lifeandllamas: It depends, if adding flavor text to your card would put too-small text on your card, then leave it off or you'll get deducted. On the other hand, if your card needs flavor text to make any sense flavor-wise, you'll likely get a deduction if you don't include it. The trick for a card without flavor text is that the name (and perhaps the art) has to mesh with the ability perfectly on its own (duh, right?), so it generally only works for iconic cards such as a dragon's fire breath or a werewolf or some fantasy trope that everyone knows and understands by name.
I feel like adding an extra tip, take it or leave it: In my opinion, if you ever make a card that has so many lines of abilities it can't fit flavor text, you should seriously look at each effect and ask yourself "Does this ability define this card? Does it counteract any other ability or the flavor I'm going for?" Its a good way to remove extra effects that could cost you points in elegance.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'll bet you wish you had a non-unglued/unhinged card that shared your first name.
In other words, I advocate for the "bonus" only being able to raise your score (never lower it), instead of it only ever being able to lower your score (if you reserve 2 points for the bonuses).
Well, that's an interesting approach, but I think that such a change would dramatically change the nature of the competition. Right now, the majority of the players attempt to include both bonus conditions in their card. Under your changes, I think that the majority of the players would not attempt to include the bonus conditions in their card. It just wouldn't be worth it if they came up with a good idea that didn't fit the bonus criteria.
Ultimately, you have to address this question: If Card A and Card B both have perfect scores, but Card A incorporated the bonus conditions and Card B did not, which card should win? Or, is it fair that they are tied?
I agree with the point that WhisperedThunder made--that in such a scenario the card that incorporated the bonus conditions (Card A) should be rewarded over the one that didn't because the designer worked under more difficult constraints. Under the current rubric, you could say that a "perfect" score is 23 and cards that satisfy the bonus conditions can earn up to an additional 2 points.
Some of you apparently didn't read my whole earlier comment, or responded based on other people's replies who didn't read my whole comment.
I don't want to abolish bonus points.
Also, while I agree, in principle, that a perfect card that meets the bonus should beat a perfect card that doesn't, how often are perfect scores given out?
I feel like we're sacrificing the many for the needs of the extremely few. Only inexperienced judges give out a perfect score more often than 2 or 3 times per year. Almost every card is flawed in some way (including most of them printed by WotC).
The odds of two cards worthy of perfect scores arriving in the same bracket at the same time are astronomically small. If that extremely unlikely situation ever comes up, the judges can artificially give the nod to the card that met the bonus points, either by fiat ("They tied, but so-and-so wins by my decision.") or by taking .1 away from the non-bonus "perfect" card. I mean, really, could anyone ever argue against receiving a 9.9/10 for design or development?
Is it worth having a lower average quality of cards and a more negative tone to the competition for the sake of some mythical situation that will almost never happen?
Judges can't even agree if Bonus points are revelent to a perfect score, how can you expect me to believe a perfect card is perfect in each judges eyes when right now there's a debate on it. My entire arguement earlier was just sort-of blown off and now there's an arguement about an aspect of my pervious arguement proving some of my previous statements to be correct? I'm reading this right?
I design the perfect card that doesn't meet the bonus req's. Some judges give me a perfect score, some don't. These are the kinds of subjective things I'm talking about.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Oh, what's that you say, Karn? You remove poison counters? You should tell that to Mr. Rosewater.
Ex: Bear-Thunder Uncle (not having a real good name doesn't means I don't wanna ask... >.>)
You know what? I'm going to allow these. If you really want to stretch and get all tricksy like this, sure, why not? But the letters need to be consecutive. No "Earwig Thirsting" or "Every Man ForThemselves".
No amount of trying to beat all of the judges into the same mold with strict rubrics or whatever else is going to a) work or b) making judgings better.
