IcariiFA, noted, but I think "safe" cards can be printed that aren't too pushed. (And for the most part, I think the competition does that.) B7t I am not very Spiky, so I am likely in the minority. To me, cards like Thragtusk and Siege Rhino are not good designs. I am sure others disagree.
To me, there is a difference between underwhelming filler chaff, and a well designed but still solid card. I know WotC has to push the envelope on some cards to sell sets, but sets have well designed cards that have lower power levels. I think people had trouble with the "common" subchallenge because commons are so infrequently "sexy" cards.
Tl;dr: Rare and up really lets an imagination go wild, but uncommon and below forces a designer to think about draft, ppwer level, etc.
Let me be more clear. In this context when I mentioned "safe" I was not in anyway refering to power level or how pushed a card is. I was referring to well known effects, PT:Cost ratios, or cards that closely mimic other already existing cards without notable twists. I meant creativity. That's why I was contrasting "safe" with uniqueness and not with power.
(2/3) Appeal: (...) Spike isn't too interested at 3 mana. (1.5/3) Balance: So protecting creatures for their turn drop is probably not something I want to invest 3 mana in, especially when it's an incomplete protection. (...)
I'll be completely honest; I did not expect this. So, in any case, it was an interesting learning experience (whether I learned about card design, or about how to score in contests, or both, I cannot exactly tell... more on that below).
Out of the three psychographics, I do consider myself primarily a Spike, and I did play Standard while Return to Ravnica block was contemporary, and, to be honest, I felt like my card would have been overpowered at 2 mana. I kind of still do. Not just because you can drop it one turn earlier, but because that way it can be squeezed into your curve. (This is the main reason why I didn't cost it at 2. An aggro deck of that time could go turn 1 one drop, turn 2 two drop, turn 3 three drop, turn 4 two drop + this card if it costs 2. Because of how the card grants indestructible, it doesn't just protect freshly entered creatures, but also older creatures you have on board at the time, so what you can basically get on turn 4, if this enchantment costs 2 mana, is a board of 4 creatures that is immune to Supreme Verdict, before Supreme Verdict could've been played. And this is without even mentioning that this is the standard of Burning Tree Emissary nut draws.)
I am currently conflicted as to whether I should, in the future, cost my cards more aggressively, or change nothing in that regard. (no offense intended)
When I read ManyCookies review of your card, I felt he misread your entry.
I would argue that the MCC often tends to encourage "uniqueness" moreso than a card that would be placed in a set... as that is one of the categories. If we wanted to make a more realistic challenge, there should probably be a category that is something along the lines of "believability", or how likely would this card get put in a set.
Thing is, almost every other catogory already contributes to the idea of whether a card is printable or its "believability".
This is a design competition. Churning out generic cards that are good/safe but don't tread new ground should be reflected with a lower score than a card that is fresh feeling and unique while still being balanced. We shouldn't reward filler cards.
While I am being watchful of the MCC, I'm not omnipotent. If you feel there is an infraction going on please post in the thread or PM me if you feel more comfortable that way.
As is stands currently, AA posted within the grace period asking for an extension and has until tonight to post his judgings and the next round. Otherwise it will be an infraction as no more extensions can be given.
I wanted to go ahead and note that Necrag is officially banned from organizing and judging the MCC until August of next year as per our group discussion in this thread. I'll be adding a special section to the infraction listing for those who have bannings from before the new rules were implemented.
On a more positive note, I would like to say that the July finals have some pretty cool entries so congrats to y'all who made it to the end!
Yeah, didn't mean to draw harsh lines qualifying people as vets or not.
kjsharp said he would prefer to let it go but could see up to a year ban so that's what im going with so far since everyone else has agreed to at least a year ban. That said, Thursday.
That's four regular participants including three vets who have all hosted and judged in the MCC before. All the while Necrag has not offered a word. I don't want to seem like I'm imposing something without the communities consent so to be as fair as possible I think it's reasonable to leave the matter open until this Thursday, the 27th for any additional approvals or objections. So long as there is a super majority of approval by then, Necrag will be banned from judging and organizing the MCC for one year, effective until August 2018.
