No real complains about my judging, just a need for clarification. Blackbull didn't actually say who won and just said "the one who gets the 4th round's pass" Since I got the higher score (albeit by only half a point), I assume I move on to the next round, correct?
Also, as my judge admitted that he had a hard time with the balance score, I'd appreciate anyone else's thoughts on my card's balance, just for future reference. Thanks.
Isn't this kinda hypocritical ???
You may not be out to get points but by asking for a 2nd opinion your still disagreeing with your judge, something you frowned upon when others did it.
Personally I see nothing wrong with posting here to say you disagree with your judge and clarifying what you thought was wrong (with 0 chance of getting more points), it just seems odd to see you of all people doing it.
The difference here is that Kenaron is asking for discussion for his own benefit, not to try to prove his judge wrong or make it clear that "he should have won" or something of that nature. He made it clear several times that he was not contesting the score, that he was simply confused on where the points were allocated, since he figured it would turn out differently. If we can't discuss things of this nature here to help people (both new and veteran) grow as a designer, where can we? This is still the FCC discussion thread; ergo, we should be able to discuss things here that pertain to the FCC, be they on a general or specific level, provided there is no major complaining or "judge-bashing," neither of which Kenaron did.
Kenaron, I know I'm not a judge for this month, but I figured I'd offer my brief opinion on your card if you don't mind;
Just off of first impressions and gut instinct, this feels like it shoule either be a 2/3 for 1UU or a 2/2 for 2U. Since blue is the premier artifact thief, I would be more inclined to cost it at 1UU to reflect that and make it less of a splash. It may not hose any current tournament decks, but because it hoses artifacts so well, I think it is a little over the top, especially considering the instant speed. I would definitely reduce that to sorcery speed only. Narrow as his ability may be, he is the epitome of card advantage when his ability works, essentially netting you +2 cards for free (your opponent loses a card and you gain a card without really spending any resources outside of mana.) Simply because he can do this, I think it's a bit much right now.
Flavor and creativity, on the other hand, are stellar, and I think this fits more in line with the real flavor of Chandler than the actual printed card. I would have likely given you full marks on both creativity and flavor because of this.
Asking out a girl is like trying to cast a first turn Necropotence. Sometimes the other player will have the Force of Will to say no. You shouldn't let that stop you from trying it.
No real complains about my judging, just a need for clarification. Blackbull didn't actually say who won and just said "the one who gets the 4th round's pass" Since I got the higher score (albeit by only half a point), I assume I move on to the next round, correct?
Also, as my judge admitted that he had a hard time with the balance score, I'd appreciate anyone else's thoughts on my card's balance, just for future reference. Thanks.
Hmmmm...
- 2: I honestly think that the entire package costed one less than it should be. I inititally thought the ability was like jackal pup, which would have been alright, but this thing doesn't die to nonblack removal.
- 0.5: Completely destroys all early game creatures not named Vanquisher. It doesn't help that it will always be a profitable exchange during the early game.
- 0.5: Lives through stuff like firespout. Again, the 3 life is insignificant when you can hit through to gain back 2 after a firespout anyways.
- 0.5: Basically this card destroys red. Nothing in red's arsenal can save them from this guy, since burn can't get rid of him, and red loses to him in every exchange outside of demigod and a double pumped FoD (both costing 5 mana). The issue here is that they either have to hold a creature back to deal n-2 damage to you, or they attack and deal n-2 damage to you with you doing 2 damage to them. Either way it's profitable because you don't have to attack.
6.5 on balance IMO.
Edit: Thanks for the judgings, JqlGirl. Yay on my first final round. ^^
The difference here is that Kenaron is asking for discussion for his own benefit, not to try to prove his judge wrong or make it clear that "he should have won" or something of that nature. He made it clear several times that he was not contesting the score, that he was simply confused on where the points were allocated, since he figured it would turn out differently. If we can't discuss things of this nature here to help people (both new and veteran) grow as a designer, where can we? This is still the FCC discussion thread; ergo, we should be able to discuss things here that pertain to the FCC, be they on a general or specific level, provided there is no major complaining or "judge-bashing," neither of which Kenaron did.
