Arcane Wonders Forum
Mage Wars => General Discussion => Topic started by: Boocheck on September 09, 2014, 03:05:20 PM
-
A new episode of lets level up : http://www.letslevelup.net/?p=774
Cant wait for the next one. It seems that Aviary Beastmaster himself will be in it :-)
-
At first I was excited to see that the entire episode was dedicated to my favorite mage, but as the episode went on I felt like there wasn't much substance there and it started to drag. Don't get me wrong though, I still enjoyed the episode; you could talk about the Warlord (especially the green one) all day and I probably wouldn't get bored. However, some criticisms I had were:
1). I think the show would really benefit from additional depth. By this I mean, more in depth explanation of cards, what situations to use them in, what strategies they're best in, how to go about said strategy, etc. Right now it just feels like you guys are explaining what on the cards, and while it might be worth a quick mention it's not particularly interesting. I feel like very few board/card games have a good chance to hear strategy, news, etc, directly from the horse's mouth (The "Drive to work" podcast comes to mind) and I think there's some opportunity being wasted here. Obviously I don't think you should tell people what/how to play, but more guidance would help.
2). I don't think it's worth mentioning a card is "good" or something to that effect, without actually explaining how it's good. Obviously you guys (Aaron especially) do explain why many of the cards mentioned in the episode are good, but a feel there's too much "this card is amazing!" without proper logic to back it up. For example, Aaron mentioned Thorg at the end as being great, but there really wasn't any explanation on that. Thorg can also be pretty bad in certain situaitons, ie against psychic immune creatures or against lots of piercing, etc. I understand you guys have time constraints and I feel that but there's really no point in doing a shout out for a card and giving no support to it.
3). I think a better understanding of the audience would help. The result of this understanding would be the realization that the majority of the audience are hardcore Mage Wars fans and would likely much prefer depth over quantity (Tie in with 1&2). Maybe it's just me, but I don't think people who have a passing interest in Mage Wars listen to the podcast, or at least that segment is very few. With that said, the relatively simple glazing over of cards, to me, doesn't seem appropriate. Perhaps this issue is too close in subject to #1, alas.
4). More attention/discussion of specific cards would definitely peak my interest. Perhaps decide on 5-10 cards to discuss and flesh them all out completely over an episode, talking about when and how to use them and in what strategies they fit well, etc. When I heard Aaron start to talk about Gurmash it was awesome, but I still feel like there wasn't enough depth there.
So, hopefully that all made sense and I didn't come off as that much of a elitist jerk. I appreciate the time you guys put into the episodes and all I really want is for them reflect what I (and I think the community) wants in a podcast. Unfortunately that means being critical of the product, but feedback is what made FiF such a great success so I think I'd prefer it that way.
Thanks.
-
^ Some excellent points. I have nothing substantive to add to the above comment except to second the motion on the floor.
-
I thought it had enough depth. I like it when they get me thinking about some cards just enough to get me thinking up a new strategy. of course, i could always go for more.
I could go for less reciting of stats unless its to analyze those stats. they mentioned that the dwarf warlord has l exactly 36(?) health which is less than the orc, but they didnt address why. Also, if you dont need to recite what schools a mage is trained in. i that anyone putting the time into listening to one of these will know that the warlord knows earth spells.
Oh, and the history of a card's development is nice, like you were doing with the origin of warlord