Ideas for new article series

General forum

Posted on Sept. 27, 2018, 8:33 a.m. by Boza

T/O needs some more articles and I have one idea I want to run by you guys before beginning to make it a reality:

Deck doctor

How would it be different from any old deck doctor article out there?

First of all, let me explain the concept - deck doctoring is the process of the article writer taking a user-submitted deck and improving it in some way. over the course of article, detailing reasoning behind the changes.

I want to take this core idea and refine it. I will develop a structure in which the process will be collaborative between the user and the writer. The article will be a half-interview with the user, where he/she details what they want to improve, and the rest will contain the reasoning of the writer at arriving at the final decklist.

Does this sound like something you would like to read?
Do you have ideas for other articles you would like to read?

cdkime says... #2

I think this sounds pretty interesting, with the interaction between the original builder and the reviewer adding a nice twist to an existing concept. I think it would be a good idea to have a debrief interview as well--giving the original deckbuilder an opportunity to say why they chose certain cards that got cut, and share their thoughts on the revised deck.

Perhaps I'm watching a bit too much HGTV - the format "introduction by owner" - "remodel" - "reveal and owner's feedback" seems quite familiar.


To answer your second question, I had an idea for an article series about a month ago based around the Storm Scale. Each installment in the series would look at a different ability scoring a 9 or 10 on the Storm Scale, and then argue for a lower score, a non-Standard location where new cards with the ability could be introduced, or a revised version of the ability that could be Standard-legal. Eventually I was going to get around to drafting an initial article, but it's been a tad busy. If this is something others might be interested in (or if no one is interested, but there's a desperate need for articles regardless), I'd be happy to revisit the idea.

September 27, 2018 9:05 a.m.

Boza says... #3

Thanks for the feedback on the DD series, I will try to incorporate this. I plan to write an entry number 0, which will detail the approach and structure and solicit decks for doctoring. I think the "reaction by the owner" can be handled in the comment section, but that is certainly a good point and I can incorporate it in the article.

The second idea is also great and I will try to develop something based on it. Can you point me to the most recent storm scale? I have no idea where to find info on this one, as it is blogatog exclusive. Has someone collated this?

September 27, 2018 9:15 a.m.

cdkime says... #4

The Storm Scale Article on the Magic Wiki provides sources for the most recent score, as well as historical data and sources.

September 27, 2018 9:21 a.m.

legendofa says... #5

Would this be doctoring up for any format? Or would you encourage or restrict it to one format?

September 27, 2018 10:17 a.m.

Boza says... #6

Well, I am personally up for anything, though I am most versed in Pauper, Standard and casual Commander and Canadian Highlander. Additionally, it can be a good platform to shed a light on weird little formats like type 4 stacks, judge's tower and what not.

But I will certainly not limit the format. I think the nature of the interview part will iron out many of the gaps of knowledge that me being unfamiliar with a format.

My initial idea for how the deck is selected will be based on votes - people will comment which deck of theirs they want to be doctored and the one with the most votes will be selected. The new comment upvoting really simplifies that concept.

September 27, 2018 10:43 a.m.

landofMordor says... #7

DD idea seems like a good one, especially if you added twists like changing format, making a rotating Standard deck Modern-playable or Commander singleton, ir addressed the specific meta tuning requests of the owners.

I’ve been toying with an idea for a series linking MtG with real-world philosophy. For example, I’ve been thinking about how gender and morality are intertwined through MtG’s angels and demons, or how death is represented in green and black cards. The lead time might be longer on something like that, since the research couldn’t be solely conducted through Scryfall, but I’d be interested in contributing to such a series.

September 27, 2018 12:58 p.m.

Boza says... #8

Thanks a lot for the help, these comments have nudged me in the direction of how to make the first article. The first one in the series will be number 0, which will explain the whole process and structure and select based on votes in the comments the first two decks to be doctored, to have some headway in order to stay ahead.

After that, every week a new deck will be selected with each article and appear two weeks later to allow time for interviewing and actually writing the piece.

Additionally, there are a few very nice ideas for other topics that can be great articles. I have really enjoyed the storm scale idea and this can easily be worked into a great series on mechanics.

September 28, 2018 6:22 a.m.

Vman says... #9

i feel like it would be great and hella interesting, but on a personal note please do consider asking about the player's personal playstyle. i feel like that is extremely important to take note of and a good deck does not just work in any type of players hands. especially newer players

September 28, 2018 7:50 a.m.

Boza says... #10

Grand idea Vman, will be sure to include that!

September 28, 2018 7:59 a.m.

Flooremoji says... #11

Boza, this sounds very interesting, and I would read it. The idea of collaborative deck fixing sounds very good. Would a certain time be needed for both users to be one the site?

September 28, 2018 12:42 p.m.

Boza says... #12

Nothing as such is needed really. All you need to know is how to enable chat with someone - which will be explained in article 0 of the series just in case.

October 1, 2018 2:17 a.m.

Please login to comment