One of the original goals of the MCC startup organization team was to constantly refine the judging rubric used for the MCC in order to strive toward the ideal of a "best practice" judging rubric for the contest. We've been operating under PlanesJaywalker's adjusted rubric for awhile now, and I thought this would be a good time to open up discussion on further exploration.
Please note that this is not an "official" poll, that is, the winning poll isn't going to be immediately adopted, these aren't the only options we're going to consider, and there's no guarantee that any of these will ever be put into practice (/imposed on the contest). This is just an information-gathering exercise to get a feel for how people think things have been going recently.
One of the nice things about the current structure that we have is that it allows for a lot of interpretation. In fact, many judges have made their own modifications and personalizations to the current rubric (staying within the overall rubric design), and that's where I'd like to start because I think several of the options listed below have pros (sometimes weighed by cons) that would add clarity to the contest.
On the other hand, several people have commented on a heightened sense of scores being very close to one another, which increases the intensity of the competition. It's possible that a more detailed rubric would detract from this. Just things to keep in mind.
(Each of these came from a specific individual, but I want to focus on the rubric for now; I'll recognize each of these three for their contributions after the poll is closed.)
This first one isn't much of a change, but refines the questions for the current(/relabeled) subcategories in ways I think are good.
Design (X/10) Creativity – How original or innovative is the card? Does it present an old idea with a new twist? Does it employ an entirely new mechanic? Aesthetics – How elegant is the card? Does it have a fitting name, subtype, and/or flavor text? If there is a render, does the art fit the card? Potential – Will different player demographics (Spike/Johnny/Timmy) find a use for this card? Does it stand out as a card to build a deck around? Development (X/10) Balance – Does the card's cost match its power? How balanced are its interactions with other cards? Can it be played in constructed, limited, or multiplayer without breaking any of those formats? Viability – How well does this card fit into the color wheel? Does it break or bend the rules of the game? How well does it conform to the current tendencies of the game? Polish (X/5) Bonus (X/2) – One point awarded per satisfied bonus condition. Quality (X/3) – Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
Total: X/25
This one is more specific in its point breakdown, and I think it asks good questions for each of the subcategories.
Design (_/10)
Elegance - Does your card excite the player with no excess text or abilities? Does it do what it wants with no competing abilities? Ex. A card with shroud and an effect that triggers when it becomes targeted is in trouble here. _/3
Creativity - Is your card a bold look at dry design? Does it leap off the computer screen and wave its bizarre greatness in my face? It would be a challenge to get a zero in this column from me, it would likely take a straight reprint. _/3
Potential - Which gamer-type wants to play this card? Spike values most highly from me with the others providing bonus. A full point and a half of this category goes to rarity and forgetting a rarity forfeits it all, no question. Put this card in the right place for limited games. _/4 Development (_/10)
Viability - Does your card work in the rules? If it doesn't work at all, you lose all your points here. Next I consider how often the card will confuse old and new players alike, and finally make sure you didn't break the color-pie. I'm very strict on color pie adherence, so don't expect to win an argument about a color ruling. _/3
Balance - I mostly stick with standard, but not so much as to fit the card into current deck lists. If your card hits the curve on the head, you'll get a good score from me. That said, balance is my weak point of card design and judging and I make mistakes in this column more often than all the others combined. _/4
Creative Writing - My personal favorite part of card design, I penalize heavily for weak flavor. I'll judge the name, flavor text/lack thereof, how the card's effect feels, plus the overall package put together. This is my first time experimenting with flavor having less impact than balance. _/3 Polish (_/5) 2 bonus points factor in here. Fail the main round requirement, and you get a 0 in the whole Polish category. -0 In the first round, this contest tends to get a few beginner card designers. For this reason I like to give warnings that don't effect score for minuscule errors that may just come from never joining a competitive contest before. In all other rounds, these mistakes constitute a -.25 to your score. -.25 or -.5 Large mistakes such as forgetting to credit an artist. Or inconsistencies between the text and render versions of the card. -1 Spirit of the Round: This is what you get for "cheating" the card to get a bonus point. Entirely up to my discretion. In the first round, you probably won't lose the whole point unless I'm sure it was intentional. Total (_/25)
This next one isn't broken down specifically pointwise, but does present some alternative options to consider.
Under each category, the element listed at the top impacts the overall score the most; the last impacts it the least.
Total Possible Points: 25
Design: 10 points
Creativity: Does it present an old mechanic with a wonderful new twist? Does it make you slam the table and shout "Damn! Why didn't I think of that?" Do the individual elements combine in new ways? Have I seen this a million times in the Custom Cards forum (i.e., WotC hasn't done it but every amateur has)?
Flavor: Does the flavor feel connected to the rest of the design? Do all the pieces fit? Is the mechanic evocative?
Color Pie: Does this fit the current color pie? If printed, would this harm the identity of the color(s)? Is it a creative (in a good way) application of the color pie? Does it do a great job of capturing the essence of its color(s)?
Elegance: Does it say a lot in a few words? Is there more to the experience of playing this card than is obvious at first glance?
Rarity: Is this card assigned an appropriate rarity considering complexity, color bleeding, impact on Limited, etc.? If mythic, does it have a "mythic feel"?
"Gotcha's": - Does the card violate any rules of design? (Ex: Cards that use counters of more than one type. Hard counterspells that don't cost at least :symu::symu:.)
Development: 10 points
Curve: Is the cost (mana/additional/alternative) appropriate for "what you get"? Are any drawbacks meaningful; do they properly compensate for a reduced mana cost?
Environment: Is it playable in Standard without being overpowered? Would it break any format? How would an imaginary Standard or Limited block with that theme affect the power of the card?
Flavor: Do the individual flavor elements exceed the generic baseline? Is the name evocative? Is the flavor text well written? Do the name, card types, and flavor text add something new to the card? Does the art choice (if applicable) enhance the flavor?
Viability: Does it work? Could the rules be easily adapted to accomodate the mechanic? Does this card create memory issues? Is it too wordy to fit on a card? Is it too complex to be easily understood?
Fun: Would this card be fun to play?
Polish: 5 points
Because the bonus points have a 1-for-1 impact on the total score, there is no weighting in this category. Because of this, deductions in the "Language" category are very small. It will take a lot of sloppiness to lose more than a point on your overall score.
Bonus points: Are the bonus points technically met?
Language: Are there spelling, grammar, or punctuation mistakes? Is the templating correct, or if there is no precedent does it use the best possible templating?
Discretionary: +/-3 points
Rather than have a portion of the 25 total dedicated to "miscellaneous", what I will do is if I feel there is something that doesn't fit in another category, or I feel something special deserves more weight than the rubric normally gives it, I will adjust the score by up two 3 points. I will not use these points on a regular basis, they are only for circumstances that call for it. Things that might warrant use of these points:
If your card had a low score, was it because you took a risk/tried something controversial?
Did you meet the technical requirements of the round while avoiding the spirit of the challenge, i.e. avoiding the actual challenge presented?
Did you do an absolutely outstanding or horrible job in a category that doesn't get enough weight to influence the score as much as is deserved. For example: your design is basically jank, but it screams "print me!" because it's incredibly fun to play, or is exactly the kind of card Johnny loves.
Overall: As has always been the case, your most important categories are balance (the combined categories of Curve and Environment, worth about 5 points of your total), Flavor (combined under both Design and Devlopment, worth about 4 total points), and Creativity (worth about 3 points). Bonus and language/templating are also very important, being worth 5 points.
Please vote in the poll, then post and identify what influenced your choice, what you like or dislike, etc, as well as any other suggestions or concerns you have about the rubric in general.
EDIT: This poll is public and will be up for a week.
Nothing is off-limits here, but please keep it civil, and remember that no changes are promised or even eventual. I'd just like to get some feedback.
Taking the first one and adding a flavor component in development counting for roughly 3 points and taking the "spirit of the round" idea and adding it to quality makes a pretty solid rubric. Also, I'm in the camp that says that bonus points should be extra. 27/25 should be a reality. Adding spirit of the round in place of the two bonus points and then adding the bonus points on top of whatever you recieved out of 25 seems right. The challenge each week ask you to do something. Then, you get bonus points if in doing that something you also did two other things. That makes the most sense to me.
