First up a pretty big disclaimer: This is NOT a whine. I've re-written this a few times now, and it always sounds like a whine to me, but I promise y'all that it isn't, it's just a general query. Having got that out of the way...
I'm noticing a trend in the judging for the CCL. This was kinda brought up earlier in the thread, but I want to address it in a little more detail. It seems to me that the cards are being judged on what they are intended to do, rather than what they actually do, and also the criteria for the round isn't being strictly adhered to.
When I'm designing a card, I try and think of something that would stand a decent chance of being printed (that is, a card that would get through development) while a lot of other submitters are putting in "home run swing" cards which I'm pretty sure would never see print and are in essence wishing for an effect that doesn't quite work under the rules, or that would have to be heavily altered before it got through development.
These big, splashy, impressive looking, but ultimately broken (broken = too good and broken = doesn't work) cards are getting a lot of votes because they're big and splashy and impressive looking, even though you'd never actually see them in print. Is the problem with how I'm approaching this? Should I be shooting higher, despite my misgivings about whether or not it would actually be a Magic card, ever?
I know these contests are pretty much a popularity contest, but it seems to me that when the cards are being critiqued, they are being judged on how impressive they are rather how good they are.
Maybe there's a disconnect between what I think I should be doing and what I am doing? Maybe I'm doin it rong?
Nope, viperion, you're pretty much correct. I tried to judge my team's entries much as I did the MCC, but more quickly of course. On my team, I did notice that a 4-mana time stop on a 3/3 first strike body got a lot of good scores, as broken as it is.
I'd like to point out, though, that you're judging based mostly off of development. Maybe half of your judgment should come off of design, which indeed looks at what the card is trying to do. The other half is its balance, playability, etc. Look at past MCCs, and you'll see some entries with 9/10 in design and 1/10 in development. Hope this post helped.
Looking at the submissions from the rest of my team for Round 1, Brasil Dude and I designed Commons; Crass Menagerie, Egak, and Albion47 designed Uncommons; Timothy, Mimeslayer designed an Uncommon or Rare (the creature doesn't deal the damage, so the controller is the source); and Jau designed a flat-out Rare, if not a Mythic. Blanket damage redirection is a Rare-level power, and, outside of Veteran Bodyguard/Weathered Bodyguards, has an activation cost on creatures. Jau got the highest score on my team, and his card failed the Challenge. The words "redirect" and "damage" never appear on a card together, either. The ability is worded as "damage dealt instead to."
But I didn't say anything, because my card was a simple Common, not meant to excite anyone, just fulfill the Challenge. I've worked within the Rules and parameters, and I've gotten knocked for it both Rounds. That's what trying to convey an idea with a card has to do with people staying within the design parameters.
I've had this happen to me numerous time before. And I've probably done it too, so I apologize.
However, "good concept for a card, failed challenge" should not be grounds for a valid card. If the wording is off, then you can credit people on the concept. It's frustrating to see people who overstep the boundaries of the contest score higher than you because "their idea would make a fine card". Maybe it would make a fine card, but it wouldn't make a fine card under the restrictions of the challenge. If a Core Set needed a red card and WotC Design put a blue one on the table but slapped a red mana symbol on it, unless Development was asleep, it wouldn't go through, because that's not what was required.
I propose an amendment to CCL rules stating that "challenge failed" cards be prohibited from making Top 3 unless there are too few cards that actually passed the challenge.
And we've never gotten back to that discussion. The problem is that, to some people, the cards are fine and there are no issues about power levels. To others, they see inherent problems, but are restricted from doing anything about it. I had considered banning some people from moving onto Round 1 for failing to read the directions (for the record, Paradigm Eighty was not one of them), but the Rules actually don't allow for that. It's part of the reason I included judging of Round 0 submissions for this CCL.
Whether this scoring gets used again or not, I have no idea. To me, it balances things a little more. It's not as comprehensive as the MCC (which can still have questionable entries/critiques), but the CCL isn't meant to be, either.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
May your games be chaotic and your decks be Rogue.
