What do you want Machinus to write about?

[Machinus]

I read all the posts at SCG, but I'm interested to hear about what articles people want to read. Many people indicated they wanted something more complex. So, what did you have in mind?

Do you like deckbuilding articles? What archetypes?
Do you like matchup discussions? Which ones?
Do you want to see more format analysis? What issues?

There are plenty of ideas, I just need to know what you want to read.

[Atwa]

Which means you even haven't started writing your article? Shame on you :)

I don't know. I really don't know, what will be the reason I will never write an article, I'd really have no idea what to write about.

In the beginning, more Legacy analysis will be fine, since in the beginning you will be introducing new people to the format most of the time, but after a while, I think it's best to start writing about matchup analysis.

I really feel dumping new deck ideas into an article is bad, since there is no reliable data about how a deck wil preform. I think you don't want to be scolded at like happen(ed)(s) to Anusien.

Again, also thanks to you for taking the time and effort to write the articles, which I hope will grow a little more recognition for our format.

[Tacosnape]

I really feel dumping new deck ideas into an article is bad, since there is no reliable data about how a deck wil preform. I think you don't want to be scolded at like happen(ed)(s) to Anusien.

I disagree with this. Anusien wasn't scolded for posting a new deck idea, and he should be applauded for making the effort to do so on a major site, in an article as opposed to a forum, as that takes guts and sets yourself up to be flamed.

He was, however, scolded for posting a deck with the attitude that he alone had broken Legacy in half, complete with inaccurate matchup claims based on either faulty testing or no testing at all, just like we scold everyone else who does the same thing. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying he's a liar or that the deck is necessarily bad, but it's become general consensus pretty quickly that the deck, in fact, has not broken Legacy in half as indicated.

Personally, I find articles about new deck ideas to be fascinating and healthy for invention and innovation. But if so, I don't want to read about some metagamed deck designed to beat the big three where the extent of its strategy is discussed as "How to beat the Big Three." I want to know the deck's strategy. If you're tossing out some new aggro control deck, I want to know how the creator would play the deck when it's aggro and when it's control. If you're playing some bizarre deck that packs Careful Study over Brainstorm, I want to hear all your reasons why. If you're running some new combo deck, I want to know the best ways to get to that win condition from different hands, and how you play the deck in certain instances of disruption. And regardless of what deck you're playing, I want to know when you mulligan and what you're looking for in an opening hand, as well as what you plan to board out as well as what you board in.

New decks are fantastic articles if they're interesting reads. Decks that claim immediately to slaughter the field turn people off, because the natural reaction is to scoff at it, rather than to pick it up, tweak it, evolve it, and make it a contender. If you show a reader the concepts behind the deck, they'll be more likely to grab your deck and carry it to new heights. Ask Eldariel or Anwar or Michael Bomholt. These people presented their creations (Faerie Stompy, Red Death, Iggy Pop) in such a way that made people want to associate themselves with the deck and take it to new levels.

EDIT: A little humor always makes people enjoy your read more, too. We like hearing about all your comical failures with the deck as much as we like hearing about the successes.

[Parcher]

This is just my opinion based on what I have seen from you in the past.

I would like to see matchup discussion most.

Preferably not Goblins, as they have been done to death, but other than that, whatever you feel you know well. The one that really hasn't been touched on by anyone yet is Combo v. Aggro, aside from Goblins against Solidarity. Even Combo v. Combo if such a thing is even worth an article in Legacy.

You are an amazingly detailed technical writer, and player from what I have seen. So while format analysis might go most with your strengths, frankly it bores me as it does most who are already familiar with the format.

An in-depth breakdown with the majority of the variables in the matchup by someone who is capable of both tracking, and analyzing the statistics involved not only helps in card and deck selection, it leaves very little room for opinion.

[Rastadon]

I'd go with some introductory articles. The DTB's, why they are there, common sideboard strategies against them, the standard archetypes, uprising decks, stuff like that. The more people that play legacy, the more attention we'll get from Wizards. And I agree with Taco, a little humor goes a long way.

[JACO]

In the beginning, more Legacy analysis will be fine, since in the beginning you will be introducing new people to the format most of the time, but after a while, I think it's best to start writing about matchup analysis.

