As others have mentioned the one posting a decklist is generally more knowledgable about a deck than the average forumite.
There is also the factor that people generally find their own decks more interesting than others decklists. Ask yourself how many other decklists you have commented on. And if the answer is few, why is that?
There are a few primers around popular decks where people get together and share thoughts. But a lot of commanders aren't that widely played and therefore you don't have many people with enough knowledge about them for insightful discussions or tips.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote me for replies.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
When I post decklists, I'm not entirely sure what I even want. I pick every card very particularly, and for a host of reasons aside from effectiveness, so I can't pretend to be particularly open to suggestions. I don't often critique other lists because I assume others are the same way.
Hey, welcome back, I think I remember you from.being veey active in CCCreation whoknowshowlong ago!
Anyways, I think one of the reasons I personally don't look at decklists is because they are not in the commander main forum. I mean, I'm currently building a Tuvasa deck which is in a very rough stage, and I wouldn't be sure where to post something like that. I know that having tje main forum flooded with dwcklists is not desirable but given the ammount of traffic it might be a good idea not to chop away threads that want to brew or ask for feedback on an incomplete list The way decklists are curated in this forum makes you think that everything is already finetuned and kept just for reference. At least that's my experience as a forum user.
There are a few primers around popular decks where people get together and share thoughts. But a lot of commanders aren't that widely played and therefore you don't have many people with enough knowledge about them for insightful discussions or tips.
This is on point. Even in my own experience, compare my Kaalia primer as one of the most trafficked threads on the decklists subforum, versus my Kari Zev in DC which while popular - has a noticeably shorter following. And then my iterations of Alesha being even more sparse than Kari Zev.
Why? Because when people think reanimator, they're thinking praetors and khans dragons, and elder demons, not 2/× bodies that kill lands. For Kari Zev, the split on people that like all in red and call it "not a real deck" is big, but it's one of the top decks in DC, so it has that going for it. Then you come to Kaalia, and what she does just IS widely popular with the format - or infamous pending your take - this level of popularity resonates with more people, and as a result, illicits more potential for responses. And this is a deck that has existed for 8 years now (and even now I'm still innovating), in a format where the average lifespan of a deck is often 3 - 6 months.
What I'm saying is, even if you reciprocate the actions you hope to receive, if the deck isn't one that inspires a lot of people, then your maximum reviews potential is going to be limited.
I don't frequent these boards as much as I used to, mostly because I moved out of state, and just haven't been able to play as much EDH, which leaves me a bit less inspired to brew/theorycraft.
You raise an issue that is a bit more complicated than people just not providing feedback. There are several factors:
People not wanting to put forth the effort to promote other people's decks. When enough people post their deck and then don't provide feedback to others, they are a drain on the system, not contributing anything. It's like Reddit where they have rules regarding content posting vs. commenting/contributing. Everyone is very "look at me" these days. It's the same way where people follow you on Twitter just because they want you to follow them, and then they will unfollow if you don't follow them back in a few days before trying again. This is the same thing. A lot of people just want to promote their own content, rather than engaging in community discussion.
This format is massive, and by that I mean that a ton of people don't play your archetype, much less your specific general. Not having information about meta/power level on top of that just makes it harder to craft feedback. I can look at a list that is more casual, and I can provide a ton of feedback just based off of card quality, i.e. running Path to Exile over Condemn or Counterspell over Cancel. However, for a lower powered deck, they may not want to include better quality cards, or they might be on a budget where they can't afford it. When it comes to a polished list with intricate interactions or combos that runs efficient tutors, removal, ramp, and just good cards in general, it is a lot harder to provide feedback if I have never played that list or necessarily even seen it be played. How am I supposed to know what every card does in that deck, or understand multiple roles that a card may play for your list or specific meta without reading a dissertation on your list or playing it myself?