Think about it this way. You get a perfect score one round adhering to the bonuses. Now, take off those two bonus points and you have 23 out of 25. 23 out of 25 is apparently a perfect score? Bonus points have nothing to do with balance, flavor or design, yet you need them to have a perfect card? That means no card Wizards has made in 16 years has been perfect because they are all only 23 out of 25. That doesn't make sense.
Either way, it seems we aren't really getting to make a choice here based on what we want, only electing a representative to piss our province's money away on hookers(representitives being the cut-out rubrics, not the judges). I'd be much more open to a discussion starting the rubric from scratch and seeing where everybody stands.
I voted A because it best represented how I like to vote, but Sven's idea of making bonus points ACTUAL bonus points seems logical. Players shouldn't get deducted for not using bonuses, they should be rewarded for using them.
The big challenge in developing a rubric is balancing consistency with variance. The less-defined your category criteria and/or point allocations are, the more likely you are to reward/deduct a card for something and fail to do so for another card. Also, the more likely players will be frustrated by feeling they need to design more according to the judge's preferences than their own.
The more you define your point allocations, however, the more scores become homogenized. Many, many, many possible mistakes in card design are rarely made but deserve point deductions when they are. If you don't give enough weight to these mistakes they become irrelevant, but the more weight you give the less meaningful the more challenging design elements are. In other words, the aspects that really make a design great that you want to reward become marginalized.
I'm not sure what the ideal solution is. I tinkered with it a bit in my Sept judgings but didn't get to where I was happy with it. I may continue to tinker.
Best way to start such a discussion is to start the discussion. How about developing a rubric that fits your vision and posting it for opinions?
I agree with completely. Anyone should feel free to post their "ideal" version here (it'll make for a good repository to refer back to later) for dissection and discussion.
I think maybe the solution would be to have a few rubrics that can apply to certain challenges.
For example: In a challenge such as the ones we've had lately, I feel as though flavor takes a back seat to overall design (considering flavor text is usually absent in split and flip cards) but flavor is still integral in the feel of the card, it just isn't as important as it would be in a standard card.
Also, when I think about development, I get a feeling a long process of creating and revising, and re-revising, and re-envisioning. I don't feel like this is an appropriate piece of the rubric considering players have about a week to make each card.
The whole idea behind development would seem to be more in the realm of playability. You have to ask not only if you would play the card, but would others play the card.
Would my eyes light up when I opened a pack with this card in it? Would I regret passing it along for a more desirable rare (assuming it isn't a rare)? The whole idea is playability. I think Development is the wrong word.
We need to find descriptors of the judging criteria that allow judges to be unbiased but that don't stifle creativity with fear that failure to follow the criteria will result in a bad grade.
While I feel that making broken cards should in some way be punished, I don't like balance being alloted a specific number of points. The only way to avoid endless arguments is to use the rubrics like say for example C, where judges can say their piece about a card's balance then give a development score reflecting that and other factors. Any card in the MCC can be given a reasonable argument that it is perfectly fair, utterly broken, or absolutely useless so all I think is important is a judge say what he/she suspects would cause some issues or how it fills some important niche and not immediately follow that with a number. I'm still for balance factoring into the final score, but when it was a flat 10 points out of the 25 like in the days of the FCC players would focus on balance over originality since Creativity was fixed at 3 or something. Some judges never gave anything lower than a 6, which is like having balance be out of only 4 points, but this causes the exact opposite problem. On a related rant, it's especially hard to judge balance since Zen since it has cards that are both strictly worse than bad cards (Mindless Null < Scathe Zombies < Warpath Ghoul) and some things that are unreasonably strong, judging balance feels like throwing darts right now.
I don't really have to time to flesh out an entire rubric or comment on it's advantages or disadvantages in relation to the other three proposed ideas, but I can offer a vague outline.
I feel the first 15 points should go into a checklist style platform where it asks very simple question with very straightforward answers and you simply get a point if you did that thing. For example:
Would spike like this card?
Is it the appropriate color or in the appropriate color combinations?
Is it templated correctly?
Is the name evocative of what the card does.
Examples of questions that would NOT be here are:
Is this card fun?
Would this card break the standard format?
Would this card be a limited powerhouse?
The first group of questions are objective. Everyone should have the same answers for those questions. The second set of questions starts asking about oppinionated things, and this is where arguments spawn from. The previous rubrics ask specific things but ask for subjective, oppinionated answers, so likely, two different people will have two views. If you fit all of your specific questions into an objective form of questioning, nobody can argue with that.
The next ten points are the subjective points. Does this card feel right? Would it see standard play? Is it good in limited? Is this primarily a combo card? Is that a bad thing? Theres no expected group of things to cover in this category, it's just to let the judge vent and say what he likes/ dislikes aobut the card and reward up to ten points accordingly.
Lastly, the two bonus points are added, allowing for a total of 27 out of 25. Maybe the judges can even put them in seperate colors so that if you got 25 out of 25 but 23 of those points are red and 2 of them are blue, then your bragging rights are slightly less because you used the bonus points to get to a perfect score rather than the card actucally being perfect.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Oh, what's that you say, Karn? You remove poison counters? You should tell that to Mr. Rosewater.
I feel the first 15 points should go into a checklist style platform where it asks very simple question with very straightforward answers and you simply get a point if you did that thing. For example:
Would spike like this card?
Is it the appropriate color or in the appropriate color combinations?
Is it templated correctly?
Is the name evocative of what the card does.
Examples of questions that would NOT be here are:
Is this card fun?
Would this card break the standard format?
Would this card be a limited powerhouse?
The first group of questions are objective. Everyone should have the same answers for those questions. The second set of questions starts asking about oppinionated things, and this is where arguments spawn from. The previous rubrics ask specific things but ask for subjective, oppinionated answers, so likely, two different people will have two views. If you fit all of your specific questions into an objective form of questioning, nobody can argue with that.
I would like to try something like that, but the problem i could see coming up is that is too black and white. Anyone could judge a card like that for the first 15 points. And from the players stand point, i feel that we continously see the same shell for a card from every designer, with slight diffrences from those last 10 points (which isn't necessarily bad, but i would feel that would get boring really fast.
I would like to try something like that, but the problem i could see coming up is that is too black and white. Anyone could judge a card like that for the first 15 points. And from the players stand point, i feel that we continously see the same shell for a card from every designer, with slight diffrences from those last 10 points (which isn't necessarily bad, but i would feel that would get boring really fast.
Interestingly enough, and this could just be me (I'm very oppinionated, I'm aware) but if you design a decent card that adheres to the what the round wanted, has flavor elements, is templated correctly and isn't over powered/ ridiculously underpowered then you deserve a baseline of 15 points. I mean really, it's hard to get a score of below 10 points currently. All this does is give concrete reasoning to a score of 15. To get higher, your card has to resonate with players and thus the judge is able to connect with the card. I'm aware that all judgings can't be entirely objective, I just feel that certain things should simply be yes or no.
i also don't see why "spike" liking the card should top timmy and johnny. Furthermore, i don't feel like it's a so easy answer. Time and time again cards that are now considerd ultra-spike were considered junk when they came out.
I stated that they were example questions to be asked. Though I didn't state it directly, I'm sure the other two would have their respectful points. I didn't mean to sound like only spike was getting attention.
Here are the challenges associated with your suggested system:
1. It is often not so simple to distinguish objective and subjective. Whether a card is appropriate for the color pie, for example, is subjective because the game allows for overlap and bleeding and different people will have different ideas on what is acceptable. Whether Spike would like the card is also highly subjective considering not everyone agrees on the power level of a card and also many cards are powerful on a basis of cost vs. effect but for whatever reason don't make the cut in a Teir 1 deck.
I don't mean to pick apart your individual examples here; it's possible there could be a useful set of objective criteria to fit the list you propose. I'm just trying to show where it can go wrong so that it can be addressed before it actually does go wrong.
2. If most players score at least 15 points anyway under the current system and the remaining 10 points are what deterimines who advances, does a system that allocated 10 subjective points really change anything from the way the current system works?
