why are there no primers on here?
TappedOut forum
Posted on June 17, 2014, 3 p.m. by phaze08
Alot of other sites have these and I think they're pretty useful. So I thought "what would I need to do to get a primer or two on tappedout? Well we could all get together and compile all sorts of info..... But then have to post on another site?" I think most of us prefer this site. Why are there no primers on here? Is there a reason or is it just because no one has wrote any?
Personally, this is my favorite MTG site. Just saying lol. But I agree it would be a good thing to have here.
June 18, 2014 10:58 a.m.
Personally, it is my favorite all around mtg site, because of the regulars. But 99% of the time, when I'm deck building, I do avoid this site. Mostly because I'm looking for high level tournament winning deck lists and seeing what the general meta is like. Here the deck lists are usually specific to a local meta or just jank that isn't that good.
But the advice given and received on decks is pretty decent, though sometimes the bad advice/suggestions and lack of general knowledge in people trying to help, is bad. I don't mind the bad advice, people are just trying to help, can't be mad at that.
But I do get worried about it when the blind try to lead the blind. I think primers would help with this and in general, help the overall knowledge about decks. in the community.
June 18, 2014 11:04 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #4
I've heard the same kinds of things. I think the perception is based largely on the fact that we're casual and FNM-oriented. I'm not saying our users aren't good players, but many of the decklists here aren't the ones you'll find on MTGTop8 or in a post-event report.
Back to the topic:
We should begin to develop a uniform structure for our primers. That way, we can ensure they do the job they're supposed to do.
Basic requirements
Primers should be:
- specific to the archetype or strategy, not a decklist. The official primers will not be based around a single user's decklist, although users are welcome to write unofficial primers in the description fields of their own decks.
- detailed enough to convey exactly what the main theories, decisions, and goals are.
- flexible enough to provide examples of essential or significant cards, alternatives, or ideas without committing to specific card counts. Again, these are not decklist-specific primers.
I'm thinking the basic structure will look something like this:
- Introduction
- Name of the deck/archetype
- Format
- Key features
- General goals
- Strengths
- Weaknesses
- May include history
- Construction
- Philosophy
- Key characteristics or qualities
- Essential cards (examples)
- Supporting cards (examples)
- Optional cards (examples)
- Sideboarding (examples)
- Gameplay
- Philosophy
- Function or use of certain cards, combos, etc.
- Game 1
- Sideboarding
As you can see, I want these primers held to a high standard. These are going to be great tools for the community, and, as Rasta_Viking29 said, they may also draw in new users.
We'll develop a template to make this easier for people, but I want uniformity and quality across the board.
June 18, 2014 11:25 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #6
Hmm... I'll make a featured thread specifically for discussing what we want primers to do. That'll generate a long enough discussion on its own to warrant separation from this thread, which is about whether we can or should have primers, and where they would go if we did have them.
June 18, 2014 11:34 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #7
Please move discussion about primer guidelines and requirements to the new thread. We will continue to use this thread to discuss means of hosting primers.
June 18, 2014 11:45 a.m.
OK so back to deciding who will write what, how will that be determined?
For instance, I've only been playing magic since the beginning of the year, but I've done alot of research on different archetypes and matchups in relation to my main deck that I play, Grixis Control. While I'm in no way an expert, I think I would know enough to write a primer for Standard Grixis Control.
Obviously others may disagree and that's where the question comes in, how will it be determined who gets to write which primers? Someone who's won the most on this site with that archetype? The person with the most +1's on their deck? Lol, I think this part will be a bit foggy to say the least.
June 18, 2014 1:17 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #10
I'm thinking the process will work like this:
Any user (we may make this any upgraded user; not saying we will, but it's possible that this could happen) may apply to become an author. The application process would involve a description of which primers you would like to write as what experience and knowledge qualifies you to write those primers. I might also ask for a writing sample to determine whether you're even a good enough writer to contribute properly (some users ask about writing articles, but have trouble typing coherently).
Of course, this is all theoretical at this point, but that's where we are right now.
After writing this, I think I'm leaning toward a TappedOut-maintained wiki. That way, we have stronger templating, more flexibility, and an automatic edit history.
June 18, 2014 1:35 p.m.
Where do I find information or what distinguishes upgraded users, how to become one, etc?
June 18, 2014 1:38 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #12
yeaGO, correct me if I'm wrong, but I can set hubs to be not user-chooseable. Barring the admittedly idealistic goal of having a set of detailed, shell-specific primers, we could just go with the earlier suggestion of using a primer hub that can be admin-assigned to qualified decks. This would be the TappedOut equivalent of MTGS's system, and would allow us to decentralize the work and instead go with deck-specific primers.