This is your oppinion. You have no proof for these facts. All that we have to go on is the current rubric which doesn't work. It's subjective. As is my oppinion. Subjectivety breeds subjectivety. Objectivety breeds objectivety. It's like something silly like American Idol. All the judgings are objective in the fact at the beginning they all know who can definitely sing. Our current rubric is basically like having another judge on the panel that can say no at a whim. If the person can sing, they pass to the next round. If the card is good, it passes to the next round. A good card isn't defined by a single person, it's an objective whole. Sometimes a really good card gets shot down. Never does a really good singer get shot down. If there wasn't an objective rubric set in the minds of the people on that panel, I bet a whole lot of people would be displeased. They don't want rappers or beatboxers or poets, they have a clear, defined rubric.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Oh, what's that you say, Karn? You remove poison counters? You should tell that to Mr. Rosewater.
The way I think bonus points should work is exactly the way I do them now:
Instead of taking a point away if you miss it, add a point for getting, but don't allow going over the maximum. I think the bonus points should be moved to design & development, so they have more impact than they do in polish (under my scheme--as a minus they work the same regardless of where they are).
Example Card 1) A card scores 8/10, 8/10, 4/5, does not meet the bonus requirements. Under my scheme, this score doesn't change. Under the current scheme, it becomes 8/10, 8/10, 2/5.
Example Card 2) A card scores 8/10, 8/10, 4/5, does meet both bonus points. Under my scheme, this becomes 8/10, 8/10, 5/5 (would be 9/10, 9/10, 4/5 under my proposed scheme). Under the current scheme, it doesn't change.
Results under my current scheme: Card 1 - 20, Card 2 - 21
Results under my proposed scheme: Card 1 - 20, Card 2 - 22
Results under the current scheme: Card 2 - 18, Card 2 - 20
The winner will be the same EVERY TIME, except when someone gets a perfect score in one or more areas. However, it creates a more positive outlook, and allows for a card to get a perfect score without meeting the bonus requirements.
If the organizers insist on keeping the "take points away" scheme, can please change the name of the points to challenge points instead of bonus points? The word "bonus" implies that they don't fall within the regular scoring (hence my treating them differently).
@sven: Given the conditions under which the MCC is run (with a small number of volunteer judges, with varying levels of experience & skill), what you want is impossible. It would take FAR too much time & effort.
Also, please everyone, remember that you are only competing against people with the same judge as you! So what if I give bonus points instead of taking them away for missing it? The outcome is the same, and I treat all my players the same. It doesn't matter who your judge is, because all the cards you're competing against are being judged by the same judge.
If people are having trouble making cards that will appeal to all the judges, that's understandable. However, following some fairly simple rules & ideas will help make your card appealing to most of the judges.
I'll put this in quotes to separate it from the rest of my post.
1) Check for errors! Use Gatherer or magiccards.info, or whichever resource you prefer to check your cardnames, wordings, layouts, reminder text, etc. Remember to check spelling and grammar in both your rules text and your flavor text (if it exists).
2) Don't make a card that's too complicated. There's no rule against complicated cards, but they are much more difficult to balance, and they often lack elegance. You are taking a risk every time you add a line of text to your card.
2a) Elegance is king. Pyroclasm is elegant. Chain Lightning is not elegant. Flavorful, perhaps, but elegant, no. Djinn of Wishes is elegant. Sphinx Ambassador is not. Isochron Scepter is elegant (and totally busted). Ice Cauldron is not elegant.
3) Make a card people will want to play. Is it a big, game affecting creature? Is it a simple & flavorful removal spell? Is it a limited bomb? Is it an intriguing combo piece? You can make an incredibly flavorful card that takes away landwalk, but no one will want to use it, so it just isn't going to score as well.
I actually have a question about the bonus point. Does it need to be able to target something that is a permanent, or does it need to actually say "target permanent"? For example, does a card that only targets creatures fulfill the point? Perhaps it's just me, but for some reason the way it's worded I could see it going either way.
You have no proof for these facts. All that we have to go on is the current rubric which doesn't work. It's subjective.
I do agree that the language of the PJW Rubric ought to be revised and made clearer for the sake of both players and judges (more so, really, for judges). However, I think point allocation should remain as flexible as it currently is.