********
As far as this overall poll/thread is concerned, my suggestion is to identify little things (if any) that could be done to improve the system rather than attempt a major overhaul.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
I think I might disagree with the spike argument as a whole. Yes, I do understand it's not entirely objective, but it's a ton more objective than asking if a card is fun. Atleast it's a demographic and therefore already defined. About the color pie problem aswell, I don't see it being that big. It might come up maybe once or twice a month as it usually does, but even then, if the card is one color and should be another, you don't give them the point, if it's in one color and could be in another color, and you think it should be in that other color, you can simply give them the point and dock it from the subjective section. The card is in a color it can be in, just not the best. It meets the requirement of fitting the pie, but it doesn't feel right so you dock it later. I understand you're questioning it just as I question the original, and that's fine. It's the only way things get looked at.
I didn't say our current system rewarded 15 points, I said you deserve to get 15 points, meaning regardless of subjective reasonings. I didn't mean it pertaining to our current rubric, I meant it more as a general philosphical statement. As it stands now, you could meet those requirement and get a judge who dislikes how your card plays or thinks its garbage even though all the design and development goals are met. With the checklist system, you're guarenteed the points you deserve, even if your judge doesn't like your card.
I've been giving the rubric some thought. See what you guys think of this. I call it the CCG Rubric.
Creativity(X/12) Mechanics- Is the card original? Does it use unexplored design space, little explored design space, or does it use common mechanics. If it uses common mechanics, are they used in an innovative way? If it uses new mechanics, how well are they executed? Flavor & Fit - Does the name, type, and subtypes convey the idea of the card well? Does the flavor give you a feeling of character depth or context of setting? Does the card's ability fit its colors and the colorwheel? e.g. A blue 4/1 Turtle is simply wrong pending very compelling rules text. In The Deck - Can this card be built around? If not, can it be an integral part of a deck? How do you see either/both of these concepts conveyed with the card? Would this be well received by Spikes/Johnnies/Timmys. If so, how well to they cater to each? (Only grade based upon which archetype they best fit, or the best synergy across archetypes) Composition(X/8) Balance – Does the card's cost match its power? How balanced are its interactions with other cards? Would you see it on the banned/restricted list? Rules - Consider how previous cards of this design have been made. How well does this card fit the rules set by its mechanical predecessors, or does it re-envision the design while still working within the rules. (I also suggest the allowance of a single minor rules change per player to make their card fit, so as not to limit design based on rules, though this isn't integral to make this rubric work). Grammar+ (X/5)
Proper Grammar, Spelling and Templating Total(X/25) + Bonus(X/2)
The reason I made the first category 12 and the other 8 was because I feel this is first and foremost a design contest, so rules and balance shouldn't be on par with creativity. Plus if we divvy up points between sub-categories, it works such that each sub-category has 4 points (although I do not suggest putting values into the sub-categories so that it allows judges to allocate points in what they believe is more important, allowing a bit of subjectivity). That being said, a 10/10/5 rubric is standard so if you want to keep that, it's fine, I am primarily suggesting changes to the way things are phrased.
I feel my rubric has found a suitable balance between opinion and fact. Whether or not a card is original is (arguably) objective, while the fit with Spikes/Johnnies/Timmys is up to the judges interpretation.
Catarax's solution sould be good. I like the "In the Deck" catagory.
I've done some thinking about balance, and I think I've got a way to standardize things a little. All cards are required to state their rarity, and each rarity is given a simple goal statement. For example, for commons the rubric should say that it's acceptable if the card won't make the cut in constructed, but it is important that the card isn't unbalancing with multiples in limited. Rares would be judged considering the tournament scene, and I'd like it clarified that a card doesn't need to be top tier so long as it would see some play . Just give each rarity a simple statement like that, with the usual specifications that all assumptions assume standard unless there is pressing reason otherwise. (Examples of "pressing reasons" include cards like Slivers when none are in standard, such a card aught be judged next to existing slivers.)
This sounds like common sense, but I wanted to say it anyway. I would like to have a pithy quotable purpose statement for balance. It would also make players think more carefully about rarity, and I feel too many newer designers don't even pay it any consideration.
Since I started this, it's only fair that I provide some input, too. To start, comments on what has transpired thus far (a fair showing of opinions, so thank you to those who have contributed).
Voted A because I strongly believe that judge should be free to a) interpret Design and Development in their own way (to an extent); b) determine what aspects of Design and Development are most pertinent to a particular card. Also, if I'm keeping Design and Development as open categories, there is no need for a 'discretional' category, because... Well... All the points are discretional. I think the guidelines set out in A are an improvement over the somewhat vague ones set out in the original PJW rubric, but I could never judge under a system where those guidelines were enforced categories.
I concur that it's nice to have some "floating" space in the categories, but I also enjoyed the older FCC specificity. It made me feel like I was being more consistent across the cards. Have you tried judging under a more specific rubric?
Taking the first one and adding a flavor component in development counting for roughly 3 points and taking the "spirit of the round" idea and adding it to quality makes a pretty solid rubric.
I agree that development needs a flavor aspect. I'm not as onboard with a "spirit of the round" idea, since meeting the round requirement should take care of that.
Quote from Svennihilator »
Also, I'm in the camp that says that bonus points should be extra. 27/25 should be a reality. Adding spirit of the round in place of the two bonus points and then adding the bonus points on top of whatever you recieved out of 25 seems right. The challenge each week ask you to do something. Then, you get bonus points if in doing that something you also did two other things. That makes the most sense to me.
Ok, after thinking about this long and hard, I've come to the conclusion that I think it's a simple terminology issue. I see where you (and others) are coming from on this, but I want to project a different way of thinking, and simultaneously propose a change. You see, I feel that they're not so much "bonus" points as they are "challenge" points. You submit a card to meet the round requirement, then have the option to adhere to additional design constraints that challenge your ability.
Quote from Svennhiliator »
Think about it this way. You get a perfect score one round adhering to the bonuses. Now, take off those two bonus points and you have 23 out of 25. 23 out of 25 is apparently a perfect score? Bonus points have nothing to do with balance, flavor or design, yet you need them to have a perfect card? That means no card Wizards has made in 16 years has been perfect because they are all only 23 out of 25. That doesn't make sense.
With the mindset that they're not "bonus", but "challenge", we actually mimic an integral part of Wizards' design: designing to the set. They have additional restrictions placed on their card creation all the time. "We need a blue instant." "We need a rare, and it would be best if it could be CMC 5 or more to fit this subtheme." Etc. At that point, yes, a "perfect" card needs the challenge points to fulfill the optimal end result. Designing the card without them still results in a good card, just not the best one for the current job.
I am not fond of points over the rubric maximum. I propose a terminology (and thus, mind-) shift from "bonus" points to "challenge" points, and I feel that addresses the concerns brought up about the issue.
I think maybe the solution would be to have a few rubrics that can apply to certain challenges.
I think this is a strange path to tread, and may be unnecessarily complex.
Quote from Catarax »
For example: In a challenge such as the ones we've had lately, I feel as though flavor takes a back seat to overall design (considering flavor text is usually absent in split and flip cards) but flavor is still integral in the feel of the card, it just isn't as important as it would be in a standard card.
I feel that flavor is as important in every card, just as balance, aesthetics, etc., are important in every card. The recent challenges that reduce the opportunity of flavor text present a challenge specifically to create significant flavor based off the remaining tools: name, typeline, art, if applicable. We don't apply different standards; we apply the same standard across the board and players compensate when difficulties arise, knowing that they're going to be held to a single set of criteria.
Quote from Catarax »
Also, when I think about development, I get a feeling a long process of creating and revising, and re-revising, and re-envisioning. I don't feel like this is an appropriate piece of the rubric considering players have about a week to make each card.
It's true that we don't have weeks to work on each idea, but there's still a series of development questions that I ask myself when I'm reviewing, fine-tuning, and finalizing my cards. (See more on my thoughts of design and development below.)
Quote from Catarax »
The whole idea behind development would seem to be more in the realm of playability. You have to ask not only if you would play the card, but would others play the card.
Would my eyes light up when I opened a pack with this card in it? Would I regret passing it along for a more desirable rare (assuming it isn't a rare)? The whole idea is playability. I think Development is the wrong word.
Actually, I see playability similar to potential, which I feel is definitely a Design element: creating a card that fulfills a purpose. Eyes lighting up and regrets for not taking it are, I think, pieces of aesthetics and demographic appeal, both, again, Design.