Sites like EDHREC are more efficient in some ways, especially if the way you are playing a list is the way most other people play it. Very few people out there are reinventing the wheel. The only deck that I play that is really that far off from what everyone else runs is my Grimgrin list, because everyone runs him as zombie tribal, and I play attrition-based control. The thread that I made for him in 2012 had some decent success at getting interaction, but these boards were a lot more popular then. Now he's a legend that is 7 years old; it isn't like that many people are just picking him up that often when probably hundreds of other legends have been printed since then. If I want to update the list, EDHREC is going to be better for that than finding other people updating a list on here. Heck, looking at spoilers to see what cards might fit well is probably a better bet than finding someone discussing it in depth on here, or anywhere, outside of the most popular decks, or cEDH decks.
It takes a lot of time for someone to parse through a list to provide meaningful feedback, just for the person to tell you why they don't like your feedback, or they already considered those cards, but didn't like them. This is especially true for more polished lists, because they have gone through a dozen revisions from playtesting, and are already at a sort of "reduced to practice" stage.
Like I touched on above, some legends just aren't popular any more (or ever were). For anything that isn't a generic good stuff list and involves a legend with unique build around abilities, unless it is a clear archetype (like +1/+1 counters) where other legends have paved the way and you can draw from those lists, it's going to be hard for people to know what goes well in it other than those that play the deck themselves.
I hope the above makes sense. It is late, and I am more than a little tired. I probably repeated myself a couple times. Bottom line, contribute to others, and ask for them to contribute to you. If you give genuine feedback to them, hopefully they will reciprocate the best they can. If you have a more complex, or off-the-beaten-path type legend that you built your deck around, understand that it might be hard for people to give you feedback, because some of these lists really do require special knowledge for feedback to be meaningful at all. Hope this helps answer your question.
Questions about the deck, I suppose? Compliments? Delight at seeing odd cards find a home in a cool way? Mostly the sort of feedback I get when I play the decks at my LGS, mostly. People there are always interested in my decks and vice versa.
Something about the way you worded this bothers me. It sounds a little entitled.
As someone who posted their own list here to a resounding 0 responses, I figured pretty quickly that other than a few pet primers, I'd be better off spending the time I'd ask for feedback on the EDH sub-Reddit. This place is alright for some interesting and in depth takes on discussion, but I can't say as any of the deck lists on the front page appeal to me. That pretty much echoes the sentiment of others here about how diverse the options are. Of the 10 most popular commanders on EDHREC, I have 2 in my collection who are both just in the 99 of other decks (Meren in Prossh and Alesha in Najeela respectively). Anecdotal as it may be, it goes to show that not everyone even has a deck with some of the most played generals, so the market for some of these tribal lists is likely to be microscopic in comparison.
EDIT: One more thought, the amount of feedback I see being batted off for reasons exclusive to efficiency is too high to feel worth commenting on. There's only so many times you can read "Cyclonic Rift is banned in my meta/I don't feel its a fun card/It is in my other deck" before wondering why these conditions aren't stated on the deck list's post beforehand. Again, it shows the variance in the format's appeal based of the broad category of expectations for each player's desired experience.
I'd be better off spending the time I'd ask for feedback on the EDH sub-Reddit. This place is alright for some interesting and in depth takes on discussion [snip]
Nah. r/EDH is a trashy, entitled place that circlejerks in elitism. You're best off looking at numbers on a site like edhrec and extrapolating from that data why certain cards are played/not played and making the judgment calls yourself.
I'd be better off spending the time I'd ask for feedback on the EDH sub-Reddit. This place is alright for some interesting and in depth takes on discussion [snip]
Nah. r/EDH is a trashy, entitled place that circlejerks in elitism. You're best off looking at numbers on a site like edhrec and extrapolating from that data why certain cards are played/not played and making the judgment calls yourself.
The main problem arises when some of the popular cards actually turn out to be suboptimal in practice and a lack of centralized discussion or sometimes budgetary concerns keeps it in favor far longer than it rightfully should. You probably know a situation like this.
This is like any time I've posted there. Downvoted to oblivion because my decks and beliefs don't look like their's. Sorry I don't share in the hivemind homogenization...