I like the idea of shell-specific primers because it goes into theory rather than "this is why I chose X and not Y," but maybe the other way is better. Thoughts?
June 18, 2014 2:36 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #13
I'm thinking about adding an admin-controlled account for primers, making a buch of deck shells (so instead of decklists we have actual shells with room for variation), and posting the primers as descriptions on those decks. That would be comparatively easy, and it would allow us to use the existing systems.
June 18, 2014 2:41 p.m.
From my experience, this is the best constructed primer I've seen recently. Correct me if I'm wrong Epochalyptik, but I believe this is sort of what you have in mind:
We could easily change the bar rating system to a number rating system. Notice that it shows way more cards than you could effectively use in one deck and it does have a few sample deck lists, which could be something we consider including in our primers as well, but it's not an article that that says 'Well I won a few tournaments with this deck and here's why I like this cards in it.'
It discusses mechanics, cost, usefulness, etc in relation to the deck archetype in question.
June 18, 2014 2:45 p.m.
vampirelazarus says... #15
Epoch, get out of my mind.
I had that idea at work.....
Then went and played magic so that you could steal it before I posted...
June 18, 2014 2:46 p.m.
In the case of your last post, would the author still have control over his primer? What would be the purpose of the new admin-controlled account? Guess I missed that part.
June 18, 2014 2:47 p.m.
Last post directed at Epoch again, sorry if that was unclear.
June 18, 2014 2:49 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #18
@phaze08: It's close. I like that it offers different example decklists, but I'd prefer T/O primers to also have a bit more in the way of general theory.
With the admin account, I'd probably maintain control of the account's function, but users would be able to submit changes. Of course, this is an experimental suggestion, and it suffers from the floodgate problems that typically affect centralized systems.
June 18, 2014 2:51 p.m.
@Epochalyptik Could you elaborate on what you mean by 'general theory'?
I for one am very interested in this, and especially if standard is included, I'd be interested in applying to write a few. Even though I went into the IT field I always liked to write and I spend the majority of slow days at work researching stuff for MTG lol.
So I'll be keeping a close eye on this and with whoever's approval is needed, I will most likely be interested in writing some for whatever archetype I'm playing at the time. (if there isn't one for that archetype already.)
June 18, 2014 2:54 p.m.
Random thoughts, not sure where this fits, in terms of the two threads. I think both.
What I really like to use for card selection, is mtggoldfish.com, It lists the cards, average number of and percentage of decks using that card. This way I can figure out the different ways people are using a deck and which cards are most common. At the very least, I would like primer authors to look at that and use that as a base for the card selections for the archetype.
But this is also why I think we should use deck lists and the number of cards in a deck list, should be consider the suggested number of cards, based on authors experience and research.
June 18, 2014 2:55 p.m.
@gufymike the only problem I see with what your suggesting is the whole state of MTG as a whole. What I'm referring to is when a certain deck wins a couple big tournaments, all of a sudden everyone wants to build that same deck to beat their friends with, win tournaments, etc. So basically what you'll see alot of times is pretty much a deck list.
If you looked at the stuff for Jund Monsters in standard right now, you'd probably come up with the exact same deck as everyone else is using right now. Some of us try to change it up and make it work as good or better while still maintaining the decks identity but like alot of popular archetypes, they're very similar.
June 18, 2014 3:04 p.m.
phaze08 can you define/expand 'whole state of mtg as a whole'... It doesn't make sense to this brain. Missing that part to me, makes your comment confusing.
June 18, 2014 3:07 p.m.
@gufymike sorry if I was unclear. I'm sure you're aware that for instance, Jund Monsters has become pretty popular in standard. But a few weeks ago, you hardly ever saw it. Alot of times when a certain deck (especially a new archetype) starts to do good in competitive play, all a sudden everyone wants a deck just like it. This is what happened with Jund Monsters.
Based on this, would mtggoldfish.com really be a reliable source? When you have thousands of people all copying this one guy who won a GP's deck? Wouldn't the percentages being used on those certain all a sudden shoot through the roof?
I guess what I'm getting at is, just because a few people won tournaments with a deck and now everyone has a deck just like it, that doesn't necessarily mean that those cards are the best for that archetype. Sure, it works that way. But just because one guy won with it and now everyone is doing the same thing a site that goes off percentages and such will basically produce a deck list for a certain archetype since 99% of people are using the same decklist in that archetpye.
Does that make sense?
June 18, 2014 3:14 p.m.
