I don't know much about classic, but the obvious answer to attract people to the format seems to be turning it into Vintage. At this point bringing the Power 9 online should really be a piority.
If this has been suggested before, and dismissed for whatever reason, thats cool. -- Would it be possible to add a "% change" (increase/decrease) to your charts? -- while you have the numbers themselves, and the percents are hidden there, it does take a few extra seconds to calculate them, having a % change value would provide a better price evaluation for the week to week fluctuations of the cards.
Classic pays in M12? That makes you wonder, who is going to spend $750 on a classic deck when they can spend $10 on a Pauper deck and win the same prizes? (And have a more diverse format.)
great stuff, haven't really had a chance to see the cards from PC there's def some fun stuff
vela could have some potential with the use of Mnemonic Wall (or similar) and Ghostly Flicker to blink every turn, but that becomes much weaker when you're in multiplayer where there are more people and an increased chance of finding an answer to it
Copying out of Word used to preserve color. Last night, I finished copying, importing decks, and forgot that everything in the tables now comes through black. I try to remember to change things, but it was a long week.
Sorry.
This article is always one of the first things I look for on a Friday morning.
A (very) minor math/formatting nitpick on the price lists: Cards that have gone down in price are shown in both black AND red, and cards that haven't changed prices the dash is also in both colors. I guess I'm anal about such things, soory!
I realize you use bold to show significant price changes, but does the color of price drops also signify something? (If so, you may want to include a legend)
Good article as usual.
A point of detail.. I believe the Onslaught drafts will not be nixtix, but charge 2 tix.
As I posted on the main WotC forums:
I would probably have done a few of these, if any two of the following were true:
1) Nix-tix
2) A reasonable no of commons/uncommons worth money or otherwise good value (eg Masques/MVW/TSE/MED)
3) It was a fun draft format (Ravnica, IPA, SSE)
4) We hadn't just had a 2 week stint of old set draft (did way too many IPA drafts!)
5) A balanced payout (it's just more hassle than it's worth trying to track down spare packs of Invasion/Onslaught/Mirage etc at reasonable prices). This could be from having a Swiss offering or the (unthinkable) 5322 (ie "fair") payout.
As it is, I think I'll take a little break, and come back playing Momir DEs (once they start paying M13, instead of dead M12 packs).
Glad you took my % suggestion on board, that graph's really informative now :)
I can't understand the week after week dominance of storm. There is just SO much people can use to hate on it isn't there? I think every colour has good SB options for it so I can't see why people aren't packing the hate more effectively. It doesn't seem silly to use 4-6 slots for a deck that's so dominant and so hate-able.
Re soulbond deck, it seems like too many of the really bomb-y bond creatures are uncommon. druids familiar, nearheath pilgrim, hanaweir lancer, stonewright, tandem lookout... at least some of them could make a splash I think, not sure that the ones available cut it. Shieldmate is pretty good, but the deck you most need hexproof against (MBC) runs plenty of verdicts so I doubt it'll be effective (just as silhana looks technically great for stompy vs MBC but actually just seems to die instantly every time she hits the table - the only mechanics that works against black removal are undying and persist). And geist trappers is pretty awesome in limited but at 5cmc it's too slow for pauper and probably doesn't do that much anyway by the time it hits. Guess it might work vs delver if you can stay alive for 5 turns.
Several people have mentioned Wall of Fire to me as a defensive red common. It is correct in the calculations, but for some reason I had thought it was an uncommon when I was doing the write up. It just goes to further demonstrate how this format is a lot more focused on defense than offense.
I overheard some people using the terms Tall and Wide before, but didn't actually hear what they meant by them. So I just stole the terms and adapted them semantically.
Interesting terminology. Tall and Wide make a lot of sense as labels for what people have known for years. The charts are pretty cool, I assume you have a program (excel?) that does the work for you?
As with any set, simply running numbers isn't effective. There is a reason why Humans are better at Magic than Computers.
To answer your question, I counted that cycle as if you would have the requisite land in play. In the case of cards like this, you have to make a judgement based on how you think they will be played. And you are correct to assume that it would move up the averages... which is even more telling about the speed of the format and the size of the creatures. Even with those cards moving things up, the creatures are still small on average.
Out of interest, did you count the flinthoof boar cycle powered up? I imagine most of the time that they're played, they will be and I think they're commons so they might impact the averages a bit?
EDIT: turns out they're uncommons, so the averages are probably pretty close either way.
Yeah, from the feedback I've received, starting next article that's the way I'm going to take it!
