Please vote and thank you all for your support, patience, and participation. I'd love any feedback on the challenges as well. I hope this was fun for everyone and look forward to many more contests with you all.
Oh my God, my first proper CCL win. Ever. That may be hard to believe, but I've never gone to a final and then gotten a majority of the votes before.
Thanks, everyone. I didn't even think this was my strongest CCL run in a while; it kind of gives me confidence that I can win in a month where I thought I was having an "off" time, haha. I did design Unified Drive though, which I was crazy proud of.
As written, this seems bonkers in a mono-Green deck and unplayable in anything else. Which is fine, we've seen it before (Khalni Hydra, Primalcrux), but then why 2G? This card isn't really subtle about its love for Green mana, so I don't think there's any sense in playing coy with the mana cost. If one ability worked well with Forests and the other worked well with non-Forests, I think 2G could be interesting, but as written just own it and go GGG. This is a decent design, but not quite as good at it thinks it is.]
Yowch. Condescending.
By the way, you missed the point of reference: Dungrove Elder
As written, this seems bonkers in a mono-Green deck and unplayable in anything else. Which is fine, we've seen it before (Khalni Hydra, Primalcrux), but then why 2G? This card isn't really subtle about its love for Green mana, so I don't think there's any sense in playing coy with the mana cost. If one ability worked well with Forests and the other worked well with non-Forests, I think 2G could be interesting, but as written just own it and go GGG. This is a decent design, but not quite as good at it thinks it is.]
Yowch. Condescending.
By the way, you missed the point of reference: Dungrove Elder
I apologize; condescension was not my aim, and I must confess as I read it back it doesn't sound condescending in my head, but then authorial intent has a way of getting muddled when tone and inflection are taken away. I was going for explanatory, and perhaps to-the-point, but I can see how it could come off as condescending--especially "This is a decent design, but not quite as good at it thinks it is," which sounded clever as I was typing it and now just sounds... well, "clumsy" is being kind--and I shall apologize again.
That being said--you're right, I did miss the riff on Dungrove Elder. But the existence of Dungrove Elder proves my point, I feel. DE excels in a monogreen deck, but is at least decent in, say, a Gx Limited deck. Living Expanse can't say the same, since both of its abilities rely on Forests, as opposed to just one. Subtlety isn't green's strong suit, so it just felt weird to me to have text that so strongly shouted monogreen and a casting cost that didn't.
So my missteps in tone aside, I hope there's still some design advice to be salvaged there. Or, if I may twist a phrase with some mediocre wordplay, don't throw the baby out with the sasswater.
As written, this seems bonkers in a mono-Green deck and unplayable in anything else. Which is fine, we've seen it before (Khalni Hydra, Primalcrux), but then why 2G? This card isn't really subtle about its love for Green mana, so I don't think there's any sense in playing coy with the mana cost. If one ability worked well with Forests and the other worked well with non-Forests, I think 2G could be interesting, but as written just own it and go GGG. This is a decent design, but not quite as good at it thinks it is.]
Yowch. Condescending.
By the way, you missed the point of reference: Dungrove Elder
I apologize; condescension was not my aim, and I must confess as I read it back it doesn't sound condescending in my head, but then authorial intent has a way of getting muddled when tone and inflection are taken away. I was going for explanatory, and perhaps to-the-point, but I can see how it could come off as condescending--especially "This is a decent design, but not quite as good at it thinks it is," which sounded clever as I was typing it and now just sounds... well, "clumsy" is being kind--and I shall apologize again.
That being said--you're right, I did miss the riff on Dungrove Elder. But the existence of Dungrove Elder proves my point, I feel. DE excels in a monogreen deck, but is at least decent in, say, a Gx Limited deck. Living Expanse can't say the same, since both of its abilities rely on Forests, as opposed to just one. Subtlety isn't green's strong suit, so it just felt weird to me to have text that so strongly shouted monogreen and a casting cost that didn't.
So my missteps in tone aside, I hope there's still some design advice to be salvaged there. Or, if I may twist a phrase with some mediocre wordplay, don't throw the baby out with the sasswater.
