RC Improvement Discussion Thread

[Northern Sage]

12 hours is the current bump timer, and I think it's fine that way. I rarely ever see a thread on the bottom of the first page, let alone the second page get commented on.
24 hours is too much imo.

Where are you getting that from? The only set standard at this moment are those rules in the announcements from 2013, which still say 24 hours.

http://forum.yugiohcardmaker.net/forum-9/announcement-53-new-custom-cards-section-rules/

The thing with less than 24 hours is that post counts will rack up quickly.

[宇佐見 蓮子@C94]

I vaguely remember an announcement from a year or so ago that mentioned the RC bump timer to be 12 hours...

Either way, I still think the 24 hour rule is too long.

[Sander]

I vaguely remember an announcement from a year or so ago that mentioned the RC bump timer to be 12 hours...

Either way, I still think the 24 hour rule is too long.

 

It is. People need to realise that anything past page 1 is already dead for the general populace of RC, aka nobody actually goes past page 1 to comment on threads.

[J-Max]

It is. People need to realise that anything past page 1 is already dead for the general populace of RC, aka nobody actually goes past page 1 to comment on threads.

Agreed with Zanda. Yeah, anything passed Page 1 is pretty much dead in the water. Most Newbies will not go past page 1 and even most of the Members here will only post on the latest Cards or ones with loads of Mistakes and/or Fixes.

[Sleepy]

>CCG Project

 

Does that mean ignoring the existing card pool and making a new one, or making new packs with the existing stuff in mind?

 

It can go both ways depending on what the project creator has in mind. I for example made a CCG project to create a "first Yugioh booster" starting from 0 cards in the pool. In the same way, it's different if you wanna make a booster thinking on the actual IRL card pool. I saw one once.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Making that sort of project requires a lot of dedication, and sadly, many, or most, of the members that initially wanna join said project end up just not coming back to it, leaving behind incomplete strategies, Fusions with lacking materials, or Rituals with lacking spells, or even cards that just need that last update with a simple OPT clause addition. All in all, the topic creator has a hellish time running behind people with entries in development while organizing the OP keeping as much up to date as possible. The project either turns into cards being deleted due to not getting anywhere, or into the project as a whole being dropped.

Much like role plays.

[/rant(?)]

 

I agree with the issue of members just bumping up a thread without addressing a review whatsoever, it turns people off from giving them in the future. As a whole it contributes to making the section more inactive.

 

Another issue that probably not everyone has but I still feel the need to talk about goes on the opposite side of the spectrum though. When some of the well known, knowledgable, and respected members go into reviewing cards. I've had them come and review my cards, and (rightfully so) pointed out all the bad design , the broken combos, and all the aspects of it that need fixing. I accept harsh criticism and welcome all the feedback I'm getting, but at the same time I can't help but have noticed how SOME only come when the card is bad enough to warrant said harsh and direct criticism. That includes coming back to post after my reply and my edits. A few times in the past I've even baited such criticism saying how I'm aware the card in display is currently overpowered and the intention is to tone it down from there, to receive particular notes on that fact, and have it treated equally as if it had been broken by lack of competence. 

 

I'm pretty good at taking those, but I wonder if the newer members would take it well. I've seen some explode in just the fact that the criticism is too direct, and I don't believe that people should be told "good riddance we don't need you" just because they take something harsh badly from the get go. I was as bad as any of them when I first joined, and know improving might prove impossible if right off the bat new members looking for a friendly environment are forced into defensive talking and annoyed to the point they won't acknowledge the other person even if the points are good. Especially if said experienced respected members only comment on how much X card sucks. 

 

Now, I know the reply to this. "I'm not here to pamper anyone and tell them how good their card is because that is utterly useless". Though I personally disagree. When one is gonna start with harsh and direct criticism, having the other person make an effort to improve and edit their card based on your review also deserves at the very least a casual "It's better now, but it still lacks this and this and that" or "I think it's fine with that change". Experienced people, saying you like something is not useless, it encourages people to keep coming back and enforces the idea that while you are still harsh and direct, you still give credit when credit is deserved and applaud a good creation. Again, I've had people comment with "X effect is awful because this and that" and me thanking that lots, but then the thread getting completely no attention once the card is fixed into getting out of the red zone. 

