All users will need to merge their MTGSalvation account with a new or existing Twitch account starting Sept 25th. You can merge your accounts by clicking here. Have questions? Learn more here.
Dismiss
 
Magic Market Index for Sept 22, 2017
 
The Limited Archetypes of Ixalan
 
Treasure Cruisin' with Monored Burn
  • posted a message on [Monthly Card Contest] ***MCC*** Discussion Thread
    Quote from Flatline »
    @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.
    Posted in: Custom Card Contests and Games
  • posted a message on [Monthly Card Contest] ***MCC*** Discussion Thread
    Quote from Conntroll »
    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.
    Posted in: Custom Card Contests and Games
  • posted a message on MCC September Round 3 — Blood Fast
    Lord of Hunger 3WB
    Creature - Vampire (R)
    Flying
    Whenever a Vampire you control attacks, defending player loses 1 life and you gain 1 life.
    Vampires you control have haste as long as you have 10 or less life.
    "Feast, my children. Starvation is for the weak."
    4/4
    Posted in: Custom Card Contests and Games
  • posted a message on Irhandi, the Archmages of Emarza
    Before I comment on feedback, here are the faction mechanics:


    GWU: Ensnare - Ensnare target creature. (That creature has 0 base power until end of turn.)

    RGW: Purge X - Purge 1 (Whenever this blocks or becomes blocked, it deals 1 damage to each creature blocking or blocked by it.)

    WBR: Rebuke - [Effect] as long as you've lost life this turn.

    GUB: Traps

    UBR: Cripple - Cripple target creature. (To cripple a creature, tap it. The next time that creature is dealt damage or targeted by a spell or ability this turn, destroy it.)
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Irhandi, the Archmages of Emarza
    I'm not giving the faction mechanics upfront to obtain opinions on how the cards stand on their own and outside of block before tainting initial impressions with in block synergies. I want both opinions separately. I'm out of town for the weekend, but I'll eleborate more soon on feedback.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on [Monthly Card Contest] ***MCC*** Discussion Thread
    Quote from Conntroll »
    Quote from IcariiFA »
    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?
    Posted in: Custom Card Contests and Games
  • posted a message on Irhandi, the Archmages of Emarza
    I'm designing a new tri colored faction set called Emarza. Each faction, or sect leader is a wizard of immense power that duels for the right the rule the plane every 7 years. Mechanically they do something that synergizes with their faction mechanic, but doesn't explicitly use them. Here are the current drafts:

    Hondi, Irhandi of Awe 2GWU
    Legendary Creature - Spider Wizard (M)
    Reach, vigilance
    Whenever a creature attacks or blocks, you may swap that creature's power and toughness until end of turn.
    4/7

    Saraku, Irhandi of Brawn 4RGW
    Legendary Creature - Bear Wizard (M)
    Haste, trample
    Whenever Saraku, Irhandi of Brawn attacks, you may untap each creature defending player controls. If you do, you chose how those creatures block this turn.
    7/7

    Vavara, the Fallen Irhandi 2WBR
    Legendary Creature - Lamia Wraith Wizard (M)
    Indestructible, lifelink
    Whenever Vavara, the Fallen Idhandi attacks, you lose life equal to Vavara's power. Then put that many +1/+1 counters on her.
    2/2

    Parelle, Irhandi of Deception 1GUB
    Legendary Creature - Basilisk Wizard (M)
    Prowess
    Whenever you cast a spell on an opponents turn, you gain 4 life.
    Whenever an opponent casts a spell on another players turn, that opponent loses 4 life.
    4/4

    Arken, Irhandi of Depravity 1URB
    Legendary Creature - Scorpion Wizard (M)
    Deathtough
    The first noncreature spell you cast each turn can't be countered.
    The second noncreature spell you cast each turn costs URB less to cast. This effect reduces only the amount of colored mana you pay.
    3/5

    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on [Monthly Card Contest] ***MCC*** Discussion Thread
    Quote from Flatline »
    If you want want to help new people, you could do it in a much friendlier way.
    I certainly could be nicer.

    I have noticed you haven't said anything about my opinion on his guide though, only my tact in approaching it. Any thoughts?
    Posted in: Custom Card Contests and Games
  • posted a message on [Monthly Card Contest] ***MCC*** Discussion Thread
    Quote from Flatline »
    @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.
    Posted in: Custom Card Contests and Games
  • posted a message on CCL September Top 8: Cheaters Always Prosper
    Yeah, I completely missed the idea that it needed a new keyword mechanic here. I got caught up in the discuss about the flavor of "cheating" and thought that was the only caveat to the challenge. My mistake.


    Doomfish - Regardless of any wording issues this might have, this could be a interesting card in the right environment. That said, like myself, you forgot an actual ability on your entry.

    Raptorchan - I like accumulation more than countless. Too much shuffling, and the fact that it makes it so you can keep playing the same spell every turn 4 turns in a row sounds potentially oppressive and stale. I think the idea and concept here are strong and could be made into something solid with a little tweaking. Also, quite elegant.

    Void_nothing - I don't think the name makes much such with the mechanics. You don't seem to gain benefits under pressure, you seem to gain it by pressuring your opponent. Roar is also a weird name for the mechanic. Seem underpowered as well. I think a different flavor direction would help save this card.

    BluesEclipse - Too complicated, I don't think I would of gotten the reference if you hadn't of explained it even being an avid diablo player. The flavor text confuses the idea of duping items with strange free empowering of them. Your keyword wouldn't see print.

    Netn10 - This card has a couple gameplay design mistakes. First, technically you could not bluff at all. It seems weird to have that option since the card then doesn't nothing. Second, your opponent guessing whether you lied does nothing. The card only cares about if you as a player lied or not. There are no ramifications based on your opponent guessing. If you actually incorporated that into the card, i'td make more sense. As is, it reads "4UR, play three card for free." which seems a little absurd. Bluff could be a cool mechanic if used correctly.

    Legend - The card is fine. I guess a pact does sorta feel like cheating. No new mechanic. Players would certainly want this card, though Im not sure on how fair it is.
    1st: Raptorchan
    2nd: Void_nothing
    3rd: Netn10
    Posted in: Custom Card Contests and Games
  • posted a message on [Monthly Card Contest] ***MCC*** Discussion Thread
    Quote from Conntroll »
    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."
    Posted in: Custom Card Contests and Games
  • posted a message on [Monthly Card Contest] ***MCC*** Discussion Thread
    Quote from Conntroll »
    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?
    Posted in: Custom Card Contests and Games
  • posted a message on [Monthly Card Contest] ***MCC*** Discussion Thread
    Quote from The_Hittite »
    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.
    Posted in: Custom Card Contests and Games
  • posted a message on CCL September Top 8: Cheaters Always Prosper
    Creature Adjustment UG
    Enchantment (R)
    Whenever a creature you control is dealt damage or targeted by a spell or ability you don't control, put a +1/+1 counter on it.
    "You did how much damage?! ...So close, but it's still standing!"
    —Retlyx, Dungeon Master
    Posted in: Custom Card Contests and Games
  • posted a message on [Card Creation League] CCL Discussion
    I wouldn't worry about that yet Smile
    Posted in: Custom Card Contests and Games
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.