While I feel that making broken cards should in some way be punished, I don't like balance being alloted a specific number of points. The only way to avoid endless arguments is to use the rubrics like say for example C, where judges can say their piece about a card's balance then give a development score reflecting that and other factors.
I disagree: the FCC functioned perfectly well under a balance-specific rubric, and I don't feel that the arguments were any more or less. One pro to more breakdown of points is that judging becomes more transparent. It's easier to see where points were lost, thus the feedback becomes more beneficial.
Quote from Kenaron »
Any card in the MCC can be given a reasonable argument that it is perfectly fair, utterly broken, or absolutely useless so all I think is important is a judge say what he/she suspects would cause some issues or how it fills some important niche and not immediately follow that with a number.
I think the erroneous assumption there is in the word "reasonable". I can give you (read: fabricate) reasons all the live long day why Time Walk is balanced and should be reprinted, but if 9/10 of you disagree, it's likely I'm wrong in my reasoning. Balance is actually one of the less-subjective elements of the rubric, imo, and following it with a specific number shouldn't be all that hard.
Quote from Kenaron »
I'm still for balance factoring into the final score, but when it was a flat 10 points out of the 25 like in the days of the FCC players would focus on balance over originality since Creativity was fixed at 3 or something. Some judges never gave anything lower than a 6, which is like having balance be out of only 4 points, but this causes the exact opposite problem.
I agree that Balance was highly-rated with the FCC, but it's a significant element of card design. It deserves a good chunk of a score.
Quote from Kenaron »
On a related rant, it's especially hard to judge balance since Zen since it has cards that are both strictly worse than bad cards (Mindless Null < Scathe Zombies < Warpath Ghoul) and some things that are unreasonably strong, judging balance feels like throwing darts right now.
I don't feel this way at all. I feel that I have a pretty well-defined idea of balance, and I don't see how your zombie example above throws anything out of whack. Every set is going to have stronger and weaker cards to help shape the environment, but within the ranges of balance, all three of the cards you listed are within the bounds of printable. The Null is pushing the limit, I think, but not breaking it.
I feel the first 15 points should go into a checklist style platform where it asks very simple question with very straightforward answers and you simply get a point if you did that thing.
I'd be up for giving something like this a try, but I think I agree with Kraj in that you would find challenges. Would you be willing to be involved with creating a list of questions?
Quote from Svennihilator »
The next ten points are the subjective points. Does this card feel right? Would it see standard play? Is it good in limited? Is this primarily a combo card? Is that a bad thing? Theres no expected group of things to cover in this category, it's just to let the judge vent and say what he likes/ dislikes aobut the card and reward up to ten points accordingly.
I feel that 10 discretionary points is a ridiculous amount of leeway that could lead to concerns about bias, since a judge could very easily award 9-10 points to a card he/she likes and 1-2 that he/she doesn't, with little reasoning. If I'm going to lose to an opponent by 8 points, I want to know what I did wrong and what he did right.
Quote from Kraj »
As far as this overall poll/thread is concerned, my suggestion is to identify little things (if any) that could be done to improve the system rather than attempt a major overhaul.
For the most part, but I don't think this competition should be afraid to try new things. The FCC had a lot of good going for it, but I think that the changes we've made have been improvements (in general), and that there are other areas where improvement can be made. If a good number of people can agree that we should try something new, I think it's worth our while to look at that.
I think I might disagree with the spike argument as a whole. Yes, I do understand it's not entirely objective, but it's a ton more objective than asking if a card is fun. Atleast it's a demographic and therefore already defined. About the color pie problem aswell, I don't see it being that big. It might come up maybe once or twice a month as it usually does, but even then, if the card is one color and should be another, you don't give them the point, if it's in one color and could be in another color, and you think it should be in that other color, you can simply give them the point and dock it from the subjective section. The card is in a color it can be in, just not the best. It meets the requirement of fitting the pie, but it doesn't feel right so you dock it later. I understand you're questioning it just as I question the original, and that's fine. It's the only way things get looked at.
I mostly agree with these points. If we're going to get into the question of "what's subjective or objective", there are very few things that we can state objectively: cost, color, formatting (with some odd exceptions where people get really "creative"), and not much else. Demographic appeal is more objective than "fun", just still subjective to an extent. However, if I ask "Would Spike like this card?", I would expect 9/10 Magic players to agree. If I ask "Is this card fun?", it would be much more hit or miss. That's the criteria I normally apply when thinking about subjectivity.
Quote from Svennihilator »
I didn't say our current system rewarded 15 points, I said you deserve to get 15 points, meaning regardless of subjective reasonings. I didn't mean it pertaining to our current rubric, I meant it more as a general philosphical statement. As it stands now, you could meet those requirement and get a judge who dislikes how your card plays or thinks its garbage even though all the design and development goals are met. With the checklist system, you're guarenteed the points you deserve, even if your judge doesn't like your card.
While I understand where you're coming from, I don't think that solidifying 3/5's of the judging then making the other 2/5's free-association is the solution.
Creativity(X/12) Mechanics- Is the card original? Does it use unexplored design space, little explored design space, or does it use common mechanics. If it uses common mechanics, are they used in an innovative way? If it uses new mechanics, how well are they executed? Flavor & Fit - Does the name, type, and subtypes convey the idea of the card well? Does the flavor give you a feeling of character depth or context of setting? Does the card's ability fit its colors and the colorwheel? e.g. A blue 4/1 Turtle is simply wrong pending very compelling rules text. In The Deck - Can this card be built around? If not, can it be an integral part of a deck? How do you see either/both of these concepts conveyed with the card? Would this be well received by Spikes/Johnnies/Timmys? If so, how well do they cater to each? (Only grade based upon which archetype they best fit, or the best synergy across archetypes) Composition(X/8) Balance – Does the card's cost match its power? How balanced are its interactions with other cards? Would you see it on the banned/restricted list? Rules - Consider how previous cards of this design have been made. How well does this card fit the rules set by its mechanical predecessors, or does it re-envision the design while still working within the rules. (I also suggest the allowance of a single minor rules change per player to make their card fit, so as not to limit design based on rules, though this isn't integral to make this rubric work). Grammar+ (X/5)
Proper Grammar, Spelling and Templating Total(X/25) + Bonus(X/2)
I like a lot of this. I don't think that 5 points need to be given to grammar, spelling, and templating; the 3 we currently have should be sufficient. And I'm not sure what benefit we have to arranging the categories like this as opposed to what we currently have. But I wouldn't be opposed to giving something similar a shot.
Quote from Catarax »
The reason I made the first category 12 and the other 8 was because I feel this is first and foremost a design contest, so rules and balance shouldn't be on par with creativity.
The more I think about it, the more this statement makes sense. Whether it's 12 and 8 or something else, balance and rules are more "refinement within the structure already provided".
I've done some thinking about balance, and I think I've got a way to standardize things a little. All cards are required to state their rarity, and each rarity is given a simple goal statement. For example, for commons the rubric should say that it's acceptable if the card won't make the cut in constructed, but it is important that the card isn't unbalancing with multiples in limited. Rares would be judged considering the tournament scene, and I'd like it clarified that a card doesn't need to be top tier so long as it would see some play . Just give each rarity a simple statement like that, with the usual specifications that all assumptions assume standard unless there is pressing reason otherwise. (Examples of "pressing reasons" include cards like Slivers when none are in standard, such a card aught be judged next to existing slivers.)
All cards should already state their rarity, and I would hesitate to base a huge number of points off of someone forgetting to put three characters ("(R)", for example) in their text card, but I like the idea of a well-defined ideal for different rarities. This might be extendable to other parts of the rubric as well, but I would suggest keeping them separate from the basic rubric (perhaps something in the discussion thread's opening post/FAQ) because at some point, people will stop reading/caring that there's eight pages of "guidelines".
Quote from Kenaron »
This sounds like common sense, but I wanted to say it anyway. I would like to have a pithy quotable purpose statement for balance. It would also make players think more carefully about rarity, and I feel too many newer designers don't even pay it any consideration.
Wanna give the creation of such statements a shot? (With acknowledgement that refinement is probably going to occur, regardless of how carefully you craft them?)
