@IcariiFA....How come you always have to try to knock new people down? (I don't mean to call you new Conntroll, for all I know, you invented Magic.) It seemed to me like Conntroll was trying to be helpful. Why dump all over him/her for that? These contests already suffer from an overall lack of participation, why not be more inviting? I'm pretty sure you could've gotten your point across in a much friendlier and less condescending way.
Always knock new people down? I think it's been two.
Maybe Conntroll was trying to be helpful, but let's be honest. A good chunk of his points amounted to "Don't do this when designing your cards even if it's totally valid with examples backing you up." I find that is both insulting as a backdoor critique, not being a guide, while simultaneously totally approaching the contest with the wrong attitude . If your design is valid, prove it. Discuss it. Get an appropriate score. Don't limit yourself because of others lack of knowledge.
I don't like when new people give backdoor criticism in the guise of a guide. That may not of even been his intent, but as written, that is what a chunk of that guide is.
I also don't like when new folks come in to these contest, expect to do better than they do, and then put more/most of the blame on the contest and next to none on themselves. That's not a point on Conntroll, but is something I make a point of calling out.
When I first started these contest many years ago on my old account before the forum transfer to curse, I was that new guy. The sooner you learn what failures are you own and not the worlds fault, the better.
Every single one of my tips comes from me seeing myself or someone else get a score penalty for that specific design choice at least once. I made none of it up. I even vary my wording from using "some/sometimes" on particular tips to using "typical/avoid" on others to indicate that those are a stronger trend.
I'm not saying the points from your tips haven't occurred, just that they are situational.
Trying to inform: As I said, this is my goal. I genuinely think that the MCC has what I'd call "hidden variables and expectations" that make the learning curve for a beginner not just steep, but steeper than it probably should be. Thus, I think it would benefit any beginner to read an extensive guide about, if not necessarily "non-obvious things that can affect your score", then at least "non-obvious things that affected the score of people at least once".
Sure, there are things that are or may seem to non obvious, especially when your personal skill as a designer may only be so far along. Not that any of us don't have room to grow but there are certainly those who are more experienced and have shown success.
Which brings me to my problem. Sorry for my rudeness, but what makes you qualified to write such a guide? If your goal is to target newer players as to the potential pitfalls that come up in judging, ok sure. But is that the way to teach people to do better and win? Despite your disclaimer, it seems like another way to excuse ones own personal design shortcomings.
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. But that's part of the problem having such a guide written this way. 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.
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."
That's something I mentioned in one of my first paragraphs ^^. Naturally, judges will disagree with each other. It's why we sometimes get significant score differences in Round 4s.
I know. That was my polite way of saying most of your points vary a lot in reliability.
I'm curious as to your motives in writing it all out though. Are you discouraged? Critiquing? Trying to inform others?
Off the top of my head, the only card that might get a perfect score is Death's Shadow.
Would it really, though?
Anyway, while there is truth in what you write, Conntroll, there are also many areas where I know judges wouldn't agree. It's tough to navigate how people subjectively judge things, but at least there is some rubric that sets boundaries on how subjective each judge can be.
Yeah, Icarii, you have a clear lead, so there's little point in waiting for a fourth judgment. Having four great designers have to wait this long, after putting in four strong designs that I personally loved, is a disservice.
Yeah I think this final round had some stron entries with some very cool inspirations, so thanks for the competition! However, I'm happy to take my third MCC victory this year ;).
I think the biggest criticism my Konda got was about his flavor. To be completely honest, I had forgotten about the second part of the second subchallenge asking to have a turn around in philosophy. However, I feel my entry still works. As you can imagine, it's very hard to get the full story of such a character across when there is no room for flavor text. What I envisioned for this future Konda was, after being imprison by his daughter for many long years, he passed on into being a powerful spirit of vengeance who sought to destroy his daughter and the new order of Kamigawa. This is quite the shift from the megalomaniac who wanted to build an eternal empire at peace; he knowingly wants to destroy Kamigawa and it's peace as opposed to preserve it.
Whether or not that really came across is another thing haha. I find it's integral for a card to stand up on its own without being explained because that's how the super majority of people are going to encounter it. Designers don't stand over the shoulders of players opening boosters packs to explain what the cards do or what inspired them after all!
Crap I think AA got hurricane'd. Well IcariiFA is up by 6 points over everyone, so unless AA just rips into his card (and he's been a pretty nice judge) I think he's got this.
Yeah, it'd have to be a pretty huge tear down for my entry to not win, and I think it can be agreed that it's extremely unlikely.
Also, regardless of circumstance, AA failed to post judgements or ask for an extension/explain his situation. Even if he is in Flordia/Gerogia, it's not like Irma is a surprise or with no warning. It's been talked about for nearly two weeks straight. So this is an infraction.