I think focusing on the budget collection rather than keeping the spotlight on any one deck for too long is the way forward. It would highlight the value of getting cheap staples that can be used across multiple decks, and the benefit of a playset of any card being enough for any number of MTGO decks. It would also help to alleviate the problem of the expensive improvement ceiling, and shift the focus from trying to build a competitive list on a pittance to gradually building a collection up and getting real value for money.
While no Bonfires or Huntmasters will be making an appearance in the lists, I think there's plenty I can do with standard and other formats (maybe even pauper once in a while) that will keep the articles fresh and hopefully interesting for everyone!
I'd also like to toy with the idea of building a $5 budget Commander deck with an article on one of the weeks, and with a collection of block/standard cards to back it up this would be more than feasible.
Thanks for the feedback guys, it's genuinely useful and just makes me more enthused for my next article :)
I like the idea, the other advantage is that it's a fairly unique idea - there's quite a few columns out there doing budget decks, none doing that idea as far as i know.
Eventually you might get bored of a deck or run into the limits of what you can reasonably add to improve it so you can start from scratch. What you don't want to get to situation where you have a deck that your weekly improvement is one extra dual land or something, that'd be fairly unexciting. In general, there's a limit to how much you can improve a deck incrementally, there'll usually be a step change where the next improvement is like adding bonfires of the damned or huntmasters or something, and then things get way over budget.
That was actually something I was planning to bring up next week, whether I could count cards already in my $5 budget collection towards another deck's budget or not. I think if I did take the article in that direction I'd want to start from scratch with a $5 standard deck, then take it through rotation, and gradually build it up into something truly tournament worthy.
What does anyone else think of this idea? I actually really like it, because no matter how hard I budget or try a $5 deck isn't ever going to be 100% optimal, but $5 a week would show everyone that MTGO can be played on a reasonable investment and be a lot of fun.
I don't know much about classic, but the obvious answer to attract people to the format seems to be turning it into Vintage. At this point bringing the Power 9 online should really be a piority.
If this has been suggested before, and dismissed for whatever reason, thats cool. -- Would it be possible to add a "% change" (increase/decrease) to your charts? -- while you have the numbers themselves, and the percents are hidden there, it does take a few extra seconds to calculate them, having a % change value would provide a better price evaluation for the week to week fluctuations of the cards.
Good report
Classic pays in M12? That makes you wonder, who is going to spend $750 on a classic deck when they can spend $10 on a Pauper deck and win the same prizes? (And have a more diverse format.)
great stuff, haven't really had a chance to see the cards from PC there's def some fun stuff
vela could have some potential with the use of Mnemonic Wall (or similar) and Ghostly Flicker to blink every turn, but that becomes much weaker when you're in multiplayer where there are more people and an increased chance of finding an answer to it
Copying out of Word used to preserve color. Last night, I finished copying, importing decks, and forgot that everything in the tables now comes through black. I try to remember to change things, but it was a long week.
Sorry.
This article is always one of the first things I look for on a Friday morning.
A (very) minor math/formatting nitpick on the price lists: Cards that have gone down in price are shown in both black AND red, and cards that haven't changed prices the dash is also in both colors. I guess I'm anal about such things, soory!
I realize you use bold to show significant price changes, but does the color of price drops also signify something? (If so, you may want to include a legend)
Good article as usual.
A point of detail.. I believe the Onslaught drafts will not be nixtix, but charge 2 tix.
As I posted on the main WotC forums:
I would probably have done a few of these, if any two of the following were true:
1) Nix-tix
2) A reasonable no of commons/uncommons worth money or otherwise good value (eg Masques/MVW/TSE/MED)
3) It was a fun draft format (Ravnica, IPA, SSE)
4) We hadn't just had a 2 week stint of old set draft (did way too many IPA drafts!)
5) A balanced payout (it's just more hassle than it's worth trying to track down spare packs of Invasion/Onslaught/Mirage etc at reasonable prices). This could be from having a Swiss offering or the (unthinkable) 5322 (ie "fair") payout.
As it is, I think I'll take a little break, and come back playing Momir DEs (once they start paying M13, instead of dead M12 packs).
regarding storm - can't agree more
regarding soulbond - you pretty much nailed it, it isn't something I can see being a constant competitor, but definitely makes for casual fun
thanks again :)
Glad you took my % suggestion on board, that graph's really informative now :)
I can't understand the week after week dominance of storm. There is just SO much people can use to hate on it isn't there? I think every colour has good SB options for it so I can't see why people aren't packing the hate more effectively. It doesn't seem silly to use 4-6 slots for a deck that's so dominant and so hate-able.
