A long time ago, The BOAB article would take one of the pre-made decks that came out for a certain block, and tweak it little by little until the deck was as competitive as it could be. You could go online and buy the deck for 7.99 or w/e, and keep up week by week, making your own changes as well. It was pretty fun. Something like that would be good every once in a while.
76125763 wrote:Zindaras' meta is like a fossil, ancient and its secrets yet to be uncovered. Only men of yore, long dead, knew of it.
I have to admit I wasn't too impressed with the self-referential link to the last time poison was around. If I had to give you advice on how best to write this column, I'd suggest setting a budget and building to it each week, showing what could be done relatively inexpensively. I get the impression you're really not sure what the 'casual crowd' want exactly, and can't really empathise with them. It feels like you're constrained by the nature of the column, as if budget deckbuilding isn't really what you want to be writing about, if that makes sense.
In all honesty, people are only buying this thing because you get all those cards for less than the cost of Elspeth. It probably doesn't matter that much how well it plays.However, this article shows how out of touch the people making Magic are with the majority of people playing it. The Elspeth deck is overpowered given how most people play Magic. You have to be as good as Jacob and know all the points he makes to win with Tezz. To assume the people playing the decks are good with products like dual decks misses the point. The real problem is this line of thinking shows up in entire sets where it does matter. RoE was apparently a good draft format if you and the other 7 people you draft with are good at Magic. If you sit down with 10 people because that is how many showed up to the store for draft and most of them are terrible at Magic, it is a disaster. It is a miserable experience quite frankly.
I think the main appeal for the casual crowd were the long evolutions: we'd start with a deck, like a preconstructed deck or a deck built around a junk rare (I especially loved the junk rare decks) and evolve it over the course of several weeks. There were usually about ten or twenty match reports per article, which I prefer over the current set-up (I'm aware you probably play a lot more and only pick representative games but if you see more games, you automatically get a better feel for a deck), and the writer would replace cards based on the games. With your articles I sometimes get the feeling it's...well, hasty. You get an idea, make some choices, build a deck, play two games, and throw the deck away so you can build something new next week. Maybe a slower evolution and a better insight in how you tweak the deck would already be more appealing.
57070368 wrote:58280208 wrote:Even metallix is gone now.
I'm right here.
58280208 wrote:Even metallix is gone now.
How about this for an idea:Week 1:1. Introduce deck idea.2. quickly go over the card choices that aren't obvious at first. 3. Make a deck that conforms to a budget set for this deck (e.g. for a deck that doesn't need too many expensive support card, 30 tickets on magic online, maybe for a deck with higher-quality cards or one designed to be really compeitive in bigger tournaments than FNM, 50-60 tickets, you get the idea). The set budget can vary, but as long as there is a clear budget for each deck, you can say with a straight face that this is a budget deck; because there's a budget. 4. Test 4-6 games in casual room.5. Make changes.6. play some more casual games, then make another round of changes. Week 2:1. Recap deck idea.2. Play 6-8 casual room games if it did badly in the first round of casual games, then make another round of changes. Otherwise, make a sideboard. 3. If you haven't already, make a sideboard.4. Play some tournament rounds, say 3-4. 5. Make changes.6. If the idea at a natural stopping point, come back next week for a new deck! If it has more potential, is doing well, and is popular, play in an 8-man tournament on MTGO with it, and see how it does. 7. Come back next week for a new deck!This structure adds depth to the articles by having twice as much stuff on each deck. It gives information on what level each deck is at, by having casual room matches, tournament room matches, and an actual tournment with results to compare it to. It makes everyone happy because there are casual room matches with variety, and tournament room matches showing how the matchups are with this deck. It allows both casual and tournament players to build the deck to their satisfaction, for their environment. I actually do BoaB experiments myself, and have written stand-in columns for other sites. I've put a lot of thought into this, and have found a structure like the one above to be simply better.
What the hell is a 'ticket'? Wouldn't money make more sense? MTGO players know the worth of a dollar, people who actually play with real people don't know the value of a ticket.