Living Expanse2G
Creature - Spirit (R)
Living Expanse's power and toughness are each equal to the number of forests you control.
Whenever you play a forest land, if it's the first land you've played this turn, you may play an additional land this turn.
*/*
Both of those abilities get significantly weaker for each non-Forest in your deck.
(Also I'm dashing these off between meetings at work, so unfortunately they're not as robust as I'd like.)
Huh. You're right. I think one of my earlier edits had a "non basic" clause. I can see your argument better with that change.
I think you missed the point of me suggesting it cost GGG. In most decks where Living Expanse would/should be played, you're going to end up paying GGG for it anyway, so if I had issues with balance I would have suggested increasing the CMC or adding a drawback. But the card feels much more monogreen than Dungrove Elder, and I felt that changing the mana cost from 2G to GGG would gel better with the feel of your card while still keeping the balance the same. Primalcrux and Khalni Hydra were brought up because, while Living Expanse had a lot of cosmetic similarities with Dungrove Elder, in terms of feel it felt closer to the other two. As you designed it, it felt like it existed in this weird middle ground where it looked like Dungrove Elder but felt like other cards. As such, I felt it would have been better served if it hand been pushed more strongly to one of the two sides, and suggesting a change to the mana cost seemed to me the cleanest way to accomplish that.
I considered costing it more green, but it's important to note that while Living Expanse wants forests it also wants you to play nonforest too. So pure G costs IMO was not the way to go.
However, since you haven't rebutted me about Dungrove Elder being the closest/necessary point of reference or how the consumer was not a relevant argument for balance, I think I've made my point. As I said, you're free to disagree with costing and I respect that. But a critique on the balance of Living Expanse that cosndiers other cards but not dungroove elder is a mistake.
Let me rephrase: Your example cards weren't the closest.
This isn't a case of needing an older card reference to "get" the individual card. This is case of evaluating the balance of a card using the best reference possible as critique. My card was designed with Dungrove Elder as the explicit point of reference in terms of design/power level, but not flavor. So "getting" the connection isn't important outside of that. I don't disagree with the sentiment that cards need to be understandable to the average consumer at all. However, the consumer connecting the card to dungrove elder isn't important.
On the other hand, it is important for you as a designer weighing in on how much a card should cost to make that connection. If the point of comparison you personally jump to are creatures that count mana symbols/creatures instead of creatures that count forests, including the one at the same price point then the evaluation is going to be inherently off.
You can still disagree with how I costed the card even after seeing Dungrove Elder and I'd respect that opinion, but pointing to the missed connection a consumer might make is a falsehood here. You were critiquing balance. The fact that you omitted the closest example while evaluating balance is more your error than mine. And I wouldn't of even bothered to point it out if your critique didn't come off as a tad condescending.
As written, this seems bonkers in a mono-Green deck and unplayable in anything else. Which is fine, we've seen it before (Khalni Hydra, Primalcrux), but then why 2G? This card isn't really subtle about its love for Green mana, so I don't think there's any sense in playing coy with the mana cost. If one ability worked well with Forests and the other worked well with non-Forests, I think 2G could be interesting, but as written just own it and go GGG. This is a decent design, but not quite as good at it thinks it is.]
Yowch. Condescending.
By the way, you missed the point of reference: Dungrove Elder
I apologize; condescension was not my aim, and I must confess as I read it back it doesn't sound condescending in my head, but then authorial intent has a way of getting muddled when tone and inflection are taken away. I was going for explanatory, and perhaps to-the-point, but I can see how it could come off as condescending--especially "This is a decent design, but not quite as good at it thinks it is," which sounded clever as I was typing it and now just sounds... well, "clumsy" is being kind--and I shall apologize again.
That being said--you're right, I did miss the riff on Dungrove Elder. But the existence of Dungrove Elder proves my point, I feel. DE excels in a monogreen deck, but is at least decent in, say, a Gx Limited deck. Living Expanse can't say the same, since both of its abilities rely on Forests, as opposed to just one. Subtlety isn't green's strong suit, so it just felt weird to me to have text that so strongly shouted monogreen and a casting cost that didn't.
So my missteps in tone aside, I hope there's still some design advice to be salvaged there. Or, if I may twist a phrase with some mediocre wordplay, don't throw the baby out with the sasswater.
One of your main critiques was that my entry needed more green in its mana cost. Dungrove elder provides a solid argument against that, especially since it is a riff of the card. I was just illustrating that you needed the right point of reference before making your claim, which you did not have at the time. I'm not saying there isn't an arguement to be made for my card needing more green, just your example cards weren't the right ones.