 

This is sadly more confusing to find a fix for, all that can be done really is to be conscious of this as a friendly suggestion. After all, I can already predict a "Can't be helped if I'm no longer interested in posting there, what can you do?" It's easy to point out when something is wrong, but people need to know when something is right in order to improve as well. This is something that I still think I could probably have worded better even now after struggling for a while to give shape to this thought, but I hope the idea is comprehensible enough. It personally discourages me a little every time this happens.

 

One important idea to have when reviewing cards here is that it's an interactive job, or at least it should be. It's not about getting feedback and saying "k let's see how I do next time" and it's not about "K I left the review, bye, won't be coming back".

[Excalibur the Divine]

I'm feeling really stupid because I don't know what is CCG
Correct card grammar?

[Flash Flyer - Sakura]

CCG = Custom card game.

 

This is pretty much relegated to stuff like Duel Portal (see that stickied thread for it in this section). Or in other uses, members create their own card game [if you factor in stuff outside of the RC section]

 

OCG = Official card grammar (in this case). It also refers to the card game in Japan/Asiatic territories.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

To give this thread more use, I pose a question that really needs to be addressed. What should the ideal CC community look like? What traits should it have so that it actually functions like a community? I see a community where everyone wants to help their fellow card maker improve. Going off on what Sleepy said, this shouldn't be a group bashing another for bad design. Instead, why not try guiding them in a peaceful manner? If they don't want to listen, leave them be. There is nothing to gain from pushing someone who shows signs of hostility. We've already seen that recently, and that is not what a community should be. Also, we shouldn't separate ourselves into groups that easily. That just creates division in our community and weakens it. Help your fellow member no matter where they are or who they are. The mentorship program is a start, though simply reviewing cards no matter who made them is what we need to see happening. People say that the quality of CC is declining. Maybe it's time to start going out to where people are at and give them the help they need. I can't do this alone. It's going to take all of us to see this through.

[Flash Flyer - Sakura]

Ideally, the CC community should be one that offers their input on member's cards, but doesn't outright say "this card is garbage or some other condescending things". There are a couple members who have this sort of mentality (not naming specific people); which really does not help CC's quality improve.

 

Yeah, you can be a bit, how should I phrase this, in-depth with your review, but try to offer some way to fix it (or you can't think of any right away, mention why the card wouldn't work). If a member doesn't want help (and it does happen), then we can't do much except for saying why it's bad design or something along those lines (if their card is like that).

They don't want to get better (or just read the comments + but don't bother adjusting); they just risk being sent to AoC (or possibly warned/banned if they throw a fit at members trying to help them out). We're commenting on their cards because we want to see them get better; not because we want to get an ego or something for CnCing cards.

 

Agreed on actually going to their threads and saying what needs to be done in there. The reason I don't review every single card in this section is (1) I don't want to look like a repeat of rag [hopefully most of RC knows who he is], (2) some Archetypes are fuzzy to me, so if it's more support for them, I'm not in a position that I can give a review and not look like an idiot commenting on what they need/don't need, (3) Amount of cards in some threads [I don't particularly like grading large sets, small ones are fine]. Regardless though, the only way CC is going to get its quality rating up is if we actually make an effort to help new members out (or some veteran ones) with their cardmaking, and not just dismiss them for making a bad card. Most of us were in the same situation as them back in our early days.

[newhat]

Most singles are not complex in a form that merits discussion, because they are singles.

 

I don't know what idyllic RC of old we're trying to get back to. RC is not as populated as it once was but the density of bad cards is about the same. Looking at the front page, there's one straight-up broken card, three dragon threads, three stupid anime girls and no wolves at all. Nobody is saying "Just because this card is broken doesn't mean I have to change it". Discussion is there, and it's improving the cards.

[I Hate Snatch Steal]

I sympathize with with the desire for helpful reviews over one liners. I remember how discouraging that was back when I had first joined. Particularly since the one liners I often got were art criticisms which had nothing to do with the card's playabliity.

 

I used to dislike the idea of the advanced clause, but now I see what its trying to do. However I support the idea of people reporting reviews that they don't find sufficient over a flat word count or something, if moderators would have the right to oversee the reports and prevent abuse of the rule that is. Just put out some guidelines about what is and isn't a good review in terms of quality.

 

Recognition for good reviews might also be good. Much like the leader board has a "helpful voter award", maybe there could be nominations for "reviewer of the month" or something? People might like to review more if they get noticed for it.

 

If I'm totally off here, then I won't be offended since I was away from the site for a while.