You might call this "subjective," but remember that subjective does not necessarily equal arbitrary personal taste. It simply means that people judge a card from different perspectives. Some judges are more experienced than others and more experienced judges, because of their different perspective, will generally produce wiser and fairer judgings. I predict that an "objective" rubric (which, I guess, would more systematically regulate point allocation and restrict the use of personal experience and wisdom) would produce mechanical results, but not necessarily fairer results. Such a rubric would overlook subtleties that can't easily be articulated in the language of a rubric. But hey, if you think it can, then you should try to come up with an example "objective" rubric for the organizers to consider.
Quote from qqpq »
Also, please everyone, remember that you are only competing against people with the same judge as you! So what if I give bonus points instead of taking them away for missing it? The outcome is the same, and I treat all my players the same. It doesn't matter who your judge is, because all the cards you're competing against are being judged by the same judge.
Well, I don't know what the organizer's official position is, but personally I think you should refrain from using your bonus points system in Round 4 because you are not the only judge judging the final contestants. And as your examples made clear, your system produces numerically-different scores than the established system, and this can make a significant difference for players in the final round. Actually, I think that unless the bonus points policy is officially changed, it's best for judges to apply a uniform standard for the sake of players (they, after all, have to decide whether or not to incorporate the bonus conditions into their cards and if judges are using different standards, this will be an impossible decision).
Well, I don't know what the organizer's official position is, but personally I think you should refrain from using your bonus points system in Round 4 because you are not the only judge judging the final contestants. And as your examples made clear, your system produces numerically-different scores than the established system, and this can make a significant difference for players in the final round. Actually, I think that unless the bonus points policy is officially changed, it's best for judges to apply a uniform standard for the sake of players (they, after all, have to decide whether or not to incorporate the bonus conditions into their cards and if judges are using different standards, this will be an impossible decision).
Am I the only one here that understands math?
There is ZERO difference between the way I do it and the way the rubric recommends, except when someone gets a perfect score.
Again, it makes no difference, even in the final round, as long as each judge applies the same rules to each player. This is because the points are all added together and a total is used.
Now, let's suppose that we decide that Skeptical Judge was "too harsh" and needs to use a system closer Moderate Judge's system. So Skeptical Judge simply multiplies all his scores by 1.5, to make them "less harsh".
The standings are in exactly the same order. It doesn't matter that each judge is going to score things differently, as long as each individual judge applies the same rules to each player.
One last thing I'd like to point out is that I've been using this system, clearly documented in my scoring post, since Round 2 of last month, and I have not received a single complaint about it.
The bonus points are already minor enough that if we wanted to trivialise them any more, we might as well do away with them altogether.
You've given me a few things to think about here. The bonus points right now are a trap for less experienced designers (who often feel like they need the bonus point to stand a chance, but end up making a bad card in order to meet it), and a fairly simple decision for the more experienced designers (i.e. the points are not worth enough that an experienced designer is going to try to get them unless they have a good idea that meets the bonus anyway).
The problem is that if we make the "bonus" points worth too much, then we have bad cards winning the round because they happened to meet the requirements. Here's where I see the line in the sand:
If card A could potentially see print, and card B would definitely not see print, card B should never beat card A, even if card B met the bonus requirements and card A did not.
it encourages cards that do fulfil the bonuses to only aim for 23/25 rather than 23/23;
This I disagree with. No one is going to deliberately make a worse card unless it is to their advantage. Under the current system, it is to their advantage to make a deliberately worse card, just to try to get the bonus points. My system really doesn't change the effect the bonus points have, it just changes the perception of them, which would hopefully help players realize that it's better to make a good card that doesn't get the bonus than it is to make a bad card that gets the bonus.
but most of all, it is unnecessary, since it affects corner cases.
If you mean it only affects corner cases, I agree, mathematically, it only affects corner cases. I'm not trying to change the scores people receive, I'm trying to affect the psychology of the game, so I can stop judging white cards that should have been blue, just because they got 1 bonus point for making it nonblue.
Finally, in response to WT's point above, putting a full five points behind polish rather than three would force judges to make greater deductions for templating mistakes, which time and again has been cited as a necessary but unfun part of the process.