I really feel dumping new deck ideas into an article is bad, since there is no reliable data about how a deck wil preform. I think you don't want to be scolded at like happen(ed)(s) to Anusien.
I disagree with pretty much everything you just said.

Take a look at the more successful or memorable articles in Magic's past, and you'll see that the best articles are not just general analysis of a format. There's already a host of those out there, and I know every time I read one I'm just thinking to myself, "tell me something I DON'T already know, damnit." There's no need for more general analysis articles where Goblins, Threshold, and Solidarity are all mentioned as the staples to the format. Everybody knows that. Would you, Chris Coppola, or you, Kevin Binswanger, be very interested in reading generalized articles? Or would you rather read some kind of in-depth pieces that pique your interest because they are different? Write about what would excite you and keep you yourself asking for more.

If you want to write compelling articles about Legacy, I would recommend the following potential topics:
1) breaking/releasing some kind of new deck or technology that you've tested at least a little bit; I could never fault someone for bringing new good ideas into the fold
2) pitting a rising deck against a staple, and then breaking down individual plays (ala Menendian's older article style of deck x vs. deck y); for example TES vs. Threshold, or IGGy Pop (w/ Chant) vs. Threshold, or Solidary vs. IGGy Pop, or Solidarity vs. new era (i.e. better) BW Confidant, or new era BW Confidant vs. Threshold, or Burning Loam variant x vs. anything; you can see where I'm going with this - the possibilities are limitless, captivating, and would provide a great and informative running series
3) metagaming with a specific deck (this could be a running series, with a different deck each article), other than Goblins or Threshold; this would prove to be especially valuable as Legacy grows and the metagame ebbs and flows with frequent bigger tournaments changing favored decks and strategies (similar to how Extended ebbs and flows during the PTQ season)
4) looking at break out decks immediately after big tournaments and analyzing that given tournament field and why they did well (this could probably be shorter)

Most of the Legacy articles out there are informative to people who've never played the format. Unfortunately, the bulk of the people reading those articles have a pulse and already know the basics about the format, or regularly play the format, and need far more in depth content. Know your audience, and write accordingly.

By the way, these suggestions are for all writers of Legacy/Vintage, not just for Chris.

[freakish777]

An in depth and encompassing article about the metagame (either a local metagame you play in, or a targetted one, perhaps what you think will be at TML Open 2) and your solutions in terms of single card choice for it (ie, maindeck & sideboard tech). Additionally adapting said advice to other metagames.

[Machinus]

This disagreement is one reason I started this thread.

I'm more interested in reading about very detailed aspects of the format, but I know my habits for reading about and playing this format are different from those of others. If I only wrote about topics I like reading about, it would be boring to much of the audience.

However, I'm concerned more about advancing the existing base of players than attracting new ones, although I think they are both important. Eternal magic will always suffer from being regularly "introduced" on every magic website, and that's not avoidable. But for my new articles, I need to know what the majority of my audience is looking for.

If I build a new deck that really is good against the field, I'm going to take it to a tournament, and discuss it after. Obviously, everyone wants the newest tech, but that's always going to come after performance. So, I'm sure I can write about single-card modifications or things on that scale, but if I write about a new deck it will probably be because someone succeeded with it.

[etrigan]

I'd like to see more deckbuilding articles about tier 1.5 or tier 2 decks. The history behind it, how card choices have evolved over time, what it's good/bad matchups are, what's stopping it from being tier 1, that kind of thing.

[Twinkee]

I'd like to see more deckbuilding articles about tier 1.5 or tier 2 decks. The history behind it, how card choices have evolved over time, what it's good/bad matchups are, what's stopping it from being tier 1, that kind of thing.

Agreed, Perhaps begin or link to another article that discusses the legacy metagame. Afterwards, look at decks that have top16's or top32 and discuss why they have suffered and such. It'd be interesting to both experienced players and not I believe. Experienced players can gain insights to what stops them and newer players would gain insight to the vastness of legacy outside of the 'big 3'.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

Sideboarding approaches.

[Pinder]

Sideboarding approaches.

I second that.

[jazzykat]

I want him to write about old expensive cards that just don't seem to have a home in 1.5.

i.e. Nether Void, The Abyss, Moat, Drop of Honey etc.