[Dracoswag]

I agree with pretty much everything I Hate Snatch Steal said (amazing username by the way)

 

People who give out legitimate, and well thought our reviews should get noticed for it at some point vs. those who only give out one liners/minimal expression on the particular project/CC/post at hand, and for some reason those who post the absolute minimal seem to get more feedback for what ever reason. Now, I am not saying this to imply that everyone SHOULD give full-fledged reviews (but I definitely support the idea) since it can honestly be out of that individual(s) perspective, or simply put people are not accustomed to putting in as much thought into giving long or detailed reviews. As Sakura said in an earlier post, the CC community should be a place where you give your "honest" input and idealistic view of the card, and not some post that is completely demeaning no matter how bad of a design the card is (because honestly no one deserves that kind of treatment; remember, something you say whether positive or negative, CAN have a huge impact on that person's mentality.)

 

Overall, I do hope that the quality of CC improves to a point, where we get more members giving much more in-depth reviews or generally giving acceptable feedback so that we can avoid this big mess in the first place. It even says in the guidelines (in a way) to keep CC a negative-free zone, and for everyone to give the sort of feedback that is both acceptable and merit to positive criticism.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

Giving this a well needed bump due to the recent promotions. So, what is the first thing we as a community should do? I say collaborate cards to learn each other's strengths and weaknesses.

[I Hate Snatch Steal]

I just had a great idea for how to promote good reviews:

 

How about a stickied thread titled "review of the week".

 

Inside would be a card someone's posted and a very good review of that card. People could nominate reviews for the next week's review of the week spotlight and then the mods could choose the good reviews and post them in the sticky.

 

[spoiler='here is a sample of what it might look like']

http://forum.yugiohcardmaker.net/topic/319884-resurrector-of-rites-generic-ritual-suppport/

 

 

If your opponent controls a monster and you control no monsters, you can Normal Summon/Set this card without Tributing. When a monster you control with a different name is destroyed and sent to the Graveyard, while this card is in your Graveyard: You can pay 1500 life points; Special Summon this card from your Graveyard. You can special summon 1 non-"Gishki" ritual monster from your hand (this special summon is treated as a ritual summon). You can only activate 1 "Resurrector of Rites" effect per turn, and only once that turn.

 

review by Yemachu

Ritual Support for non-Gishki cards, interesting. 1 non-Gishki Ritual Monster I can think of, which can really benefit from this card; is "Herald of Glorious Light" (and its younger brother/sister "Herald of Perfection"). Normally Ritual Summoning that monster would either put a heavy burden on your hand (it requires 12 or more levels of tributes), or you need to run a Deck with a decent amount of Normal Monsters (for usage with "Advanced Ritual Art"); which is not favorable. If you manage to summon "Resurrector of Rites" during your turn, without using 1 of its effects or have summoned it prior to your turn, you can just Ritual Summon "Herald of Glorious Light" using this card's effect at no cost. Also since this monster is a Fairy-Type, it can be used as a cost for the Heralds' negation effect(s). Other Ritual decks might also run this card, but might just as well run the "Djinn of Ritual" cards.
 
Taking those facts in consideration, you might want to water its effect down a bit; or at least the effect that lets you Ritual Summon. 
 
Eventhough its effect allows it to Special Summon itself from the Graveyard (resurrect), I would say its name does not completely match its flavor. The way I interpret it, "Resurrector of Rites" would ressurect a rite: Special Summon a Ritual Monster from the Graveyard. Also I do not really see need for its (current) resurrection effect. But since this is related to its 'flavor', it not as big of an issue (if it is an issue at all).
 
Now for my suggestion on fixing the card's effect; Instead of simply letting you just Special Summon a Ritual Monster from your hand, you can make this card a Generic Ritual Spell Card. If you do, you can also have this card be a part of the tribute. I guess the effect would be worded as follows: "You can use Ritual Summon any Ritual Monster. You must also Tribute monsters from your hand or field, including this card, whose total Levels are equal to or more to the Level of the monster Ritual Summon ".
 
Or if you would like you can give its effect a complete overhaul:

• When this card is destroyed by battle and sent to the Graveyard: You can Special Summon 1 Ritual Monster from your Graveyard. When a Ritual Monster you contol is destroyed and sent to the Graveyard: You can Special Summon this card (from your Graveyard). You can only activate 1 effect of "Resurrector of Rites" per turn, and only once that turn.". Do note that if you go with this effect (or a part of it), that you cannot use it with "Herald of Glorious Light;  
• When you Ritual Summon, the monster you are Ritual Summoning can be a monster in your Graveyard. This is some sort of resurrection.