I actually feel like polish at 3 points is insufficient. Players need motivation to check up on things. Right now, many of the players are lazy, and don't bother checking Gatherer or other resources available to them. If more points were at stake, maybe those lazy players would actually take the time to edit their cards.
I'm not trying to disparage the player-base. I guess what I'm getting at is that right now we have a fairly small "elite" group of designers, many of whom are judges (and thus don't actually play that often), who really take the time and effort to make good cards (they also took the time to develop the skills necessary to be able to make good cards). Many of the rest of players don't seem to understand that just having a good idea is not enough to make a good card. You have to put effort into polishing that idea, to make sure it doesn't have some huge flaw you didn't notice at first, and also to take the rough edges off. Last month when I participated in the CCL, I was one of those lazy players myself. My cards weren't very good. They were good ideas, but they lacked polish. The reason I didn't rejoin the CCL this month is that I realized I don't have time to both judge in MCC and make good cards for another competition.
don't want to seem rude .... but i think people are whinning to much about subjectivity and about a system that worked fine so far. Can you blame anything on the system? All problems ppl tend to point are disagreements with the judges. They're human ..they're always be sujective ..and there will always be subjectivly good judges and bad judges.
This is very true.
There isn't much wrong with the current system. I want some subtle changes that I think could, over a long period of time, make a small positive change in the game. Players will always complain about judges, judges will always have to put up with it. Players will always have to put up with the fact that each judge is different, and appreciates (or even notices) different things.
qqpq: Bear with me, I just want to make sure I have this exactly right. What you would like is basically the same Design-10, Development-10, Polish-5 system we have now, but for the bonus points to essentially be their own category that's worth nothing, but you can get up to two points in to raise your total score back towards 25? That sounds reasonable to me. Making it completely independent seems like the only way to go as there's no reason why those points fit better or worse in any of the other categories.
This idea is exactly what I want. It isn't what I suggested at first, because I didn't think anyone would listen if I proposed it that way. Perhaps that was an error on my part.
I actually feel like polish at 3 points is insufficient. Players need motivation to check up on things. Right now, many of the players are lazy, and don't bother checking Gatherer or other resources available to them. If more points were at stake, maybe those lazy players would actually take the time to edit their cards.
I'm not trying to disparage the player-base. I guess what I'm getting at is that right now we have a fairly small "elite" group of designers, many of whom are judges (and thus don't actually play that often), who really take the time and effort to make good cards (they also took the time to develop the skills necessary to be able to make good cards). Many of the rest of players don't seem to understand that just having a good idea is not enough to make a good card. You have to put effort into polishing that idea, to make sure it doesn't have some huge flaw you didn't notice at first, and also to take the rough edges off.
I must agree, granted i haven't been around to long but you have to at least search gatherer you know? Also, i agree with your idea of moving 5 points to polish but then realize that if you do do this people who can't produce renders or have very little experience in doing so will be, in effect, shafted from having their cards win over "prettier" cards.
I'm in support of a perfect card not meeting bonuses getting 23/25
And a perfect card meeting bonuses getting 25/25
Just make an extra bonus category guys... not to hard.
qqpq: I understand what you are proposing. Basically, you judge a card, tally up its score, and then add 1 or 2 bonus points if their card meets the bonus conditions (unless, of course, it already has a perfect score of 25). Under your scheme, cards never get points deducted for not meeting the bonus conditions. However, in the rare case of two or more cards receiving a perfect score, a card incorporating the bonus conditions has no way of winning over a card that did not incorporate the bonus conditions. You defend this with two reasons, which I would like to comment on:
1) Perfect scores rarely occur, let alone two cards with perfect scores in the same bracket.
Unfortunately, even though such a scenario is unlikely, it is possible. And if it occurred, the MCC would have the equivalent of a constitutional crisis. Like you said, except in the case of two or more perfectly-scored cards, your system and the current system operate exactly the same. The only difference is that the current system actually has a solution to the problem, because bonus points can exceed the "cap" of a perfect score (right now perfect cards can earn up to 23 points and only bonus points can raise them to 24 or 25). But you insist that the benefits of your system outweigh this cost, and that brings us to reason two...