I think it'd be wise to simply proceed with the new infraction guidelines and not punish people retroactively for past sins. A lifetime ban feels particularly harsh. If you must, just do 6 months or a year and, if he wishes to judge again, make him explain what was going on during these times when he has abdicated his judging and hosting responsibilities.
The thing is, the only reason we are even having a discussion is because the OLD rules about judge tardiness hadn't been enforced for a long time. Additionally, Necrags action weren't simply being late once or twice, but out right abandoning as an organizer more than once. He should not get a free pass. Further, I feel a six month ban is too lenient, as between him hosting in November and again in June he ended up doing the same thing with a six month gap in-between.
I think a year is fair minimum punishment, but frankly I don't think he deserves being allowed to host again.
If you're suggesting a permanent ban from organizing and/or judging in the MCC, I would be for it. I just wasn't sure if others would agree and proposed one year as a round figure.
I just wanted to add to the conversation going on in the latest posts a no show from Necarg in July's Round 3, which forced me as host to alter the way the versus round works because I was left with an odd number of players (a situation for which we also still need a standard way to proceed, by the way...).
I always say real life always comes first, and I repeat that here, but I find it hard to believe that you can't even find just one minute in the whole day to post that you will not able to respect the deadline, even without explaining why. Nobody forces you to write about your personal life on a public forum, but I feel that at least a notice that you won't be able to make it should be due, and this is true for everyone: host, judges, players.
Which is why the current infraction rules are more lenient if not completely forgiving if you actual communicate delays. Necrag has not done so several times this month and the past November, and has outright abandoned his job multiple. Hence my suggested one year ban period as a judge and organizer. He can still play of course, though going forward the new infraction rules would apply to him.
I think it's fair to say regardless of the Infraction list that applies only to july forward, Necrag has proved that he is not capable of hosting the MCC and shouldn't be allowed to do so again for a while due to multiple delays on his part and poor communication.
I agree with this sentiment. Especially considering that June isn't the first month in which he's caused delays.
I didn't want to be the first one to say this, but yes. The problem dates at least back to last November, when admirableadmiral and I had to take over the contest after one round because Necarg disappeared with no explanation.
I actually forgot about that. I hate to call someone out, but at some point it is deserved.
Then I propose Necarg be banned from organizing and judging the MCC for a year. Considering in the past year he has failed to follow through as organizer twice and under the new infraction guidelines he would of been penalized at least seven times between the two months(which would result in a permanent ban from participating in any way), I think this is reasonably fair.
I think it's fair to say regardless of the Infraction list that applies only to july forward, Necrag has proved that he is not capable of hosting the MCC and shouldn't be allowed to do so again for a while due to multiple delays on his part and poor communication.
I'll message you privately, Blyyden. No ill will, but I'll share some thoughts.
Sometimes you get judgements that are agreeable, sometimes not. I certainly wasn't happy with how my first round entry was judged this month as there were many points that I felt were objectively wrong, but I wasn't in the mood to dispute it this go round.
That said, arguing about how perfect or not your flavor feels is very subjective. If your judge felt it didn't make a whole a lot of sense and the word choices felt off, arguing that his or her feelings on the matter are wrong don't really go anywhere.
Looking at your card myself, I personally get the flavor of your card, though I don't think the flavor text is very "magic-friendly." The word choices are a bit unclear and written in a way I'd expect for a more adult level novel, which is not typical for magic cards.
I'm on the boat that cards shouldn't always require flavor text either, even if technically you could squeeze it on a line because you rules text "only" takes up 8. I know when I judged more regularly a made a point of penalizing flavor text that didn't have room or forced a tight fit.
In fact going into this round my research showed that the ONLY creature card with the eternal ability that had flavor text was the french vanilla creature that had eternal by itself with no other abilities or keywords. So IMO for this round any card that has flavor text on top of eternal and an ability is more of a mistake.