I don't really go fishing around the forums to give feedback on decks that I don't have much interest in. I think it would be disingenuous of me to offer feedback, really. You can look at most threads here on the forums and you'll find that it's the same handful of users interested in that particular deck, plus some that come and go. My Ayli thread is certainly that way; DementedKirby's Sidisi thread the same, etc. That's kind of the culture here.
There's nothing wrong with your decks or Commanders, I just really scrolled past because those Commanders aren't my cup of tea Though, hoping for compliments on a deck or kudos for playing obscure cards probably shouldn't be a priority. That seems... hrmmm...
Anyway, I do still prefer the low volume here compared to the various Facebook groups, or Reddit subs as others have mentioned above. Quality of discussion and topics still feel above the grade of social media and other places discussion has centered around, now. I enjoy that a lot of the deck ideas and construction I find here when it's something that piques my interest ends up having some off-the-wall stuff or original ideas that isn't semi-competitive players regurgitating the same staples/suggestions/"tier list" and asking you why you aren't playing X instead of Y, every time (
I enjoy that a lot of the deck ideas and construction I find here when it's something that piques my interest ends up having some off-the-wall stuff or original ideas that isn't semi-competitive players regurgitating the same staples/suggestions/"tier list" and asking you why you aren't playing X instead of Y, every time
I will forever stand by my decision to keep windmilling Ritual of the Machine. Don't care what some people say, the card was chase in Alliances and four mana perma-theft is still a big deal in today's culture.
Anyway, I do still prefer the low volume here compared to the various Facebook groups, or Reddit subs as others have mentioned above. Quality of discussion and topics still feel above the grade of social media and other places discussion has centered around, now. I enjoy that a lot of the deck ideas and construction I find here when it's something that piques my interest ends up having some off-the-wall stuff or original ideas that isn't semi-competitive players regurgitating the same staples/suggestions/"tier list" and asking you why you aren't playing X instead of Y, every time
Agreed. I’d rather have a fraction of the responses and critique to have valuable, thought out assessment and suggestions. That’s far more likely to happen here than anywhere else I’ve found.
EDHrec gives only the vaguest ideas of why people are running specific cards under a commander, what archetype that deck might be aiming for and how well the card performs.
Reddit is a bit of a mess for EDH. While responses can be more qualitative and helpful, Reddit has the potential to be a pretty toxic place too.
Tappedout can be good, I just really don’t like the aesthetics of the site. That’s a personal thing, I just find this site easier to read - and I know the feedback I will get, when I get it, is pretty top notch.
I don’t know why anyone would look for EDH recommendations on FB. I’ve been part of a couple EDH groups on FB, and promptly left all of them because they provided no genuine insight or critique.
What kind of feedback would you have liked to get?
Questions about the deck, I suppose? Compliments? Delight at seeing odd cards find a home in a cool way? Mostly the sort of feedback I get when I play the decks at my LGS, mostly. People there are always interested in my decks and vice versa.
I too would like more comments/discussion about my deck lists. But, and I suppose I may be an outlier, I am not looking specifically for feedback so it doesn't bother me as much when my threads have few comments. In my mind, my decks are my own and I enjoy tinkering with them, building new things, reporting on the successes (or failures), etc. I generally find the comments on my decks, whether it be suggestions, questions, criticisms, or praise, to be a welcome surprise whenever I visit the forums. The lack of comments doesn't bother me much because it isn't something I expect or actively seek out.
As such, I don't often reply to others lists either. I keep telling myself I should because I do enjoy helping out others or offering suggestions, but the problem with EDH is that there are a multitude of reasons people play the game and build their decks the way they do. Coming in with a different mindset sometimes makes it tough to recommend cards. I don't like infinite combo so if someone wants that, I don't have as much to offer.
Commenting on a deck takes time as well. Most of the lists I comment on are ones where I have a similar list already. So, I wouldn't comment on your Unesh or Arixmethes lists because I don't have a good baseline to start from. So, I need to go over the entire list to see what you are running to then come up with comments. Whereas if someone is running a Karador deck, I immediately have thoughts on what they could or should run and I look for those cards specifically to comment on because I have a Karador deck that I play a lot.