Going back to the original questions:
• I see Design as the implementation: creating the card idea, researching to make sure it doesn't already exist/been done better or worse, identifying the purpose and, hence, outcome/goal.
• I see Development as the refinement: ensuring balance and fit within the rules, adapting the flavor elements to fit the set (or just optimizing the flavor, in a contest like this), (technically, templating fits best for me here, too).
• I'm against "bonus" points over the "maximum", and suggest "challenge" points, instead.
• I like the idea of point-breakdown within the categories for transparency and feedback reasons, but I'm not going to crusade in that direction if others are fine with the more open categories.
@Cantrip: My whole idea with the rubric I made was to give the criteria of the contest and the ideas within them a different context from PJW's rubric. The 5 points of grammar isn't entirely necessary, as my goal was to successfully alter the first two categories and I feel I have done that.
Try adding descriptors to the primary categories themselves then, just for further clarification (also new names).
Form - Make a card based on the criteria of the round.
Function - Now that you've made a draft a of your card, make sure it fits within the rules and doesn't break the game.
A couple specific definitions to better get the idea of my wording across
Form (n.)-the manner or style of arranging and coordinating parts for a pleasing or effective result, as in literary or musical composition (we want the cards to be effective).
Function (n.)-the kind of action or activity proper to a person, thing, or institution (rules make things proper).
Finish (n.)-the quality of being finished or completed with smoothness, elegance, etc.
I disagree: the FCC functioned perfectly well under a balance-specific rubric, and I don't feel that the arguments were any more or less.
No, it didn't. Balance was worth 10 points, but the full range was unaccessible. As a judge I didn't once give a card under a 7/10 on balance and not get a lengthy *****y PM about it. I know because I gave 4's and I believe on some occasions less. But the MCC is a beast of a different color from the FCC, and this is one of those times where it's worth remembering some of the imperfections of the past.
If we must give balance scores clearly and not lump balance into a larger category I can see the purpose of that as much as I don't fully agree. The only thing to do is to set how much it is worth now and define a 0 score as absolutely broken or absolutely useless. I got sick of giving disgustingly broken cards 6/10 in the FCC just to avoid arguments. This is another way the MCC is better than the FCC, after-round complaining is not a valid contest strategy. You can PM the judge, but judges don't have to write back with an essay to justify the difference of half point on balance.
On a related rant, it's especially hard to judge balance since Zen since it has cards that are both strictly worse than bad cards (Mindless Null < Scathe Zombies < Warpath Ghoul) and some things that are unreasonably strong, judging balance feels like throwing darts right now.
I don't feel this way at all. I feel that I have a pretty well-defined idea of balance, and I don't see how your zombie example above throws anything out of whack. Every set is going to have stronger and weaker cards to help shape the environment, but within the ranges of balance, all three of the cards you listed are within the bounds of printable. The Null is pushing the limit, I think, but not breaking it.
Let's say M10 just hit, and someone submitted Mindless Null and you had to judge it, what would you give it? I'm curious what other judges would give too. On the current rubric, I would say it did fine on design but I would rip it a structurally superfluous new behind in development.
@ Cantripmancer
I wouldn't have a problem being in a group that fleshed out some point-by-point requirements, but judging by the views of the few who have taken the time to post in this discussion, it seems the endeavor might not be worth it. Maybe if there was some kind of poll as to whether or not the idea should be explored so that we know if it's not going to end up fruitless then I can put more time towards it. As it is, I'm a first year University student, so as you can imagine, I'm swamped.
@Kenaron
Personally, when I think design/ development, I think of it as wizards does. Design is the idea phase, development is when the card gets fleshed out. For example, mindless null in design would be "A black creature that can only attack if something else is attacking.". In development, it would be "A black 2/2 for 2B with the ability from design.". Therefore, I see balance as fitting in both catagories. Couple points if the concept is balanced, couple points if the card using the concept is balanced.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Oh, what's that you say, Karn? You remove poison counters? You should tell that to Mr. Rosewater.
No, it didn't. Balance was worth 10 points, but the full range was unaccessible. As a judge I didn't once give a card under a 7/10 on balance and not get a lengthy *****y PM about it. I know because I gave 4's and I believe on some occasions less. But the MCC is a beast of a different color from the FCC, and this is one of those times where it's worth remembering some of the imperfections of the past.
I, too, gave on occasion 3's and 4's (with one memorable time bestowing a .5 balance score on a card) and well remember the conversations that arose from that. I wasn't saying that the point distributions were accurate, just that it does work when the points are broken down further. And I think that there are just as many arguments with this contest as there were with the FCC, taking into account that the FCC was about twice as big as we are now.
Quote from Kenaron »
If we must give balance scores clearly and not lump balance into a larger category I can see the purpose of that as much as I don't fully agree. The only thing to do is to set how much it is worth now and define a 0 score as absolutely broken or absolutely useless. I got sick of giving disgustingly broken cards 6/10 in the FCC just to avoid arguments. This is another way the MCC is better than the FCC, after-round complaining is not a valid contest strategy. You can PM the judge, but judges don't have to write back with an essay to justify the difference of half point on balance.
I agree that this helps significantly.
Quote from Kenaron »
Let's say M10 just hit, and someone submitted Mindless Null and you had to judge it, what would you give it? I'm curious what other judges would give too. On the current rubric, I would say it did fine on design but I would rip it a structurally superfluous new behind in development.
On balance, I'd dock it a point, maybe 1.25 for being underpowered. I certainly wouldn't rip it, as it's still on the playable side...but, I feel, just barely and would recommend a better p/t or cost.
@ Cantripmancer
I wouldn't have a problem being in a group that fleshed out some point-by-point requirements, but judging by the views of the few who have taken the time to post in this discussion, it seems the endeavor might not be worth it. Maybe if there was some kind of poll as to whether or not the idea should be explored so that we know if it's not going to end up fruitless then I can put more time towards it. As it is, I'm a first year University student, so as you can imagine, I'm swamped.
I think the idea has merit. Let's keep it in mind.
Quote from Svenn »
@Kenaron
Personally, when I think design/ development, I think of it as wizards does. Design is the idea phase, development is when the card gets fleshed out. For example, mindless null in design would be "A black creature that can only attack if something else is attacking.". In development, it would be "A black 2/2 for 2B with the ability from design.". Therefore, I see balance as fitting in both catagories. Couple points if the concept is balanced, couple points if the card using the concept is balanced.
I don't see balance as a design element. Design says "here's this awesome idea that will rock people's minds and totally break open the limited scene omgbbqimho!!11!!one!" And Development reins it in and says "Whoa, whoa, whoa. Yes, it's cool. But you can't make a 5/5 for G without some give with the take." Design's scope is less controlled, more creative. Imo.
Botton line is... we can't really do development like Wizards. They playtest their cars etc etc. Basicly we need to sse this as a design contest with a demand for a well executed card in the end. But that would never change the fact that the development we do when we create a card is sort of false and crippled compared to that of Wizards. I ask you this ...before baneslayer was printed... who wouldn't dock points in balance if the exact card was submitted in this contest?
I concur that the answer to that one is probably "no one", and I admit that our process is just a shadow show of Wizards' process. The idea is to come as close as possible, just as with renders: we do the best we can without a battery of commissioned artists at our beck and call.
I guess where I was going with design balance versus development balance doesn't really carry over into a way that can be judged. It's more of a player thing.
Greetings,
One of the original goals of the MCC startup organization team was to constantly refine the judging rubric used for the MCC in order to strive toward the ideal of a "best practice" judging rubric for the contest. We've been operating under PlanesJaywalker's adjusted rubric for awhile now, and I thought this would be a good time to open up discussion on further exploration.
Please note that this is not an "official" poll, that is, the winning poll isn't going to be immediately adopted, these aren't the only options we're going to consider, and there's no guarantee that any of these will ever be put into practice (/imposed on the contest). This is just an information-gathering exercise to get a feel for how people think things have been going recently.
One of the nice things about the current structure that we have is that it allows for a lot of interpretation. In fact, many judges have made their own modifications and personalizations to the current rubric (staying within the overall rubric design), and that's where I'd like to start because I think several of the options listed below have pros (sometimes weighed by cons) that would add clarity to the contest.