Regardless, if you design a card that fills up the rules box with rules/reminder text, you shouldn't automatically be docked points for flavor. It just means the name and how the mechanics tell your cards story should weigh that much more. And just like you should be punished for a brief card that lacks flavor text, you should be penalized for a longer card that adds flavor text that puts the card up from 7 or 8 lines to 9+.
So I see IcarriFA has set up the MCC infraction thread (I haven't had internet access for the last week). Thanks IcariiFA! Hopefully there is never any need to use it. BTW, when exactly do these rules take effect? Starting with the July MCC I presume? Will infractions that may occur for the still running June MCC be counted?
My understanding/thought process is that these rules only apply to the July MCC moving forward. The June MCC is not subject to the rules even though it has continued past when the rules have been established.
In this way it should be understood going forward that if you agree to participate in the MCC as an organizer or judge, you are agreeing to those rules. So yes, making them a part of at least the judge sign up thread should become standardized.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Thing is, almost every other catogory already contributes to the idea of whether a card is printable or its "believability".
This is a design competition. Churning out generic cards that are good/safe but don't tread new ground should be reflected with a lower score than a card that is fresh feeling and unique while still being balanced. We shouldn't reward filler cards.
As is stands currently, AA posted within the grace period asking for an extension and has until tonight to post his judgings and the next round. Otherwise it will be an infraction as no more extensions can be given.
On a more positive note, I would like to say that the July finals have some pretty cool entries so congrats to y'all who made it to the end!
kjsharp said he would prefer to let it go but could see up to a year ban so that's what im going with so far since everyone else has agreed to at least a year ban. That said, Thursday.
The thing is, the only reason we are even having a discussion is because the OLD rules about judge tardiness hadn't been enforced for a long time. Additionally, Necrags action weren't simply being late once or twice, but out right abandoning as an organizer more than once. He should not get a free pass. Further, I feel a six month ban is too lenient, as between him hosting in November and again in June he ended up doing the same thing with a six month gap in-between.
I think a year is fair minimum punishment, but frankly I don't think he deserves being allowed to host again.
Which is why the current infraction rules are more lenient if not completely forgiving if you actual communicate delays. Necrag has not done so several times this month and the past November, and has outright abandoned his job multiple. Hence my suggested one year ban period as a judge and organizer. He can still play of course, though going forward the new infraction rules would apply to him.
Then I propose Necarg be banned from organizing and judging the MCC for a year. Considering in the past year he has failed to follow through as organizer twice and under the new infraction guidelines he would of been penalized at least seven times between the two months(which would result in a permanent ban from participating in any way), I think this is reasonably fair.
I'll message you privately, Blyyden. No ill will, but I'll share some thoughts.
That said, arguing about how perfect or not your flavor feels is very subjective. If your judge felt it didn't make a whole a lot of sense and the word choices felt off, arguing that his or her feelings on the matter are wrong don't really go anywhere.
Looking at your card myself, I personally get the flavor of your card, though I don't think the flavor text is very "magic-friendly." The word choices are a bit unclear and written in a way I'd expect for a more adult level novel, which is not typical for magic cards.
In fact going into this round my research showed that the ONLY creature card with the eternal ability that had flavor text was the french vanilla creature that had eternal by itself with no other abilities or keywords. So IMO for this round any card that has flavor text on top of eternal and an ability is more of a mistake.
Regardless, if you design a card that fills up the rules box with rules/reminder text, you shouldn't automatically be docked points for flavor. It just means the name and how the mechanics tell your cards story should weigh that much more. And just like you should be punished for a brief card that lacks flavor text, you should be penalized for a longer card that adds flavor text that puts the card up from 7 or 8 lines to 9+.
My understanding/thought process is that these rules only apply to the July MCC moving forward. The June MCC is not subject to the rules even though it has continued past when the rules have been established.
In this way it should be understood going forward that if you agree to participate in the MCC as an organizer or judge, you are agreeing to those rules. So yes, making them a part of at least the judge sign up thread should become standardized.