And lastly, the philosophical differences in deckbuilding sometimes make it tough to have a real, ongoing discussion about the evolution of a deck if the deckbuilder and the person commenting don't have the same goals in mind. For example, I feel it is a mistake to not include Cyclonic Rift in basically any blue deck. I know you disagree and feel Rift is way more powerful than it ought to be in this format. To the owner of the thread, it seems like the person commenting doesn't "get" the idea of the deck or wanting to exclude certain cards. And, to the person commenting, it seems their thoughts are just ignored. This may not be a huge issue, but it is certainly easier to discuss decks when everyone has the same idea of what the deck should/can do and what cards are off limits.
Because the internet is at a point in which many people want all the attention but don't return it. Its like telling a joke and then laughing during the punchline (and being the only one that does). Things, not just magic related, have shifted to a "look at me" approach. Spotlight stealing/one upping. Or people that read your feedback and reject it without even a modicum of tact or respect to the time it took to provide.
Myself? I feel like I'm playing a different game from most, this awkward limbo of high and competitive where I'm too competitive for the casual table and too casual for the competitive. This coupled with my dedication to one wedge leaves me in the belief that my feedback may not be helpful to others - unless it's about Kaalia due to my rep with that commander.
I mean, we can fix that. I can attest there's reasonable traffic on the Random Card of the Day most days. If we commented on a new decklist once a day with the same level of participation, we'd liven the deck threads up real fast. Even if it was weekly, that'd still be
a big jump in traffic.
Thoughts?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Zedruu: "This deck is not only able to go crazy - it also needs to do so."
I mean, we can fix that. I can attest there's reasonable traffic on the Random Card of the Day most days. If we commented on a new decklist once a day with the same level of participation, we'd liven the deck threads up real fast. Even if it was weekly, that'd still be
a big jump in traffic.
Thoughts?
I actually really like this idea. I can’t see a downside, plus it’s a great way to get people more engaged, drive up site traffic and help people tune their decks. Seems an excellent idea to me.
I mean, we can fix that. I can attest there's reasonable traffic on the Random Card of the Day most days. If we commented on a new decklist once a day with the same level of participation, we'd liven the deck threads up real fast. Even if it was weekly, that'd still be
a big jump in traffic.
Thoughts?
I don't think this will generate even close to the level of traffic RCotD generates. And, if it did, how would you determine a list to start on? How would you cull lists from 2013 that are no longer active? How would you stop the thread from devolving to varying levels of competitive as everyone has different beliefs on what is fair game? I might play MLD tribal and mainboard blue hate, where others would see that and roll their eyes and snort in derision.
I don't think this will generate even close to the level of traffic RCotD generates. And, if it did, how would you determine a list to start on? How would you cull lists from 2013 that are no longer active? How would you stop the thread from devolving to varying levels of competitive as everyone has different beliefs on what is fair game? I might play MLD tribal and mainboard blue hate, where others would see that and roll their eyes and snort in derision.
I wouldn't expect it to generate the same traffic initially. Or maybe even ongoing. It's still a novel idea though. Pick a deck randomly with an RNG and the list of active decklists that have action from the last 12 months, present it without comment for the community.
As far as policing comments, I mean....that's what we have mods are for, but I think a fair way to manage the thread would be 'post only the sort of comments you'd be happy to receive yourself'. Everyone has an axe they love to grind on, but essentially it's not your list (unless it is I guess) and you should be aware that your comments are there for suggestions to the OP and shouldn't be personal, derisive or douchey. I guess that's the standard forum rules, and they do get thrown to the wayside from time to time, but so long as contributors are aware they should keep their comments constructive I don't see why it wouldn't be fine. Personally, I'm not a fan of dedicated combo, but it's someone else's deck, and it does what they want it to. If I have comments or suggestions, so long as I'm polite there should be no issues, and I have no qualms suggesting ways to make that person's deck successful.
