|
11 months ago ::
Jul 04, 2012 - 9:20PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Jun 24, 2008
|
This thread is for discussion of this week's Perilous Research, which goes live Thursday morning on magicthegathering.com.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 04, 2012 - 11:09PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Apr 12, 2008
|
This is certainly a better use of van Lunen's obsession with min-maxing than building on a budget was, but I still found myself skimming. This is a good reference piece, but not really interesting reading for its own sake, the way Flores is. I suppose I'll just be happy that someone is doing good research so I don't have to, and leave it at that.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 05, 2012 - 12:02AM
#3
|
|
|
Indeed, views may be a bit skewed, considering the fiasco that BoaB had turned into, but I'm willing to try and set that aside. This is a fairly different subject within the realm of Magic after all.
That said, I hope this new article finds its feet quickly and I hope it finds more to stand on. I know this is only the first one, but as is, this is just an expanded version of the Decks of the Week daily activity that goes up every Friday. Does that really warrant a whole article to itself ? I didn't skim the article, I actually read the whole thing, and I really feel like for this subject; less is more. All the extra words don't tell me anything the decks themselves don't.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 05, 2012 - 12:20AM
#4
|
|
|
I hope this Perilous Research will be as good as Frank Karsten's old Online Tech column. Karsten's metagame analyses were amazing.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 05, 2012 - 1:55AM
#5
|
|
|
I liked this article, but I think it needs more explanations as to why the subtle, but different changes from week to week. Sometimes he'd just point out a card, then just continue on without any explanation for what he pointed out. Or at one point he mentioned he thought something was a good choice, but not why.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 05, 2012 - 5:35AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Apr 14, 2012
|
It's better than he wrote boab, so I'll give him that. But I would have liked to see a mention of cards or strategies that seem well positioned. It doesn't need to be a list, just a mention to get other players wheels turning.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 05, 2012 - 8:29AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2012
|
Your analysis on pauper is pretty off. While storm decks make appearances in the daily events going 4-0 and 3-1, the decks to beat in pauper are mono-blue delver and the variety of cloudpost decks (particularly izzit-post). Just about every color has an answer to storm (e.g. echoing decay, echoing truth, suture priest). You might want to focus your new article more on standard and modern and other formats that see a lot of paper play. I might be wrong, but I don't have the impression that pauper is a popular paper format, especially since there are a few slight differences between paper pauper and mtgo pauper (e.g. no hymn to torrah in online pauper).
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 05, 2012 - 8:53AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Jul 11, 2003
|
Classic?
Legacy?
Will any Online eternal format be covered?
Guess what? Chicken butt.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 05, 2012 - 9:25AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Aug 28, 2009
|
Nice article Jacob. A little something for everyone. I would have liked if you mentioned what to look forward to next week in a little more detail. Also, it would be interesting to hear your take on cards or decks you'd like to try out in each format -- I'm not saying develop a deck -- but perhaps suggest something that would help against the dominating deck. That little tid-bit about storm in pauper was a good example.
It looks like people will get on your back if you try to cover every format each week. Maybe that will work for standard; block and modern could probably be bi-weekly; pauper, classic, and legacy could probably just be a few weeks after the release of each new set.
I'm looking forward to your next articles!
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 05, 2012 - 10:23AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Apr 12, 2008
|
The article is already dry enough, we don't need to structure it even more.
I think it's definitely a bad idea to ask him to predict good decks or tactics, because 1) having a talking head tell you what's good is a really lame way to decide what to play, and 2) he isn't good at it. The whole point of the article is to offer metagame analysis, which van Lunen loves to do. Give him some room to focus on what he's interested in, and he stands a decent chance of turning this article into something readable.
|
|
|
