|
11 months ago ::
Jul 12, 2012 - 9:50AM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Aug 11, 2008
|
Much, much better than last week. I just want to echo one thing:
I am not as concerned about what changes or unique cards there are as to WHY they are there. Talking to players, especially newer ones, about why certain choices are made helps improve other players' deck building. Especially since this will be weekly, and therefore we'll be seeing the same decks over and over, let's try and be a little more focused on nuances and why they work maybe?
Those who fear the darkness have never seen what the light can do.
I've seen angels fall from blinding heights.
But you yourself are nothing so divine.
Just next in line.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 12, 2012 - 10:09AM
#12
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2012
|
I enjoyed the analysis in this article, especially for standard, but I hope that future articles are more focused. If you looked at standard and one other format, there would be more room for deeper analysis. I also agree with Tymestalker that discussion on why certain cards are in a deck or why certain cards are good answers to decks would be helpful. Also, your pauper discussion seems very thrown together. There is no real discussion and the whole thing just seems to be filler. I would love to see some good discussion regarding the pauper metagame, but I would rather you just scrap talking about pauper if it is going to get such brief treatment. I also wonder if only looking at 4-0 decks from weekend events can really give the pauper player a good idea about the metagame. There were only 3 pauper events over the covered period. If you are going to continue looking at pauper I suggest either looking at a week's worth of events or look at 3-1 decks as well.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 12, 2012 - 11:14AM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Aug 11, 2008
|
I enjoyed the analysis in this article, especially for standard, but I hope that future articles are more focused. If you looked at standard and one other format, there would be more room for deeper analysis. I also agree with Tymestalker that discussion on why certain cards are in a deck or why certain cards are good answers to decks would be helpful. Also, your pauper discussion seems very thrown together. There is no real discussion and the whole thing just seems to be filler. I would love to see some good discussion regarding the pauper metagame, but I would rather you just scrap talking about pauper if it is going to get such brief treatment. I also wonder if only looking at 4-0 decks from weekend events can really give the pauper player a good idea about the metagame. There were only 3 pauper events over the covered period. If you are going to continue looking at pauper I suggest either looking at a week's worth of events or look at 3-1 decks as well.
Maybe go with Standard (the most popular) every week, and rotate the other formats? Standard and Block one week, then Standard and Modern, then Standard and pauper, and so on?
Those who fear the darkness have never seen what the light can do.
I've seen angels fall from blinding heights.
But you yourself are nothing so divine.
Just next in line.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 12, 2012 - 11:48AM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Jan 11, 2010
|
Maybe go with Standard (the most popular) every week, and rotate the other formats? Standard and Block one week, then Standard and Modern, then Standard and pauper, and so on?
This was going to be my suggestion, as well; it just looks like he's tackling a bit too much to get the depth that readers are really looking for. I think it would be easier on him and more enjoyable for the readers if he narrowed down the list of environments he covered each week - possibly highlighting those in which the changes have significant or interesting implications - and simply rotated between those as necessary. This article felt a bit like JVL didn't have a chance to stop for breath, because he simply had so many disconnected points he wanted to cover - it felt a little tense. I think it would be best for everyone if the column simply covered what it really wants to each week, and then worried about covering those topics extremely well...
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 12, 2012 - 12:01PM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Aug 11, 2008
|
Maybe go with Standard (the most popular) every week, and rotate the other formats? Standard and Block one week, then Standard and Modern, then Standard and pauper, and so on?
This was going to be my suggestion, as well; it just looks like he's tackling a bit too much to get the depth that readers are really looking for. I think it would be easier on him and more enjoyable for the readers if he narrowed down the list of environments he covered each week - possibly highlighting those in which the changes have significant or interesting implications - and simply rotated between those as necessary. This article felt a bit like JVL didn't have a chance to stop for breath, because he simply had so many disconnected points he wanted to cover - it felt a little tense. I think it would be best for everyone if the column simply covered what it really wants to each week, and then worried about covering those topics extremely well...
That was my feel as well. It felt like he had too much information to cover in too small a space. That's why I like a rotating schedule for other formats. Standard stays because it's the most popular, of course, but then he could devote more time to 1-3 decks or nuances in standard and go into more detail, then go into the format of rotation and do 1-2 decks there and go into detail as well.
Those who fear the darkness have never seen what the light can do.
I've seen angels fall from blinding heights.
But you yourself are nothing so divine.
Just next in line.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 12, 2012 - 1:05PM
#16
|
|
|
Can't you at least put a link to all of the decks you don't post a decklist for?
You post a list of four Modern decks that 4-0'd, then instead of posting any of those lists, you post something you threw together and haven't even tested?
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 12, 2012 - 1:31PM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Apr 17, 2007
|
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" class="mceContentBody " contenteditable="true" />Maybe go with Standard (the most popular) every week, and rotate the other formats? Standard and Block one week, then Standard and Modern, then Standard and pauper, and so on?
Yes! Great idea.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 12, 2012 - 2:08PM
#18
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2012
|
Maybe go with Standard (the most popular) every week, and rotate the other formats? Standard and Block one week, then Standard and Modern, then Standard and pauper, and so on?
This was going to be my suggestion, as well; it just looks like he's tackling a bit too much to get the depth that readers are really looking for. I think it would be easier on him and more enjoyable for the readers if he narrowed down the list of environments he covered each week - possibly highlighting those in which the changes have significant or interesting implications - and simply rotated between those as necessary. This article felt a bit like JVL didn't have a chance to stop for breath, because he simply had so many disconnected points he wanted to cover - it felt a little tense. I think it would be best for everyone if the column simply covered what it really wants to each week, and then worried about covering those topics extremely well...
I like the idea of rotating formats each week with standard being the only constant and perhaps occasionally devoting an entire article to one format, such as the current PTQ format.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 12, 2012 - 3:03PM
#19
|
|
|
A more in-depth look at Pauper has given me a better understanding of the format in its current form.
If my job for the last 3 years had been to write about inexpensive decks, I think I'd pause before admitting I didn't know Pauper.
well....Pauper is a pretty different scene from Standard, which was the format he mostly made decks for...
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 12, 2012 - 3:52PM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Aug 28, 2009
|
Nice article Jacob. It was a good read. You know what might be cool? Ocasional interviews with the players who make innovative changes -- it would give a depth of insight into the format that can be hard to achieve otherwise. For example, why did DaKriket add Restoration Angel to Jund in Block? The answer probably has a lot to do with the current format and certain synergies that are available. (I'm not DaKriket, heh).
Another idea: once you're far enough in, you can start tracking trends in the meta -- albeit it's a bit hard with just the data that Wizards provides. It would be nice if they posted ALL the decklists, winners and losers, so that you can really get a feel for what works and what is just popular.
|
|
|