I have to ask more experienced judges, what's the deal about "non-Standard" mechanics, I mean mechanics that were dropped by the Wizards nowadays (such as Regenerate, Protection, Fear, etc)? I've seen a score reduction for players who use these mechanics, is this necessary?
Most of the time I think it is. Unless a challenge specifically has you reference old mechanics, putting cards in older sets, or something similar cards should be designed with standard wordings and abilities at the forefront. New cards are designed for new sets that follow the new rules. Designing cards with obsolete mechanics automatically make them look out of date and also make it so they are less viable to print. Also a good number of these retired mechanics were retired because of inherent problems they have. So I don't think they deserve a free pass.
I'll never get these done without a deadline, so I'm self imposing a Wednesday night deadline. Yall are welcome to join...?
Seeing as AA has not followed through with responding, I'm going step in on this front. Please have your judgments posted by Wednesday, September 6th 11:59 EST. That is that time I will use for the round four deadline in imposing infractions.
Also as written, the infraction guidelines are not explicit in mentioning a scenario where the organizer refuses to post deadlines or respond about it when asked. I am revising the guidelines to apply the same grace period that applies to all the other rules to include posting deadlines. This will take effect for Septembers MCC. Even though at this point I feel AA deserves a warning, it seems potentially unfair if the rules where not 100% written that way.
What are the deadlines by the by? The thread has it at August 4th.
Yeah, I made sure to get my card done by friday in case that's what he meant... but ambiguous dates and a lack of response here does not exempt one from infractions. It needs to be made clear today.
My OP post for MCC round 1 is ready to be posted, I'm still waiting for permission only.
Sounds good. Glad you're ready to post. If you haven't PMed moss directly yet, I advise you do so we can official get this going. Though I suspect it'd be fine for you to just go ahead and do it.
Please be quick. There have already been several delays this month. I've been lenenient in Roccos case because I think a Hisotric Natural Disaster is a reasonable excuse for being a little late. However the Round 4 thread needs to be up by midnight EST or it will be an infraction.
Which of my contest contributions have been late this month?
Pardon, It's hard to tell 100% with how the thread and your post had been edited. I had thought the Original Judge deadline was the 27th and not the 28th. Was it edited, AA? You were about on time if it was not edited.
Regardless, you posted your results last, completeting them around 12:00am-1:00am on the 29th, which means even with AA's in thread update giving himself an extension, he has until tonight 12:00am-1:00am on the 31st.
The fact that round 4 is being posted on the 30th-31st of the month already shows that there have been delays in the rounds, so lets not fail too far behind.
Please be quick. There have already been several delays this month. I've been lenenient in Roccos case because I think a Hisotric Natural Disaster is a reasonable excuse for being a little late. However the Round 4 thread needs to be up by midnight EST or it will be an infraction.
I'd be down for slicing a point off Appeal and rephrasing it to something like "Does does this strongly appeal to some sizable group?" void's suggestion isn't bad either.
I disagree.
As I've defended multiple times on this forums the idea behind the appeal section is, while a card that appeals to one psychographic is good a card that appeals to multiple psychographics is better. Making it so a player would get full points to appeal for just pleasing one psychographic is inaccurate to what the strongest designs do.
That's not to say cards that appeal to one specific group are bad. There a plenty of cards in the game who do just that. But since when are cards like Shivan Dragon (something that is almost all Timmy) or Eater of Days (a card that is almost all Johnny) as appealing as cards as doubling season, platinum angel, and many others that appeal to most every psychographic?
I feel people get so caught up in getting perfect or near perfect scores to show that they did a good design, when frankly those cards a few and far between. Additional I feel too many people want to get near perfect scores for cards that may be good enough to be printed in the right context, but are fairly by the numbers. Appeal is a category that can be tough, but honestly its not unreasonable to design cards that have at least some appeal to most psychographics. Just realize when you're designing a card with truly niche appeal, and what that means less people on average will want it and there are less room in sets for cards like it.
I think the more you look at contemporary magic, the more you realize that the average card has appeal to more than one psychographic.
I could go for getting rid of the Appeal category, or just finding a different metric. Also, I should not have tried to do the impossible. Cipher, you have wrecked many more a custom designed than me.
I feel it was a lot more than Cipher that made your entry less desirable. I don't think either judge referenced how similar your card is to fateseal effects, and as repeatable one how unfun/oppressive taht could be. So while I could see your card making some tournament waves, it would be for the wrong reasons.
I have noticed you haven't said anything about my opinion on his guide though, only my tact in approaching it. Any thoughts?
Maybe Conntroll was trying to be helpful, but let's be honest. A good chunk of his points amounted to "Don't do this when designing your cards even if it's totally valid with examples backing you up." I find that is both insulting as a backdoor critique, not being a guide, while simultaneously totally approaching the contest with the wrong attitude . If your design is valid, prove it. Discuss it. Get an appropriate score. Don't limit yourself because of others lack of knowledge.