I'm saying count out mtggoldfish.com, I'm just asking if it's really a reliable source since it goes off percentages and 99% of people run mostly the same exact decklist in any given archetype.
Just because everyone runs it doesn't mean its the best things for that archetype. I'm sure any archetype out there could improve in some way but alot of players just copy what everyone else runs and I don't think we really want to get into that. We want to provide enough viable options that it's not just an elaborate decklist.
June 18, 2014 3:18 p.m.
I know I'm spamming it up here, but I'm just trying to make myself clear to gufymike and anyone else who might be reading.
I'm not being disagreeable, I just feel like alot of people just copy the best deck for a given archetype then you end up with hundreds of the same deck list.
That is what I meant by 'State of MTG.' The game is about making your own decks and being creative and having fun with it but alot of players take the creativity out of it and just copy what others have made that works and what we're trying to do I believe is just give a broad list of things that work and why they work. We're not interested in what everyone else uses or giving any opinion at all. We want readers to take their new-found knowledge and go forth with better understanding of the archetype and how it functions and what the best options are for it.
June 18, 2014 3:24 p.m.
vampirelazarus says... #26
Just going to put this out there (This thread should not become another "IS THIS FORMAT STAGNANT!?!?!?!????!!!!111115 thread) but quite a few formats are very healthy, but on the outside looking in, they look stagnant because of the amount of certain decks topping.
Just because Affinity places first in a couple events, doesn't make it the best, and so on and so forth (Except cawblade. That shit was the best (from what I've heard))
June 18, 2014 3:27 p.m.
phaze08 but the problem is that, there are an finite number of cards in standard and the number of good and playable cards is even smaller. Meaning that, given the same basic idea, you'll end up using 90% of the cards everyone else does.
Nothing I said means do not experiment, do not tweak to your liking. It just means the suggested cards are the best ones for the deck, backed up by numbers.
Before pt theros, I built esper control that was 6 cards of of what wafo-tapo top 8'ed with at pt theros. That's because I enjoyed the whip/obzedat-aehterling shenanigans with the amount of removal in the format. Otherwise I would have been closer to two off (didn't think of Divination he had in his build). This is an example of how close deck builders who never collaborated before will come with a similar deck idea.
A lot of people do not have the time to experiment, play test and/or tweak and just need to know what cards to use and how to use them. This is what a lot of people look for online and why mtggoldfish is a very good resource.
But I have to disagree, because everyone runs it, does mean it's the best thing for the archetype. I'm sorry, that's because (especially in standard) the card pool is so limited.
As for why people emulate what comes out of the pt, is because people understand that the pros have tried just about every viable option for the environment and came up with the ideas they did through extensive experimentation, research and play testing. This is why a pt defines the meta and follows through, same with larger tournaments, like scg iq's and gp's.
I'm also not saying that you shouldn't have enough viable options, but I do think that having a base (of highly suggested cards) should be based around how many people are running it, because it gives it creditability.
Consider this: "We're suggesting running reaper of the wilds instead of polukranos, becuase it's cheaper and has condtional deathtouch and hexproof, allows us to have a good attacker, while polukranos cost more money and the monstrous is more expensive." vs "Most people run polukranos,as you can see here, while others run reaper of the wilds because it's a cheaper option, gives us a few extra things in terms of conditional deathtouch and hexproof."
June 18, 2014 3:38 p.m.
I can see your points but what I'm saying is they're not wanting the writers to include experience or opinions, just what is available for the archetype and what synergizes with the others. This is why I suggested a rating system of for example:
Staple
Highly Recommended
Recommended
Not Recommended
Sideboard Only
Do not use in this archetype.
But I think Epochalyptik was saying he would rather use a number system such as 2.3/5 or 3.6/5 to determine how well something works in that given archetype.
They're wanting to steer away from what you normally see in deck list descriptions:
'I like polukranos because he comes out early and his monstrous ability can kill other creatures.'
And to have things such as:
'Courser of Kruphix works well in this deck by allowing you to get your land drops one turn sooner than you normally would and the life gain helps stabilize when you need it. Courser also synergizes well with Domri Rade by getting rid of those lands and letting you see what creature you have coming up before you waste that +1 on a land. Courser has additional value in that he survives Lightning Strike and can trade with aggro reasonably well with enough power to kill some aggro creatures. 4.5/5'
June 18, 2014 3:50 p.m.
Rasta_Viking29 says... #29
phaze08 reading what you are posting about Jund Monsters is hurting my eyes. You realize this deck has been around for months now and has been putting up consistent results that whole time? Chris Van Meter has been writing about the G/R/x Monsters archetype almost weekly since 2013. Pretty much every other pro has done at least one article on it. Makes me question your knowledge of the current Standard meta.