My quick comments here:
In the case of the current round, I think your comments are right on, Viperion, but that's because we had to design mythics. When judging a card that must be mythic, the "wow" factor is important, and while I liked your card as a card, I thought it was appropriate for a normal rare. It was very close between that and MichMash for 3rd though. In a normal round, I think you would have been scored highly.
About failing the round requirements, I would post a notice and possibly PM if it seems crucial. I agree that cards that fail a given requirement should not be considered for the Top 3.
I know it sounds like me wondering why my super-awesome, solid-but-not-broken card didn't get first place, but I promise you it's not It's just a trend I've noticed in the CCL's that I've been following - I think what shadowfuryix said is probably true; I'm looking too much at the development/evaluation/"fixing" side of things and not enough at the design/intent/flavour of the card.
Comes from being a bit of a perfectionist I guess; I can't help when I design cards but to say "no, that's way too good, that'd never see print".
And you're correct when you say my Round 0 submission doesn't feel mythic. Comparing it to the other mythics that have been printed recently it's not flashy enough - closer to Lotus Cobra (which shouldn't have been mythic either, IMO) than it is to Prime Time. But there aren't that many 1/1 - 3/3 mythics either
Eventide Sojourner (if that's your real name :tongue:), I like the idea of judging the Round 0 entries with the first round, and I'd suggest to other organisers of the CCLs to run with it.
I'll try and relax a bit and not worry - too much - about balance issues and see how far it gets me
So, as we start the last Design round before Top 8, are you enjoying the challenges? And how do you feel about the revised critique schedule I'm using?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
May your games be chaotic and your decks be Rogue.
I'm not entirely against it, but I do sort of feel like it may drag things out in the wrong way. People feel like "I have lots of time" and don't do critiques until it would be critique period anyway, plus some don't have a card either. I haven't scientifically measured that, but the impression I get is that we haven't changed much; people who miss deadlines are still missing them, for whatever reason. As the host, you're probably more qualified to comment on that, Eventide Sojourner.
I dig this month's CCL. IMO, the writing and story could be better, but honestly, that's not why I play CCL. The situation is all I really care about and the situation of representing myself and my ideas in Magic is pretty cool.
I have some regrets in trying to represent a philosophy in this game to people who aren't exactly philosophers. I should have stuck with something a little easier to understand like "I like having fun, but I also like studying."
I'm not against the way you've changed the game's rules, but I'm not for it either. I think there's a reason we don't have a team judging itself, since there's incentive to stack the top 3s to benefit yourself. But then, it didn't seem like that really caused a problem.
Also, I don't like the idea of spending time building a card for round 4 when I'm not sure I'll be in the game still. I mean, I probably wont unless I get a perfect round 3, but still.. don't want to drop my basket of eggs.
@GMom: The attrition rate has actually been lower than I expected, especially after posting Round 2's challenge. I know how much people tend to loathe seeing the words "Common" or "Aura" in a challenge, let alone together. Even at this point, of the 37 original entrants, we have more than 20 still active, and no team has less than 4 active at the moment. So, to me, that's a success.
@Paradigm Eighty: Sorry you don't care for the story. While I tend to prefer more elaborate descriptions, the time wasn't really there to go into greater detail. As far as the narrative itself, it's rather difficult finding unused CCL concepts, and rehashing is a little tricky. I might have done so; I'm not certain. At the conclusion of Round 3, I will be posting another thread for Round 3 Crits that will be open for 72 hours. After the scores are in and calculated, then I will post the thread for Top 8.
Hi, I've never participated in the CCL before this month, so I'm not exactly sure how everything goes. I was wondering how we deal with people not getting cards in for a round before it finishes - are they allowed to submit late? Two people from the team I'm critiquing this round didn't submit cards for last round, and I'm not sure if I should leave my top 3 posting until after they've had a chance to catch up or if they're not allowed to get in and there's not point in doing so. So can people who didn't submit a card on time do so late and still be eligible to get top 3?
Also, one of the people who dropped did so after this round started, and thus did have a card for last round. And I'm pretty sure it'd make top 3 in my rankings. I'd assume that since they've dropped they're ineligible and I have to pick the top three of those still in the game, but I thought I should double-check if that was right?