On the other hand, several people have commented on a heightened sense of scores being very close to one another, which increases the intensity of the competition. It's possible that a more detailed rubric would detract from this. Just things to keep in mind.
(Each of these came from a specific individual, but I want to focus on the rubric for now; I'll recognize each of these three for their contributions after the poll is closed.)
This first one isn't much of a change, but refines the questions for the current(/relabeled) subcategories in ways I think are good.
Design (X/10)
Creativity – How original or innovative is the card? Does it present an old idea with a new twist? Does it employ an entirely new mechanic?
Aesthetics – How elegant is the card? Does it have a fitting name, subtype, and/or flavor text? If there is a render, does the art fit the card?
Potential – Will different player demographics (Spike/Johnny/Timmy) find a use for this card? Does it stand out as a card to build a deck around?
Development (X/10)
Balance – Does the card's cost match its power? How balanced are its interactions with other cards? Can it be played in constructed, limited, or multiplayer without breaking any of those formats?
Viability – How well does this card fit into the color wheel? Does it break or bend the rules of the game? How well does it conform to the current tendencies of the game?
Polish (X/5)
Bonus (X/2) – One point awarded per satisfied bonus condition.
Quality (X/3) – Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
Total: X/25
Elegance - Does your card excite the player with no excess text or abilities? Does it do what it wants with no competing abilities? Ex. A card with shroud and an effect that triggers when it becomes targeted is in trouble here. _/3
Creativity - Is your card a bold look at dry design? Does it leap off the computer screen and wave its bizarre greatness in my face? It would be a challenge to get a zero in this column from me, it would likely take a straight reprint. _/3
Potential - Which gamer-type wants to play this card? Spike values most highly from me with the others providing bonus. A full point and a half of this category goes to rarity and forgetting a rarity forfeits it all, no question. Put this card in the right place for limited games. _/4
Development (_/10)
Viability - Does your card work in the rules? If it doesn't work at all, you lose all your points here. Next I consider how often the card will confuse old and new players alike, and finally make sure you didn't break the color-pie. I'm very strict on color pie adherence, so don't expect to win an argument about a color ruling. _/3
Balance - I mostly stick with standard, but not so much as to fit the card into current deck lists. If your card hits the curve on the head, you'll get a good score from me. That said, balance is my weak point of card design and judging and I make mistakes in this column more often than all the others combined. _/4
Creative Writing - My personal favorite part of card design, I penalize heavily for weak flavor. I'll judge the name, flavor text/lack thereof, how the card's effect feels, plus the overall package put together. This is my first time experimenting with flavor having less impact than balance. _/3
Polish (_/5) 2 bonus points factor in here. Fail the main round requirement, and you get a 0 in the whole Polish category.
-0 In the first round, this contest tends to get a few beginner card designers. For this reason I like to give warnings that don't effect score for minuscule errors that may just come from never joining a competitive contest before. In all other rounds, these mistakes constitute a -.25 to your score.
-.25 or -.5 Large mistakes such as forgetting to credit an artist. Or inconsistencies between the text and render versions of the card.
-1 Spirit of the Round: This is what you get for "cheating" the card to get a bonus point. Entirely up to my discretion. In the first round, you probably won't lose the whole point unless I'm sure it was intentional.
Total (_/25)
Total Possible Points: 25
Design: 10 points
Creativity: Does it present an old mechanic with a wonderful new twist? Does it make you slam the table and shout "Damn! Why didn't I think of that?" Do the individual elements combine in new ways? Have I seen this a million times in the Custom Cards forum (i.e., WotC hasn't done it but every amateur has)?
Flavor: Does the flavor feel connected to the rest of the design? Do all the pieces fit? Is the mechanic evocative?
Color Pie: Does this fit the current color pie? If printed, would this harm the identity of the color(s)? Is it a creative (in a good way) application of the color pie? Does it do a great job of capturing the essence of its color(s)?
Elegance: Does it say a lot in a few words? Is there more to the experience of playing this card than is obvious at first glance?
Rarity: Is this card assigned an appropriate rarity considering complexity, color bleeding, impact on Limited, etc.? If mythic, does it have a "mythic feel"?
"Gotcha's": - Does the card violate any rules of design? (Ex: Cards that use counters of more than one type. Hard counterspells that don't cost at least :symu::symu:.)
Development: 10 points
Curve: Is the cost (mana/additional/alternative) appropriate for "what you get"? Are any drawbacks meaningful; do they properly compensate for a reduced mana cost?
Environment: Is it playable in Standard without being overpowered? Would it break any format? How would an imaginary Standard or Limited block with that theme affect the power of the card?
Flavor: Do the individual flavor elements exceed the generic baseline? Is the name evocative? Is the flavor text well written? Do the name, card types, and flavor text add something new to the card? Does the art choice (if applicable) enhance the flavor?
Viability: Does it work? Could the rules be easily adapted to accomodate the mechanic? Does this card create memory issues? Is it too wordy to fit on a card? Is it too complex to be easily understood?
Fun: Would this card be fun to play?
Polish: 5 points
Because the bonus points have a 1-for-1 impact on the total score, there is no weighting in this category. Because of this, deductions in the "Language" category are very small. It will take a lot of sloppiness to lose more than a point on your overall score.
Bonus points: Are the bonus points technically met?
Language: Are there spelling, grammar, or punctuation mistakes? Is the templating correct, or if there is no precedent does it use the best possible templating?
Discretionary: +/-3 points
Rather than have a portion of the 25 total dedicated to "miscellaneous", what I will do is if I feel there is something that doesn't fit in another category, or I feel something special deserves more weight than the rubric normally gives it, I will adjust the score by up two 3 points. I will not use these points on a regular basis, they are only for circumstances that call for it. Things that might warrant use of these points:
If your card had a low score, was it because you took a risk/tried something controversial?
Did you meet the technical requirements of the round while avoiding the spirit of the challenge, i.e. avoiding the actual challenge presented?
Did you do an absolutely outstanding or horrible job in a category that doesn't get enough weight to influence the score as much as is deserved. For example: your design is basically jank, but it screams "print me!" because it's incredibly fun to play, or is exactly the kind of card Johnny loves.
Overall: As has always been the case, your most important categories are balance (the combined categories of Curve and Environment, worth about 5 points of your total), Flavor (combined under both Design and Devlopment, worth about 4 total points), and Creativity (worth about 3 points). Bonus and language/templating are also very important, being worth 5 points.
EDIT: This poll is public and will be up for a week.
Nothing is off-limits here, but please keep it civil, and remember that no changes are promised or even eventual. I'd just like to get some feedback.
Taking the first one and adding a flavor component in development counting for roughly 3 points and taking the "spirit of the round" idea and adding it to quality makes a pretty solid rubric. Also, I'm in the camp that says that bonus points should be extra. 27/25 should be a reality. Adding spirit of the round in place of the two bonus points and then adding the bonus points on top of whatever you recieved out of 25 seems right. The challenge each week ask you to do something. Then, you get bonus points if in doing that something you also did two other things. That makes the most sense to me.
Think about it this way. You get a perfect score one round adhering to the bonuses. Now, take off those two bonus points and you have 23 out of 25. 23 out of 25 is apparently a perfect score? Bonus points have nothing to do with balance, flavor or design, yet you need them to have a perfect card? That means no card Wizards has made in 16 years has been perfect because they are all only 23 out of 25. That doesn't make sense.
Either way, it seems we aren't really getting to make a choice here based on what we want, only electing a representative to piss our province's money away on hookers(representitives being the cut-out rubrics, not the judges). I'd be much more open to a discussion starting the rubric from scratch and seeing where everybody stands.
Many thanks from spiderboy at Highlight Studios
The more you define your point allocations, however, the more scores become homogenized. Many, many, many possible mistakes in card design are rarely made but deserve point deductions when they are. If you don't give enough weight to these mistakes they become irrelevant, but the more weight you give the less meaningful the more challenging design elements are. In other words, the aspects that really make a design great that you want to reward become marginalized.
I'm not sure what the ideal solution is. I tinkered with it a bit in my Sept judgings but didn't get to where I was happy with it. I may continue to tinker.