June 18, 2014 3:51 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #30
I didn't mention any number systems. I also don't like the "do not use" category because we can put almost anything there. We should focus on things relevant to the deck, and things optional within the deck.
June 18, 2014 3:53 p.m.
@Rasta_Viking29 it was just an example. Its currently what I'm building so that's why it's in so many examples of mine. It may not be new but it recently started to be EVERYWHERE all over the front pages of this site and this is generally the only MTG site I visit. I may have been oblivious to Jund Monsters' true popularity because I usually play control and no one around here plays anything aggro-ish so for that reason I had never encounted the deck in person. When it started topping the pages on T/O alot is when I started to really get into the archetype a month ago.
To be fair I know alot more about Grixis Control, I'm just stuck on Jund right now because it's my newest project I guess.
June 18, 2014 3:55 p.m.
@Epochalyptik Sorry I misunderstood one of your earlier comments, thought you were talking about rating card choices with a number. You were talking about section 3.4 in your primer formatting...that's my bad lol. Skimmed right over it and thought you meant something else.
June 18, 2014 3:59 p.m.
ChiefWannaHacka says... #33
@phaze08 I know you're pushing hard for standard primers, but no one is paying the authors of these, and sites like starcity have paid pros who already produce articles, deck techs, and playtest videos for most of their standard decks. It's hard to entice people to produce content for free when the information may become irrelevant shortly thereafter, and arguably more "credible" sources exist.
To me this is more supposed to be a community project, aimed to help our casual base find information on decks they might think about building in more lasting formats, since that information stays more relevant and the author can feel a sense of accomplishment/contribution.
June 18, 2014 4:48 p.m.
@ChiefWannaHacka I can see where you're coming from and yes I am pushing for standard. I feel like alot of the crowd on this site plays standard and if they're like me, they would rather come support their favorite site to find quality information about their favorite deck than go to some other site.
I know their not paid or anything but if you're going to update your standard deck every season, why not update your primer? It's only slightly more trouble.
I may not be the most credible or experienced person out there, but if I wrote a primer, I'd do my research first and make sure I knew what I was talking about, at least in relation to my deck archetype and I would keep it up to date.
I don't know, maybe others feel the same but I don't think updating everytime there's a new archetype or expansion is a big deal. I mean you know everyone already updates their decks and their online decklists.
June 18, 2014 4:56 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #35
Another thing you have to consider is whether we have the expertise to support primers of the quality we want. ChiefWannaHacka mentioned something important. Stores like SCG and CF have paid professional teams that contribute decklists, articles, and more to the Magic community. Even MTGS has a reasonable number of members with frequent event experience.
Although I love the TappedOut community, one of the things we lack is that kind of experience. The majority of our players, as I mentioned before, are casual and FNM-oriented. We definitely have some event players here, and I'm not saying our users are bad players, but we don't rise to the same level as our "competition" in the primer world does.
June 18, 2014 5:05 p.m.
vampirelazarus says... #36
But man, when we get around to writing about the jank decks that we enjoy, those well be the best damn primers ever penned.
June 18, 2014 5:09 p.m.
Well, if the staff of T/O doesn't feel quite comfortable with it just yet, then of course we don't have to have standard primers.
I feel like there is an interest in primers in general though and perhaps in the future if there is enough interest then T/O can have some standard primers as well.
I feel like knowledge can be just as important as experience. In my case, I have played a few FNM's and done reasonably well and alot of play among friends and some online at untap.in. No, I'm not as experienced as the guys over at SCG but I have knowledge from hours and hours or research. When I'm playing grixis control I know what threats alot of common archetypes run and how to deal with them. I know how different decks are generally played. When I'm playing Jund, I know what to expect from opposing decks and what threats to watch out for.
Like I said, I'm not the most experienced player but I feel like I'm very knowledgeable and being prepared is a big part of the game. If you know whats out there and what to expect you can do reasonably well in competitive play. Especially in Control you want to be prepared for all sorts of different threats. Hexproof, pro-black, haste, AEtherling , Obzedat, Ghost Council , etc.
I tend to ramble lol, but anyway, I feel like knowledge can be almost as good as experience.
June 18, 2014 5:15 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #38
I was including knowledge in experience.
We'll discuss it. We still don't even know what system we'll be using for these things.
June 18, 2014 5:18 p.m.
If you guys don't want to do standard, I'll understand as you've presented some good arguments. I still feel like alot of people will want standard primers as all the other sites have them, even the ones like MTGS that aren't pro sites.
