Jon Agley
Patrick:
I was a big fan of your first article, with the Hipster angle, and wondered how you were going to follow it up. To my pleasant surprise, your second piece was also fun, funny, entertaining, and thoroughly
not
the same article at all. That is excellent, as having one good joke is nowhere near the feat of having true wit. One suggestion in this area would be to let your personality shine through a little even when you’re not “in character.” You want people to remember you, not just your bits.
As for your content, I thought the underlying point of your first article was certainly a worthwhile Magic lesson; though perhaps it may have warranted some sort of a mention to the fact that, to you, deciding to play Jace is just a decision to stop trying to be so hip. Whereas to many others, it’s $320 they haven’t necessarily invested in the game. If your entire article is about the journey to actually playing Jace, and you already own them, perhaps it would useful to find a way to include other people, as almost everyone reading your article will either already be willing to play Jace or not own any. The real lesson underneath is that it’s way better to stop trying to be so “hip” by bucking the mainstream, as there are times where what’s popular is what is best (a lesson that could’ve been broken down a little bit in a way that didn’t involve the emotional baggage that goes along with Jace to people who don’t own them).
Your second article did a good job of tackling this week’s theme of “The major players in Standard and a deck you recommend to beat them.” I agreed totally with your premise that there’s a difference between online and irl (as does every pro I know), and it doesn’t get talked about enough in Magic. You easily advance in my book; though it would seem you have to pay a little extra attention to hooking the audience.
Evan:
Always sucks to leadoff with a misspelling. There are plenty on the Show, but rarely in the first seconds, as it were. Aaaanyway.
Very slick presentation. I enjoyed the graphics and charts; I wanted to see more of those (it’s like we’re nerds or something).
Regardless, I thought you also held up with Valeriy in that you made great strides in showcasing the dichotomy of online vs. real life and the results from both.
While I’m not a fan of Pyromancer Ascension, you made a great case for it, and that’s all one can ask for in articles like these. We want opinions, data, and hopefully personality. You showed more than most, but do be careful of those typos 😉
Ted:
You certainly win the no-prize for fun this week. I learned things from your article like the fact that Ents, like Patrick Chapin, love Jace. Wakefield should take note. I could go on about how I enjoyed the writing here and was delighted you managed to make this article an entertaining read, and I even liked your different framework, but the short of it is that you managed to maintain fun in a tough spot, so in my book you deserve to stay.
Ferret:
GAH A TYPO IN THE FIRST FRICKIN’ PICTURE. “Calamaties?” What is that, some sort of Clive Barker villain? Does our editing cease when it’s in a JPG? This just bothers me.
Aside from that, though, this is the kind of article I love to read — a great mixture of fun
and
strategy that kept my interest the whole time. I wouldn’t have thought twice about it if I’d seen it on SCG outside of the Talent Search — professional and slick, I’d like to see more. The strategy articles are a bit of a slog compared to the wildness of the Casual section, but you manage to meld fun and strategy better than anyone else here.
Valeriy Shunkov
Patrick:
Your wit is sharp, and your writing voice is friendly and inviting. The Russian flavor seems to come through well, without being overpowering or tired, which is a plus. I thought your approach to the week’s theme (the major players in Standard and a deck you recommend, besides Valakut) was well handled by your theme of lying, considering you’d recommend Valakut to everyone. Royal Assassin was also hot; a card that I’m sure many will take away from your article. Technology like that, people remember.
I’m somewhat less a fan of your use of statistics here, other than the fact they do a great job of being the lie that you say they’ll be. Magic Online isn’t the same as real life! Check out Jon Agley‘s article for more on this. If your article was aimed at people that play Magic Online, I could see it, but how much does the metagame change if you factor in SCG Opens? Valakut doesn’t seem to be performing nearly as well, with U/B and R/U/G dominating, as well as reasonable numbers of Ascension. Additionally, I didn’t quite get the tie-in between statistics being lies and the article. I mean, I know you talked about it, but your article wasn’t really about statistics lying, when you like the statistically most popular deck. What did the lying have to do with anything other than an excuse to not “really” advocate Goblins?
This week wasn’t my favorite of yours, but it was decent. I look forward to seeing what you do in the weeks to come.
