Overall, a larger groups is "safer" for earning some amount a points.
I wanted to explain why this is not the case mathematically, but it's really simple. You don't compete with players from other groups for quarterfinal advancement, so this is irrelevant.
How is it irrelevant for the first 3 rounds? If I'm in a group of 4 for one round and someone else is in a group of 5, and we both place 4th every time with every judge , in the smaller group I would be award 0 points by every judge and in the larger group they would be awarded 1 per judge. Right? It doesn't matter that It's being divided based on how many people are in a group because a number great than 0 divided by a number is always great than 0 divided by a number. Unless I am completely misunderstanding the gist of your scoring.
That means that they come out better then I would for determining averages later, correct? This is different than the old system as points where only given to the top 3 regardless. One system favors smaller groups and the other larger. It's not to say that one is "wrong" but they favor different things. Is that not true?
Honestly I never really felt that distinction between CCL and MCC. If you miss the CCL's first round your chances, of qualifying to the top X are close to 0, and if you just like designing cards fit for a particular challenge, there is nothing stopping you from posting these anyway
Does that mean you'd still include it in a group to be judged? If not, that's a fruitless suggestion.
I agree, submitting cards in advance may not be an ideal solution, but it is a trade-off, my goal was to keep all the "work" within the month itself. Having it that way also helps the final contestants of the last month get the votes, I may even add 1 point bonus for writing comments about those for the 1st Round.
I think more players will be annoyed at making entries that are disqualified then taking a few more days into the next month. This is really my biggest concern.
Tie breakers have always been that way, you can check in the first post in this topic
If you're formalizing everything else, that's inconsistent.
I will specify what is a "short comment" exactly - up to one sentence.
Potentially arbitrary. Consider:
"I don't like the card. It's pretty weak and dull. Also, the name is annoying."
Vs.
"I think this card would only be played as a fringe card in limited and wouldn't excite players between having a generic flavor and no abilities that appeal to any of the major psychographics."
According to you, the first would get more points.
Last, but not least, the scores you are so worried about. Math says we're cool. Remember the points earned are in the end divided by max points possible to earn. It is a percent-based score. You can never get more than 100
I can do math and understand the division, thank you. I think I spoke poorly in describing my point. By making it so everyone except the person in last gets some amount of points, your weighing an advantage towards larger groups since your more likely to get something rather than nothing. Its not that there is an imbalance in the calculating the scores, its that 4th place in one group will net you points while in another you'll get nothing. Overall, a larger groups is "safer" for earning some amount a points. I suppose the reverse was true before, but which method is more fair? The more I think about it the more I'm unsure.
Really though in breaking everything down, after smoothing over some inconsistencies in how formal you're making this I think it'd be fine to test. Except the whole submit your cards in advance in case you pass thing. That is perhaps the one element I'm vehemently against.
I'll follow up on June if possible,to set a good example with the new system
I have some qualms with the new rules you are proposing. I would of played this past month, but with how the rounds were already pre divided into groups and after missing the first one, It kinda felt unwelcome. I really have always enjoyed how the first 3 rounds of the CCL were less formal and did not require me to participate in each (despite the advantage in doing so.) CCL has kind of been a bridge as a more casual design competition then the MCC and I'm worried the making it more formal will negate that distinction.
The idea the we have to submit cards in advance without knowing if we move on to the next round is a huge con to your proposed system and has the potential to leave many players bitter and waste there efforts. Additionally, there is a lot of subjectivity left to the organizer in terms of tie breakers and whether or not a players critiques are worth one or two points based on brevity. The final major note I have at the moment is that the proposed ranking system, where you judge not a top 3 but every one in order and assign points scaling upward. As I understand it if one group has 4 players and the other has 5, the one with 5 players have more points to earn. That doesn't seem reasonable. I realize the opposite case where top 3s taken from different group sizes aren't 100% balanced either, but it does put players up for the same number of possible points in a group verses everyone having a relative score. All that ranking system does is favor being in larger groups than smaller ones instead of vice versa, and the advantage seems larger than it was before.