One of your main critiques was that my entry needed more green in its mana cost. Dungrove elder provides a solid argument against that, especially since it is a riff of the card. I was just illustrating that you needed the right point of reference before making your claim, which you did not have at the time. I'm not saying there isn't an arguement to be made for my card needing more green, just your example cards weren't the right ones.
One of your main critiques was that my entry needed more green in its mana cost. Dungrove elder provides a solid argument against that, especially since it is a riff of the card. I was just illustrating that you needed the right point of reference before making your claim, which you did not have at the time.
First of all, if my appreciation of a card requires "the right point of reference", is the design really that strong? If Time Spiral block taught us anything, it's that if a card requires previous knowledge of another, older card for the player to "get it", then that card is going to alienate a lot of people who look at it. Now, you could argue that everyone here is an experienced Magic player to some degree and should get the reference, but I try to base my critiques on if I think the player base as a whole would appreciate the card, not just CCL participants.
Second, if you were trying to make a riff on Dungrove Elder, and the first two cards that came to my mind weren't that, is that my fault as a "consumer" or your fault as a designer? Probably 50/50, if we're being honest. I know I saw at least one critique that picked up on the DE association right away and gave you props for it--nice! But for me, similarities aside, having two "monogreen" abilities on Living Expanse put it further in spirit from the Dungrove Elder camp and closer to the Primalcrux camp.
Stating that there is a "right" and "wrong" way to interpret a card design seems like a dicey proposition. Everyone who looks at a card is going to view it through a different lens, and unfortunately the lens I brought to Living Expanse didn't line up with the lens through which you designed it. But unless you put "This is a take on Dungrove Elder" as the flavortext, that's gonna happen on occasion. Bringing right and wrong into the mix just kinda seems like bad form, y'know?
Let me rephrase: Your example cards weren't the closest.
This isn't a case of needing an older card reference to "get" the individual card. This is case of evaluating the balance of a card using the best reference possible as critique. My card was designed with Dungrove Elder as the explicit point of reference in terms of design/power level, but not flavor. So "getting" the connection isn't important outside of that. I don't disagree with the sentiment that cards need to be understandable to the average consumer at all. However, the consumer connecting the card to dungrove elder isn't important.
On the other hand, it is important for you as a designer weighing in on how much a card should cost to make that connection. If the point of comparison you personally jump to are creatures that count mana symbols/creatures instead of creatures that count forests, including the one at the same price point then the evaluation is going to be inherently off.
You can still disagree with how I costed the card even after seeing Dungrove Elder and I'd respect that opinion, but pointing to the missed connection a consumer might make is a falsehood here. You were critiquing balance. The fact that you omitted the closest example while evaluating balance is more your error than mine. And I wouldn't of even bothered to point it out if your critique didn't come off as a tad condescending.
I think you missed the point of me suggesting it cost GGG. In most decks where Living Expanse would/should be played, you're going to end up paying GGG for it anyway, so if I had issues with balance I would have suggested increasing the CMC or adding a drawback. But the card feels much more monogreen than Dungrove Elder, and I felt that changing the mana cost from 2G to GGG would gel better with the feel of your card while still keeping the balance the same. Primalcrux and Khalni Hydra were brought up because, while Living Expanse had a lot of cosmetic similarities with Dungrove Elder, in terms of feel it felt closer to the other two. As you designed it, it felt like it existed in this weird middle ground where it looked like Dungrove Elder but felt like other cards. As such, I felt it would have been better served if it hand been pushed more strongly to one of the two sides, and suggesting a change to the mana cost seemed to me the cleanest way to accomplish that.
I think you missed the point of me suggesting it cost GGG. In most decks where Living Expanse would/should be played, you're going to end up paying GGG for it anyway, so if I had issues with balance I would have suggested increasing the CMC or adding a drawback. But the card feels much more monogreen than Dungrove Elder, and I felt that changing the mana cost from 2G to GGG would gel better with the feel of your card while still keeping the balance the same. Primalcrux and Khalni Hydra were brought up because, while Living Expanse had a lot of cosmetic similarities with Dungrove Elder, in terms of feel it felt closer to the other two. As you designed it, it felt like it existed in this weird middle ground where it looked like Dungrove Elder but felt like other cards. As such, I felt it would have been better served if it hand been pushed more strongly to one of the two sides, and suggesting a change to the mana cost seemed to me the cleanest way to accomplish that.