Evan:
I gotta feeling I’m going to have to start remembering how to spell your name. This article was fantastic. It gives you just enough of what you’re looking for — pillars, stats, how MTGO stacks up, tweaks, tech, and at the end gives us a sick deck that tweaks things enough to get you excited to try it out again.
Loved your last article, and I love how powerfully you weave your own themes (Three kinds of lies) into the theme of the week.
Home run, my favorite of the week.
Ted:
This type of article, when done correctly, can be exceptional. It can also be very popular. I know because I was the guy that was writing these back in the day, and people couldn’t get enough of them. I also hired Alexander Shearer to do modern-day versions of these, so I recognize their value. Your article was… good enough.
The analysis itself is pretty good, for the sample you chose to use, anyway. You have opinions. This is important. Absolutely nobody wants to read a wishy-washy writer who might sort of think that maybe something is pretty good or might possibly be pretty bad. Vomit. I also wholeheartedly applaud the goofy infect plus bonus deck.
Basically, even if I might quibble about your sample or methodology, you had enough good stuff in here to keep me coming back for more. It’s not Shearer-quality work, but it’s already better than a lot of the other “stats-based” articles getting posted.
Stick around, sir; I look forward to what you do next.
Ferret:
This was a good analytical article in the style of Jared Sylva “Too Much Information,” with a ton of handy info about what decks you perceived to be strong, or weak, and why. In terms of trying to define a metagame, it was a bold attempt.
 But I think you need to work on marketing a little here. The title didn’t really sum up the article that well, and as a result, you were the lowest-read article in your class. This article wasn’t about lies; it was about trying to find the decks with statistics, and I think you got too clever for your own good here. Those who showed up voted for you in disproportionate numbers, but you need to also think about how to get more people in to vote you for.
 It’s a solid read — didn’t excite me, but it worked overall. Still, people don’t necessarily read statistical analyses for fun.
Michael Hetrick
Patrick:
To start with, it would seem that you’ve wisely taken to wielding your Magic Online handle, _ShipItHolla, and already you have the audience on your side. Some would say that isn’t “fair,” since you’ll generally get a ton of support based on how well respected you are in the Magic Online community. Life isn’t fair, though. If Jon Finkel were in the contest, he’d only to sign his name to get incredible support. That is who you are! Use that! You have earned that respect and certainly deserve it.
Now, as for your writing itself, I thought the first article was absolutely brilliant. The fact that you come out the gates with that makes you an early favorite, especially given your ‘street cred.’ As for the second article, I was actually somewhat disappointed. The theme for this week was “What are the most important players in the current Standard format, and what is a deck that you’d recommend for next week?” Not only did you not adhere to the theme, but days before the deadline, I gave you feedback pointing out this lack of honoring the theme and suggested ways to tie it into the assignment. Far more disappointing than straying from the theme is not heeding any suggestion on how to get back to it. You’re a strong writer, but put yourself in the shoes of a content editor. A good content editor doesn’t micro-manage and recklessly wield power, but it’s nice to know that you can count on your writers to honor assignments.
As for the content you did write about, you’re certainly a strong writer with an excellent mind for the game. The insight into your thought process was useful and well articulated. While I may knock points off for straying from the theme and ignoring requests to get back to it, there’s no question that your content was good and that you continue to be the favorite in this contest. You’re good, no question, but you could be great. Not only ought you remember discipline, you ought to remember that your real competition in many regards is Gerry, Zvi, Flores, LSV, Kibler, PV, Jacob, and Woods. Don’t settle for being merely good enough.
Evan:
Really dug this one. While I was hoping for a bit more on the metagame at large, I do appreciate boiling decks down to their core components and discussing
why
this spell was chosen over three other options. It was interesting, and moving those numbers around is always exciting for deckbuilders.
I’d highly encourage the use of card images as much as possible in the future.
That said, you did
not
conform to your theme, which is a big negative. You were asked to define the most important players and did not, but
did
perform a stellar job on why you’d choose U/B Control, which shone brightly.