I don't think this will generate even close to the level of traffic RCotD generates. And, if it did, how would you determine a list to start on? How would you cull lists from 2013 that are no longer active? How would you stop the thread from devolving to varying levels of competitive as everyone has different beliefs on what is fair game? I might play MLD tribal and mainboard blue hate, where others would see that and roll their eyes and snort in derision.
I'm thinking of asking for voluntary submissions to the list that the deck gets randomly picked from. That way the chance of it being an actively supported list is nearly certain and the people being picked signed off on the feedback they get. The opening post I have in my imagination would read like a writing prompt hoping to spark up comments that go beyond just criticisms and recommendations. I'm willing to bet I'm not the only person here who's played like 100 different decks of all sorts of styles and could fill pages just speaking to that experience. And then some details underneath on how to get your deck lists into the pool. I know I'd be reliant on both ends on other people to make it work, both on requesting people fill the pool as well as hoping for good comments, but I think a little effort on my part to set the right tone could a start fun and productive thread. That being said, I don't imagine it would get the same frequency of posts as RCotD, nor should it. Ideally it'd be a more long-form format, fewer posts with a lot more words.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Zedruu: "This deck is not only able to go crazy - it also needs to do so."
I don't think this will generate even close to the level of traffic RCotD generates. And, if it did, how would you determine a list to start on? How would you cull lists from 2013 that are no longer active? How would you stop the thread from devolving to varying levels of competitive as everyone has different beliefs on what is fair game? I might play MLD tribal and mainboard blue hate, where others would see that and roll their eyes and snort in derision.
I'm thinking of asking for voluntary submissions to the list that the deck gets randomly picked from. That way the chance of it being an actively supported list is nearly certain and the people being picked signed off on the feedback they get. The opening post I have in my imagination would read like a writing prompt hoping to spark up comments that go beyond just criticisms and recommendations. I'm willing to bet I'm not the only person here who's played like 100 different decks of all sorts of styles and could fill pages just speaking to that experience. And then some details underneath on how to get your deck lists into the pool. I know I'd be reliant on both ends on other people to make it work, both on requesting people fill the pool as well as hoping for good comments, but I think a little effort on my part to set the right tone could a start fun and productive thread. That being said, I don't imagine it would get the same frequency of posts as RCotD, nor should it. Ideally it'd be a more long-form format, fewer posts with a lot more words.
I'm interested in this. And I volunteer any of my active decks posted here for the project. Whether good or constructive feedback I always appreciate a good talk.
If people put some kind of "looking for feedback" tag on their deck then you could use the tag to generate a pool of decks to select from. On the header of the random deck of the day thread you can then note that if someone wants their deck in the pool they need to put that tag in the title.
I don't think this will generate even close to the level of traffic RCotD generates. And, if it did, how would you determine a list to start on? How would you cull lists from 2013 that are no longer active? How would you stop the thread from devolving to varying levels of competitive as everyone has different beliefs on what is fair game? I might play MLD tribal and mainboard blue hate, where others would see that and roll their eyes and snort in derision.
I'm thinking of asking for voluntary submissions to the list that the deck gets randomly picked from. That way the chance of it being an actively supported list is nearly certain and the people being picked signed off on the feedback they get. The opening post I have in my imagination would read like a writing prompt hoping to spark up comments that go beyond just criticisms and recommendations. I'm willing to bet I'm not the only person here who's played like 100 different decks of all sorts of styles and could fill pages just speaking to that experience. And then some details underneath on how to get your deck lists into the pool. I know I'd be reliant on both ends on other people to make it work, both on requesting people fill the pool as well as hoping for good comments, but I think a little effort on my part to set the right tone could a start fun and productive thread. That being said, I don't imagine it would get the same frequency of posts as RCotD, nor should it. Ideally it'd be a more long-form format, fewer posts with a lot more words.
I'm interested in this. And I volunteer any of my active decks posted here for the project. Whether good or constructive feedback I always appreciate a good talk.
I would be interested as well. Having a specific deck, on a daily basis, to offer feedback on could be helpful to drive focus over a long period of time. And I wouldn't mind my decks being included in the initial pool of decks to randomly choose from.