As written, this seems bonkers in a mono-Green deck and unplayable in anything else. Which is fine, we've seen it before (Khalni Hydra, Primalcrux), but then why 2G? This card isn't really subtle about its love for Green mana, so I don't think there's any sense in playing coy with the mana cost. If one ability worked well with Forests and the other worked well with non-Forests, I think 2G could be interesting, but as written just own it and go GGG. This is a decent design, but not quite as good at it thinks it is.]
Yowch. Condescending.
By the way, you missed the point of reference: Dungrove Elder
It's fine. I shouldn't vent my frustration like that.
Of course you should. We regulars do it month to month because we care. Feedback, positive or negative, aimed at the challenges or each other is needed otherwise things don't improve.
I look to get better so I can be called an "expert" on card design. I studied game development and have degree to be an expert after all. And call me arrogant if you like, but if I hadn't shown it before, my results in these contest this year has me as a consistent front-runner. So I don't think it's delusional to say my opinion holds weight. I'm not the only one who routinely does well either.
Not everyones goal in these contests will be the same. But despite at times being harsh I will make a point of speaking my mind because I care about these things and doing better. An environment where I can't improve isn't worth competing in.
I've gotta say, I've never disagreed with the results of a contest more than I do with the the results of the current CCL round. I feel like this round was a bit of a trap round for me. I honestly feel my entries would be by far the most likely to actually see print in the cycles they are meant for, but since everyone here weighs uniqueness above all else, I didn't even make the top 3 in two out of the four results.
Honestly, even though I did give you first place in my bracket, I gave you it based on the average between your two cards. I feel individual cards from other players were stronger but usually their second card flopped. Honestly the only card that I think is print worthy/ready from the round(excluding my own Starling) is doomfish's modular card.
I knew I took a huge risk in making my modular card an enchantment, which had two of you treat me as a disqualification. I understand the decision, but am frustrated as I feel my morphling entry was the most printable one submitted while likewise being unique.
I think a lot of the disagreement in this round comes from how narrow it is. Both in what fits inside the rules for the round and how minimal variation there is overall between entries. This lead to a lot of close top 3 decisions where it didnt feel like anyone was clearly doing much of a better job. My top three might as well been a coin flip. A lot of it was splinting hairs between keywords.
As I've said, not really pleased with this month's challenges as whole. Not that there were not good ideas, but things got too restrictive. Slight adjustments on several of the rounds would of opened up a lot.
I meant no offense IcariiFA. I'm sorry if I sounded too harsh. I understand why you did what you did, but I feel the cycle does not call for an enchantment.
That's fair
I doesn't help that the white card in the "cycle" has basically already been printed, and it is an instant.
This not so much, as while it "could" fit the cycle it was not a part of it and as it would overlap with the black card.
and it would've been even more difficult if IcariiFA hadn't basically ignored the modal challenge by making an enchantment for an instant/sorcery challenge.
I'm sorry, but did the challenge say it required an instant or sorcery? No, it didn't.
Now, if your or others interpretation of the cycle is that it should require an instant or sorcery, that's totally fair. Judge me accordingly. I 100% understood I was taking a risk in making that part of my entry feel like it was off the cycle, but I felt justified in taking that step into the unexpected as the three cards did not seem explicit to me in regards to typing. That said, it's insulting for you to say I "ignored" the challenge, as If I didn't put thought into what it was or what I was doing. Feel free to disagree with my design decision, but don't treat it as thoughtless.
I went to bed last night before round 4 was posted and when I woke up, pretty much every possible entry for the challenges had been made already...
Yeah, I kinda already warned about being too boxed in with challenge ideas. There is little creativity in designing another morphling, as the cycle is so strict. A contest without creativity and uniqueness doesn't leave room for any of us to show who has the talent.
On the other hand, I'm getting a little tired of being boxed in with these challenges. If your round one wasn't ideal, it's starting to become a significant disadvantage since every challenge so far requires referencing it. If the whole month is just going to be fleshing out the same cycles, it is both predictable and extremely constricting in a way that is pretty unfun, as it doesn't push creativity or provide much opportunity to fix mistakes. Creating a proper, recognizable vertical or horizontal cycle after already presenting half of either cycle kind hard locks what you can do.
It's also a little difficult to structure challenges this way in the CCL, as the first two preliminary rounds (in theory) aren't mandatory to participant in both. Having all the parts from those rounds continue forward in this way can create issues.
I think the overall structure to what you're doing might fit the MCC better, since the overall structure is mandatory step after step, but should also offer more room to maneuver and reinvent what you're doing throughout the month. If you want decisions to matter from round to round, something more thematic like what void_nothing did this July plays a lot more fun since your decisions restrict what you can pick from in the future but didn't force you to use the same mechanic over and over if it was received with mixed reviews.
