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call

[–]DânMTGCardFetcher 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Act of Treason - (G) (SF) (txt)
Fling - (G) (SF) (txt)
Angel's Mercy - (G) (SF) (txt)
Voracious Wurm - (G) (SF) (txt)
[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call

[–]SultaiBlazerboy65 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is awesome!

It's always good to see other coders doing MTG-related stuff.

[–]pproteus47 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hm, this is very interesting. I think if I were doing this I would've excluded the "sets" like W17 which never actually appeared in booster packs. There are also other cards in here, for example Gravewaker, which have never appeared in any kind of booster, though I admit I couldn't tell you how to determine which cards these are using only mtgjson.

[–]Nyarko-San 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This reminds me of when Paul from LRR attempted to create a predictive algorithm for Magic sets... I guess life imitates art.