[Ta Jugs]

A discussion of good underplayed decks.

[Peter_Rotten]

Articles about Burning Tog.

[Ta Jugs]

Yeah stuff like tog, boros deck wins, zoo, loam control or CAL, stax, and other things of that variety.

[Bongo]

I yourself asking for more.

2) pitting a rising deck against a staple, and then breaking down individual plays (ala Menendian's older article style of deck x vs. deck y);
for example TES vs. Threshold, or IGGy Pop (w/ Chant) vs. Threshold, or Solidary vs. IGGy Pop, or Solidarity vs. new era (i.e. better) BW Confidant, or new era BW Confidant vs. Threshold, or Burning Loam variant x vs. anything;
you can see where I'm going with this - the possibilities are limitless, captivating, and would provide a great and informative running series.

Well said, this would be the most intriguing topic, especially when you put the focus on sideboarded games.

Please no introductory articles, I don't want to see those anymore.

[Atwa]

I should have been more clear what I meant about "not dumping new deck ideas in articles''. If a deck has been played at a few small tournaments, so you have actual data of the deck's preformance, it is fine to include it into an article.

However, dumping new unproven ideas in an article and then claiming it beats the current DTB's is a wrong approach. I would like to see new decks introduced, but not hyping it to death before it has even proven itself at a local tournament.

I would also like to see matchup anaylis about other good decks than the current top 3. But I feel you'll lose the attention of people who are interested in the format, but who have no experiance with it yet.

That's why I said you should start with some sort of intoduction first, which can also be different than the standard "these are the good decks and these are the good cards, live with it" articles which we have already seen too many. You can also take it in the direction of introducing the Tire 1.5/2 decks and give some general matchup statistics. You can always go deeper at those subjects in time. Just don't make it too difficult at the start, since it will scare newer players away.

These articles are meant to go on for a while, so you don't have to trow new players/readers in the deep from the start. You can also let them get used to the water before drowning them.

[Bryant Cook]

I
2) pitting a rising deck against a staple, and then breaking down individual plays (ala Menendian's older article style of deck x vs. deck y); for example TES vs. Threshold, or IGGy Pop (w/ Chant) vs. Threshold, or Solidary vs. IGGy Pop, or Solidarity vs. new era (i.e. better) BW Confidant, or new era BW Confidant vs. Threshold, or Burning Loam variant x vs. anything; you can see where I'm going with this - the possibilities are limitless, captivating, and would provide a great and informative running series.

I happen to love that idea.

[Deep6er]

More of the Solidarity, less of the not-Solidarity. Also, more me. I like me.

[Atwa]

More of the Solidarity, less of the not-Solidarity. Also, more me. I like me.

Write an article of your own.

[Watcher487]

I want to see your take on board control(Rifter, Eternal Gardens, Staxx)/ control(Landstill, MUC, MBC) in the format, these are 2 very underrepresented archtypes that should do decently at Columbus.

[Deep6er]

Write an article of your own.

That's a lot of work. Also, I'm really lazy and when other people do work for me, that makes it easier to criticize them because I'm not the one who fucked up... see? Also, even though I tell people to write articles about Solidarity, it's not actually the best topic. The problem is that Solidarity is constantly evolving and shifting its strategies in order to combat the variety of threats that exist in Legacy. To write that down means that it will inevitably become obsolete (outside of basic strategy which would be irrelevant and uninteresting to read about) and outdated. With posts, I'm able to revise them and qualify that changes will be made and where to go to keep up with those changes. I just really like me. Which makes it cool when people write about me.

[Silverdragon]

Inspired by a short discussion on our new irc channel here's my suggestion: write about Survival. Especially why it doesn't see play anymore.
Considering we didn't have any quality articles about Survival back in the day this could be really interesting.

[Atwa]

This could be a good idea. Maybe Tao can share his list, it has won the source tournament twice after all.

[Lukas Preuss]

Tao actually once wrote a very nice report on Survival for magicuniverse.de. It was a very nice read, and you should definitely ask him, if you're actually interested in this topic. He did a lot of testing with all kinds of variants, and his current version is pretty competitive (won the Source tournament twice and FlodO won the Dülmen event in October with it, as well).