Regardless of that fact though I really hope you guys decide to at least do modern/legacy primers. I feel like it will really help the site.
June 18, 2014 5:20 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #40
As I said, it all depends on the system. MTGS can do it because they don't centralize the writing process. Users apply their own decks for primers, and, after review, may be given the primer tag. If we were to centralize writing, editing, and curating, we'd probably skip Standard, at least for a while, because the updating would be such a chore.
June 18, 2014 5:22 p.m.
Cobthecobbler says... #41
My vote goes towards a Wiki. If one can't be coded directly into the site, Wikia is free and it's not hard to code an external link into the sites navigation. It's community driven, so no specific group of users have to dedicate all of their time to this, users can freely add and edit content as new strategies surface and current archetypes adopt new cards, etc. Pages can be locked if they need to, it would be beautifully organized and it would be something a little different.
If you can find a way to only allow upgraded users edit it could even drive donations as another perk.
June 19, 2014 3:05 a.m.
I like @Cobthecobbler idea. Could be as organized and restricted as we needed.
June 19, 2014 8:04 a.m.
I say you only allow popular deck primers to start it off then allow some of the lesser known things to run about.
You could use mtgtop8 as a resource to see what decks deserve a primer, its easy to see why URW control in modern needs one, but why even allow one for GW Centaurs in standard?
In some of my decks I have lists of sideboard guidelines and explanations and such, I could write up a standard mono-black green splash primer if anyone is intrested.
Honestly I think anyone should be allowed to write them as long as they are screened for quality, I mean if they are willing to use up the time to really analyze and prepare it then why tell the author "no you can't help since you aren't an upgraded/popular member."
June 19, 2014 12:48 p.m.
Cobthecobbler says... #44
I said upgraded members only because it costs money for the site to remain up.
June 19, 2014 2:14 p.m.
Though the fact is, it's not decided if upgraded members will be the only ones who can add primers or not.
Lets leave it at the point that anyone can, till we get an announcement from those who shall not be named.
June 19, 2014 2:23 p.m.
Speaking as an unupgraded user, it seems unlikely that someone would pay so that they could give to the community. Better to restrict things that allow users to get benefits from the community. Besides, primers make TO better, so I would think that we would want to maximize that betterment.
June 19, 2014 3:44 p.m.
Cobthecobbler says... #47
About standard primers, if we date them and lock them after the season, these can later just be used as a gimmick or even to help inspire deck building for other formats, such as modern. If this does kick off, I'm putting my vote in for standard primers, and if anyone remembers decks from past years of standard, it would be great to get a primer on them, as old standard decks can be annoying to find on the Internet. I can volunteer my time to certain primers and help out, but I can't guarantee that they'll be 100% accurate
June 21, 2014 12:35 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #48
I've been out of the conversation for a while.
We restrict activities like adding cards to the database to upgraded users because they have more of a stake in the site. Someone who paid for an upgrade is likelier to care about the correctness and completeness of site resources than someone who just uses the site.
I'd rather have a team of members chosen specifically for their abilities, though. It makes more sense to me. I don't like the idea of open contributions to primers because some users just aren't knowledgeable enough or good enough at writing to improve our work.
June 21, 2014 1:12 p.m.
Cobthecobbler says... #49
Yeah that's why I was saying upgraded users should be able to edit, but I didn't want to be the one to say it since my words hold a lot less weight haha
June 21, 2014 2:11 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #50
It's worth voicing any constructive opinion, regardless of whether you think your words carry enough weight (any statement can be considered) or whether you think the request will be implemented. We're in the brainstorming phase; we need ideas now.
Rasta_Viking29 says... #1
Create a new kind of article called "Primers." The new class would handle only primers, and would be displayed like articles currently are. There would be a discussion section as well (might have to paginate discussions because I can see them becoming quite long).Allow admins to write and edit primers. We can probably create a new user class with privs for only the primer-related stuff. This way, we have more direct quality control, and we prevent people from adding inaccurate or inane information.
Associate hubs and formats with primers to connect them with other, existing elements of the site. Browsing by hub or format could display a list of primers ordered by most recently discussed or something."
-Epochalyptik
I mean these ideas would help alleviate concerns over how credible these primers are.
I'm not really concerned with the reception of them on this site, it's those on the outside looking for a site to build decks and learn that are of concern. I play a decent amount IRL, 2-4x a week at a GS. I've only heard T/O brought up a few times in conversations not initiated by me and they've only been negative comments. Things like "I wouldn't go there to get decklists" and such. Bad primers would only get more experienced players steering players clear of this site. Good primers would do the opposite.
June 18, 2014 10:52 a.m.