I agree with 3drinks that a method of culling obsolete lists is a necessity. After all, even if a member is active, there is no guarantee they even have that deck built still. I know I only have about 6-8 decks I am actively working on but I have way more threads than that.
I'm interested in this. And I volunteer any of my active decks posted here for the project. Whether good or constructive feedback I always appreciate a good talk.
Is it fair to say the decks in your signatures are what you'd want involved? If you have anything else in mind, just let me know.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Zedruu: "This deck is not only able to go crazy - it also needs to do so."
There is also the factor that people generally find their own decks more interesting than others decklists. Ask yourself how many other decklists you have commented on. And if the answer is few, why is that?
There are a few primers around popular decks where people get together and share thoughts. But a lot of commanders aren't that widely played and therefore you don't have many people with enough knowledge about them for insightful discussions or tips.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
Anyways, I think one of the reasons I personally don't look at decklists is because they are not in the commander main forum. I mean, I'm currently building a Tuvasa deck which is in a very rough stage, and I wouldn't be sure where to post something like that. I know that having tje main forum flooded with dwcklists is not desirable but given the ammount of traffic it might be a good idea not to chop away threads that want to brew or ask for feedback on an incomplete list The way decklists are curated in this forum makes you think that everything is already finetuned and kept just for reference. At least that's my experience as a forum user.
This is on point. Even in my own experience, compare my Kaalia primer as one of the most trafficked threads on the decklists subforum, versus my Kari Zev in DC which while popular - has a noticeably shorter following. And then my iterations of Alesha being even more sparse than Kari Zev.
Why? Because when people think reanimator, they're thinking praetors and khans dragons, and elder demons, not 2/× bodies that kill lands. For Kari Zev, the split on people that like all in red and call it "not a real deck" is big, but it's one of the top decks in DC, so it has that going for it. Then you come to Kaalia, and what she does just IS widely popular with the format - or infamous pending your take - this level of popularity resonates with more people, and as a result, illicits more potential for responses. And this is a deck that has existed for 8 years now (and even now I'm still innovating), in a format where the average lifespan of a deck is often 3 - 6 months.
What I'm saying is, even if you reciprocate the actions you hope to receive, if the deck isn't one that inspires a lot of people, then your maximum reviews potential is going to be limited.
Steel Sabotage'ng Orbs of Mellowness since 2011.
You raise an issue that is a bit more complicated than people just not providing feedback. There are several factors:
I hope the above makes sense. It is late, and I am more than a little tired. I probably repeated myself a couple times. Bottom line, contribute to others, and ask for them to contribute to you. If you give genuine feedback to them, hopefully they will reciprocate the best they can. If you have a more complex, or off-the-beaten-path type legend that you built your deck around, understand that it might be hard for people to give you feedback, because some of these lists really do require special knowledge for feedback to be meaningful at all. Hope this helps answer your question.
EDH:
G[cEDH] Selvala, Heart of the StormG
URW[cEDH] Narset, the Last AirmericanURW
GWUSt. Jenara, the ArchangelGWU
UBGrimgrin, Chaos MarineUB
GOmnath, Mana BaronG
URWNarset, Justice League AmericaURW
GWUBAtraxa, Countess of CountersGWUB
GWUEstrid, Enbantress PrimeGWU
RBGLiving EndRBG
EDH
UFblthpU
BRXantchaRB
BGVarolzGB
URWZedruuWRU
Something about the way you worded this bothers me. It sounds a little entitled.
As someone who posted their own list here to a resounding 0 responses, I figured pretty quickly that other than a few pet primers, I'd be better off spending the time I'd ask for feedback on the EDH sub-Reddit. This place is alright for some interesting and in depth takes on discussion, but I can't say as any of the deck lists on the front page appeal to me. That pretty much echoes the sentiment of others here about how diverse the options are. Of the 10 most popular commanders on EDHREC, I have 2 in my collection who are both just in the 99 of other decks (Meren in Prossh and Alesha in Najeela respectively). Anecdotal as it may be, it goes to show that not everyone even has a deck with some of the most played generals, so the market for some of these tribal lists is likely to be microscopic in comparison.
