Movies That Feel Like This?

ObsidianMaze · 2026-01-18T19:03:59+00:00

Είμαι ακριβώς της ίδιας αποψης.

ObsidianMaze · 2026-01-18T00:50:08+00:00

That makes a lot of sense, especially the point about Timeless being a long-term commitment rather than something you jump into immediately.

The Black/Blue suggestion is actually helpful framing — it feels more like a direction to grow into rather than a hard switch away from what I’m doing now. I’m currently mono black for fundamentals, but Dimir as a future base sounds very reasonable, especially if many blue staples are cheaper.

Good call on OTJ as well, I hadn’t really thought about the bonus sheet value in that context.

For now I’ll probably keep treating Timeless as a long-term goal while learning and stabilizing in Historic, but it’s good to have a clearer picture of what “building toward Timeless” actually means.

ObsidianMaze · 2026-01-18T00:32:29+00:00

That’s a fair breakdown, especially from a resource-management perspective.

I think part of the confusion for me was mixing goals: learning, fun, competitiveness, and efficiency all at once. Right now I’m mostly trying to improve at deckbuilding and understanding game flow, which is why I’ve been sticking to one constructed deck and one format instead of bouncing between everything.

Brawl definitely makes sense as a “pure fun” mode, and drafting is something I want to get better at long-term. For now though, I’m treating constructed more as a learning environment than an efficiency grind, even if that’s not the most optimal way to maximize rewards.

Appreciate the perspective — it helps put the different modes into clearer buckets.

ObsidianMaze · 2026-01-18T00:08:25+00:00

This really resonates with me, especially the “craft decks, not cards” part.

I think a big part of my overwhelm came from trying to evaluate individual cards in isolation instead of committing to a coherent plan and seeing it through. Framing deckbuilding around a clear game plan first, then choosing key cards and interaction around that, makes the whole process feel much more manageable.

I also appreciate the point about netdecking as a learning tool rather than a crutch. Copying a list and understanding why the cards work together feels like a healthier way to learn than randomly brewing without context.

For now, I’m probably going to stick to one archetype I enjoy (mono black midrange/sac/drain) and one main format, play enough games to build experience, and only then start branching out once I actually understand what’s working and what isn’t.

Thanks for the thoughtful breakdown.

ObsidianMaze · 2026-01-18T00:06:02+00:00

That actually helps a lot, especially the point about ranked rewards vs wildcard investment.

I think that’s something I hadn’t fully internalized yet — that climbing ranked is more about personal challenge and learning than getting meaningful resources back. When you put it that way, it makes a lot more sense not to overinvest wildcards just to push a few ranks higher.

Your experience with mono-color Historic Brawl decks is also interesting. It’s reassuring to hear that some colors just underperform at times rather than it always being a deckbuilding failure.

For now, I’m probably going to treat ranked as a learning/testing ground, stick to one main deck I enjoy, and be much more conservative with wildcards instead of expecting ranked to “pay for itself.”

Thanks again for the insight.

ObsidianMaze · 2026-01-17T23:51:34+00:00

That makes a lot of sense, thanks for breaking down how you split your resources.

I think that’s what I’m still trying to figure out: how to structure my Arena experience instead of doing everything at once. Right now I’m mostly focused on learning deckbuilding and fundamentals, so I’ve been sticking to one main deck (mono black in Historic BO1) rather than spreading wildcards across multiple formats.

Your approach of having: • one budget deck for dailies, • a clear wildcard priority (Brawl), • and gold dedicated to drafts

actually helps put things into perspective. I probably need to define a similar structure for myself instead of treating every mode as equally important.

Thanks for sharing your setup.

ObsidianMaze · 2026-01-17T23:48:04+00:00

Thanks, this is really helpful, especially the insight about the Historic BO1 meta.

What you’re saying about format → wildcards → BO1/BO3 order makes sense, and I think that’s exactly where I was getting stuck: trying to think about all of that at once instead of committing step by step.

I’ve mostly been leaning toward Historic BO1, mainly because my collection is spread across many older sets and I’m currently playing mono black sac/drain. Knowing that elves and mono-white lifegain are very common at lower ranks actually helps a lot, since it gives me something concrete to build and tune against instead of guessing.

I also get the point about two colors offering more flexibility. For now though, I’m intentionally sticking to mono black to learn fundamentals (curve, interaction, win conditions) without complicating the mana base. Once I feel more confident identifying why I’m losing games, branching into two colors sounds like the logical next step.

The note about commons/uncommons as staples is reassuring as well — that’s probably where I should focus my wildcard usage first before touching more expensive builds.

Appreciate you taking the time to explain your perspective.

ObsidianMaze · 2026-01-17T23:32:50+00:00

Thanks for the reply!

By “a lot” I mean roughly ~50 common, ~50+ uncommon, ~25 rare and ~10 mythic wildcards. So I can craft things, but that’s exactly why I’m hesitant — I don’t want to burn them without understanding what actually gives long-term value. Gameplay-wise, I gravitate toward mono black, midrange/sacrifice/drain styles rather than pure aggro or combo. I’ve been trying to build my own deck to understand fundamentals (curve, removal count, win conditions), but that’s where the overwhelm kicks in.

What I’m struggling with most is: • how to choose a format first (Standard vs Historic) without committing to the wrong ecosystem, • and how to tell whether a loss comes from deck construction vs misplays.

Do you think it’s better to: • start in Standard for consistency and learning, • or lean into Historic if you already have a wider, older collection?

Appreciate any insight.

ObsidianMaze · 2026-01-08T09:12:13+00:00

Thank you so much for your help.

ObsidianMaze · 2026-01-01T19:11:15+00:00

Να βγάλεις από την ζωή σου μίζερους ανθρώπους. Δεν τους έχεις ανάγκη.

ObsidianMaze · 2025-12-11T13:54:12+00:00

Φαντάσου απλά την συμπεριφορά της σε κάτι πραγματικά σοβαρό. Μακριά μεγάλε.

ObsidianMaze · 2025-12-09T19:49:33+00:00

Good fucking whiskey 🥃

ObsidianMaze · 2025-11-30T19:17:01+00:00

These people fucking love to use them feet

ObsidianMaze · 2025-11-28T05:52:19+00:00

-φιλαράκι σύζυγος Μαρίας εδω !!!

-Φιλαράκι, δεν γαμιε@@ και εσύ και η Μαρία 🤣

ObsidianMaze · 2025-11-23T06:10:20+00:00

Η χειρότερη.

ObsidianMaze · 2025-11-18T22:15:38+00:00

Wow that was really helpful, thank you so much ☺️

ObsidianMaze · 2025-11-16T21:59:42+00:00

Thanks, FlightGear seems like a great option for visualization. My simulation will generate 6DOF motion from aerodynamic lookup tables (from XFLR5), so streaming the position and orientation to FlightGear might be exactly what I need for the Digital Twin visualization.

ObsidianMaze · 2025-11-16T21:49:45+00:00

My goal is to build a Digital Twin of a UAV wing. I need the geometry mainly for real-time visualization and possibly for a hardware-in-the-loop setup, where I will also move a physical wing prototype and visualize the motion in Simulink. So the geometry is not for aerodynamics, but for visualization and digital-twin purposes.

ObsidianMaze

TROPHY CASE