I considered costing it more green, but it's important to note that while Living Expanse wants forests it also wants you to play nonforest too. So pure G costs IMO was not the way to go.
However, since you haven't rebutted me about Dungrove Elder being the closest/necessary point of reference or how the consumer was not a relevant argument for balance, I think I've made my point. As I said, you're free to disagree with costing and I respect that. But a critique on the balance of Living Expanse that cosndiers other cards but not dungroove elder is a mistake.
Living Expanse2G
Creature - Spirit (R)
Living Expanse's power and toughness are each equal to the number of forests you control.
Whenever you play a forest land, if it's the first land you've played this turn, you may play an additional land this turn.
*/*
Both of those abilities get significantly weaker for each non-Forest in your deck.
(Also I'm dashing these off between meetings at work, so unfortunately they're not as robust as I'd like.)
Living Expanse2G
Creature - Spirit (R)
Living Expanse's power and toughness are each equal to the number of forests you control.
Whenever you play a forest land, if it's the first land you've played this turn, you may play an additional land this turn.
*/*
Both of those abilities get significantly weaker for each non-Forest in your deck.
(Also I'm dashing these off between meetings at work, so unfortunately they're not as robust as I'd like.)
Huh. You're right. I think one of my earlier edits had a "non basic" clause. I can see your argument better with that change.
I might not be able to post proper critiques before midnight. I didn't do the critiques yesterday because I took that we were waiting for BrainPo to submit, but today is election day here and I'll be auditing local vote count for the party I support. I'll do my best anyway
I might not be able to post proper critiques before midnight. I didn't do the critiques yesterday because I took that we were waiting for BrainPo to submit, but today is election day here and I'll be auditing local vote count for the party I support. I'll do my best anyway
Thank you for your public service. As I said in the round thread, it's okay as you have until tomorrow afternoon. I won't close the round for about 14 hours. I would say the closing time would be after 2 PM EST.
So, it's been a couple of months. How's the data on 'mandatory top 3'? Are we happy with the results so far? I'm posting as though we are continuing to run a trial of that rule, but I feel like we are close to the point where we can make a decision about whether or not to keep it.
Please vote and thank you all for your support, patience, and participation. I'd love any feedback on the challenges as well. I hope this was fun for everyone and look forward to many more contests with you all.
Yes, go for it.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
Thanks, everyone. I didn't even think this was my strongest CCL run in a while; it kind of gives me confidence that I can win in a month where I thought I was having an "off" time, haha. I did design Unified Drive though, which I was crazy proud of.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
Yowch. Condescending.
By the way, you missed the point of reference: Dungrove Elder
Thank you. It's actually black and white on my phone - Orzhov colors. I didn't realize it would not appear the same elsewhere.
I apologize; condescension was not my aim, and I must confess as I read it back it doesn't sound condescending in my head, but then authorial intent has a way of getting muddled when tone and inflection are taken away. I was going for explanatory, and perhaps to-the-point, but I can see how it could come off as condescending--especially "This is a decent design, but not quite as good at it thinks it is," which sounded clever as I was typing it and now just sounds... well, "clumsy" is being kind--and I shall apologize again.
That being said--you're right, I did miss the riff on Dungrove Elder. But the existence of Dungrove Elder proves my point, I feel. DE excels in a monogreen deck, but is at least decent in, say, a Gx Limited deck. Living Expanse can't say the same, since both of its abilities rely on Forests, as opposed to just one. Subtlety isn't green's strong suit, so it just felt weird to me to have text that so strongly shouted monogreen and a casting cost that didn't.
So my missteps in tone aside, I hope there's still some design advice to be salvaged there. Or, if I may twist a phrase with some mediocre wordplay, don't throw the baby out with the sasswater.
One of your main critiques was that my entry needed more green in its mana cost. Dungrove elder provides a solid argument against that, especially since it is a riff of the card. I was just illustrating that you needed the right point of reference before making your claim, which you did not have at the time. I'm not saying there isn't an arguement to be made for my card needing more green, just your example cards weren't the right ones.
