Yeah, Icarii, you have a clear lead, so there's little point in waiting for a fourth judgment. Having four great designers have to wait this long, after putting in four strong designs that I personally loved, is a disservice.
Yeah, Icarii, you have a clear lead, so there's little point in waiting for a fourth judgment. Having four great designers have to wait this long, after putting in four strong designs that I personally loved, is a disservice.
Yeah I think this final round had some stron entries with some very cool inspirations, so thanks for the competition! However, I'm happy to take my third MCC victory this year ;).
I think the biggest criticism my Konda got was about his flavor. To be completely honest, I had forgotten about the second part of the second subchallenge asking to have a turn around in philosophy. However, I feel my entry still works. As you can imagine, it's very hard to get the full story of such a character across when there is no room for flavor text. What I envisioned for this future Konda was, after being imprison by his daughter for many long years, he passed on into being a powerful spirit of vengeance who sought to destroy his daughter and the new order of Kamigawa. This is quite the shift from the megalomaniac who wanted to build an eternal empire at peace; he knowingly wants to destroy Kamigawa and it's peace as opposed to preserve it.
Whether or not that really came across is another thing haha. I find it's integral for a card to stand up on its own without being explained because that's how the super majority of people are going to encounter it. Designers don't stand over the shoulders of players opening boosters packs to explain what the cards do or what inspired them after all!
My score discrepancy was mostly on power level. Even for a Timmy card it was rather weak; if I'm dropping 8 mana on a mythic and it needs to untap and connect (with no inherent evasion) for its big payoff, that payoff needs to be a pretty big blowout. Not a situational (though potentially powerful) life swap, especially when it's not a surprise or guaranteed to go off for a combo. But you were so far ahead that wouldn't have ended up mattering; you'd have still won even if the other judges had my balance score and they dropped the Spike point in Appeal!
The commander sets are rather looser with the color pie, and Maro has not missed an opportunity to yell about Chaos Warp or Song of the Dyrads. I'd say we're about Maro strictness on color pie, which is in fact more conservative than actual print.
Which, for example, enables them to freely make cards that intentionally Appeal to only one psychographic.
I do feel the Appeal category captures this poorly. A card that really really appeals to only one psychographic is better than a card that two-three psychographics like but aren't wild about, imo. Maybe we should award two points for "This psychographic just loves this card"?
I agree with this 100% At GDC 2016 Mark Rosewater had a panel Magic: the Gathering: Twenty Years, Twenty Lessons Learned and there he has a section on the psychographic, the jest is that if you try to appeal to all, most of the time you satisfy none.
The talk on the psychographic is at about 44 mins in if anyone wants to watch it.
Judgments are done. I'm pretty sure I had the most competitive bracket, all solid offerings within 2 points of each other. Way stronger than first round last month, in any case.
So, I'm gonna be moving starting tomorrow and internet doesn't get hooked up until Sunday. I'll try to have a card submitted tonight, but I can't guarantee anything.
You better do it tonight cause we won't change the design deadline (it may seem a bit harsh, but that's how it works - 16 players shouldn't wait for the one).
Conntroll, although I tend to agree with most of what you said, I want to add some: not every card made by Wizards is perfect. Some of them won't pass MCC challenge for different reasons, but you know, some of them are awful just because.
...Aaand, for example, how would you rate 100% official card named Bonded Fetch? Would it get 25 points?
Off the top of my head, the only card that might get a perfect score is Death's Shadow.
There are absolutely other cards that could because they're "home run" designs for the psychographics. Dragonstorm fits. But the point of the MCC isn't to get 25 points; it's to get the most points in your bracket. Perfect scores should be extremely anomalous.
Off the top of my head, the only card that might get a perfect score is Death's Shadow.
Would it really, though?
Anyway, while there is truth in what you write, Conntroll, there are also many areas where I know judges wouldn't agree. It's tough to navigate how people subjectively judge things, but at least there is some rubric that sets boundaries on how subjective each judge can be.
Off the top of my head, the only card that might get a perfect score is Death's Shadow.
The flavor text is a little weird (how does a candle going out make a bigger shadow?), I'd ding at least a half point there. And my card evaluation for constructed playability sucks, so I'd end up saying Spike wasn't too interested (if I couldn't glance at the past year of Modern results).