I don't like when new people give backdoor criticism in the guise of a guide. That may not of even been his intent, but as written, that is what a chunk of that guide is.
I also don't like when new folks come in to these contest, expect to do better than they do, and then put more/most of the blame on the contest and next to none on themselves. That's not a point on Conntroll, but is something I make a point of calling out.
When I first started these contest many years ago on my old account before the forum transfer to curse, I was that new guy. The sooner you learn what failures are you own and not the worlds fault, the better.
Sure, there are things that are or may seem to non obvious, especially when your personal skill as a designer may only be so far along. Not that any of us don't have room to grow but there are certainly those who are more experienced and have shown success.
Which brings me to my problem. Sorry for my rudeness, but what makes you qualified to write such a guide? If your goal is to target newer players as to the potential pitfalls that come up in judging, ok sure. But is that the way to teach people to do better and win? Despite your disclaimer, it seems like another way to excuse ones own personal design shortcomings.
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. But that's part of the problem having such a guide written this way. 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.
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."
I know. That was my polite way of saying most of your points vary a lot in reliability.
I'm curious as to your motives in writing it all out though. Are you discouraged? Critiquing? Trying to inform others?
Anyway, while there is truth in what you write, Conntroll, there are also many areas where I know judges wouldn't agree. It's tough to navigate how people subjectively judge things, but at least there is some rubric that sets boundaries on how subjective each judge can be.
I think the biggest criticism my Konda got was about his flavor. To be completely honest, I had forgotten about the second part of the second subchallenge asking to have a turn around in philosophy. However, I feel my entry still works. As you can imagine, it's very hard to get the full story of such a character across when there is no room for flavor text. What I envisioned for this future Konda was, after being imprison by his daughter for many long years, he passed on into being a powerful spirit of vengeance who sought to destroy his daughter and the new order of Kamigawa. This is quite the shift from the megalomaniac who wanted to build an eternal empire at peace; he knowingly wants to destroy Kamigawa and it's peace as opposed to preserve it.
Whether or not that really came across is another thing haha. I find it's integral for a card to stand up on its own without being explained because that's how the super majority of people are going to encounter it. Designers don't stand over the shoulders of players opening boosters packs to explain what the cards do or what inspired them after all!
Also, regardless of circumstance, AA failed to post judgements or ask for an extension/explain his situation. Even if he is in Flordia/Gerogia, it's not like Irma is a surprise or with no warning. It's been talked about for nearly two weeks straight. So this is an infraction.
Also as written, the infraction guidelines are not explicit in mentioning a scenario where the organizer refuses to post deadlines or respond about it when asked. I am revising the guidelines to apply the same grace period that applies to all the other rules to include posting deadlines. This will take effect for Septembers MCC. Even though at this point I feel AA deserves a warning, it seems potentially unfair if the rules where not 100% written that way.
Any objections on either front?
Pardon, It's hard to tell 100% with how the thread and your post had been edited. I had thought the Original Judge deadline was the 27th and not the 28th. Was it edited, AA? You were about on time if it was not edited.
Regardless, you posted your results last, completeting them around 12:00am-1:00am on the 29th, which means even with AA's in thread update giving himself an extension, he has until tonight 12:00am-1:00am on the 31st.
The fact that round 4 is being posted on the 30th-31st of the month already shows that there have been delays in the rounds, so lets not fail too far behind.
As I've defended multiple times on this forums the idea behind the appeal section is, while a card that appeals to one psychographic is good a card that appeals to multiple psychographics is better. Making it so a player would get full points to appeal for just pleasing one psychographic is inaccurate to what the strongest designs do.
That's not to say cards that appeal to one specific group are bad. There a plenty of cards in the game who do just that. But since when are cards like Shivan Dragon (something that is almost all Timmy) or Eater of Days (a card that is almost all Johnny) as appealing as cards as doubling season, platinum angel, and many others that appeal to most every psychographic?
I feel people get so caught up in getting perfect or near perfect scores to show that they did a good design, when frankly those cards a few and far between. Additional I feel too many people want to get near perfect scores for cards that may be good enough to be printed in the right context, but are fairly by the numbers. Appeal is a category that can be tough, but honestly its not unreasonable to design cards that have at least some appeal to most psychographics. Just realize when you're designing a card with truly niche appeal, and what that means less people on average will want it and there are less room in sets for cards like it.
I think the more you look at contemporary magic, the more you realize that the average card has appeal to more than one psychographic.
I feel it was a lot more than Cipher that made your entry less desirable. I don't think either judge referenced how similar your card is to fateseal effects, and as repeatable one how unfun/oppressive taht could be. So while I could see your card making some tournament waves, it would be for the wrong reasons.