Whelp. It looks like I've already lost this months poll for the CCL. Admittedly I went into the challenge feeling like I would lose based on the fact the we were required to use different mechanics, of which I feel cipher is much more popular. I feel in the future, final round challenges where the requirements are different among players should be avoided.
Anything can happen, in the meantime I challenge you to the second round of Finals - make me a Cipher cycle. I did a Bushido one already here
Sure, I accept your challenge. Woulda said something sooner but I've been out of commission with strep.
Whelp. It looks like I've already lost this months poll for the CCL. Admittedly I went into the challenge feeling like I would lose based on the fact the we were required to use different mechanics, of which I feel cipher is much more popular. I feel in the future, final round challenges where the requirements are different among players should be avoided.
@IcariiFA...Thank you for your willingness to revisit your position. Sorry if my post yesterday come off poorly. I wasn't trying to be a jerk, I was just trying to defend my position. Anyway, it looks like you'll be advancing into the next round, so good luck and good job in round 5!
I'm always open to critque, and I do make mistakes. I felt your point in this case was valid and reconsidered. I don't consider what you said being a jerk. I wish more people were open to critique. No worries
To be fair, most multicolored sets have cards that are multicolored simply for the sake of the flavor and context of the set they were designed in. I made a card that flavorfully could only be in one set in magics history, and within that set Filigree Dragon would be a multicolored card. Even without the sets gimmick, it still would of likely been blue or otherwise artifact colored influence based on the ties to Esper mixing with Jund.
Now that the judging phase is over, I wanted to make a response to the consistent critique of my card.
Filigree Dragon4RU
Artifact Creature - Dragon (R)
Flying 1UR, Sacrifice an artifact: Filigree Dragon deals 3 damage to target creature or player. After devouring countless denizens of Esper, it began to spew breath unlike any of it's kin.
4/4
Pretty much every reviewer asked "Is this card blue?" or flat out said "This card should/could be mono red." I strongly disagree for two main and interrelated reasons. The first is the context of the card. The name and flavor make this card clearly from Alara Reborn, a multi colored only set taking place after the shards have come together combining the demi planes. Second, all colored artifacts cards in Alara had a tie to the colors of Esper, as specifically did all filigree cards. What is blue about Filigree Angel? According to my peers here, apparently nothing. I'd wager the argument for that card would be the same as mine, that it's an artifact that ties to Esper and cares about artifacts (even though white is tertiary to caring about artifacts naturally on its own.) You can say the same about Filigree Dragon, except with red instead of white.
I just wanted to levi that argument, as sometimes flavor and context warrants additional colors that may not be "necessary" depending how you directly interpret the mechanics of the design. However in Alara there is a clear mechanical context for artifact creatures as well as flavor that trumps what could possibly be a mono red card in another setting.
The next round will be up either tonight or tomorrow morning, so those who haven't submitted a critique or a top 3 can still do so.
Not that it would make a difference in my case, but don't you get points for actually submitting a critique on time, or this optional month to month depending on who runs it?
I agree that your scheme isn't as overpowered as some may have automatically assumed. It's similar to Rhystic Study with an upside, and while it generates a lot of advantage it cost mana to do so. Mana you have to split spend between three opponents as they tap things, and decided based on the order they do. My biggest issue would be memory issues with what got 'frozen' by it's effect. It brushes on the border of power level for schemes, but I don't think it's easy to judge as WAY out there. It'd need testing.
But hey, that's the thing about peer judging. You'll often fine your peers arn't on the same page.
How is it irrelevant for the first 3 rounds? If I'm in a group of 4 for one round and someone else is in a group of 5, and we both place 4th every time with every judge , in the smaller group I would be award 0 points by every judge and in the larger group they would be awarded 1 per judge. Right? It doesn't matter that It's being divided based on how many people are in a group because a number great than 0 divided by a number is always great than 0 divided by a number. Unless I am completely misunderstanding the gist of your scoring.
That means that they come out better then I would for determining averages later, correct? This is different than the old system as points where only given to the top 3 regardless. One system favors smaller groups and the other larger. It's not to say that one is "wrong" but they favor different things. Is that not true?
Does that mean you'd still include it in a group to be judged? If not, that's a fruitless suggestion.
