Alright looks like IcariiFA closes out the year with another win, good work*! And a thank you to my co-judges for their time and effort.
*Though you got a bit lucky with the pairings in Round 2!
Was it necessary to take a pot shot at my victory? Seesh. I'm tired of this.
There is always luck in the MCC, especially in the first two rounds between pairings and only having a single judges opinion. I'm not saying this past month I had the most spectacular entries ever, but come on.
Also, I still hope to get in some last minute wins on my 2017 campaign
That's right. You've still got a chance to add one more win with the December MCC.
The shade is strong in this one... haha.
But hey, if I only win the CCL 5 times instead of 6 times for 2017, I guess that's fine. Or for the MCC ive got 4 wins, so getting 5 would be a bonus. I think I'm good.
An Azorius card could be the white card of the cycle if it was more white than blue potentially. I wanted to give room for people to be creative, but that doesn't mean people won't make mistakes by going multicolored without making the card feel like that white card of the cycle.
Also, I still hope to get in some last minute wins on my 2017 campaign
Multi colored cards are allowed, as indicated in the clarifications of the main challenge. However, you are tasked with making a white card. A card that is balanced between white and it's other colors may not read as the white representative of the cycle and thus should lose points. However, as sets like Alara have shown, you can do mulitcolor with one of them being the focus of the faction. Balance your cards accordingly in cost and effects.
This challenge is harder than it looks for multiple reasons, including pitfalls like allowing multicolor.
Does the first challenge creature have to be of the Beast subtype or are you using the word beast to mean like a savage animal?
Good question! I plan on allowing whatever sub type you feel fits your creative vision. However, keep in mind that if you don't use the beast sub type and pick something a judge feels inappropriate (like human for example), you can lose points.
Well, I finished my straight year run as a competitor in both the MCC and the CCL to add to my credentials. I'd like to host both the CCL and MCC if that's good by you.
2IcariiFA: you know what's strange? Your posted card is not legendary but the quoted version definitely is so I judged it as though it is. Not sure what's going on here.
That is weird, but I've seen it happen before. I did post it forgetting the legendary line, but noticed it almost right away and edited it in. I've noticed sometimes when you make edits at almost the same time as the initial post, this happens. It doesn't display the change, but the change was made which is why it's in the code/quoted text. I just didn't triple check I guess.
I appreciate the benefit of the doubt here, as I did change it.
Well, I see. The main challenge in round 3 says: design a creature card with power 5 or more and menace.
I guess the points should be reduced by 1 for:
- creature cards with 5+ power but without menace;
- creature cards with menace but with power 4 or less;
- noncreature cards (Vehicles) with power 5 or more and menace.
And probably by 1,5 points for noncreature cards (Vehicles) with only menace or only power 5 or more.
However, I hope no one will do that.
I personally disagree with your assesment here. This challenge has very little subjectivity. An entry that doesn't have 5+ power and Menace should be an automatic 0.
Someone enlighten me, how it possible to give a player more than 0 but less than 2 points in Main Challenge rubric?
When someone (in a judges opinion) fudges the main challenge when the main challenge allows for subjectivity. The rubric was written that way to allow for subjective main challenges.
What? No, my analogy had nothing to do with getting along with people, who needs that (jk :))). By "audience pleaser" I pretty much define a designer's ability to design cards that the average judge will like on first read-through (before he even begins going through the rubric) and not consider to be "off" in ways he can't put his or her finger on.
Ah, I see. Then I find it strange that you suggest my ability on that front is so low. I think I often design cards that both highly grokable and have a lot of appeal to judges with cool effects. Not everything I submit in these contest are cards I'm super stoked/proud of, but there are certainly some stand outs.
(3/3) Quality: Yeah yeah you're not ever losing points in this are you.
I like how it's become a trend to joke about how I rarely lose points for quality!
Thanks for another fun month, y'all. Tribal months can be difficult to make the most compelling, but it still was a good time. That brings me up to 4 MCC wins this year! Woot.
I'm almost settled into my new place now (moving to a new city and starting over is hard) but I should be a bit more talkitive going forward.
@IcariiFA...With the amount of time you have spent bashing Conntroll for his guide and arguing about who is and isn't qualified to make statements about card design, I feel like you could have written a new, more thorough guide that could be used as a reference for both judges and contestants alike.
You seem more offended then Conntroll. In fact at this point I think he and I were having a good discussion.
I'd be more than happen to write a guide to that effect, but it'll have to be next month. I'm moving this week so my prime focus is elsewhere. I can do a draft early october.
What is a better way to showcase that something is situational than frequently using words like "sometimes" and "may"?
By ensuring you list counter examples.
Why is it a bad mentality to have? (as a contest-focused designer, not as a designing-focused designer)
Both because it limits yourself as a designer and because your contest success is more directly influenced by your raw design ability than focus on winning.