I have to say I'm not too happy either with the new way of doing things for exactly the same reasons GM posted above. It's commendable of ES to stir things a bit to try to find a new, better order, but I'm not sure this is it.
I'm calling it right now- worst rare in the set. Even good limited players will find better bombs at common and uncommon no sweat. Worst. Episode. Ever.
I really do predict this to be our worst rare in set award winner. I'd be happier opening a jar of eyeballs, so I think anything worse is highly unlikely. This card wont just have zero constructed potential, but not be significantly better than a mass of ghouls in a draft.
CodGod, I would leave any people who have dropped out of the critiques from last round, since they won't benefit from the points. If you feel like leaving a critique for them, maybe they'll be able to read it later, but I wouldn't worry about it.
It occurred to me that I advocated changing the Top 8 and Top 4 from paired eliminations to scoring everyone else in the Top 3 system, but that only happened when I took over from Doom Lich in January, and then it was forgotten. What did people think of that change? To clarify, in Round 4 (Top 8), each player would critique the other 7 cards, and choose their Top 3, to be scored as in normal rounds. The top 4 scoring cards would advance, using only the scores from that round.
Well, just to let everyone know, I'll be using this for Top 8 and Top 4 scoring (prior scores will be zeroed out for both rounds), so hopefully we can get a more accurate Top 4 and organizers can possibly avoid getting involved in tiebreakers for Final 2. The month is running long, even taking the four day delay into account. I think the process needs some refinement, but I would like to see the CCL continue to include the Round 0 submissions in scoring.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
May your games be chaotic and your decks be Rogue.
I'm all for scoring round 0 because for several months I've seen people coming with absolutely preposterous round 0 submissions that make their rest of the month totally awful. Being pointed that you did something wrong in your first submission may allow you to fix your course for the rest of the month. However, that's the extent (in my opinion) of Crits + submission that the game should have. From them on, old "crits phase" should be used.
I'm calling it right now- worst rare in the set. Even good limited players will find better bombs at common and uncommon no sweat. Worst. Episode. Ever.
I really do predict this to be our worst rare in set award winner. I'd be happier opening a jar of eyeballs, so I think anything worse is highly unlikely. This card wont just have zero constructed potential, but not be significantly better than a mass of ghouls in a draft.
I feel the opposite to you, Maokun. I'm not a big fan of having an additional critique phase for judging Round 0 submissions. It just feels like there's more to do, requiring a greater commitment for any player who wants to sign up for the CCL. On the other hand, I do like the combined critique/submission system that's been employed by Eventide Sojourner right now. There's more freedom and it's easier to find the time to make critiques and submit your card.
Is a signup thread going to be started for August? With Asrama still MIA on the thread (hasn't posted anywhere on MtGS since April), I'm wondering if Zzzapper - or someone else - is ready to go.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
May your games be chaotic and your decks be Rogue.
I'm calling it right now- worst rare in the set. Even good limited players will find better bombs at common and uncommon no sweat. Worst. Episode. Ever.
I really do predict this to be our worst rare in set award winner. I'd be happier opening a jar of eyeballs, so I think anything worse is highly unlikely. This card wont just have zero constructed potential, but not be significantly better than a mass of ghouls in a draft.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Could someone show me how to make a poll for when the round ends???
Thanks for letting me host the June CCL.
First up a pretty big disclaimer: This is NOT a whine. I've re-written this a few times now, and it always sounds like a whine to me, but I promise y'all that it isn't, it's just a general query. Having got that out of the way...
I'm noticing a trend in the judging for the CCL. This was kinda brought up earlier in the thread, but I want to address it in a little more detail. It seems to me that the cards are being judged on what they are intended to do, rather than what they actually do, and also the criteria for the round isn't being strictly adhered to.
When I'm designing a card, I try and think of something that would stand a decent chance of being printed (that is, a card that would get through development) while a lot of other submitters are putting in "home run swing" cards which I'm pretty sure would never see print and are in essence wishing for an effect that doesn't quite work under the rules, or that would have to be heavily altered before it got through development.