Off the top of my head, the only card that might get a perfect score is Death's Shadow.
There are absolutely other cards that could because they're "home run" designs for the psychographics. Dragonstorm fits. But the point of the MCC isn't to get 25 points; it's to get the most points in your bracket. Perfect scores should be extremely anomalous.
I agree. Just like when Wizards designs a card, it's to fill a specific role in the set/block/format it's designed for. You can't have a grand slam without some singles.
Griselbrand comes to mind as a potential 25. Glare of the Subdual and Opposition (with good flavor text) might be in the running, depending on whether the judge count Stax-esque players as Timmies.
RickyRister's card last round might have scored perfect under a different judge. And even looking back, he could argue that mixing Second Sunrise with a keyword that encourages combat+death is a sufficiently fresh take on the SS effect to get full creativity points. Hmm.
That's something I mentioned in one of my first paragraphs ^^. Naturally, judges will disagree with each other. It's why we sometimes get significant score differences in Round 4s.
I know. That was my polite way of saying most of your points vary a lot in reliability.
I'm curious as to your motives in writing it all out though. Are you discouraged? Critiquing? Trying to inform others?
Every single one of my tips comes from me seeing myself or someone else get a score penalty for that specific design choice at least once. I made none of it up. I even vary my wording from using "some/sometimes" on particular tips to using "typical/avoid" on others to indicate that those are a stronger trend.
I'm not saying the points from your tips haven't occurred, just that they are situational.
Trying to inform: As I said, this is my goal. I genuinely think that the MCC has what I'd call "hidden variables and expectations" that make the learning curve for a beginner not just steep, but steeper than it probably should be. Thus, I think it would benefit any beginner to read an extensive guide about, if not necessarily "non-obvious things that can affect your score", then at least "non-obvious things that affected the score of people at least once".
Sure, there are things that are or may seem to non obvious, especially when your personal skill as a designer may only be so far along. Not that any of us don't have room to grow but there are certainly those who are more experienced and have shown success.
Which brings me to my problem. Sorry for my rudeness, but what makes you qualified to write such a guide? If your goal is to target newer players as to the potential pitfalls that come up in judging, ok sure. But is that the way to teach people to do better and win? Despite your disclaimer, it seems like another way to excuse ones own personal design shortcomings.
I'll admit, some of your points that come up with judging are actual mistakes by judges that need to be address and not let pass. For example, Point 1, 3, and 4 in your flavor tips are all mistakes by judges that would need to be pointed out and evaluated in context. But that's part of the problem having such a guide written this way. Trying to avoid doing what people may not like in order to do better won't get you to win in the end. It limits your growth as a designer.
I can tell you personally I don't go into a challenge going "Ok, this is what people may doc me for in this category. This is something I've seen judges not like." With that mentality, you're going to design subpar card just because you think it fits in the boundaries of what people might say. Learning good design habits will put you father ahead then worrying about caveats with how something might be judged.
With that said, I think it would be a stronger approach to have an expanded explanation of the current rubric instead of a "situational tips that sometimes come up with certain judges to do a little better but not actually win."
@IcariiFA....How come you always have to try to knock new people down? (I don't mean to call you new Conntroll, for all I know, you invented Magic.) It seemed to me like Conntroll was trying to be helpful. Why dump all over him/her for that? These contests already suffer from an overall lack of participation, why not be more inviting? I'm pretty sure you could've gotten your point across in a much friendlier and less condescending way.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
(22 Total) - October 2014; December 2014; January 2015; April 2015; June 2015; August 2015; September 2015; November 2015; December 2015(T); January 2016; March 2016(T); April 2016; June 2016; October 2016; December 2016(T); February 2017; April 2017; December 2017; November 2018(T); January 2019; April 2019; June 2019
(8 Total) - May 2015; May 2016; June 2016; August 2016; October 2016; December 2016; October 2017; May 2019
(7 Total) - September 2015; October 2015; January 2016; March 2016; April 2016; July 2016(T); March 2019(T)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
I think the biggest criticism my Konda got was about his flavor. To be completely honest, I had forgotten about the second part of the second subchallenge asking to have a turn around in philosophy. However, I feel my entry still works. As you can imagine, it's very hard to get the full story of such a character across when there is no room for flavor text. What I envisioned for this future Konda was, after being imprison by his daughter for many long years, he passed on into being a powerful spirit of vengeance who sought to destroy his daughter and the new order of Kamigawa. This is quite the shift from the megalomaniac who wanted to build an eternal empire at peace; he knowingly wants to destroy Kamigawa and it's peace as opposed to preserve it.