What you do with my ideas is of course up to you, but I do hope my vision/suggestions are of some use to you.

[/spoiler]

 

Note that people would nominate reviews, not cards. Also people may not be able to nominate their own reviews if others think that's a good idea to forbid that. There could even be more then 1 review of the week if enough good reviews are submitted.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

That does sound like a good step in showing what a review should look like. Main issue is getting people to nominate reviews on a regularish basis. I remember a system Alfred had when he was the CC mod where superb reviews were repped with a certain amount of reps giving that reviewer recognized with some sort of award. I can see that working.

[Flash Flyer - Sakura]

I like the idea of having a Review of the Week or something, but as Striker mentioned, problem is finding people to nominate other people's stuff and not just claim their own is good. 

The example Snatch gave is something that would be looked for in this type of thing. 

 

 

As for other things, promoting good card design is definite right now; hence the whole reason we had this thread to begin with. One idea that was brought up is splitting RC into a competitive section and just a casual one. A fair amount of cards here are nicely designed (there are some obvious ones that aren't), but given the atmosphere of this forum is geared towards things for the next tournament or something; they tend to get marked down for causing loops or other broken stuff with existing things; which unfortunately is going to happen. 

 

But card collaboration isn't off the table just yet; though the members in question need to be able to compromise on what they want to do with the cards; otherwise things will not get done.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

1. I did bring up a past system that had some success. The problem with it was the lack of mod follow through, but with both you and Saber, that shouldn't be a problem now.

2. Quite honestly, I approve of this idea. Mainly as a way to allow newer members to have a place to learn and transition into better card making.

3. Special events with awards would be a perfect incentive to make that happen. As an economics major, I believe in the power of incentives.

[Flash Flyer - Sakura]

That's true; Saber and I are now around to keep an eye on stuff, so ideas that would not have been possible to do in the past under Zex's lone modship may be possible now. We could probably reuse that system of yours (I was probably gone during the time it happened though, so might want to elaborate a bit on what you did in it).

 

We have Leaderboard for the third one to some extent, but more incentives to get people to make better cards should work. I recall seeing some collaboration tournaments in the Card Contests area a while back.

 

In terms of making another split in the RC forum, this is something that needs to be brought up with Saber and Zextra (both of them should get messaged tonight or something; as this isn't something that's left to the decision of one CC mod; especially from a newer one). Like you and that other member who suggested this, I think it'll be good for the members who don't play competitively (especially a lot of the newer ones); in a way, they can create (good) cards without the pressure of keeping stuff appropriate to the meta. Granted, we'll still enforce the Advanced Clause because even though this proposed section is for casual things, we still expect you to make good quality cards and review them in accordance with said AC. While it is expected that giving RC a "casual" section may draw dissent from some members, as mentioned earlier, the atmosphere in here is essentially that of a tournament state.

It is a way for newer members to get acclimated into RC life before being pushed in the fire of the current section.

 

Let's look at it this way; do you want to give the impression that this section cares only about competitive cards OR that we'll accept cards that are properly designed/balanced;  regardless if they can work in the meta or not?

 

We've already given a few members the former, though in one of those cases, it's due to their lack of understanding why something shouldn't be here and the resulting comments of members. In some of those cases, such comments are justifiable (though a couple do border on the edge of flaming at times). In any case, if we do get a RC split, we expect that you not make another copy of Card B in Toyo's RC guide (that clone of the infamous Fire Pit Princess). That's something that belongs in Any Other Cards; regardless if you made it for tournament or not. You can make a card, but make sure you follow the general rules that Konami set already (don't make monsters with over 5000 original ATK/DEF [the Boss cards for Don Thousand/Number 1000 are not an excuse for you to violate it; abide by the six main Attributes and 23 existing Types, etc.) and make sure it's balanced/well constructed.

 

It goes without saying that cards created now can/will form some combinations with existing stuff from Konami, and in some cases, they form things that mess up the gamestate. But why should we pressure them to make something for regionals or something, when they don't play themselves because of other interests. (This isn't intended to be a "babysitting" area of RC, but more of a training/preparatory one to gear newbies/members who could use some help creating good cards before getting pushed to the next level).

 

(I didn't expect to write a lot just on #2 alone, sheesh)

 

Before anything is done though, your opinions on what should be done is important. Whatever gets implemented needs to be something that the CC community will be satisfied with.