That was my intent, yes. Lately I've been having a lot of problems trying to gage balance in particular. I've been trying out some designs for which there aren't clear benchmarks to compare to. The procession goes from last month in round 3. (Link) I tried something that went further than my judge instincts would have suggested wise for the final round, (Link) and it turned out a lot better than I thought it would. My point is that I've been experimental lately, following that up with a debatable Carnophage clone this month. (Link) I had a conversation with Blackbull about my card for round two (Link) in which I admitted that I had no idea if it was in fact balanced. Right now I'm trying to get as much criticism as I can so I can regain a sence of balance.
Markino and WhisperedThunder agree on 7/10 which is fine, but they have such different reasons. The idea is that who your judge is shouldn't effect the outcome of your match; your cards should. Consider that both judges agree that I'm 3/10 away from perfect but disagree on the direction, so there is in effect a 6 point difference in their estimates on how strong it is. I feel that the truth has to be between the two, and I'd like to be able to fugure out where roughly. The more second opinions I get the better.
One last thing, I thought someone might have commented on this, but this was meant to be a joke:
No real complains about my judging, just a need for clarification. Blackbull didn't actually say who won and just said "the one who gets the 4th round's pass" Since I got the higher score (albeit by only half a point), I assume I move on to the next round, correct?
No DanceofMany, you're wrong. In the FCC, the person who gets the lowest score in a bracket (the score with the highest number of failures) is who wins the round.
Flavor, though... Blue does not get "reveal his or her hand" cards, that's just not blue - it only can do something when a spell is in the process of being played and it does that with aplomb. Killing spells still in the hand is black's domain - indeed, Planar Chaos aside, I think the last time blue got a "reveals his or her hand" was in Kamigawa and that was to hose Splice onto Arcane.
Telepathy, peek, etc. have always been blue. I don't see a problem with blue seeing an opponent's hand. The issue here is that the effect feels so much like discard in it that it plucks a card from an opponent's hand. I do, however, think that this is justifiable under these circumstances. Perhaps UB would have been the way to go, though.
For balance:
- 2: I honestly think the card is worth somewhere in the ballpark of 4 mana instead of 3, mainly because cards that steal artifacts also places themselves at that mana range. Granted, you need to spend the mana to actually steal the card, but the difference here is that this is repeatable, making it significantly stronger (and thus significantly more costly).
- 0.5: I think it's too much of a hoser in a set like Mirrodin in limited, and doesn't do anything in basically any other environment.
Obviously the big different is that it doesn't wait for your opponent to make a move and I wouldn't say that this falls right in the middle of blue's philosophy, but I definitely feel like it has strong enough ties to not require a black component.
That IS the difference between black and blue. Black is proactive while blue is reactive (noting that gathered specimens is basically a spelljack). Kenaron's Chandler is definitely closer to Shattered Dreams than any other card out there. I must stress that I personally would let go of this due to flavor reasons similar to how form of the dragon is justified for red even though the mechanics themselves aren't.
- 2: I honestly think that the entire package costed one less than it should be. I inititally thought the ability was like jackal pup, which would have been alright, but this thing doesn't die to nonblack removal.
- 0.5: Completely destroys all early game creatures not named Vanquisher. It doesn't help that it will always be a profitable exchange during the early game.
- 0.5: Lives through stuff like firespout. Again, the 3 life is insignificant when you can hit through to gain back 2 after a firespout anyways.
- 0.5: Basically this card destroys red. Nothing in red's arsenal can save them from this guy, since burn can't get rid of him, and red loses to him in every exchange outside of demigod and a double pumped FoD (both costing 5 mana). The issue here is that they either have to hold a creature back to deal n-2 damage to you, or they attack and deal n-2 damage to you with you doing 2 damage to them. Either way it's profitable because you don't have to attack.
6.5 on balance IMO.
^^
You and BlackBull are probably right. I suppose I was thinking more along the lines of me casting this, then a turn or 2 later my opponent has Woolly Thoctar, Rhox War Monk, or even Boggart Ram-Gang, then this just mitigates some damage, and there's enough non-damage-based removal out there that this would be less of an issue than 'lark. But yea, if my opponent isn't running undercosted fatties, this would be a problem.
No DanceofMany, you're wrong. In the FCC, the person who gets the lowest score in a bracket (the score with the highest number of failures) is who wins the round.
I don't think it's fair to judge a custom card in limited next to an older set. I don't know anyone who plays Mirrodin sealed anymore.