Re soulbond deck, it seems like too many of the really bomb-y bond creatures are uncommon. druids familiar, nearheath pilgrim, hanaweir lancer, stonewright, tandem lookout... at least some of them could make a splash I think, not sure that the ones available cut it. Shieldmate is pretty good, but the deck you most need hexproof against (MBC) runs plenty of verdicts so I doubt it'll be effective (just as silhana looks technically great for stompy vs MBC but actually just seems to die instantly every time she hits the table - the only mechanics that works against black removal are undying and persist). And geist trappers is pretty awesome in limited but at 5cmc it's too slow for pauper and probably doesn't do that much anyway by the time it hits. Guess it might work vs delver if you can stay alive for 5 turns.
STUFFY DOLL!
Several people have mentioned Wall of Fire to me as a defensive red common. It is correct in the calculations, but for some reason I had thought it was an uncommon when I was doing the write up. It just goes to further demonstrate how this format is a lot more focused on defense than offense.
I overheard some people using the terms Tall and Wide before, but didn't actually hear what they meant by them. So I just stole the terms and adapted them semantically.
As for the charts, yes, I use Excel.
Interesting terminology. Tall and Wide make a lot of sense as labels for what people have known for years. The charts are pretty cool, I assume you have a program (excel?) that does the work for you?
Thanks, glad you're enjoying :)
Pauper is a lot healthier format than many think it is. It has plenty of decks that can do well, and there's still room to brew.
I really like your articles as pauper is one of my favorite formats to play!
As with any set, simply running numbers isn't effective. There is a reason why Humans are better at Magic than Computers.
To answer your question, I counted that cycle as if you would have the requisite land in play. In the case of cards like this, you have to make a judgement based on how you think they will be played. And you are correct to assume that it would move up the averages... which is even more telling about the speed of the format and the size of the creatures. Even with those cards moving things up, the creatures are still small on average.
Out of interest, did you count the flinthoof boar cycle powered up? I imagine most of the time that they're played, they will be and I think they're commons so they might impact the averages a bit?
EDIT: turns out they're uncommons, so the averages are probably pretty close either way.
Lord Erman used to do something quite similar. He hasn't had time for articles (or MTGO) as of late but you can check his archived articles here.
Yeah, from the feedback I've received, starting next article that's the way I'm going to take it!
I think focusing on the budget collection rather than keeping the spotlight on any one deck for too long is the way forward. It would highlight the value of getting cheap staples that can be used across multiple decks, and the benefit of a playset of any card being enough for any number of MTGO decks. It would also help to alleviate the problem of the expensive improvement ceiling, and shift the focus from trying to build a competitive list on a pittance to gradually building a collection up and getting real value for money.
While no Bonfires or Huntmasters will be making an appearance in the lists, I think there's plenty I can do with standard and other formats (maybe even pauper once in a while) that will keep the articles fresh and hopefully interesting for everyone!
I'd also like to toy with the idea of building a $5 budget Commander deck with an article on one of the weeks, and with a collection of block/standard cards to back it up this would be more than feasible.
Thanks for the feedback guys, it's genuinely useful and just makes me more enthused for my next article :)
I like the idea, the other advantage is that it's a fairly unique idea - there's quite a few columns out there doing budget decks, none doing that idea as far as i know.
Eventually you might get bored of a deck or run into the limits of what you can reasonably add to improve it so you can start from scratch. What you don't want to get to situation where you have a deck that your weekly improvement is one extra dual land or something, that'd be fairly unexciting. In general, there's a limit to how much you can improve a deck incrementally, there'll usually be a step change where the next improvement is like adding bonfires of the damned or huntmasters or something, and then things get way over budget.
Seems it would open up other formats as it rotates as well.StandardFun>TourneyPractice>Tournament>ModernFun>TP>Tourney and so on
Yeah so not the TNM award you were hoping for. Meh. Forbidden Alchemy has nice alt art but its not the rarest of cards. :D
http://community.wizards.com/magiconline/blog/2012/07/03/announcements_-...
Jace's Ingenuity... :(
*bum bum bu-bum....BWWWWOWWWWW*
That was actually something I was planning to bring up next week, whether I could count cards already in my $5 budget collection towards another deck's budget or not. I think if I did take the article in that direction I'd want to start from scratch with a $5 standard deck, then take it through rotation, and gradually build it up into something truly tournament worthy.
What does anyone else think of this idea? I actually really like it, because no matter how hard I budget or try a $5 deck isn't ever going to be 100% optimal, but $5 a week would show everyone that MTGO can be played on a reasonable investment and be a lot of fun.