I think more players will be annoyed at making entries that are disqualified then taking a few more days into the next month. This is really my biggest concern.
If you're formalizing everything else, that's inconsistent.
Potentially arbitrary. Consider:
"I don't like the card. It's pretty weak and dull. Also, the name is annoying."
Vs.
"I think this card would only be played as a fringe card in limited and wouldn't excite players between having a generic flavor and no abilities that appeal to any of the major psychographics."
According to you, the first would get more points.
I can do math and understand the division, thank you. I think I spoke poorly in describing my point. By making it so everyone except the person in last gets some amount of points, your weighing an advantage towards larger groups since your more likely to get something rather than nothing. Its not that there is an imbalance in the calculating the scores, its that 4th place in one group will net you points while in another you'll get nothing. Overall, a larger groups is "safer" for earning some amount a points. I suppose the reverse was true before, but which method is more fair? The more I think about it the more I'm unsure.
Really though in breaking everything down, after smoothing over some inconsistencies in how formal you're making this I think it'd be fine to test. Except the whole submit your cards in advance in case you pass thing. That is perhaps the one element I'm vehemently against.
I have some qualms with the new rules you are proposing. I would of played this past month, but with how the rounds were already pre divided into groups and after missing the first one, It kinda felt unwelcome. I really have always enjoyed how the first 3 rounds of the CCL were less formal and did not require me to participate in each (despite the advantage in doing so.) CCL has kind of been a bridge as a more casual design competition then the MCC and I'm worried the making it more formal will negate that distinction.
The idea the we have to submit cards in advance without knowing if we move on to the next round is a huge con to your proposed system and has the potential to leave many players bitter and waste there efforts. Additionally, there is a lot of subjectivity left to the organizer in terms of tie breakers and whether or not a players critiques are worth one or two points based on brevity. The final major note I have at the moment is that the proposed ranking system, where you judge not a top 3 but every one in order and assign points scaling upward. As I understand it if one group has 4 players and the other has 5, the one with 5 players have more points to earn. That doesn't seem reasonable. I realize the opposite case where top 3s taken from different group sizes aren't 100% balanced either, but it does put players up for the same number of possible points in a group verses everyone having a relative score. All that ranking system does is favor being in larger groups than smaller ones instead of vice versa, and the advantage seems larger than it was before.
Sure, I accept your challenge. Woulda said something sooner but I've been out of commission with strep.
I'm always open to critque, and I do make mistakes. I felt your point in this case was valid and reconsidered. I don't consider what you said being a jerk. I wish more people were open to critique. No worries
You too!
No. It would need to be resolved on the battlefield for it to trigger off of a casting.
To be fair, most multicolored sets have cards that are multicolored simply for the sake of the flavor and context of the set they were designed in. I made a card that flavorfully could only be in one set in magics history, and within that set Filigree Dragon would be a multicolored card. Even without the sets gimmick, it still would of likely been blue or otherwise artifact colored influence based on the ties to Esper mixing with Jund.
Pretty much every reviewer asked "Is this card blue?" or flat out said "This card should/could be mono red." I strongly disagree for two main and interrelated reasons. The first is the context of the card. The name and flavor make this card clearly from Alara Reborn, a multi colored only set taking place after the shards have come together combining the demi planes. Second, all colored artifacts cards in Alara had a tie to the colors of Esper, as specifically did all filigree cards. What is blue about Filigree Angel? According to my peers here, apparently nothing. I'd wager the argument for that card would be the same as mine, that it's an artifact that ties to Esper and cares about artifacts (even though white is tertiary to caring about artifacts naturally on its own.) You can say the same about Filigree Dragon, except with red instead of white.
I just wanted to levi that argument, as sometimes flavor and context warrants additional colors that may not be "necessary" depending how you directly interpret the mechanics of the design. However in Alara there is a clear mechanical context for artifact creatures as well as flavor that trumps what could possibly be a mono red card in another setting.
Not that it would make a difference in my case, but don't you get points for actually submitting a critique on time, or this optional month to month depending on who runs it?
But hey, that's the thing about peer judging. You'll often fine your peers arn't on the same page.
Thanks all for your votes and good game to the competition! See ya'll next month.