I drafted triple Mirrodin about two months ago.
Why isn't it fair? If we have to assume a poison card should be in a poison-heavy artificial set, why is it off-limits to utilize an existing block in which a card like this would have most likely been printed in? That is, is it fair to say that a card is never broken when it is clearly broken in a certain format, but completely useless in another?
If you draft block then you aren't considering cards outside the block. I don't think it's fair to inject a card into an other past set that way, as it's a slippery slope. I'm sure Mindlock Orb would be strong in Masques block constructed for it's Rebel/Mercenary hosing but that hardly makes it unfair. The assumption that the FCC makes is that these cards are put into some upcoming set, and judging a card based on a cross-set matchup like Mirrodin and Alara is hardly relevant.
Except that we have to set up a standard in which limited has to be taken into consideration. Even if I give you that this card will be placed in an upcoming set, there is no indication that whatever this "upcoming set" cannot be an artifact-heavy set. Since that is the case, then we should take that into consideration, rather than assume that it wouldn't, as you have implied. I don't think it's unfair to use a known benchmark even given your assumptions, especially since your card's a hoser.
You can't punish a custom card based on other cards that aren't made yet. It's not fair to punish a card because it hoses some hypothetical cards that might exist in future without any specific information to what they might be.
In which case you're essentially telling me to say "screw limited"? Unless you can specifically state my scenario is impossible, that is something to taken into account.
No, I'm suggesting time forward thinking. That is, I think the FCC should only be conderned with limited including custom cards with standard. Mixing new and older blocks in limited greatly confounds balance. So for example, Mirrodin limited should not be in consideration. Sure limited counts, but I believe it should be limited to the current block and little beyond that. Blocks outside of standard either direction (Pre-TSP or not-yet-made) should be out of consideration for limited.
I don't think I would agree with your statement there simply because of the fact that you're equally punishing cards that just happen to be in block limited at the wrong time. This, according to your own ideas, is punishable because it violates one particular format that just happens to be time sensitive.
I honestly can't see how it confounds balance so much as it enhances the clarity of a particular card's strengths and weaknesses.
Let me ask you this (out of curiosity). How does one interpret round 2's requirements under your guidelines?
My original point about judging something in Mirrodin block limited was that a custom card is not in Mirrodin block. If a card hoses the themes of Mirrodin too so harshly to effect extended that's valid, but we aren't asked to insert the custom card in a past block. Context is important to a card, because there are a lot of artifact hosing cards that would have been broken in Mirrodin but aren't a problem elsewhere. Gorilla Shaman would have been a staple card in the hayday of affinity, but it would be foolish to put Mox Monkey on power level with Arcbound Ravager.
It is not necessary that a given card be balanced in each and every format that has ever existed. I believe that the FCC should only be concerned with the current Standard, Extended, Legacy, Vintage, and standard set limited. If a card breaks Mirrodin block draft without breaking extended, legacy, or vintage then the FCC shouldn't care. If a card breaks Two-headed giant the FCC shouldn't care either because it's up to 2HG to ban that particular card, as has been the policy up to now. The FCC is also not concerned with online vanguard play even though that is a legitimate magic format.
As for round two, what was important there is to note that giving poison counters matters. That is, if a card in Standard today gave out poison counters that effect would be negligible, so we are assuming that other cards exist to make them relevant. The general idea is that poison counters are roughly equivalent to 2 life in a poison block, worthless outside, so to some extent nonexistant cards had to be taken into some consideration. There are a lot of problems in judging round 2 because of the assumptions it involves, so I'd like to not dwell on the subject.
It is not necessary that a given card be balanced in each and every format that has ever existed. I believe that the FCC should only be concerned with the current Standard, Extended, Legacy, Vintage, and standard set limited. If a card breaks Mirrodin block draft without breaking extended, legacy, or vintage then the FCC shouldn't care. If a card breaks Two-headed giant the FCC shouldn't care either because it's up to 2HG to ban that particular card, as has been the policy up to now. The FCC is also not concerned with online vanguard play even though that is a legitimate magic format.
It IS necessary for a given card to be balanced in every possible method that I think is reasonable, is it not? I've faulted people as a judge for cards that do stupid things in multiplayer and EDH, and I certainly don't plan to ignore those formats because of what you think.
