Re: About the Zoo archetype
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bardo
I'm with IBA, at least for purposes of what you're doing: shading may be a little different, and it's super-easy to be pedantic about this, but we're dealing with the same basic strategy: play some guys, connect when you can, burn them out. I'd separate Burn (which is basically a slow storm deck) from Sligh, Goyf Sligh and Zoo; but if I were writing the analysis, would lump Sligh, Goyf Sligh and Zoo into a single archetype for purposes of metagame analysis. If you want to do some deeper analysis on the burn/dudes strategy, then you can break them out; but for high-level "what's the metagame," consolidate where you can.
To your questions (in order), I'd call that Zoo; it's the same archetype; N/A; depends (see above); To sum up: depends on what you're trying to do (i.e. high-level metagame predictions/trends or archetype analysis).
Thanks everybody for all the feedback.
I'm just trying to analyze the metagame in order to get a clue on what are the most succesfull archetypes. Besides, I'm doing a monthly ranking, so that it's more fun for me and readers if cold data ends up with a deck being the month's best deck, the month's second best deck, etc.
I just found it funny how two decks that actually have different origins have being evolving to became almost the very same thing. It' just hard to do metagame analysis because you can't avoid mixing up very specific decks (Canadian Threshold, TES) with broad archetypes (The Rock, Countertop). Of course there is an easy solution in attaching archetype breakdowns so that you can compare the performance of a particular archetype's incarnation (Supreme Blue, UWb Landstill, Naya Burn) with more specific decks like Canadian Threshold.
I guess I'm going to lump them into the same category (beautifull expression, didn't know it, see, my english still sucks).
You can close the thread at your discretion whenever you feel it becomes stupid.
Re: About the Zoo archetype
Quote:
Originally Posted by
yadda
This post is so ignorant that i simply cannot let it pass.
Zoo is an aggro deck which uses high efficiency cards to guarantee a positive card quality advantage in any 7 card hand over the deck sitting opposite it.
"Card quality advantage" is not a term that any serious Magic strategist has ever used as anything but a joke.
Quote:
Sligh judges its card choices on the what mike flores calls the "philosophy of fire" in which a card is judged by the number of it that is required to deal 20 damage. For instance it takes 6.9 lightning bolts to kill someone.
thus the difference lies not in the card choices but rather why they are being chosen, and how they are played.
Which is why the original Sligh ran Cursed Scroll and modern Zoo runs Fireblast.
This reminds me of people honestly trying to argue that there's a distinction between appetizers and hors douerves.
Quote:
also your above statement "Zoo is a word that originally just meant multicolor Sligh. Insofar as both refer to fast creature decks with burn, they're compatible terms." is also remarkably incorrect. the original zoo deck was called San Diego Zoo because it was full of apes and lions. (kird ape, Savannah lions, and Isamaru were the 1drops.)
This has already been covered.
Re: About the Zoo archetype
IBA,
The term "Card Quality Advantage" isn't used per se, but the theory behind it - using the single best cards available regardless of any reasoning beyond raw power level - is the founding principle of every "good stuff" deck ever built.
The best "good stuff" decks tend to run a few card synergies, but the pieces are almost always generally very strong on their own.
For example, I'm going to make a legacy deck:
I'll start with the best creatures:
Tarmogoyf, Nimble Mongoose, Trygon Predator, Dark Confidant
Then I'll throw in the best counters:
Force of Will, Daze, Counterbalance
Now I'll add the best card selection:
Brainstorm, Ponder, Sensei's Divining Top
The best removal:
Swords to Plowshares, Path to Exile, Diabolic Edict
And we'll finish with the best lands:
Blue fetches, Blue duals, Basics.
Whoops. I just built Thresh/Supreme Blue/NLU.
Guess card quality advantage DOES exist as a theory.
Re: About the Zoo archetype
What you just said was, "People run good cards, so card quality advantage exists".
But that's not why no one refers to "card quality advantage".
People run good cards. Good observation.
Yet referring to the idea of running good cards as some kind of theory like "card quality advantage" that's impossible to quantify is retarded. Essentially this is jumping directly into the pit that people have tried to avoid due to the overuse and distortion for the concept of card advantage- the idea that it would end up just being a nebulous, useless term that could be applied retroactively to fit any deck that does well.
Re: About the Zoo archetype
Quote:
Originally Posted by
godryk
I guess I'm going to lump them into the same category (beautifull expression, didn't know it, see, my english still sucks).
You can close the thread at your discretion whenever you feel it becomes stupid.
Your English is just fine. :)
Locked.