2) Eliminating the current bonus points system will have positive effect of allowing designers to feel less psychologically limited by the bonus conditions and thus freer to make better cards.
I seriously doubt that your changes will suddenly result in a flood of better-designed cards. I think you are overestimating the negative effect the current bonus points system has on designers. Even with your changes, I am certain that a multitude of players will submit poorly-designed cards. What will occur is a change that you seem to underestimate: a majoritarian abandonment of incorporating bonus conditions into cards. Making cards without the limitations of bonus conditions is easier, and if including such conditions would harm the card's overall score, then why on earth would players bother to include them? Under your system, the only time not including bonus conditions might harm you is if you received a perfect score--which, as you've made clear, is extremely rare. Right now, the majority of players attempt to include the bonus conditions into their cards. Under your system, the complete opposite would occur: I believe that most players would make no deliberate attempt to incorporate bonus conditions into their cards and only earn bonus points if their cards coincidentally satisfied the bonus conditions.
Basically, the entire nature of the competition would change because of one seemingly small and benign rules change.
Really, though, even if you believe that your proposed bonus points system is better, it doesn't change the fact that the MCC does have an official policy concerning the "weight" of bonus points in cards' scores. I think it is terrible precedent for judges to be allowed to create and use their own judging standards in opposition to the official MCC rubric and policies. Unless, the official policy is changed, I think that all judges should comply to the established standard for the sake of fairness and clarity.
Really, I find this discussion on changing bonus points a rather, unimportant (I'm sorry if I come off as rude here, I'm mildly fed up by the constant discussion on the judging format). The change from a 25/25 to a 27/25 system seems incredibly minor, too minor to bother with in my opinion (and the very malnourished math geek inside me from high school feels angry at the sight of the improper fraction as well). The possible benefits of changing seem extremely small, and would probably be unnoticeable even if they did occur. Not to mention that the MCC and the FCC before it have been doing it this way for over four years. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" right? This is blunt, but if you want a contest where bonus points mean hardly anything, participate in a different contest or make a new one. I don't see the point of changing this one that is working great as-is.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'll bet you wish you had a non-unglued/unhinged card that shared your first name.
I noticed that the flavor text on my text submission did not match up with my render, so I edited my post after the submission deadline. I hope this won't DQ me but I won't protest if it does.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I only ask because if i do add flavor text the card will seem cluttered and unpleasing to the eye.
I feel like adding an extra tip, take it or leave it: In my opinion, if you ever make a card that has so many lines of abilities it can't fit flavor text, you should seriously look at each effect and ask yourself "Does this ability define this card? Does it counteract any other ability or the flavor I'm going for?" Its a good way to remove extra effects that could cost you points in elegance.
Well, that's an interesting approach, but I think that such a change would dramatically change the nature of the competition. Right now, the majority of the players attempt to include both bonus conditions in their card. Under your changes, I think that the majority of the players would not attempt to include the bonus conditions in their card. It just wouldn't be worth it if they came up with a good idea that didn't fit the bonus criteria.
Ultimately, you have to address this question: If Card A and Card B both have perfect scores, but Card A incorporated the bonus conditions and Card B did not, which card should win? Or, is it fair that they are tied?
I agree with the point that WhisperedThunder made--that in such a scenario the card that incorporated the bonus conditions (Card A) should be rewarded over the one that didn't because the designer worked under more difficult constraints. Under the current rubric, you could say that a "perfect" score is 23 and cards that satisfy the bonus conditions can earn up to an additional 2 points.
Commander: Gwafa Hazid, Profiteer WU
I don't want to abolish bonus points.
Also, while I agree, in principle, that a perfect card that meets the bonus should beat a perfect card that doesn't, how often are perfect scores given out?
I feel like we're sacrificing the many for the needs of the extremely few. Only inexperienced judges give out a perfect score more often than 2 or 3 times per year. Almost every card is flawed in some way (including most of them printed by WotC).