These big, splashy, impressive looking, but ultimately broken (broken = too good and broken = doesn't work) cards are getting a lot of votes because they're big and splashy and impressive looking, even though you'd never actually see them in print. Is the problem with how I'm approaching this? Should I be shooting higher, despite my misgivings about whether or not it would actually be a Magic card, ever?
I know these contests are pretty much a popularity contest, but it seems to me that when the cards are being critiqued, they are being judged on how impressive they are rather how good they are.
Maybe there's a disconnect between what I think I should be doing and what I am doing? Maybe I'm doin it rong?
Cheers all
Viperion
I'd like to point out, though, that you're judging based mostly off of development. Maybe half of your judgment should come off of design, which indeed looks at what the card is trying to do. The other half is its balance, playability, etc. Look at past MCCs, and you'll see some entries with 9/10 in design and 1/10 in development. Hope this post helped.
Whether this scoring gets used again or not, I have no idea. To me, it balances things a little more. It's not as comprehensive as the MCC (which can still have questionable entries/critiques), but the CCL isn't meant to be, either.
In the case of the current round, I think your comments are right on, Viperion, but that's because we had to design mythics. When judging a card that must be mythic, the "wow" factor is important, and while I liked your card as a card, I thought it was appropriate for a normal rare. It was very close between that and MichMash for 3rd though. In a normal round, I think you would have been scored highly.
About failing the round requirements, I would post a notice and possibly PM if it seems crucial. I agree that cards that fail a given requirement should not be considered for the Top 3.
Comes from being a bit of a perfectionist I guess; I can't help when I design cards but to say "no, that's way too good, that'd never see print".
And you're correct when you say my Round 0 submission doesn't feel mythic. Comparing it to the other mythics that have been printed recently it's not flashy enough - closer to Lotus Cobra (which shouldn't have been mythic either, IMO) than it is to Prime Time. But there aren't that many 1/1 - 3/3 mythics either
Eventide Sojourner (if that's your real name :tongue:), I like the idea of judging the Round 0 entries with the first round, and I'd suggest to other organisers of the CCLs to run with it.
I'll try and relax a bit and not worry - too much - about balance issues and see how far it gets me
Cheers all
Viperion
June CCL Finals poll has opened up. Please go vote and decide who will get this month's trophy.
Here's the link to the poll: POLL
I dig this month's CCL. IMO, the writing and story could be better, but honestly, that's not why I play CCL. The situation is all I really care about and the situation of representing myself and my ideas in Magic is pretty cool.
I have some regrets in trying to represent a philosophy in this game to people who aren't exactly philosophers. I should have stuck with something a little easier to understand like "I like having fun, but I also like studying."
I'm not against the way you've changed the game's rules, but I'm not for it either. I think there's a reason we don't have a team judging itself, since there's incentive to stack the top 3s to benefit yourself. But then, it didn't seem like that really caused a problem.
Also, I don't like the idea of spending time building a card for round 4 when I'm not sure I'll be in the game still. I mean, I probably wont unless I get a perfect round 3, but still.. don't want to drop my basket of eggs.
This is for me more than it is for anyone else. I sucks at colors.
@Paradigm Eighty: Sorry you don't care for the story. While I tend to prefer more elaborate descriptions, the time wasn't really there to go into greater detail. As far as the narrative itself, it's rather difficult finding unused CCL concepts, and rehashing is a little tricky. I might have done so; I'm not certain. At the conclusion of Round 3, I will be posting another thread for Round 3 Crits that will be open for 72 hours. After the scores are in and calculated, then I will post the thread for Top 8.
Also, one of the people who dropped did so after this round started, and thus did have a card for last round. And I'm pretty sure it'd make top 3 in my rankings. I'd assume that since they've dropped they're ineligible and I have to pick the top three of those still in the game, but I thought I should double-check if that was right?
Well, just to let everyone know, I'll be using this for Top 8 and Top 4 scoring (prior scores will be zeroed out for both rounds), so hopefully we can get a more accurate Top 4 and organizers can possibly avoid getting involved in tiebreakers for Final 2. The month is running long, even taking the four day delay into account. I think the process needs some refinement, but I would like to see the CCL continue to include the Round 0 submissions in scoring.
My First (And Probably Only) MCC Perfect Score: December 09 (Round One)