Best way to start such a discussion is to start the discussion. How about developing a rubric that fits your vision and posting it for opinions?
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
For example: In a challenge such as the ones we've had lately, I feel as though flavor takes a back seat to overall design (considering flavor text is usually absent in split and flip cards) but flavor is still integral in the feel of the card, it just isn't as important as it would be in a standard card.
Also, when I think about development, I get a feeling a long process of creating and revising, and re-revising, and re-envisioning. I don't feel like this is an appropriate piece of the rubric considering players have about a week to make each card.
The whole idea behind development would seem to be more in the realm of playability. You have to ask not only if you would play the card, but would others play the card.
Would my eyes light up when I opened a pack with this card in it? Would I regret passing it along for a more desirable rare (assuming it isn't a rare)? The whole idea is playability. I think Development is the wrong word.
We need to find descriptors of the judging criteria that allow judges to be unbiased but that don't stifle creativity with fear that failure to follow the criteria will result in a bad grade.
Many thanks from spiderboy at Highlight Studios
I feel the first 15 points should go into a checklist style platform where it asks very simple question with very straightforward answers and you simply get a point if you did that thing. For example:
Would spike like this card?
Is it the appropriate color or in the appropriate color combinations?
Is it templated correctly?
Is the name evocative of what the card does.
Examples of questions that would NOT be here are:
Is this card fun?
Would this card break the standard format?
Would this card be a limited powerhouse?
The first group of questions are objective. Everyone should have the same answers for those questions. The second set of questions starts asking about oppinionated things, and this is where arguments spawn from. The previous rubrics ask specific things but ask for subjective, oppinionated answers, so likely, two different people will have two views. If you fit all of your specific questions into an objective form of questioning, nobody can argue with that.
The next ten points are the subjective points. Does this card feel right? Would it see standard play? Is it good in limited? Is this primarily a combo card? Is that a bad thing? Theres no expected group of things to cover in this category, it's just to let the judge vent and say what he likes/ dislikes aobut the card and reward up to ten points accordingly.
Lastly, the two bonus points are added, allowing for a total of 27 out of 25. Maybe the judges can even put them in seperate colors so that if you got 25 out of 25 but 23 of those points are red and 2 of them are blue, then your bragging rights are slightly less because you used the bonus points to get to a perfect score rather than the card actucally being perfect.
I would like to try something like that, but the problem i could see coming up is that is too black and white. Anyone could judge a card like that for the first 15 points. And from the players stand point, i feel that we continously see the same shell for a card from every designer, with slight diffrences from those last 10 points (which isn't necessarily bad, but i would feel that would get boring really fast.
The GJ way path to no lynching:
Interestingly enough, and this could just be me (I'm very oppinionated, I'm aware) but if you design a decent card that adheres to the what the round wanted, has flavor elements, is templated correctly and isn't over powered/ ridiculously underpowered then you deserve a baseline of 15 points. I mean really, it's hard to get a score of below 10 points currently. All this does is give concrete reasoning to a score of 15. To get higher, your card has to resonate with players and thus the judge is able to connect with the card. I'm aware that all judgings can't be entirely objective, I just feel that certain things should simply be yes or no.
I stated that they were example questions to be asked. Though I didn't state it directly, I'm sure the other two would have their respectful points. I didn't mean to sound like only spike was getting attention.
1. It is often not so simple to distinguish objective and subjective. Whether a card is appropriate for the color pie, for example, is subjective because the game allows for overlap and bleeding and different people will have different ideas on what is acceptable. Whether Spike would like the card is also highly subjective considering not everyone agrees on the power level of a card and also many cards are powerful on a basis of cost vs. effect but for whatever reason don't make the cut in a Teir 1 deck.
I don't mean to pick apart your individual examples here; it's possible there could be a useful set of objective criteria to fit the list you propose. I'm just trying to show where it can go wrong so that it can be addressed before it actually does go wrong.
2. If most players score at least 15 points anyway under the current system and the remaining 10 points are what deterimines who advances, does a system that allocated 10 subjective points really change anything from the way the current system works?
********
As far as this overall poll/thread is concerned, my suggestion is to identify little things (if any) that could be done to improve the system rather than attempt a major overhaul.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
I didn't say our current system rewarded 15 points, I said you deserve to get 15 points, meaning regardless of subjective reasonings. I didn't mean it pertaining to our current rubric, I meant it more as a general philosphical statement. As it stands now, you could meet those requirement and get a judge who dislikes how your card plays or thinks its garbage even though all the design and development goals are met. With the checklist system, you're guarenteed the points you deserve, even if your judge doesn't like your card.
Creativity(X/12)
Mechanics- Is the card original? Does it use unexplored design space, little explored design space, or does it use common mechanics. If it uses common mechanics, are they used in an innovative way? If it uses new mechanics, how well are they executed?
Flavor & Fit - Does the name, type, and subtypes convey the idea of the card well? Does the flavor give you a feeling of character depth or context of setting? Does the card's ability fit its colors and the colorwheel? e.g. A blue 4/1 Turtle is simply wrong pending very compelling rules text.
In The Deck - Can this card be built around? If not, can it be an integral part of a deck? How do you see either/both of these concepts conveyed with the card? Would this be well received by Spikes/Johnnies/Timmys. If so, how well to they cater to each? (Only grade based upon which archetype they best fit, or the best synergy across archetypes)
Composition(X/8)
Balance – Does the card's cost match its power? How balanced are its interactions with other cards? Would you see it on the banned/restricted list?
Rules - Consider how previous cards of this design have been made. How well does this card fit the rules set by its mechanical predecessors, or does it re-envision the design while still working within the rules. (I also suggest the allowance of a single minor rules change per player to make their card fit, so as not to limit design based on rules, though this isn't integral to make this rubric work).
Grammar+ (X/5)
Proper Grammar, Spelling and Templating
Total(X/25) + Bonus(X/2)
The reason I made the first category 12 and the other 8 was because I feel this is first and foremost a design contest, so rules and balance shouldn't be on par with creativity. Plus if we divvy up points between sub-categories, it works such that each sub-category has 4 points (although I do not suggest putting values into the sub-categories so that it allows judges to allocate points in what they believe is more important, allowing a bit of subjectivity). That being said, a 10/10/5 rubric is standard so if you want to keep that, it's fine, I am primarily suggesting changes to the way things are phrased.
I feel my rubric has found a suitable balance between opinion and fact. Whether or not a card is original is (arguably) objective, while the fit with Spikes/Johnnies/Timmys is up to the judges interpretation.
Lemme know what you think.
Many thanks from spiderboy at Highlight Studios
I've done some thinking about balance, and I think I've got a way to standardize things a little. All cards are required to state their rarity, and each rarity is given a simple goal statement. For example, for commons the rubric should say that it's acceptable if the card won't make the cut in constructed, but it is important that the card isn't unbalancing with multiples in limited. Rares would be judged considering the tournament scene, and I'd like it clarified that a card doesn't need to be top tier so long as it would see some play . Just give each rarity a simple statement like that, with the usual specifications that all assumptions assume standard unless there is pressing reason otherwise. (Examples of "pressing reasons" include cards like Slivers when none are in standard, such a card aught be judged next to existing slivers.)
This sounds like common sense, but I wanted to say it anyway. I would like to have a pithy quotable purpose statement for balance. It would also make players think more carefully about rarity, and I feel too many newer designers don't even pay it any consideration.
I concur that it's nice to have some "floating" space in the categories, but I also enjoyed the older FCC specificity. It made me feel like I was being more consistent across the cards. Have you tried judging under a more specific rubric?
I agree that development needs a flavor aspect. I'm not as onboard with a "spirit of the round" idea, since meeting the round requirement should take care of that.
Ok, after thinking about this long and hard, I've come to the conclusion that I think it's a simple terminology issue. I see where you (and others) are coming from on this, but I want to project a different way of thinking, and simultaneously propose a change. You see, I feel that they're not so much "bonus" points as they are "challenge" points. You submit a card to meet the round requirement, then have the option to adhere to additional design constraints that challenge your ability.
