An interesting twist may be to present the same scenario to a few competent battlers (basically, give them each a shoddy log that stops at a crucial point) and see what each would do in the same situation and why.
I completely agree with this. Three would probably be the optimal number here, preferably with three different moves all backed up by solid evidence and logic. I'm pretty much assuming that we're going to have three responses at this point, correct me if I'm wrong.
Yup this is the kind of thing I had in mind. I think doing it collaboratively would be more productive; personally I find a discussion easier/more fun to read than just someone mulling over possible options. You'd also be more [likely] to get a conclusion of what's generally the best approach to the rest of the game.
See above quote; yes. I think it could viably work as either more formal forum-style replies (well, good forum-style replies anyway) or a more informal roundtable discussion, although I would lean towards the first.
I quite like this suggestion. The only real problem I see is that there is never really a guaranteed 'right' move to use in Pokemon, as what your best move is is highly dependent on what you expect your opponent to do while you use it. This could work if we remove that random element and have the mystery be something subtle like you've said - a scarf heatran being modest or timid depending on how much damage it did to your vaporeon, and then a scenario with a shaymin-s or something and leaving it up to the reader as to whether it's worth earth powering or switching. I like this idea because it allows the reader to interact a bit more with the e-zine as well, which is always a plus.
I'm not that crazy about making the entire decision be based on a variable that can be deduced by mathematical means, as in your Modest vs. Timid Scarftran example. This would certainly be a fine part of it, but I think the main reason that this would be an appealing and interesting topic to read about is to see the thought process. This might include an analysis of whether the opponent will make the obvious choice or try to outpredict, speculation over how the opponent will try to deal with the player's probable moves, etc. It could be like diving into a player's head in the middle of the match, with everything that entails. I do like your second example with Skymin. Anyway, all this talk is getting confusing, so I'm done responding.
What's the difference between this and a warstory? I mean, you could just take a warstory, a turn out of it, and go more in depth about your options.
This isn't a bad idea though.I like it a lot.
I think it's most like one turn of a warstory with three different commentaries on three different choices by three different people (if we do go with three, I'm somewhat hung up on that idea).
I definitely like this idea, it's somewhat similar to something I suggested where top players would analyze specific team matchups, though obviously a lot less complicated.
I could almost see this turning into a contest where if I submit an "answer" that best agrees with the "panel" or whatever, I get rewarded in some way.
That could even work its way into the article itself- the contest could come before publication and, for example, be to fill one of the slots in the article itself.
In case you can't tell, I've got a pretty clear idea of what I think this will be like.
It seems like this is moving towards being a reality pretty quickly. I'd be happy to volunteer to help it get to completion and select a battle, format it, go through applications for writing opinions for it (if we do so), etc.