The odds of two cards worthy of perfect scores arriving in the same bracket at the same time are astronomically small. If that extremely unlikely situation ever comes up, the judges can artificially give the nod to the card that met the bonus points, either by fiat ("They tied, but so-and-so wins by my decision.") or by taking .1 away from the non-bonus "perfect" card. I mean, really, could anyone ever argue against receiving a 9.9/10 for design or development?
Is it worth having a lower average quality of cards and a more negative tone to the competition for the sake of some mythical situation that will almost never happen?
I design the perfect card that doesn't meet the bonus req's. Some judges give me a perfect score, some don't. These are the kinds of subjective things I'm talking about.
Is it ok for me to have this card name even though "Earth" is from two words?
Tear Through the Void
H/W List http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=112656
Ex: Bear-Thunder Uncle (not having a real good name doesn't means I don't wanna ask... >.>)
You know what? I'm going to allow these. If you really want to stretch and get all tricksy like this, sure, why not? But the letters need to be consecutive. No "Earwig Thirsting" or "Every Man For Themselves".
This is your oppinion. You have no proof for these facts. All that we have to go on is the current rubric which doesn't work. It's subjective. As is my oppinion. Subjectivety breeds subjectivety. Objectivety breeds objectivety. It's like something silly like American Idol. All the judgings are objective in the fact at the beginning they all know who can definitely sing. Our current rubric is basically like having another judge on the panel that can say no at a whim. If the person can sing, they pass to the next round. If the card is good, it passes to the next round. A good card isn't defined by a single person, it's an objective whole. Sometimes a really good card gets shot down. Never does a really good singer get shot down. If there wasn't an objective rubric set in the minds of the people on that panel, I bet a whole lot of people would be displeased. They don't want rappers or beatboxers or poets, they have a clear, defined rubric.
The way I think bonus points should work is exactly the way I do them now:
Instead of taking a point away if you miss it, add a point for getting, but don't allow going over the maximum. I think the bonus points should be moved to design & development, so they have more impact than they do in polish (under my scheme--as a minus they work the same regardless of where they are).
Example Card 1) A card scores 8/10, 8/10, 4/5, does not meet the bonus requirements. Under my scheme, this score doesn't change. Under the current scheme, it becomes 8/10, 8/10, 2/5.
Example Card 2) A card scores 8/10, 8/10, 4/5, does meet both bonus points. Under my scheme, this becomes 8/10, 8/10, 5/5 (would be 9/10, 9/10, 4/5 under my proposed scheme). Under the current scheme, it doesn't change.
Results under my current scheme: Card 1 - 20, Card 2 - 21
Results under my proposed scheme: Card 1 - 20, Card 2 - 22
Results under the current scheme: Card 2 - 18, Card 2 - 20
The winner will be the same EVERY TIME, except when someone gets a perfect score in one or more areas. However, it creates a more positive outlook, and allows for a card to get a perfect score without meeting the bonus requirements.
If the organizers insist on keeping the "take points away" scheme, can please change the name of the points to challenge points instead of bonus points? The word "bonus" implies that they don't fall within the regular scoring (hence my treating them differently).
@sven: Given the conditions under which the MCC is run (with a small number of volunteer judges, with varying levels of experience & skill), what you want is impossible. It would take FAR too much time & effort.
Also, please everyone, remember that you are only competing against people with the same judge as you! So what if I give bonus points instead of taking them away for missing it? The outcome is the same, and I treat all my players the same. It doesn't matter who your judge is, because all the cards you're competing against are being judged by the same judge.
If people are having trouble making cards that will appeal to all the judges, that's understandable. However, following some fairly simple rules & ideas will help make your card appealing to most of the judges.
I'll put this in quotes to separate it from the rest of my post.
I do agree that the language of the PJW Rubric ought to be revised and made clearer for the sake of both players and judges (more so, really, for judges). However, I think point allocation should remain as flexible as it currently is.