Whether or not that really came across is another thing haha. I find it's integral for a card to stand up on its own without being explained because that's how the super majority of people are going to encounter it. Designers don't stand over the shoulders of players opening boosters packs to explain what the cards do or what inspired them after all!
My score discrepancy was mostly on power level. Even for a Timmy card it was rather weak; if I'm dropping 8 mana on a mythic and it needs to untap and connect (with no inherent evasion) for its big payoff, that payoff needs to be a pretty big blowout. Not a situational (though potentially powerful) life swap, especially when it's not a surprise or guaranteed to go off for a combo. But you were so far ahead that wouldn't have ended up mattering; you'd have still won even if the other judges had my balance score and they dropped the Spike point in Appeal!
I agree with this 100% At GDC 2016 Mark Rosewater had a panel Magic: the Gathering: Twenty Years, Twenty Lessons Learned and there he has a section on the psychographic, the jest is that if you try to appeal to all, most of the time you satisfy none.
The talk on the psychographic is at about 44 mins in if anyone wants to watch it.
Emille, Seven-Sting Dancer Shalin Nariya
Edit: Ok, I've got a design in that I don't hate.
Also I think you guys should do something with October MCC.
...Aaand, for example, how would you rate 100% official card named Bonded Fetch? Would it get 25 points?
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
There are absolutely other cards that could because they're "home run" designs for the psychographics. Dragonstorm fits. But the point of the MCC isn't to get 25 points; it's to get the most points in your bracket. Perfect scores should be extremely anomalous.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
Anyway, while there is truth in what you write, Conntroll, there are also many areas where I know judges wouldn't agree. It's tough to navigate how people subjectively judge things, but at least there is some rubric that sets boundaries on how subjective each judge can be.
The flavor text is a little weird (how does a candle going out make a bigger shadow?), I'd ding at least a half point there. And my card evaluation for constructed playability sucks, so I'd end up saying Spike wasn't too interested (if I couldn't glance at the past year of Modern results).
I agree. Just like when Wizards designs a card, it's to fill a specific role in the set/block/format it's designed for. You can't have a grand slam without some singles.
@everyone else: I did say "might".
RickyRister's card last round might have scored perfect under a different judge. And even looking back, he could argue that mixing Second Sunrise with a keyword that encourages combat+death is a sufficiently fresh take on the SS effect to get full creativity points. Hmm.
I know. That was my polite way of saying most of your points vary a lot in reliability.
I'm curious as to your motives in writing it all out though. Are you discouraged? Critiquing? Trying to inform others?
Sure, there are things that are or may seem to non obvious, especially when your personal skill as a designer may only be so far along. Not that any of us don't have room to grow but there are certainly those who are more experienced and have shown success.
Which brings me to my problem. Sorry for my rudeness, but what makes you qualified to write such a guide? If your goal is to target newer players as to the potential pitfalls that come up in judging, ok sure. But is that the way to teach people to do better and win? Despite your disclaimer, it seems like another way to excuse ones own personal design shortcomings.
I'll admit, some of your points that come up with judging are actual mistakes by judges that need to be address and not let pass. For example, Point 1, 3, and 4 in your flavor tips are all mistakes by judges that would need to be pointed out and evaluated in context. But that's part of the problem having such a guide written this way. Trying to avoid doing what people may not like in order to do better won't get you to win in the end. It limits your growth as a designer.
I can tell you personally I don't go into a challenge going "Ok, this is what people may doc me for in this category. This is something I've seen judges not like." With that mentality, you're going to design subpar card just because you think it fits in the boundaries of what people might say. Learning good design habits will put you father ahead then worrying about caveats with how something might be judged.
With that said, I think it would be a stronger approach to have an expanded explanation of the current rubric instead of a "situational tips that sometimes come up with certain judges to do a little better but not actually win."