First of all, if my appreciation of a card requires "the right point of reference", is the design really that strong? If Time Spiral block taught us anything, it's that if a card requires previous knowledge of another, older card for the player to "get it", then that card is going to alienate a lot of people who look at it. Now, you could argue that everyone here is an experienced Magic player to some degree and should get the reference, but I try to base my critiques on if I think the player base as a whole would appreciate the card, not just CCL participants.
Second, if you were trying to make a riff on Dungrove Elder, and the first two cards that came to my mind weren't that, is that my fault as a "consumer" or your fault as a designer? Probably 50/50, if we're being honest. I know I saw at least one critique that picked up on the DE association right away and gave you props for it--nice! But for me, similarities aside, having two "monogreen" abilities on Living Expanse put it further in spirit from the Dungrove Elder camp and closer to the Primalcrux camp.
Stating that there is a "right" and "wrong" way to interpret a card design seems like a dicey proposition. Everyone who looks at a card is going to view it through a different lens, and unfortunately the lens I brought to Living Expanse didn't line up with the lens through which you designed it. But unless you put "This is a take on Dungrove Elder" as the flavortext, that's gonna happen on occasion. Bringing right and wrong into the mix just kinda seems like bad form, y'know?
Let me rephrase: Your example cards weren't the closest.
This isn't a case of needing an older card reference to "get" the individual card. This is case of evaluating the balance of a card using the best reference possible as critique. My card was designed with Dungrove Elder as the explicit point of reference in terms of design/power level, but not flavor. So "getting" the connection isn't important outside of that. I don't disagree with the sentiment that cards need to be understandable to the average consumer at all. However, the consumer connecting the card to dungrove elder isn't important.
On the other hand, it is important for you as a designer weighing in on how much a card should cost to make that connection. If the point of comparison you personally jump to are creatures that count mana symbols/creatures instead of creatures that count forests, including the one at the same price point then the evaluation is going to be inherently off.
You can still disagree with how I costed the card even after seeing Dungrove Elder and I'd respect that opinion, but pointing to the missed connection a consumer might make is a falsehood here. You were critiquing balance. The fact that you omitted the closest example while evaluating balance is more your error than mine. And I wouldn't of even bothered to point it out if your critique didn't come off as a tad condescending.
I think you missed the point of me suggesting it cost GGG. In most decks where Living Expanse would/should be played, you're going to end up paying GGG for it anyway, so if I had issues with balance I would have suggested increasing the CMC or adding a drawback. But the card feels much more monogreen than Dungrove Elder, and I felt that changing the mana cost from 2G to GGG would gel better with the feel of your card while still keeping the balance the same. Primalcrux and Khalni Hydra were brought up because, while Living Expanse had a lot of cosmetic similarities with Dungrove Elder, in terms of feel it felt closer to the other two. As you designed it, it felt like it existed in this weird middle ground where it looked like Dungrove Elder but felt like other cards. As such, I felt it would have been better served if it hand been pushed more strongly to one of the two sides, and suggesting a change to the mana cost seemed to me the cleanest way to accomplish that.
I considered costing it more green, but it's important to note that while Living Expanse wants forests it also wants you to play nonforest too. So pure G costs IMO was not the way to go.
However, since you haven't rebutted me about Dungrove Elder being the closest/necessary point of reference or how the consumer was not a relevant argument for balance, I think I've made my point. As I said, you're free to disagree with costing and I respect that. But a critique on the balance of Living Expanse that cosndiers other cards but not dungroove elder is a mistake.
Wait--what? Am I missing something? This is the card I saw in Round 1:
Both of those abilities get significantly weaker for each non-Forest in your deck.
(Also I'm dashing these off between meetings at work, so unfortunately they're not as robust as I'd like.)
Huh. You're right. I think one of my earlier edits had a "non basic" clause. I can see your argument better with that change.
Thank you for your public service. As I said in the round thread, it's okay as you have until tomorrow afternoon. I won't close the round for about 14 hours. I would say the closing time would be after 2 PM EST.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
There is now. Download that as an Excel sheet and you should be up and running.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