Okay, but put yourself in the shoes of someone who doesn't have your experience for a second here. Wouldn't you say that you would be less likely to see a weird judging decision as an individual judge's mistake, but rather as the judge being right and you being wrong in your design choice? And wouldn't that, subsequently, cause you to stop going for that design choice? And then, what would help you more, as a new player in this position,a guide telling you "hey, judges can make mistakes too", or a guide telling you "here's a collection of design choices that could get you in trouble, similar maybe to the experience you've just had, in case you want to skip on it"?
I'm not suggesting writting a guide about "mistakes judges make." In fact, that's what I've argued you've done in part already. I suggested having a guide that futher expands on the rubric, the intent behind each category, and the correct way things should be judged and evaluated. Which benefits both judges as a way to review their choices and be more consistent as well as giving players a firmer basis of what to expect.
A guide like yours can be valuable too, but as previously mentioned, a number of your tips amount to things I consider mistakes by judges that limit designers in unfair ways. Those need to be addressed. I think it's important to point out when a judge objectively makes a statement in their review that is not true, even if you're not the one being judged. The goal here isn't to make the judge look bad, but for everyone to learn what's correct and permissible in designing cards. Judges are learning too.
To get mathy about it through an analogy, let's say that everyone has three stats/attributes, A,B, and C, where A is their strength as a card designer, B is their strength as an audience pleaser, and C is their strength as a contest winner. A and B would be standalone stats, and C would be a variable that scaled with both the value of A as well as B.
In my own words, the people in the first category I mentioned (whose primary goal is to improve as designers) would convert to people whose primary goal is to have a higher A (A-focused individuals). They wouldn't care about B, and it wouldn't increase; and they wouldn't care about C either, but that WOULD increase anyway, simply because it scales with A.
However, the people in the second category (whose primary goal is to win) would convert to people whose primary goal is to have a higher C (C-focused individuals), which is most efficiently done by trying to have a higher A as well as a higher B.
Meanwhile, IcariiFA is an A-focused individual who has a high C despite his near-zero B, simply on the grounds of how unusually high his A has gotten over time. And if C-focused people would try to emulate IcariiFA's path, they would find themselves quite discouraged in the short to mid-term (because they would rise, but their rise would get steeper than before, and as I said, I already think the MCC has a steeper learning curve than it can or should have).
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "audience pleaser." If you mean how I get along with others on these forums, then sure, I'm not the most likable poster on here. But what does that have to do with success in these contest, which judge you on designs (not personality)? You'd have to explain what you mean by that term more for me to really understand your analogy (and whether I'd agree).
So what you are basically saying (and please tell me if I'm reading this the wrong way, I don't want to offend) is that you partially disagree with the way something you previously wrote is spelled out?
No. I disagree with some peoples interpretations of the rubric and sometimes I even disagree with their design evaluations in an objective sense, separate from the scope of the rubric.
For example (using your flavor tips as reference) if there was a challenge based in Ravnica flavor and a player submitted a UG card with a science/biology term referenced in the name, that should be fine. If a judge were to say "this science terminology doesn't fit the setting", they would be objectively wrong and should be corrected.
Outside of your A,B, C analogy, I think I get most of where you're coming from.
I'm not saying the points from your tips haven't occurred, just that they are situational.
Which I pointed out myself.
But I don't think is really showcased well enough in your guide.
Sorry for my rudeness, but what makes you qualified to write such a guide?
Firstly, I don't think your intent or most of your post was rude at all. The only parts I felt were, if not straight up rude, then at least somewhat off, are the two below which I marked with double asterisks.
Secondly, I will be the first to admit that I'm not the most qualified person to write this guide. I will also openly admit that you would be more qualified, as an example. But I will also openly state that, qualifications notwithstanding, years have passed without anyone writing this kind of guide at all.
Fair. There is something to be said about making the contest easier to understand for newcomers.
Despite your disclaimer, it seems like another way to excuse ones own personal design shortcomings.
I really don't think that's a fair assessment, when several of the tips I've given come from score deductions given to cards that other people made, which I have personally never done or been penalized for. Hell, some of those tips come from card judgings I have read from MCC's I didn't even participate in.
That comment was more aimed at the mentality of "avoid this doing these things on the chance a judge might say something (even if you're right" more-so then you personally.
I'll admit, some of your points that come up with judging are actual mistakes by judges that need to be address and not let pass. For example, Point 1, 3, and 4 in your flavor tips are all mistakes by judges that would need to be pointed out and evaluated in context.
**So, from your point of view, I am arrogant for writing a guide that boils down to "appease the judges to not potentially lose points in these specific ways; I'm not actually debating whether these are mistakes by judges", but YOU are not arrogant for straight up saying "these are mistakes by judges that need to be addressed"? No offense, but that's self-contradictory.
No, it's not. Depending on the context (like I said in the qoute) those could certainly be mistakes by judges that would need to be addressed at the time of the contest. And it's less arrogant coming from me as someone who has much more experience with the contest.
Trying to avoid doing what people may not like in order to do better won't get you to win in the end. It limits your growth as a designer.