I would personally be happy with just about anything that isn't too elementary. Just write about something that I don't know about yet. :)

[troopatroop]

Honestly... Rebuild ATS. Write about how it used to be tier 1 with landstill, and what brought it out of power. Right about how legacy has such a deep cardpool that tier 1 can become tier 3 in only a few monthes of metagaming and design. That's something that type 2 players rarely see.

Talk to Di. Apparently he has it rebuilt and good again.

[Di]

Inspired by a short discussion on our new irc channel here's my suggestion: write about Survival. Especially why it doesn't see play anymore.
Considering we didn't have any quality articles about Survival back in the day this could be really interesting.

Assuming I perform well at Geneseo, there will be a helluva lot more articles on it.


Honestly... Rebuild ATS. Write about how it used to be tier 1 with landstill, and what brought it out of power. Right about how legacy has such a deep cardpool that tier 1 can become tier 3 in only a few monthes of metagaming and design. That's something that type 2 players rarely see.

Talk to Di. Apparently he has it rebuilt and good again.

Anyone who has seen the deck/played with me would agree. I'll admit it's crazy though, how a deck that single-handedly dominated the metagame for over a year was pushed right out of the tier structure with small metagame switches. I blame Pithing Needle, because it scared people away. Fortunately, the card doesn't hurt that much if people aren't stupid.

Maybe when I get some free time or something I'll write up some stuff, but there's gotta be a good reason and interest.

[Slay]

Whatever you write about, don't do it about fucking Fish. God there's like twenty Legacy Fish articles.

[hi-val]

Expect about twenty thousand words on Survival in two weeks. I'm writing the handbook on it.

[Deep6er]

Expect about twenty thousand words on Survival in two weeks. I'm writing the handbook on it.

What happened to the 'Road to Columbus' articles? You said something 'surprising' was going to happen and I'm still waiting to see what that surprise was.

[Bryant Cook]

You could do Deep6er and myself a favor and write one on Solidarity Vs. TES.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Adress the issue of most concern to any Legacy player: will Osyp Lebedowicz agree to be Jack Elgin's valentine this year? Why or why not? Provide arguments for and against.

[Bane of the Living]

That's a lot of work. Also, I'm really lazy and when other people do work for me, that makes it easier to criticize them because I'm not the one who fucked up... see? Also, even though I tell people to write articles about Solidarity, it's not actually the best topic. The problem is that Solidarity is constantly evolving and shifting its strategies in order to combat the variety of threats that exist in Legacy. To write that down means that it will inevitably become obsolete (outside of basic strategy which would be irrelevant and uninteresting to read about) and outdated. With posts, I'm able to revise them and qualify that changes will be made and where to go to keep up with those changes. I just really like me. Which makes it cool when people write about me.

Why dont you just admit that you created a fucking frankenstein and it got out of your control?

You know what I want to read about? PREPARING FOR GP COLUMBUS!!

Since its smack in the middle of the states I expect the biggest legacy turnout EVER. Get new players to come. Talk about ways to innovate pet decks into legacy tier. Create the idea that you dont need to play one of the big three to be successfull, just be able to walk toe to toe with them. You dont need all kinds of intro to legacy articles to be the same. The best approach should be aluring people with their old favorite standard decks, into Columbus. Then we can smash the noobs and thank you....

[AnwarA101]

I read all the posts at SCG, but I'm interested to hear about what articles people want to read. Many people indicated they wanted something more complex. So, what did you have in mind?

Do you like deckbuilding articles? What archetypes?
Do you like matchup discussions? Which ones?
Do you want to see more format analysis? What issues?

There are plenty of ideas, I just need to know what you want to read.

Well by complex I think people (including me) mean something isn't obvious. A couple of examples could be

Why is the control archetype so poor in Legacy?
Why isn't Legacy overrun with combo if Goblins is the most played deck (such as why isn't Iggy Pop dominating Legacy)?


Perhaps you could explain or some how add some information to the following comment you made in response to an article written by Brian Diefendorf and I.



Please don't be misled by my criticisms. I would like to see more examination of the format from this perspective. I just believe that Legacy requires a new set of ideas to understand it correctly.


Maybe you could give us some insight into what those new ideas would be. I for one would be interested to see what you meant.