You might call this "subjective," but remember that subjective does not necessarily equal arbitrary personal taste. It simply means that people judge a card from different perspectives. Some judges are more experienced than others and more experienced judges, because of their different perspective, will generally produce wiser and fairer judgings. I predict that an "objective" rubric (which, I guess, would more systematically regulate point allocation and restrict the use of personal experience and wisdom) would produce mechanical results, but not necessarily fairer results. Such a rubric would overlook subtleties that can't easily be articulated in the language of a rubric. But hey, if you think it can, then you should try to come up with an example "objective" rubric for the organizers to consider.
Well, I don't know what the organizer's official position is, but personally I think you should refrain from using your bonus points system in Round 4 because you are not the only judge judging the final contestants. And as your examples made clear, your system produces numerically-different scores than the established system, and this can make a significant difference for players in the final round. Actually, I think that unless the bonus points policy is officially changed, it's best for judges to apply a uniform standard for the sake of players (they, after all, have to decide whether or not to incorporate the bonus conditions into their cards and if judges are using different standards, this will be an impossible decision).
Commander: Gwafa Hazid, Profiteer WU
(CubeTutor & MTGS)
360 Peasant Cube!
Custom Cube
RWU Miracles RWU
Am I the only one here that understands math?
There is ZERO difference between the way I do it and the way the rubric recommends, except when someone gets a perfect score.
Again, it makes no difference, even in the final round, as long as each judge applies the same rules to each player. This is because the points are all added together and a total is used.
One last thing I'd like to point out is that I've been using this system, clearly documented in my scoring post, since Round 2 of last month, and I have not received a single complaint about it.
You've given me a few things to think about here. The bonus points right now are a trap for less experienced designers (who often feel like they need the bonus point to stand a chance, but end up making a bad card in order to meet it), and a fairly simple decision for the more experienced designers (i.e. the points are not worth enough that an experienced designer is going to try to get them unless they have a good idea that meets the bonus anyway).
The problem is that if we make the "bonus" points worth too much, then we have bad cards winning the round because they happened to meet the requirements. Here's where I see the line in the sand:
If card A could potentially see print, and card B would definitely not see print, card B should never beat card A, even if card B met the bonus requirements and card A did not.
Only by a very small amount.
Only for perfect cards. How often do you see a perfect card? I don't think making ties 0.002% more likely is really a drawback.
This I disagree with. No one is going to deliberately make a worse card unless it is to their advantage. Under the current system, it is to their advantage to make a deliberately worse card, just to try to get the bonus points. My system really doesn't change the effect the bonus points have, it just changes the perception of them, which would hopefully help players realize that it's better to make a good card that doesn't get the bonus than it is to make a bad card that gets the bonus.
If you mean it only affects corner cases, I agree, mathematically, it only affects corner cases. I'm not trying to change the scores people receive, I'm trying to affect the psychology of the game, so I can stop judging white cards that should have been blue, just because they got 1 bonus point for making it nonblue.
I actually feel like polish at 3 points is insufficient. Players need motivation to check up on things. Right now, many of the players are lazy, and don't bother checking Gatherer or other resources available to them. If more points were at stake, maybe those lazy players would actually take the time to edit their cards.
I'm not trying to disparage the player-base. I guess what I'm getting at is that right now we have a fairly small "elite" group of designers, many of whom are judges (and thus don't actually play that often), who really take the time and effort to make good cards (they also took the time to develop the skills necessary to be able to make good cards). Many of the rest of players don't seem to understand that just having a good idea is not enough to make a good card. You have to put effort into polishing that idea, to make sure it doesn't have some huge flaw you didn't notice at first, and also to take the rough edges off. Last month when I participated in the CCL, I was one of those lazy players myself. My cards weren't very good. They were good ideas, but they lacked polish. The reason I didn't rejoin the CCL this month is that I realized I don't have time to both judge in MCC and make good cards for another competition.
This is very true.
There isn't much wrong with the current system. I want some subtle changes that I think could, over a long period of time, make a small positive change in the game. Players will always complain about judges, judges will always have to put up with it. Players will always have to put up with the fact that each judge is different, and appreciates (or even notices) different things.