I can tell you personally I don't go into a challenge going "Ok, this is what people may doc me for in this category. This is something I've seen judges not like." With that mentality, you're going to design subpar card just because you think it fits in the boundaries of what people might say. Learning good design habits will put you father ahead then worrying about caveats with how something might be judged.
People go into the MCC with different goals and expectations. You will think, design and behave differently if your #1 goal is to improve as a designer; you will think, design and behave differently if your #1 goal is to win the MCC (as I said, I firmly believe that the skill sets for those two do not perfectly overlap). You lean strongly towards the first category. That's okay. Not everyone does.
Yes, but my results speak for themselves.
With that said, I think it would be a stronger approach to have an expanded explanation of the current rubric instead of a "situational tips that sometimes come up with certain judges to do a little better but not actually win."
**This, once again, confuses me. So it is arrogant of me to write a guide that is separate, standalone and optional (because I DO think I'm not good or experienced enough to suggest actual structural changes), but not of you to propose an expansion of the official rubrics.
Considering I've be around a while, judged the MCC multiple times, organized it multiple times, won it several times, and even help write the current iteration of the rubric it is NOT equally arrogant or arrogant at all.
That said, there is plenty of good advice in your guide, but I feel a good chunk of it points out problems with the contest that should be addressed going forward as some of your tips should not be true in practice. Make sense?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Was it necessary to take a pot shot at my victory? Seesh. I'm tired of this.
There is always luck in the MCC, especially in the first two rounds between pairings and only having a single judges opinion. I'm not saying this past month I had the most spectacular entries ever, but come on.
But hey, if I only win the CCL 5 times instead of 6 times for 2017, I guess that's fine. Or for the MCC ive got 4 wins, so getting 5 would be a bonus. I think I'm good.
Also, I still hope to get in some last minute wins on my 2017 campaign
This challenge is harder than it looks for multiple reasons, including pitfalls like allowing multicolor.
I'll add this to the clarifications.
I appreciate the benefit of the doubt here, as I did change it.
Ah, I see. Then I find it strange that you suggest my ability on that front is so low. I think I often design cards that both highly grokable and have a lot of appeal to judges with cool effects. Not everything I submit in these contest are cards I'm super stoked/proud of, but there are certainly some stand outs.
I like how it's become a trend to joke about how I rarely lose points for quality!
Thanks for another fun month, y'all. Tribal months can be difficult to make the most compelling, but it still was a good time. That brings me up to 4 MCC wins this year! Woot.
I'm almost settled into my new place now (moving to a new city and starting over is hard) but I should be a bit more talkitive going forward.
I'd be more than happen to write a guide to that effect, but it'll have to be next month. I'm moving this week so my prime focus is elsewhere. I can do a draft early october.
Both because it limits yourself as a designer and because your contest success is more directly influenced by your raw design ability than focus on winning.
I'm not suggesting writting a guide about "mistakes judges make." In fact, that's what I've argued you've done in part already. I suggested having a guide that futher expands on the rubric, the intent behind each category, and the correct way things should be judged and evaluated. Which benefits both judges as a way to review their choices and be more consistent as well as giving players a firmer basis of what to expect.
A guide like yours can be valuable too, but as previously mentioned, a number of your tips amount to things I consider mistakes by judges that limit designers in unfair ways. Those need to be addressed. I think it's important to point out when a judge objectively makes a statement in their review that is not true, even if you're not the one being judged. The goal here isn't to make the judge look bad, but for everyone to learn what's correct and permissible in designing cards. Judges are learning too.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "audience pleaser." If you mean how I get along with others on these forums, then sure, I'm not the most likable poster on here. But what does that have to do with success in these contest, which judge you on designs (not personality)? You'd have to explain what you mean by that term more for me to really understand your analogy (and whether I'd agree).
No. I disagree with some peoples interpretations of the rubric and sometimes I even disagree with their design evaluations in an objective sense, separate from the scope of the rubric.
For example (using your flavor tips as reference) if there was a challenge based in Ravnica flavor and a player submitted a UG card with a science/biology term referenced in the name, that should be fine. If a judge were to say "this science terminology doesn't fit the setting", they would be objectively wrong and should be corrected.
Outside of your A,B, C analogy, I think I get most of where you're coming from.
But I don't think is really showcased well enough in your guide.
Fair. There is something to be said about making the contest easier to understand for newcomers.
That comment was more aimed at the mentality of "avoid this doing these things on the chance a judge might say something (even if you're right" more-so then you personally.
No, it's not. Depending on the context (like I said in the qoute) those could certainly be mistakes by judges that would need to be addressed at the time of the contest. And it's less arrogant coming from me as someone who has much more experience with the contest.
Yes, but my results speak for themselves.
Considering I've be around a while, judged the MCC multiple times, organized it multiple times, won it several times, and even help write the current iteration of the rubric it is NOT equally arrogant or arrogant at all.
That said, there is plenty of good advice in your guide, but I feel a good chunk of it points out problems with the contest that should be addressed going forward as some of your tips should not be true in practice. Make sense?