That's been a common complaint lately. I think everyone gets the 3pts for 1st, 2pts for 2nd, 1pt for 3rd bit. Put simply, we just add in points for providing critiques/Top 3, then make that a percentage of the total points available for the round. The intention was to give every round equal weight, since there were often fewer judges in the later rounds.
...does the math actually do that? I think the advantage of the current system is that it lets people catch up better. Imagine a situation like this.
Round 1: 6 critiques for this team. Player A gets 6 1st place, Player B gets 6 3rd place. Both provide critiques and Top 3 for +2 bonus.
A: 20 raw, 111 adjusted. B: 8 raw, 40 adjusted.
Round 2: 4 critiques for this team. A and B each get two 1st and two 3rd places, and get the bonus points.
A: 20+10=30 raw, 111+83=194 adjusted. B: 8+10=18 raw, 40+83=123 adjusted.
Round 3: Only 2 critiques for the team this round. It is impossible for B to catch A on raw points, since there would be a max of 8. But say B got both 1st places and the bonus, and A got two 3rd places and the bonus.
A: 30+4=34 raw, 194+50=244 adjusted. B: 18+8=26 raw, 123+133=256 adjusted.
B ends up beating A in adjusted score since he did well when there were fewer critiques. I think that was the original intention of this system, since it would theoretically encourage people to stay in the contest since they could still come from behind. If the scoring is discouraging hosts and players because it is difficult to understand, though, we may need to rethink that.
I could host a poll or something but I don't know if that would do much good.
I did have one thought for an alternative method, which would be that each player is given 10 critique points at the end of the round, and they can distribute them as they like among all the cards, maybe with a cap of 3 for any one player. So I could say "I really liked this card, 3 pts, these two were my next favorites, 2 pts each, and here are three more that had interesting ideas, 1 pt each (for example)." Then you can just total up the points given to each player.
The disadvantages are that each player would need to look over all the cards, and that cards which don't get many or any points would not get much feedback.
Having just two teams is another possibility, not sure if that would be too many cards for people to critique effectively.
No worries. I'm no mathematician, but I believe that the standard CCL scoring makes it so that people can have the same number of raw Top 3 points, but if they are on different teams and had different numbers of critiques they would end up with different adjusted scores. I guess this is obvious - if one team only had one critique every round and the same person got 1st every time, they should end up with 300 points, while if someone on another team got a single 1st place every round but there were 6 critiques for their team, they would have a lot lower score.
I believe Raikou Rider from Broken should also advance unless you have some reason to break that tie. If you run group scoring in the next round, you can just cut to the Top 4.
I posted a critique for Team Insane just so they can get some opinions of their cards. I don't think it changes the standings on their team.
Typically we advance the top 2 from each of the four teams since you are being judged against the other people on your team. I don't know why it would work any differently this month. No crits for a team is pretty unfortunate though, if needed I will provide a critique.
A downturn in participation is somewhat to be expected and I believe it is a good idea not to structure the CCL such that there are limits on the participation. Having more people to start just gives you better odds that you will have enough people on teams by Round 3 to prevent this sort of situation.
3GGG, Champion Eater fights target creature you don't control: Monstrosity 3. (If this creature isn't monstrous, put three +1/+1 counters on it and it becomes monstrous.)
5/5
The price to make Champion Eater monstrous is 3GGG, along with fighting another creature. The idea behind it is that if it fights and survives, it becomes monstrous. I'm also pretty sure it can't become monstrous if your opponent controls no creatures.
I'm not sure if it is flat out prohibited, but targeting in the cost seems awkward. You can have it be a separate trigger I guess. Trying to do stuff like this with fight always ends awkwardly. Also, I understand what you want to do here, but Arbor Colossus and Keepsake Gorgon and so on work like they do because it seems more natural to beef up and then take someone out.
Congratulations Raikou Rider! I liked how Necropact worked with increasing cost, the enchantress was fun, and the communal zone at least sounded like an interesting idea to try, maybe for an alternate format.
Snow Creature - Penguin, I think the biggest issue with your cards was that they were overly specific and mechanical instead of being resonant. Also, a second battlefield was an interesting idea, but the execution seemed too much like shadow and parasitic because older cards would not interact with the dream zone.
...does the math actually do that? I think the advantage of the current system is that it lets people catch up better. Imagine a situation like this.
Round 1: 6 critiques for this team. Player A gets 6 1st place, Player B gets 6 3rd place. Both provide critiques and Top 3 for +2 bonus.
A: 20 raw, 111 adjusted. B: 8 raw, 40 adjusted.
Round 2: 4 critiques for this team. A and B each get two 1st and two 3rd places, and get the bonus points.
A: 20+10=30 raw, 111+83=194 adjusted. B: 8+10=18 raw, 40+83=123 adjusted.
Round 3: Only 2 critiques for the team this round. It is impossible for B to catch A on raw points, since there would be a max of 8. But say B got both 1st places and the bonus, and A got two 3rd places and the bonus.
A: 30+4=34 raw, 194+50=244 adjusted. B: 18+8=26 raw, 123+133=256 adjusted.
B ends up beating A in adjusted score since he did well when there were fewer critiques. I think that was the original intention of this system, since it would theoretically encourage people to stay in the contest since they could still come from behind. If the scoring is discouraging hosts and players because it is difficult to understand, though, we may need to rethink that.
I could host a poll or something but I don't know if that would do much good.
I did have one thought for an alternative method, which would be that each player is given 10 critique points at the end of the round, and they can distribute them as they like among all the cards, maybe with a cap of 3 for any one player. So I could say "I really liked this card, 3 pts, these two were my next favorites, 2 pts each, and here are three more that had interesting ideas, 1 pt each (for example)." Then you can just total up the points given to each player.
The disadvantages are that each player would need to look over all the cards, and that cards which don't get many or any points would not get much feedback.
Having just two teams is another possibility, not sure if that would be too many cards for people to critique effectively.
I believe Raikou Rider from Broken should also advance unless you have some reason to break that tie. If you run group scoring in the next round, you can just cut to the Top 4.
I posted a critique for Team Insane just so they can get some opinions of their cards. I don't think it changes the standings on their team.
A downturn in participation is somewhat to be expected and I believe it is a good idea not to structure the CCL such that there are limits on the participation. Having more people to start just gives you better odds that you will have enough people on teams by Round 3 to prevent this sort of situation.
I'm not sure if it is flat out prohibited, but targeting in the cost seems awkward. You can have it be a separate trigger I guess. Trying to do stuff like this with fight always ends awkwardly. Also, I understand what you want to do here, but Arbor Colossus and Keepsake Gorgon and so on work like they do because it seems more natural to beef up and then take someone out.
I edited the rule to make it clear that critiques are submitted in the same thread as the card submissions for that round. Thanks for the feedback
I probably have a mystery host lined up for October
EDIT: Also strongly considering dropping the percentified scoring since it seems to blow all the hosts out
Snow Creature - Penguin, I think the biggest issue with your cards was that they were overly specific and mechanical instead of being resonant. Also, a second battlefield was an interesting idea, but the execution seemed too much like shadow and parasitic because older cards would not interact with the dream zone.
Send a PM to CCC&G Pro Tour please, someone with access will calculate that eventually.