This idea is exactly what I want. It isn't what I suggested at first, because I didn't think anyone would listen if I proposed it that way. Perhaps that was an error on my part.
I must agree, granted i haven't been around to long but you have to at least search gatherer you know? Also, i agree with your idea of moving 5 points to polish but then realize that if you do do this people who can't produce renders or have very little experience in doing so will be, in effect, shafted from having their cards win over "prettier" cards.
I'm in support of a perfect card not meeting bonuses getting 23/25
And a perfect card meeting bonuses getting 25/25
Just make an extra bonus category guys... not to hard.
1) Perfect scores rarely occur, let alone two cards with perfect scores in the same bracket.
Unfortunately, even though such a scenario is unlikely, it is possible. And if it occurred, the MCC would have the equivalent of a constitutional crisis. Like you said, except in the case of two or more perfectly-scored cards, your system and the current system operate exactly the same. The only difference is that the current system actually has a solution to the problem, because bonus points can exceed the "cap" of a perfect score (right now perfect cards can earn up to 23 points and only bonus points can raise them to 24 or 25). But you insist that the benefits of your system outweigh this cost, and that brings us to reason two...
2) Eliminating the current bonus points system will have positive effect of allowing designers to feel less psychologically limited by the bonus conditions and thus freer to make better cards.
I seriously doubt that your changes will suddenly result in a flood of better-designed cards. I think you are overestimating the negative effect the current bonus points system has on designers. Even with your changes, I am certain that a multitude of players will submit poorly-designed cards. What will occur is a change that you seem to underestimate: a majoritarian abandonment of incorporating bonus conditions into cards. Making cards without the limitations of bonus conditions is easier, and if including such conditions would harm the card's overall score, then why on earth would players bother to include them? Under your system, the only time not including bonus conditions might harm you is if you received a perfect score--which, as you've made clear, is extremely rare. Right now, the majority of players attempt to include the bonus conditions into their cards. Under your system, the complete opposite would occur: I believe that most players would make no deliberate attempt to incorporate bonus conditions into their cards and only earn bonus points if their cards coincidentally satisfied the bonus conditions.
Basically, the entire nature of the competition would change because of one seemingly small and benign rules change.
Really, though, even if you believe that your proposed bonus points system is better, it doesn't change the fact that the MCC does have an official policy concerning the "weight" of bonus points in cards' scores. I think it is terrible precedent for judges to be allowed to create and use their own judging standards in opposition to the official MCC rubric and policies. Unless, the official policy is changed, I think that all judges should comply to the established standard for the sake of fairness and clarity.
Commander: Gwafa Hazid, Profiteer WU
One of the MCC Hammer guys (or gal) needs to throw some brackets up so we can get this thing rolling.
H/W List http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=112656
Ack! Sorry if i seemed to forward, i know its your first time doing this thing. I just wanted things to continue to flow rather than be stagnant.
Your doing a good job...... so far. :rolleyes::D
H/W List http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=112656
Host, December 2015: A Winter Wonderland? - R1|R2|R3|Top 8|Semifinals|Finals|Poll
Host, CCL April 2014: A Game of Fate - Signup|R1|R2|R3|Top 8|Semifinal|Finals|Poll
Host, CCL December 2012: Spy Games - Signup|R1|R2|R3|Top 8|Semifinals|Finals|Poll
Host, CCL November 2010: The Perfect Crime - Signup|R1|R2|R3|Top 8|Semifinals|Finals|Poll
Host, CCL August 2009: A Commander's Journey: Signups|R1|R2|R3|Top 8|Semifinals|Finals|Poll
I've got tons of art from the web. Want art for a render? PM me! Want to create your own collection? Start here!
This. Especially since I only have 3 remaining players... 1 was a no-show and 1 edited after the deadline.
Yup, I noticed that late last night when i closed the round that 3 or 4 contestants (not including me) were still poking around the thread.
I guess rules go flying out the window when no one closes the round on time, luckily i was there to save the day....sorta.
H/W List http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=112656
Top 2 from each pod advance. I'll update the round thread.