I actually do like to fix things that aren't broken, because not broken doesn't mean perfect.
I am a perfectionist at heart.
I also do think the term Mill is broken, as it's so bland, and monotone, and uncreative. Nothing wrong for players to use it to themselves, or have developed the terminology, but when you get behind the counter, the desk, the workshop; you're looking as so many more tools and expectations accord to professionalism. Now you have responsibility to not just take a thing and run with it, but ensure that it's implemented capturing the utmost sense of fantasy, and flare, and excitement. The term Mill just doesn't do that—especially compared to Traumatize.
I actually do like to fix things that aren't broken, because not broken doesn't mean perfect.
I am a perfectionist at heart.
I also do think the term Mill is broken, as it's so bland, and monotone, and uncreative. Nothing wrong for players to use it to themselves, or have developed the terminology, but when you get behind the counter, the desk, the workshop; you're looking as so many more tools and expectations accord to professionalism. Now you have responsibility to not just take a thing and run with it, but ensure that it's implemented capturing the utmost sense of fantasy, and flare, and excitement. The term Mill just doesn't do that—especially compared to Traumatize.
Reap: "I don't care if people like what exists and don't like my fix. My fix is better. If they like the worse version, the critics should learn to fix themselves. I make the best things and it doesn't matter whether people don't like it because not liking it is subjective and biased. Even if everyone hates it, that just means that there's a lot of bias and my design is still objectively better"
Whatever skill with designing you think you have, take a moment to consider your communication skill. If you had come here and made a post saying "I think that the keyword mill is a holdover from artifacts that are no longer relevant. The flavor of mill is now almost exclusively related to mental degradation and madness and I feel that the equally iconic card Traumatize would be a better keyword", you may have had some supporters. If you regularly posted links back to previous mechanics and arguments you have made so that people seeing your material for the first time could understand your rationale without trying to force you through the same arguments in every thread (such as if you put those links in your signature), people would be able to have conversations that go beyond the tiny merry-go-round of conversation topics so many of your threads get mired in. If you displayed up-front awareness of when a new card would require specific changes to the comprehensive rules and were able to articulate the specifics of what those rule changes are and what their benefit it rather than specifying "I would make the card work" to benefit the game by "making this one card work" after someone points out that your card doesn't gel with the rules, fewer people would be calling you incompetent.
Either you are a terrible communicator or you have utter contempt for everyone who is seeing your work and don't bother putting effort in because you feel that people are only worthy of seeing your work if they put the effort in for you.
calling it mill or traumatize is wholly subjective, there is bias for one or the other (I fully admit i am biased in favor of calling it mill I was happy after all these years of calling it that that they adopted the term) there can be arguments about which you think is better but since it's fully subjective it is not really a logical discussion since nothing is wrong logically with calling it either way it is all based on preference.
Similarly with unblockable and Mana value (CMC). However in addition to personal preference using them the old way has lead to problems of legibility and understanding so they tried to fix it (an IMO they did).
And as you youself said just because it is not broken doesn't mean we cant make it better, thats what they tried with the renaming , retemplating of those things.
And thats why I asked for your fix of exactly the problem they were faced with, and your fix has the exact same problem they run into.
Now is their fix perfect no is it better than what they had before ? That's Subjective, but according to their feedback it was necessary to improve upon it. There are a few objective improvements that came with the change namely mana value is way shorter than converted mana cost. And That tangible improvement would be lost with your suggestion.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I am a perfectionist at heart.
I also do think the term Mill is broken, as it's so bland, and monotone, and uncreative. Nothing wrong for players to use it to themselves, or have developed the terminology, but when you get behind the counter, the desk, the workshop; you're looking as so many more tools and expectations accord to professionalism. Now you have responsibility to not just take a thing and run with it, but ensure that it's implemented capturing the utmost sense of fantasy, and flare, and excitement. The term Mill just doesn't do that—especially compared to Traumatize.
Reap: "I don't care if people like what exists and don't like my fix. My fix is better. If they like the worse version, the critics should learn to fix themselves. I make the best things and it doesn't matter whether people don't like it because not liking it is subjective and biased. Even if everyone hates it, that just means that there's a lot of bias and my design is still objectively better"
Whatever skill with designing you think you have, take a moment to consider your communication skill. If you had come here and made a post saying "I think that the keyword mill is a holdover from artifacts that are no longer relevant. The flavor of mill is now almost exclusively related to mental degradation and madness and I feel that the equally iconic card Traumatize would be a better keyword", you may have had some supporters. If you regularly posted links back to previous mechanics and arguments you have made so that people seeing your material for the first time could understand your rationale without trying to force you through the same arguments in every thread (such as if you put those links in your signature), people would be able to have conversations that go beyond the tiny merry-go-round of conversation topics so many of your threads get mired in. If you displayed up-front awareness of when a new card would require specific changes to the comprehensive rules and were able to articulate the specifics of what those rule changes are and what their benefit it rather than specifying "I would make the card work" to benefit the game by "making this one card work" after someone points out that your card doesn't gel with the rules, fewer people would be calling you incompetent.
Either you are a terrible communicator or you have utter contempt for everyone who is seeing your work and don't bother putting effort in because you feel that people are only worthy of seeing your work if they put the effort in for you.
Similarly with unblockable and Mana value (CMC). However in addition to personal preference using them the old way has lead to problems of legibility and understanding so they tried to fix it (an IMO they did).
And as you youself said just because it is not broken doesn't mean we cant make it better, thats what they tried with the renaming , retemplating of those things.
And thats why I asked for your fix of exactly the problem they were faced with, and your fix has the exact same problem they run into.
Now is their fix perfect no is it better than what they had before ? That's Subjective, but according to their feedback it was necessary to improve upon it. There are a few objective improvements that came with the change namely mana value is way shorter than converted mana cost. And That tangible improvement would be lost with your suggestion.