Ted:
Now that you have outed yourself, let me start by saying I’m a huge fan of your decklists. I also appreciate your appearances in GerryT stories as a tech dealer. No one else in this contest is going to have the same air of authority that you lend to the Constructed portion of this event (unless we let Carsten start jabbering about Vintage and Legacy 100% of the time), so you’ve already cleared a huge hurdle regarding credibility and readers. As a reader, I know I’d show up every week just to see what decks you’ve been brewing and those you’ve tried and thrown away (an underrated article type, if you ask me).
Because you have so much confidence about your subject material, your article makes for easy reading. The analysis never breaks down, the writing is solid if mostly straightforward, and you’ve produced a good article. Considering last week’s entry, I’d say you are the likely favorite here.
Ferret:
I love articles that get into the nitty-gritty of stuff — the tiny choices that turn out to matter so much when you actually turn up at the tournament. And this one’s filled with tons of small decisions that you ponder well, then come up with what sounds like a definitive answer. And you have the pedigree that I believe your conclusions. This isn’t a big-scale article, but one that takes a look at the choices that matter, and I’d love to see more articles like this overall, not just from you. Well done.
Carsten Kotter
Patrick:
As an Eternal player, by trade, this week’s assignment was particularly challenging for you. That said, I thought you did a marvelous job of exploring the unknown with relatively virgin eyes. You weren’t a strong vote-getter at all, but I got some news for you: You’re an Eternal writer; Eternal writers don’t hit very well in general, as they have a much more niche audience. This isn’t to say that they’re any less important, but rather just pointing out that given the nature of the Talent Search, it’s going to be a challenge.
Your expedition into Standard was accurate with regards to the experiences described; however the information is so basic that a number of readers were probably turned off on account of seeing little new. As such, I probably would’ve played it up even more, the “not a Standard player” angle. That said, your “Using the Map” section was excellent, and I liked your analysis of the types of strategies seeing play.
Certainly not my favorite article of the week, but overall, a strong response to a very challenging theme. Just make sure you come hard next week, when you return to Eternal. The Eternal audience is not as deep, but they’re fanatically loyal if they’re on your side, so make sure to encourage them to get out there and vote for you if they want more Eternal content.
Evan:
This article felt like a lot of space being taken up by decklists, and the good stuff was held back until I scrolled down about eight screens to get
there. I understand you’re trying to give a thought on how
all
of these decks impact your conclusions, but sometimes you don’t have to include
all
the decks to make your point. You can mention them along with the other more prominent lists.
When you
did
get to your point at the end of the piece, it was pretty sweet. I love the bird’s-eye-view stuff on formats. What’s really going on with x/1s and x/2s? Is it Pyroclasm’s time to shine once again?
That said, you have an annoying way of very slowly building up your own questions, most of which are answered by the reader about half a second in. For example:
“Some of you might wonder which of these decks I’d play in a tournament tomorrow, and the answer may surprise you: Neither.”
Why not say:
“My choice? Neither.”
Maybe it’s my years of doing the ‘Show that has made me appreciate brevity. But that’s a
long,
drawn out way to get to your ‘clever’ conclusion. Well, it ain’t so clever, and brevity is the soul of wit. There are questions/phrases like these all over the piece.
Ted:
Excellent roundup. I liked the quotes. The analysis is punchy, if not in-depth. There were perhaps a few too many decklists and not enough analysis, but there’s some pretty good word play. ‘Polyvalent’ might be a step too far in conversational vocabulary for all but the chemists in the readership. I prefer made-up words like ‘facesmashery’ from OMC.
Overall, a good article. More please.
Ferret:
At first, I was like, “Oh, God, is he going to stop listing decks?” The commentary was thin, so it was a big wall o’ decks that seemed like you were just showing to us without context — it was like a family slide show where you’re like, “Oh, another picture of Disneyland? How wonderful.”
Then you got to the end and started wrapping it up, and I was like, “Oh, he
has
a point!” Which is good. Once you started coming to conclusions, you had me, and that was what I wanted to know — a lot of nice strategy to help people decide what to play on the weekend, which of course is what they’re looking for. Still, I’d go a little less heavy on the deck listings, and a little more on what you’re ultimately building up to.
