Looking at the submissions from the rest of my team for Round 1, Brasil Dude and I designed Commons; Crass Menagerie, Egak, and Albion47 designed Uncommons; Timothy, Mimeslayer designed an Uncommon or Rare (the creature doesn't deal the damage, so the controller is the source); and Jau designed a flat-out Rare, if not a Mythic. Blanket damage redirection is a Rare-level power, and, outside of Veteran Bodyguard/Weathered Bodyguards, has an activation cost on creatures. Jau got the highest score on my team, and his card failed the Challenge. The words "redirect" and "damage" never appear on a card together, either. The ability is worded as "damage dealt instead to."
But I didn't say anything, because my card was a simple Common, not meant to excite anyone, just fulfill the Challenge. I've worked within the Rules and parameters, and I've gotten knocked for it both Rounds. That's what trying to convey an idea with a card has to do with people staying within the design parameters.
I've had this happen to me numerous time before. And I've probably done it too, so I apologize.
However, "good concept for a card, failed challenge" should not be grounds for a valid card. If the wording is off, then you can credit people on the concept. It's frustrating to see people who overstep the boundaries of the contest score higher than you because "their idea would make a fine card". Maybe it would make a fine card, but it wouldn't make a fine card under the restrictions of the challenge. If a Core Set needed a red card and WotC Design put a blue one on the table but slapped a red mana symbol on it, unless Development was asleep, it wouldn't go through, because that's not what was required.
I propose an amendment to CCL rules stating that "challenge failed" cards be prohibited from making Top 3 unless there are too few cards that actually passed the challenge.
Well, I wasn't able to partake in much of the CCL, but for what it's worth, I thought your story was awesome. My favorite of all CCL's I've seen/been in by far.
I'm going to have a hard time trying to match it. My current CCL plans (yes, I work that far ahead) are interesting in terms of challenges, but far less entertaining story-wise. >_>
Since everyone seems to be getting in line for a shot at hosting, I would be willing to take another crack at it. This time, without attempting to coerce holiday flavor into it. >_>
I wish it was about the whole series of cards they designed for the competition instead.
This brings up an interesting point. When critiquing (and voting, whenever that starts) how much should the previous rounds' cards affect our opinions?
I mean, I find flavor really important, so to me, someone with good flavor and bad design is on equal ground with someone who has good design and bad flavor. Furthermore, I try to always consider how the card would be useful when played in conjunction with the previously designed cards as opposed to how they look in a vacuum. Basically, in summation, I care a lot about the previous designs.
Others, however, do not.
Should this be standardized in some way? I try to lean more towards flavor, which depending on the judges, can me make fall flat. Furthermore, sometimes you just end up comparing "Core Sets" to "Expansions", and they're so different in what they're trying to accomplish that it gets hard to judge. Has anyone else encountered these issues?
The scores are not actually that hard to calculate, assuming you understand how the scoring system works. Excel really is a wonderful piece of software.
Question, do people feel that the current CCL schedule is doable? I'd rather things get wrapped up in a month and not extend really far into the next month like they have for the last few months and look to do this month as well.
I apologize for that. I guess I'm just too nice a person to let people with legitimate excuses get eliminated for missing a round. Also, life.
I feel that Darkfire's schedule, is appropriate. However, I think the the biggest issue is with the hosts, since, as I can attest, real life meddles with things which delays round posting. I'm not quite sure how to remedy this other than to have an "impartial backup", or some non-playing user, have access to the month's challenges so that they can be posted in a timely manner. This would, however, require that someone not play for a given cycle, which doesn't seem too great.
The second largest issue, is, in my opinion, the timing for critiques. Although it would be far more hectic to do so, if the critique period for a given round occurred during the creation period for next round, I'm sure it would save tons of time. However, this too comes with inherent flaws.
Ultimately, I think we should use the timed round system, but grant the host some leeway in tardiness and/or timing, since certain challenges are far more time consuming than others (see the last round of October, for example).
I don't mind waiting, but may I get in line for a CCL? I have a little theme I been wanting to pull out for a while and hopefully my next semester isn't so bad.
I'd say ditto. I'll be away for a good portion of the summer, so July and August wouldn't work for me anyway. I'd be down for something like October though (since I'll still be adjusting to a new school in Sept).
On another note:
I've had this happen to me numerous time before. And I've probably done it too, so I apologize.
However, "good concept for a card, failed challenge" should not be grounds for a valid card. If the wording is off, then you can credit people on the concept. It's frustrating to see people who overstep the boundaries of the contest score higher than you because "their idea would make a fine card". Maybe it would make a fine card, but it wouldn't make a fine card under the restrictions of the challenge. If a Core Set needed a red card and WotC Design put a blue one on the table but slapped a red mana symbol on it, unless Development was asleep, it wouldn't go through, because that's not what was required.
I propose an amendment to CCL rules stating that "challenge failed" cards be prohibited from making Top 3 unless there are too few cards that actually passed the challenge.
I'm going to have a hard time trying to match it. My current CCL plans (yes, I work that far ahead) are interesting in terms of challenges, but far less entertaining story-wise. >_>
This brings up an interesting point. When critiquing (and voting, whenever that starts) how much should the previous rounds' cards affect our opinions?
I mean, I find flavor really important, so to me, someone with good flavor and bad design is on equal ground with someone who has good design and bad flavor. Furthermore, I try to always consider how the card would be useful when played in conjunction with the previously designed cards as opposed to how they look in a vacuum. Basically, in summation, I care a lot about the previous designs.
Others, however, do not.
Should this be standardized in some way? I try to lean more towards flavor, which depending on the judges, can me make fall flat. Furthermore, sometimes you just end up comparing "Core Sets" to "Expansions", and they're so different in what they're trying to accomplish that it gets hard to judge. Has anyone else encountered these issues?
Which one? >_>
I apologize for that. I guess I'm just too nice a person to let people with legitimate excuses get eliminated for missing a round. Also, life.
I feel that Darkfire's schedule, is appropriate. However, I think the the biggest issue is with the hosts, since, as I can attest, real life meddles with things which delays round posting. I'm not quite sure how to remedy this other than to have an "impartial backup", or some non-playing user, have access to the month's challenges so that they can be posted in a timely manner. This would, however, require that someone not play for a given cycle, which doesn't seem too great.
The second largest issue, is, in my opinion, the timing for critiques. Although it would be far more hectic to do so, if the critique period for a given round occurred during the creation period for next round, I'm sure it would save tons of time. However, this too comes with inherent flaws.
Ultimately, I think we should use the timed round system, but grant the host some leeway in tardiness and/or timing, since certain challenges are far more time consuming than others (see the last round of October, for example).
Oh well. Can I get in for whenever the next available month is?
I'd say ditto. I'll be away for a good portion of the summer, so July and August wouldn't work for me anyway. I'd be down for something like October though (since I'll still be adjusting to a new school in Sept).