I would certainly fault mox monkey if it was made today as an FCC card because of its applications to Mirrodin. It may be fair in Alliance, but it certainly isn't in an artifact-heavy block. Nevertheless, I never cared for "inserting cards into a block", which you seem to think that's what I'm trying to do, but rather that a block gives me a frame of reference of when a card is in a format like this one, what would it do. A card that hoses an entire possible theme too much should be faulted, abiet only slightly (as I have done, 0.5 is the lowest common demoninator for my points system).
I thought Kraj said that for this round, we were to assume a Standard environment, i.e. the current Standard (and the Limited that comes with it) environment?
Of course, but I don't recall Kraj specifically stating that, and I couldn't find it in the Round 3 thread either. Also, this is a discussion of what score I'd give Kenaron's card under the circumstance that I am the judge.
In general, the FCC is to be judged assuming the cards fall in the current standard unless otherwise stated (like rounds 1 and 2 of this month.) This would include taking current limited into consideration, not previous formats. This is not a special rule or judge's preference; this is the judging basis of the FCC. Always has been.
Asking out a girl is like trying to cast a first turn Necropotence. Sometimes the other player will have the Force of Will to say no. You shouldn't let that stop you from trying it.
Some judges are only concerned with Tier 1 decks. I could pull up examples if required, but I figure there's no need. This is often a source of frustration for me, and represents the biggest discrepancy between judges. I usually consider basic competitive play: something that might make it's way into a tournament deck but not be a season-defining card like Jitte and 'Goyf. It has been known to happen that a judge has judged a card weak because it wasn't up to Tarmogoyf's level (or whatever the contravercial power card of the moment was) and this allways annoys me. Last round was an experiment to try to appeal to the Tier 1 Only kind of judge. And like all experiments, you can't get upset when it doesn't work out perfectly. C'est la vive.
Kraj said using modern design and power level. Although I generally base judgings heavily on the current standard environment, I interpret this particular statement to mean current power creep and design philosophy (color pie, elegance, etc). I don't think Kenaron's Chandler does anything drastic to the current environment and I certainly wasn't going to judge it as inserted into Mirrodin. But I also don't agree with Kenaron's argument that all decent artifacts will consistently hit play before turn 4. That may be true of current Tier 1 decks, but I don't like the implication that this card is perfectly balanced (let's keep in mind that my balance score wasn't particularly low) because it only completely hoses decks that play with bigger artifacts.
But Kenaron's card requires you to play the converted mana cost of the card, i.e. you can't steal Darksteel Colossus unless you really do have 11 mana. The small artifacts will already have been played, so the only cards that you might get are those costing 4-6 mana. And the opponent has one turn of warning, so he might choose to play his artifacts out rather than keeping them in the hand.
I still don't think Kenaron's card will see play in the current environment, and even in an environment with a decent artifact deck (i.e. not the time of Mirrodin and Affinity) it's a sideboard card at best.
Sure, I'll throw my two cents in here - WotC makes a lot of different kinds of cards for a lot of different kinds of players. Unless it is specified in the round description that you are designing a card for a particular player type or format, a judge should be open to where this card could fit in. Constructed (of all types), Multiplayer, Casual, Limited, even Flavor and Technical junkies are all valid audiences for card design. Within those groups there are any number of subsets (Contructed in a artifact heavy environment for example).
Since we are designing cards that are more or less in a vacum (outside of the paramaters of the assignment), its difficult to say exactly how they would fit into a hypothetical environment. A certin amount of leeway should be given when determining how often a situation where the card would be useful would come up.
There is something to be said however for cards that have a broader scope and hit more audiences. The trick is to find a balance. Make it's too broad and it boring, too narrow and it will never get used.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Also, as my judge admitted that he had a hard time with the balance score, I'd appreciate anyone else's thoughts on my card's balance, just for future reference. Thanks.
The difference here is that Kenaron is asking for discussion for his own benefit, not to try to prove his judge wrong or make it clear that "he should have won" or something of that nature. He made it clear several times that he was not contesting the score, that he was simply confused on where the points were allocated, since he figured it would turn out differently. If we can't discuss things of this nature here to help people (both new and veteran) grow as a designer, where can we? This is still the FCC discussion thread; ergo, we should be able to discuss things here that pertain to the FCC, be they on a general or specific level, provided there is no major complaining or "judge-bashing," neither of which Kenaron did.