Andre Mateus
Patrick:
While I was certainly disappointed with the initial draft of the article, which was mistakenly posted for a day, it was good to see the rewrite removed much of the “phoning it in” element. That said, I wasn’t won over by the rewrite. I certainly appreciate the difficulties that can follow a busy schedule, but if writing is important to you, it’s important to you. It would be very difficult for someone fighting in the Iraq to write weekly articles, but I wouldn’t expect them to. The fact that you are, according to you, “not a strong player,” isn’t a fatal flaw in your writing, but it’s a strike against you. If you’ve been playing in PTQs for seven years without ever winning, then writing a column about competitive Constructed means you better be a damned gifted writer.
Your first article content was solid; you certainly have a very loyal Portuguese following, and you’re likeable, and you did do a great job improving on the first draft, but these factors aren’t enough to overcome the weakness of your most recent submission, as your first article was far from the strongest, either. Additionally, your “Parting Words” from your first piece, as well as the first draft of your second seem to suggest that you expect to be voted off, making it seem as though you aren’t hellbent on winning this competition.
I think you’re a solid writer, and I enjoyed your work. If you’re eliminated this week, I wouldn’t be surprised in the least to see your name in the future, particularly when you have more time to dedicate to the craft. That said, I have to vote for someone to be eliminated, and this week, my vote goes to you.
Evan:
What I liked: Your writing has true personality and fun. All attempts at humor were awesome.
What I didn’t like: When you follow a formula too much, you have to switch it up. The same formula for so many decklists can get repetitive, and your lack of attempts didn’t help. Putting Kuldotha Red and WW together was a mistake. Memnite scares you, eh? Just playin’. Seriously though, putting those two together meant that their respective merits weren’t given credit, and if this is switching it up, it was the worst way to do it. Kicker was at the end though. “Upgrading” an aggro deck by putting a six-drop in it (Sun Titan)? Really?
The pillar choices were both interesting, but no tech was provided, an upgrade of an aggro deck rarely involves such drastic mana-curve swings (can you imagine Sun Titan in your opener? Congrats, your aggro deck just mulled to six).
My vote for leaving us this week is Mr. Andre Mateus.
Ted:
Chapin’s choice of theme for this week, and the way that most of the competitor’s tackled the topic leeched the potential fun out of most of the entries. I can see you trying to be fun with the writing, but it never quite gets there. The bigger problem, however, is the analysis. You gloss right past Jace, even though he’s public enemy number one. You also skipped right past all sorts of potential cool tech to analyze that certainly would’ve made for worthwhile reading (Genesis Wave?).
Also, one line in your article really bugged me. “Memnite scares me because it breaks the rules.” That’s the sort of casual, throwaway, fill-the-air comment that drives me nuts. It jerks me out of reading the article because of the wrongness of the statement.
I bet it doesn’t “scare” you.
Yes, it’s cheating when it comes to card design. Yes, it’s the base engine for most of what the Kuldotha deck does. Scare isn’t the word though. Fascinate, perhaps? Terrify, maybe? Intrigue you with its potential? I dunno, maybe I’m taking it to far, but lines like that leave so much potential lying there on the table. How Memnite breaks the rules is dangerous, and it allows it to be an enabler for potentially broken things, much like most freebies from Magic’s past. You could use any one of these lines of thought to expound into an entire article worth of intriguing ideas. Instead you told me Memnite scares you.
There was a tie for bottom three this week, putting Mateus, Agley, and Kotter into the mix in terms of who we should eliminate. Based on analysis, Carsten should stick around. Based on fun, Agley should be back, too. That leaves Mateus as the odd man out, which I think is probably fair.
Ferret:
This article felt very slim to me — basically, “Here are a bunch of popular decks that should be in your gauntlet.” The decks may be well chosen, but people read articles on decks for one of two reasons:
1) They want to know something about how to play the decks themselves — i.e., what’s the trick to winning this matchup? How do I sideboard? What are the subtle interactions I might miss? And there’s none of that here.
2) They want to know what deck to play. And since this article doesn’t really talk about which of these decks are strong in the expected matchups, this is useless for that.
An article should give more than you can get by pulling up the deck database. As such, this one felt substandard — making my vote for Mateus.ÂÂ