[Machinus]

Why is the control archetype so poor in Legacy?

I'm already writing this one.

I'm not sure how to interpret your comment about mine on your last article. As far as I can remember, I was talking about the methods of format analysis which are inapplicable to Legacy, mainly due to very subjective and/or casual players.

[AnwarA101]

I'm not sure how to interpret your comment about mine on your last article. As far as I can remember, I was talking about the methods of format analysis which are inapplicable to Legacy, mainly due to very subjective and/or casual players.

I guess I read more into your statement than was really there. I thought you meant that a different type of analysis was needed to understand Legacy. It can't just be viewed as underpowered Vintage or some type of extension of Extended. It has its own nature and requires different type of deck construction than what occurs in other formats. What characteristics do successful decks really share and was it similar ideas that shaped these decks? This would be an interesting topic if some type of analysis could be done.

[Machinus]

I guess I read more into your statement than was really there. I thought you meant that a different type of analysis was needed to understand Legacy. It can't just be viewed as underpowered Vintage or some type of extension of Extended. It has its own nature and requires different type of deck construction than what occurs in other formats. For example what characteristics do successful (decks that Top8) really share and was it similar ideas that shaped those decks would be an interesting topic as well.

I would certainly agree with all of those things, but I don't know if that's what I was talking about when I responded to your article.

It's absolutely different from Vintage and Extended, and I hate those comparisons because they are misleading. Not just the card pool and deck dynamics, although I realize that's what we're discussing (theory). The behaviour of players is different as well, sometimes in counterintuitive ways.

As for deck construction, I do not think top8s do not reflect the level of innovation that occurs in this format (and I think that is low given the amount of potential in the card pool). Compared to itself two years ago, Legacy appears to advance nicely, but when compared to other formats it looks very slow. But, our theories about the format come from tournaments, which are very slow to adopt the advances which are made. I think you would agree that there exist many potentially "winning" decks out there that very few people have mastered or even played, so I am highly skeptical of the proposition that Legacy top8s are correllated with innovation.

[AnwarA101]

I think you would agree that there exist many potentially "winning" decks out there that very few people have mastered or even played, so I am highly skeptical of the proposition that Legacy top8s are correllated with innovation.

I would have to agree with this. The number of players I see play decks like Burn makes me think that consistent failure for a deck to do well some how doesn't preclude them from playing it while other possibly more successful decks aren't even played or even explored for that matter.

[hi-val]

What happened to the 'Road to Columbus' articles? You said something 'surprising' was going to happen and I'm still waiting to see what that surprise was.

That's getting rolled into this series. I wanted to continue that series but a variety of things got in the way-- SCG's editing staff was kind of slow, I had finals and LSAT studying coming up, etc. I still have like 8 articles chilling in the meth lab, waiting to see the light of day when I get around to it.

I've got some really interesting thoughts on Tide vs. Goblins but I don't know how much of that is really relevant anymore and I don't know if I'm that good at handling those kinds of articles.

I also have some amazing techs to sink teeths into.

[Lego]

Then we can smash the noobs and thank you....

I'm going to laugh when a n00b playing Standard Ghazi-Glare [this is a placemarker for any random standard deck. Hmm, Snow White... Maybe Dragonstorm :wink:] roles over you on his (her?) way to the win.

[Machinus]

Okay, I have received a lot of constructive feedback from this thread. Thanks to anyone who posted, and anyone who wants to add more please do so!

So far I am getting the impression generally that you guys want to know how to prepare and play your decks. I spend quite a lot of time on deck design, but someone who doesn't would not have an intuitive understanding of sideboarding, a matchups key cards, etc., so I can certainly take a closer look at those variables. My article set with Dan Spero accomplished these things pretty well, but obviously there are many other decks to look at and I will try to choose the most interesting of those.

I have noted that you do not want any articles on Fish (that works for me, since I gave up on that deck almost two years ago).

I'm also going to be talking about the GP, and I'm sure I will be talking a lot more about this format's history and evolution. Who knows, I might even write another article about Ancient Tomb Control.

One final request - if you have specific questions that you want me to address (about magic), please email them to me at machinus at gmail. If I get enough good questions I might put them in an article.