Kenaron, I know I'm not a judge for this month, but I figured I'd offer my brief opinion on your card if you don't mind;
Just off of first impressions and gut instinct, this feels like it shoule either be a 2/3 for 1UU or a 2/2 for 2U. Since blue is the premier artifact thief, I would be more inclined to cost it at 1UU to reflect that and make it less of a splash. It may not hose any current tournament decks, but because it hoses artifacts so well, I think it is a little over the top, especially considering the instant speed. I would definitely reduce that to sorcery speed only. Narrow as his ability may be, he is the epitome of card advantage when his ability works, essentially netting you +2 cards for free (your opponent loses a card and you gain a card without really spending any resources outside of mana.) Simply because he can do this, I think it's a bit much right now.
Flavor and creativity, on the other hand, are stellar, and I think this fits more in line with the real flavor of Chandler than the actual printed card. I would have likely given you full marks on both creativity and flavor because of this.
Anyway, I hope that helps a little bit.
Level 1 DCI Judge
Check out my Commons Cube.
Hmmmm...
- 2: I honestly think that the entire package costed one less than it should be. I inititally thought the ability was like jackal pup, which would have been alright, but this thing doesn't die to nonblack removal.
- 0.5: Completely destroys all early game creatures not named Vanquisher. It doesn't help that it will always be a profitable exchange during the early game.
- 0.5: Lives through stuff like firespout. Again, the 3 life is insignificant when you can hit through to gain back 2 after a firespout anyways.
- 0.5: Basically this card destroys red. Nothing in red's arsenal can save them from this guy, since burn can't get rid of him, and red loses to him in every exchange outside of demigod and a double pumped FoD (both costing 5 mana). The issue here is that they either have to hold a creature back to deal n-2 damage to you, or they attack and deal n-2 damage to you with you doing 2 damage to them. Either way it's profitable because you don't have to attack.
6.5 on balance IMO.
Edit: Thanks for the judgings, JqlGirl. Yay on my first final round. ^^
燃える時計秘密めく花の香り
www.pokemoncrossroads.com
That was my intent, yes. Lately I've been having a lot of problems trying to gage balance in particular. I've been trying out some designs for which there aren't clear benchmarks to compare to. The procession goes from last month in round 3. (Link) I tried something that went further than my judge instincts would have suggested wise for the final round, (Link) and it turned out a lot better than I thought it would. My point is that I've been experimental lately, following that up with a debatable Carnophage clone this month. (Link) I had a conversation with Blackbull about my card for round two (Link) in which I admitted that I had no idea if it was in fact balanced. Right now I'm trying to get as much criticism as I can so I can regain a sence of balance.
Markino and WhisperedThunder agree on 7/10 which is fine, but they have such different reasons. The idea is that who your judge is shouldn't effect the outcome of your match; your cards should. Consider that both judges agree that I'm 3/10 away from perfect but disagree on the direction, so there is in effect a 6 point difference in their estimates on how strong it is. I feel that the truth has to be between the two, and I'd like to be able to fugure out where roughly. The more second opinions I get the better.
One last thing, I thought someone might have commented on this, but this was meant to be a joke:
It's even more ironic if you realize that I accidentally misspelled "apologized."
No DanceofMany, you're wrong. In the FCC, the person who gets the lowest score in a bracket (the score with the highest number of failures) is who wins the round.
Good luck next month!
...
Telepathy, peek, etc. have always been blue. I don't see a problem with blue seeing an opponent's hand. The issue here is that the effect feels so much like discard in it that it plucks a card from an opponent's hand. I do, however, think that this is justifiable under these circumstances. Perhaps UB would have been the way to go, though.
For balance:
- 2: I honestly think the card is worth somewhere in the ballpark of 4 mana instead of 3, mainly because cards that steal artifacts also places themselves at that mana range. Granted, you need to spend the mana to actually steal the card, but the difference here is that this is repeatable, making it significantly stronger (and thus significantly more costly).
- 0.5: I think it's too much of a hoser in a set like Mirrodin in limited, and doesn't do anything in basically any other environment.
燃える時計秘密めく花の香り
www.pokemoncrossroads.com
That IS the difference between black and blue. Black is proactive while blue is reactive (noting that gathered specimens is basically a spelljack). Kenaron's Chandler is definitely closer to Shattered Dreams than any other card out there. I must stress that I personally would let go of this due to flavor reasons similar to how form of the dragon is justified for red even though the mechanics themselves aren't.