EDIT: One more thought, the amount of feedback I see being batted off for reasons exclusive to efficiency is too high to feel worth commenting on. There's only so many times you can read "Cyclonic Rift is banned in my meta/I don't feel its a fun card/It is in my other deck" before wondering why these conditions aren't stated on the deck list's post beforehand. Again, it shows the variance in the format's appeal based of the broad category of expectations for each player's desired experience.
Nah. r/EDH is a trashy, entitled place that circlejerks in elitism. You're best off looking at numbers on a site like edhrec and extrapolating from that data why certain cards are played/not played and making the judgment calls yourself.
Steel Sabotage'ng Orbs of Mellowness since 2011.
The main problem arises when some of the popular cards actually turn out to be suboptimal in practice and a lack of centralized discussion or sometimes budgetary concerns keeps it in favor far longer than it rightfully should. You probably know a situation like this.
The Unidentified Fantastic Flying Girl.
EDH
Xenagos, the God of Stompy
The Gitrog Monster: Oppressive Value.
Marchesa, Marionette Master - Undying Robots
Yuriko, the Hydra Omnivore
I make dolls as a hobby.
But my philosophies haven't failed me yet.
Steel Sabotage'ng Orbs of Mellowness since 2011.
1.) They interest me personally,
2.) They're an archetype I care about.
or
3.) I'm looking for ideas and curious.
I don't really go fishing around the forums to give feedback on decks that I don't have much interest in. I think it would be disingenuous of me to offer feedback, really. You can look at most threads here on the forums and you'll find that it's the same handful of users interested in that particular deck, plus some that come and go. My Ayli thread is certainly that way; DementedKirby's Sidisi thread the same, etc. That's kind of the culture here.
There's nothing wrong with your decks or Commanders, I just really scrolled past because those Commanders aren't my cup of tea Though, hoping for compliments on a deck or kudos for playing obscure cards probably shouldn't be a priority. That seems... hrmmm...
Anyway, I do still prefer the low volume here compared to the various Facebook groups, or Reddit subs as others have mentioned above. Quality of discussion and topics still feel above the grade of social media and other places discussion has centered around, now. I enjoy that a lot of the deck ideas and construction I find here when it's something that piques my interest ends up having some off-the-wall stuff or original ideas that isn't semi-competitive players regurgitating the same staples/suggestions/"tier list" and asking you why you aren't playing X instead of Y, every time (
(Also known as Xenphire)
I will forever stand by my decision to keep windmilling Ritual of the Machine. Don't care what some people say, the card was chase in Alliances and four mana perma-theft is still a big deal in today's culture.
That's what you had in mind?
Steel Sabotage'ng Orbs of Mellowness since 2011.
Agreed. I’d rather have a fraction of the responses and critique to have valuable, thought out assessment and suggestions. That’s far more likely to happen here than anywhere else I’ve found.
EDHrec gives only the vaguest ideas of why people are running specific cards under a commander, what archetype that deck might be aiming for and how well the card performs.
Reddit is a bit of a mess for EDH. While responses can be more qualitative and helpful, Reddit has the potential to be a pretty toxic place too.
Tappedout can be good, I just really don’t like the aesthetics of the site. That’s a personal thing, I just find this site easier to read - and I know the feedback I will get, when I get it, is pretty top notch.
I don’t know why anyone would look for EDH recommendations on FB. I’ve been part of a couple EDH groups on FB, and promptly left all of them because they provided no genuine insight or critique.
As such, I don't often reply to others lists either. I keep telling myself I should because I do enjoy helping out others or offering suggestions, but the problem with EDH is that there are a multitude of reasons people play the game and build their decks the way they do. Coming in with a different mindset sometimes makes it tough to recommend cards. I don't like infinite combo so if someone wants that, I don't have as much to offer.