With the mindset that they're not "bonus", but "challenge", we actually mimic an integral part of Wizards' design: designing to the set. They have additional restrictions placed on their card creation all the time. "We need a blue instant." "We need a rare, and it would be best if it could be CMC 5 or more to fit this subtheme." Etc. At that point, yes, a "perfect" card needs the challenge points to fulfill the optimal end result. Designing the card without them still results in a good card, just not the best one for the current job.
I am not fond of points over the rubric maximum. I propose a terminology (and thus, mind-) shift from "bonus" points to "challenge" points, and I feel that addresses the concerns brought up about the issue.
I think this is a strange path to tread, and may be unnecessarily complex.
I feel that flavor is as important in every card, just as balance, aesthetics, etc., are important in every card. The recent challenges that reduce the opportunity of flavor text present a challenge specifically to create significant flavor based off the remaining tools: name, typeline, art, if applicable. We don't apply different standards; we apply the same standard across the board and players compensate when difficulties arise, knowing that they're going to be held to a single set of criteria.
It's true that we don't have weeks to work on each idea, but there's still a series of development questions that I ask myself when I'm reviewing, fine-tuning, and finalizing my cards. (See more on my thoughts of design and development below.)
Actually, I see playability similar to potential, which I feel is definitely a Design element: creating a card that fulfills a purpose. Eyes lighting up and regrets for not taking it are, I think, pieces of aesthetics and demographic appeal, both, again, Design.
I disagree: the FCC functioned perfectly well under a balance-specific rubric, and I don't feel that the arguments were any more or less. One pro to more breakdown of points is that judging becomes more transparent. It's easier to see where points were lost, thus the feedback becomes more beneficial.
I think the erroneous assumption there is in the word "reasonable". I can give you (read: fabricate) reasons all the live long day why Time Walk is balanced and should be reprinted, but if 9/10 of you disagree, it's likely I'm wrong in my reasoning. Balance is actually one of the less-subjective elements of the rubric, imo, and following it with a specific number shouldn't be all that hard.
I agree that Balance was highly-rated with the FCC, but it's a significant element of card design. It deserves a good chunk of a score.
I don't feel this way at all. I feel that I have a pretty well-defined idea of balance, and I don't see how your zombie example above throws anything out of whack. Every set is going to have stronger and weaker cards to help shape the environment, but within the ranges of balance, all three of the cards you listed are within the bounds of printable. The Null is pushing the limit, I think, but not breaking it.
I'd be up for giving something like this a try, but I think I agree with Kraj in that you would find challenges. Would you be willing to be involved with creating a list of questions?
I feel that 10 discretionary points is a ridiculous amount of leeway that could lead to concerns about bias, since a judge could very easily award 9-10 points to a card he/she likes and 1-2 that he/she doesn't, with little reasoning. If I'm going to lose to an opponent by 8 points, I want to know what I did wrong and what he did right.
For the most part, but I don't think this competition should be afraid to try new things. The FCC had a lot of good going for it, but I think that the changes we've made have been improvements (in general), and that there are other areas where improvement can be made. If a good number of people can agree that we should try something new, I think it's worth our while to look at that.
I mostly agree with these points. If we're going to get into the question of "what's subjective or objective", there are very few things that we can state objectively: cost, color, formatting (with some odd exceptions where people get really "creative"), and not much else. Demographic appeal is more objective than "fun", just still subjective to an extent. However, if I ask "Would Spike like this card?", I would expect 9/10 Magic players to agree. If I ask "Is this card fun?", it would be much more hit or miss. That's the criteria I normally apply when thinking about subjectivity.
While I understand where you're coming from, I don't think that solidifying 3/5's of the judging then making the other 2/5's free-association is the solution.
I like a lot of this. I don't think that 5 points need to be given to grammar, spelling, and templating; the 3 we currently have should be sufficient. And I'm not sure what benefit we have to arranging the categories like this as opposed to what we currently have. But I wouldn't be opposed to giving something similar a shot.
The more I think about it, the more this statement makes sense. Whether it's 12 and 8 or something else, balance and rules are more "refinement within the structure already provided".
All cards should already state their rarity, and I would hesitate to base a huge number of points off of someone forgetting to put three characters ("(R)", for example) in their text card, but I like the idea of a well-defined ideal for different rarities. This might be extendable to other parts of the rubric as well, but I would suggest keeping them separate from the basic rubric (perhaps something in the discussion thread's opening post/FAQ) because at some point, people will stop reading/caring that there's eight pages of "guidelines".
Wanna give the creation of such statements a shot? (With acknowledgement that refinement is probably going to occur, regardless of how carefully you craft them?)
Going back to the original questions:
• I see Design as the implementation: creating the card idea, researching to make sure it doesn't already exist/been done better or worse, identifying the purpose and, hence, outcome/goal.
• I see Development as the refinement: ensuring balance and fit within the rules, adapting the flavor elements to fit the set (or just optimizing the flavor, in a contest like this), (technically, templating fits best for me here, too).
• I'm against "bonus" points over the "maximum", and suggest "challenge" points, instead.
• I like the idea of point-breakdown within the categories for transparency and feedback reasons, but I'm not going to crusade in that direction if others are fine with the more open categories.
Try adding descriptors to the primary categories themselves then, just for further clarification (also new names).
Form - Make a card based on the criteria of the round.
Function - Now that you've made a draft a of your card, make sure it fits within the rules and doesn't break the game.
Finish - Spell check, grammar check, Template check, and challenge points.
A couple specific definitions to better get the idea of my wording across
Form (n.)-the manner or style of arranging and coordinating parts for a pleasing or effective result, as in literary or musical composition (we want the cards to be effective).
Function (n.)-the kind of action or activity proper to a person, thing, or institution (rules make things proper).
Finish (n.)-the quality of being finished or completed with smoothness, elegance, etc.
Many thanks from spiderboy at Highlight Studios
No, it didn't. Balance was worth 10 points, but the full range was unaccessible. As a judge I didn't once give a card under a 7/10 on balance and not get a lengthy *****y PM about it. I know because I gave 4's and I believe on some occasions less. But the MCC is a beast of a different color from the FCC, and this is one of those times where it's worth remembering some of the imperfections of the past.
If we must give balance scores clearly and not lump balance into a larger category I can see the purpose of that as much as I don't fully agree. The only thing to do is to set how much it is worth now and define a 0 score as absolutely broken or absolutely useless. I got sick of giving disgustingly broken cards 6/10 in the FCC just to avoid arguments. This is another way the MCC is better than the FCC, after-round complaining is not a valid contest strategy. You can PM the judge, but judges don't have to write back with an essay to justify the difference of half point on balance.
Let's say M10 just hit, and someone submitted Mindless Null and you had to judge it, what would you give it? I'm curious what other judges would give too. On the current rubric, I would say it did fine on design but I would rip it a structurally superfluous new behind in development.
I wouldn't have a problem being in a group that fleshed out some point-by-point requirements, but judging by the views of the few who have taken the time to post in this discussion, it seems the endeavor might not be worth it. Maybe if there was some kind of poll as to whether or not the idea should be explored so that we know if it's not going to end up fruitless then I can put more time towards it. As it is, I'm a first year University student, so as you can imagine, I'm swamped.
@Kenaron
Personally, when I think design/ development, I think of it as wizards does. Design is the idea phase, development is when the card gets fleshed out. For example, mindless null in design would be "A black creature that can only attack if something else is attacking.". In development, it would be "A black 2/2 for 2B with the ability from design.". Therefore, I see balance as fitting in both catagories. Couple points if the concept is balanced, couple points if the card using the concept is balanced.
I agree that this helps significantly.
On balance, I'd dock it a point, maybe 1.25 for being underpowered. I certainly wouldn't rip it, as it's still on the playable side...but, I feel, just barely and would recommend a better p/t or cost.
I think the idea has merit. Let's keep it in mind.
I don't see balance as a design element. Design says "here's this awesome idea that will rock people's minds and totally break open the limited scene omgbbqimho!!11!!one!" And Development reins it in and says "Whoa, whoa, whoa. Yes, it's cool. But you can't make a 5/5 for G without some give with the take." Design's scope is less controlled, more creative. Imo.
I concur that the answer to that one is probably "no one", and I admit that our process is just a shadow show of Wizards' process. The idea is to come as close as possible, just as with renders: we do the best we can without a battery of commissioned artists at our beck and call.