燃える時計秘密めく花の香り
www.pokemoncrossroads.com
I don't think it's fair to judge a custom card in limited next to an older set. I don't know anyone who plays Mirrodin sealed anymore.
You and BlackBull are probably right. I suppose I was thinking more along the lines of me casting this, then a turn or 2 later my opponent has Woolly Thoctar, Rhox War Monk, or even Boggart Ram-Gang, then this just mitigates some damage, and there's enough non-damage-based removal out there that this would be less of an issue than 'lark. But yea, if my opponent isn't running undercosted fatties, this would be a problem.
...You're being sarcastic, right?
I drafted triple Mirrodin about two months ago.
Why isn't it fair? If we have to assume a poison card should be in a poison-heavy artificial set, why is it off-limits to utilize an existing block in which a card like this would have most likely been printed in? That is, is it fair to say that a card is never broken when it is clearly broken in a certain format, but completely useless in another?
燃える時計秘密めく花の香り
www.pokemoncrossroads.com
燃える時計秘密めく花の香り
www.pokemoncrossroads.com
燃える時計秘密めく花の香り
www.pokemoncrossroads.com
I honestly can't see how it confounds balance so much as it enhances the clarity of a particular card's strengths and weaknesses.
Let me ask you this (out of curiosity). How does one interpret round 2's requirements under your guidelines?
燃える時計秘密めく花の香り
www.pokemoncrossroads.com
It is not necessary that a given card be balanced in each and every format that has ever existed. I believe that the FCC should only be concerned with the current Standard, Extended, Legacy, Vintage, and standard set limited. If a card breaks Mirrodin block draft without breaking extended, legacy, or vintage then the FCC shouldn't care. If a card breaks Two-headed giant the FCC shouldn't care either because it's up to 2HG to ban that particular card, as has been the policy up to now. The FCC is also not concerned with online vanguard play even though that is a legitimate magic format.
As for round two, what was important there is to note that giving poison counters matters. That is, if a card in Standard today gave out poison counters that effect would be negligible, so we are assuming that other cards exist to make them relevant. The general idea is that poison counters are roughly equivalent to 2 life in a poison block, worthless outside, so to some extent nonexistant cards had to be taken into some consideration. There are a lot of problems in judging round 2 because of the assumptions it involves, so I'd like to not dwell on the subject.
It IS necessary for a given card to be balanced in every possible method that I think is reasonable, is it not? I've faulted people as a judge for cards that do stupid things in multiplayer and EDH, and I certainly don't plan to ignore those formats because of what you think.
I would certainly fault mox monkey if it was made today as an FCC card because of its applications to Mirrodin. It may be fair in Alliance, but it certainly isn't in an artifact-heavy block. Nevertheless, I never cared for "inserting cards into a block", which you seem to think that's what I'm trying to do, but rather that a block gives me a frame of reference of when a card is in a format like this one, what would it do. A card that hoses an entire possible theme too much should be faulted, abiet only slightly (as I have done, 0.5 is the lowest common demoninator for my points system).
燃える時計秘密めく花の香り
www.pokemoncrossroads.com
In that case you can't bring in Mirrodin block.
燃える時計秘密めく花の香り
www.pokemoncrossroads.com
Level 1 DCI Judge
Check out my Commons Cube.
But Kenaron's card requires you to play the converted mana cost of the card, i.e. you can't steal Darksteel Colossus unless you really do have 11 mana. The small artifacts will already have been played, so the only cards that you might get are those costing 4-6 mana. And the opponent has one turn of warning, so he might choose to play his artifacts out rather than keeping them in the hand.
I still don't think Kenaron's card will see play in the current environment, and even in an environment with a decent artifact deck (i.e. not the time of Mirrodin and Affinity) it's a sideboard card at best.
Since we are designing cards that are more or less in a vacum (outside of the paramaters of the assignment), its difficult to say exactly how they would fit into a hypothetical environment. A certin amount of leeway should be given when determining how often a situation where the card would be useful would come up.
There is something to be said however for cards that have a broader scope and hit more audiences. The trick is to find a balance. Make it's too broad and it boring, too narrow and it will never get used.