Huh. You're right. I think one of my earlier edits had a "non basic" clause. I can see your argument better with that change.
I considered costing it more green, but it's important to note that while Living Expanse wants forests it also wants you to play nonforest too. So pure G costs IMO was not the way to go.
However, since you haven't rebutted me about Dungrove Elder being the closest/necessary point of reference or how the consumer was not a relevant argument for balance, I think I've made my point. As I said, you're free to disagree with costing and I respect that. But a critique on the balance of Living Expanse that cosndiers other cards but not dungroove elder is a mistake.
Let me rephrase: Your example cards weren't the closest.
This isn't a case of needing an older card reference to "get" the individual card. This is case of evaluating the balance of a card using the best reference possible as critique. My card was designed with Dungrove Elder as the explicit point of reference in terms of design/power level, but not flavor. So "getting" the connection isn't important outside of that. I don't disagree with the sentiment that cards need to be understandable to the average consumer at all. However, the consumer connecting the card to dungrove elder isn't important.
On the other hand, it is important for you as a designer weighing in on how much a card should cost to make that connection. If the point of comparison you personally jump to are creatures that count mana symbols/creatures instead of creatures that count forests, including the one at the same price point then the evaluation is going to be inherently off.
You can still disagree with how I costed the card even after seeing Dungrove Elder and I'd respect that opinion, but pointing to the missed connection a consumer might make is a falsehood here. You were critiquing balance. The fact that you omitted the closest example while evaluating balance is more your error than mine. And I wouldn't of even bothered to point it out if your critique didn't come off as a tad condescending.
One of your main critiques was that my entry needed more green in its mana cost. Dungrove elder provides a solid argument against that, especially since it is a riff of the card. I was just illustrating that you needed the right point of reference before making your claim, which you did not have at the time. I'm not saying there isn't an arguement to be made for my card needing more green, just your example cards weren't the right ones.
Yowch. Condescending.
By the way, you missed the point of reference: Dungrove Elder
I look to get better so I can be called an "expert" on card design. I studied game development and have degree to be an expert after all. And call me arrogant if you like, but if I hadn't shown it before, my results in these contest this year has me as a consistent front-runner. So I don't think it's delusional to say my opinion holds weight. I'm not the only one who routinely does well either.
Not everyones goal in these contests will be the same. But despite at times being harsh I will make a point of speaking my mind because I care about these things and doing better. An environment where I can't improve isn't worth competing in.
Honestly, even though I did give you first place in my bracket, I gave you it based on the average between your two cards. I feel individual cards from other players were stronger but usually their second card flopped. Honestly the only card that I think is print worthy/ready from the round(excluding my own Starling) is doomfish's modular card.
I knew I took a huge risk in making my modular card an enchantment, which had two of you treat me as a disqualification. I understand the decision, but am frustrated as I feel my morphling entry was the most printable one submitted while likewise being unique.
I think a lot of the disagreement in this round comes from how narrow it is. Both in what fits inside the rules for the round and how minimal variation there is overall between entries. This lead to a lot of close top 3 decisions where it didnt feel like anyone was clearly doing much of a better job. My top three might as well been a coin flip. A lot of it was splinting hairs between keywords.
As I've said, not really pleased with this month's challenges as whole. Not that there were not good ideas, but things got too restrictive. Slight adjustments on several of the rounds would of opened up a lot.
Now, if your or others interpretation of the cycle is that it should require an instant or sorcery, that's totally fair. Judge me accordingly. I 100% understood I was taking a risk in making that part of my entry feel like it was off the cycle, but I felt justified in taking that step into the unexpected as the three cards did not seem explicit to me in regards to typing. That said, it's insulting for you to say I "ignored" the challenge, as If I didn't put thought into what it was or what I was doing. Feel free to disagree with my design decision, but don't treat it as thoughtless.
I'm fine going ahead. And I chose not to have flavor text based on the length of the card, not laziness.
Yeah, I kinda already warned about being too boxed in with challenge ideas. There is little creativity in designing another morphling, as the cycle is so strict. A contest without creativity and uniqueness doesn't leave room for any of us to show who has the talent.
It's also a little difficult to structure challenges this way in the CCL, as the first two preliminary rounds (in theory) aren't mandatory to participant in both. Having all the parts from those rounds continue forward in this way can create issues.
I think the overall structure to what you're doing might fit the MCC better, since the overall structure is mandatory step after step, but should also offer more room to maneuver and reinvent what you're doing throughout the month. If you want decisions to matter from round to round, something more thematic like what void_nothing did this July plays a lot more fun since your decisions restrict what you can pick from in the future but didn't force you to use the same mechanic over and over if it was received with mixed reviews.
Come at me, bros! I'm going for the turkey!