Commenting on a deck takes time as well. Most of the lists I comment on are ones where I have a similar list already. So, I wouldn't comment on your Unesh or Arixmethes lists because I don't have a good baseline to start from. So, I need to go over the entire list to see what you are running to then come up with comments. Whereas if someone is running a Karador deck, I immediately have thoughts on what they could or should run and I look for those cards specifically to comment on because I have a Karador deck that I play a lot.
And lastly, the philosophical differences in deckbuilding sometimes make it tough to have a real, ongoing discussion about the evolution of a deck if the deckbuilder and the person commenting don't have the same goals in mind. For example, I feel it is a mistake to not include Cyclonic Rift in basically any blue deck. I know you disagree and feel Rift is way more powerful than it ought to be in this format. To the owner of the thread, it seems like the person commenting doesn't "get" the idea of the deck or wanting to exclude certain cards. And, to the person commenting, it seems their thoughts are just ignored. This may not be a huge issue, but it is certainly easier to discuss decks when everyone has the same idea of what the deck should/can do and what cards are off limits.
I live in the same limbo.
a big jump in traffic.
Thoughts?
I actually really like this idea. I can’t see a downside, plus it’s a great way to get people more engaged, drive up site traffic and help people tune their decks. Seems an excellent idea to me.
I don't think this will generate even close to the level of traffic RCotD generates. And, if it did, how would you determine a list to start on? How would you cull lists from 2013 that are no longer active? How would you stop the thread from devolving to varying levels of competitive as everyone has different beliefs on what is fair game? I might play MLD tribal and mainboard blue hate, where others would see that and roll their eyes and snort in derision.
Steel Sabotage'ng Orbs of Mellowness since 2011.
I wouldn't expect it to generate the same traffic initially. Or maybe even ongoing. It's still a novel idea though. Pick a deck randomly with an RNG and the list of active decklists that have action from the last 12 months, present it without comment for the community.
As far as policing comments, I mean....that's what we have mods are for, but I think a fair way to manage the thread would be 'post only the sort of comments you'd be happy to receive yourself'. Everyone has an axe they love to grind on, but essentially it's not your list (unless it is I guess) and you should be aware that your comments are there for suggestions to the OP and shouldn't be personal, derisive or douchey. I guess that's the standard forum rules, and they do get thrown to the wayside from time to time, but so long as contributors are aware they should keep their comments constructive I don't see why it wouldn't be fine. Personally, I'm not a fan of dedicated combo, but it's someone else's deck, and it does what they want it to. If I have comments or suggestions, so long as I'm polite there should be no issues, and I have no qualms suggesting ways to make that person's deck successful.
I'm thinking of asking for voluntary submissions to the list that the deck gets randomly picked from. That way the chance of it being an actively supported list is nearly certain and the people being picked signed off on the feedback they get. The opening post I have in my imagination would read like a writing prompt hoping to spark up comments that go beyond just criticisms and recommendations. I'm willing to bet I'm not the only person here who's played like 100 different decks of all sorts of styles and could fill pages just speaking to that experience. And then some details underneath on how to get your deck lists into the pool. I know I'd be reliant on both ends on other people to make it work, both on requesting people fill the pool as well as hoping for good comments, but I think a little effort on my part to set the right tone could a start fun and productive thread. That being said, I don't imagine it would get the same frequency of posts as RCotD, nor should it. Ideally it'd be a more long-form format, fewer posts with a lot more words.
I'm interested in this. And I volunteer any of my active decks posted here for the project. Whether good or constructive feedback I always appreciate a good talk.
Steel Sabotage'ng Orbs of Mellowness since 2011.
WUBRG Some of these decks can actually win games...WUBRG
How I know I should build a deck:
I agree with 3drinks that a method of culling obsolete lists is a necessity. After all, even if a member is active, there is no guarantee they even have that deck built still. I know I only have about 6-8 decks I am actively working on but I have way more threads than that.
Is it fair to say the decks in your signatures are what you'd want involved? If you have anything else in mind, just let me know.
This is accurate for me. I have more lists than what’s in my sig, but they’ve been retired and stripped for parts.