[Excalibur the Divine]

Well here is what I think. RC is already not active enough and I we split, they will become deserted. The main problem is that if we split, either casual or competitive or both will have few members posting. How about we give reps to
Revviews that the card maker finds helpful or other people that think that thy are good reviews and this is similar p above idea. We can have a reviewer of the week/month or something. How about prizes for number of reps or good reviews and each time one rep for good review is given, we edit our post in the reviewer rep
Topic that someone can create. After each week is over a mod can add up the totals and award prizes. The reviewer of the month could get a fancy award to post in their sig.
Rewards should be:
Weekly 1st place: 500 points
Weekly 2nd Place: 300 points
Weekly 3rd Place: 100 points

Monthly 1st Place: 2000 points
Monthly 2nd Place:1500 points
Monthly 3rd Place: 1200 points

Hope you guys actually read this and think about it and just not ignore me because of prejedice or contempt because I'm a 3-star member.

[Flash Flyer - Sakura]

I thought over the RC split after posting the last suggestion and came up with another option. I vaguely remember that the RP section used to have a tag system in the earlier days. Instead of splitting RC in two (which would pretty much just add a subforum in each); you add the tag [Casual] or [Competition] in title; though it sounds good in practice but application-wise, may not work so well. Things would just remain as they are, except for requiring a tag to state what form of RC card is it. Obviously the Casual tagged threads are to dealt with in a more lenient manner than those with the Competition tag (which essentially works the same as it is now, w/out them).

 

The point prizes for Review of the Week/Month seem doable; though a GFX award much like what's done in Leaderboard works well enough. Again, the problem with this is lack of funding. The points should be more of a monthly thing, because as you noticed, Saber and I don't have a ton of points to be giving out every week for prizes; especially in those increments. Reps/GFX stuff work for weekly things.

[J-Max]

I appriciate your thought Sakura but I can bet that EVERYONE will mark their topic as Competition. Because everyone seems to think that they can create the next best card ever. Oh and Sakura, Supers can increase any member's points so the amount of points you have is not an issue.

[宇佐見 蓮子@C94]

As someone who first brought up the idea of separating RC into competitive and non-competitive, I should probably post my original draft for it to give a better idea. 

 

 Competitive and Non-Competitive. Because new members aren't all good players that understand the meta, and just post realistic cards they think are cool. Basically, non-competitive cards are where the "Booster Filler" cards go. It's really more of a way for newbies to have some sort of idea of what comments they can expect to get. Basically just a place where people can post cards they're proud of that aren't necessarily great, but still get RC-level reviews. I mean, there's nothing really wrong with s*** cards. Half the time it's just noobs who have no idea about competitive YGO but still want to show off their creations, and then flip out when their cards get judged horribly. Maybe RC - Serious and RC - Casual would be a better way to describe it. Kinda like Ranked and Casual rooms in fighting games. 

 

As for the other comments: 

 

-Incentive to give points/reps per good reviews: 

We've done rep4reviews before. It made a small burst of activity for a short while, but then everything fizzled out and RC is back to it's original activity. My stance on this is as follows: As long as it pushes people to write good reviews instead of mass-reviewing cards in two sentence critiques, go for it. I'm just worried that it might cause a stance of quantity over quality, which is something we've been trying to avoid for a while. I'd rather make sure people know how to review properly before pushing incentives like this. 

 

-Splitting RC will diminish activity!:

Well... We don't know. Like I said, it will be similar to the idea of ranked and casual rooms in video games. I don't get how you say it will reduce the activity in either, because even there are two separate groups of people in either of them, there will inevitably be some who is active in both. I brought up the idea to make RC less congested and to make sure people know what they're getting into, regardless of whether they're newbs or veterans. Just because your card's not getting any reviews doesn't mean RC is inactive, you know. 

 

The casual and competitive tags idea might be an alternative idea for this, but I'm not so sure how it'll work in practice. 

 

J-Max, I'll take you up on that bet. Not every newb thinks the card they made is the greatest thing in the universe, especially in this current era of RC. I want to make sure everyone in RC has an enjoyable time, regardless of member stars, metagame knowledge or cardmaking skills, that's all. 

 

Sakura, I think the description for RC should be updated for now. Realistic and Balanced is far too broad. I suggest something similar to "Post Realistic, Balanced and Competitive cards here!" or words to that effect.

 

All this RC talk reminds me of that idea of a separate, hidden section of RC only available to acknowledged RC veterans where the standards are astronomically high. 

[Flash Flyer - Sakura]

Technically, the whole splitting idea was yours; but it's great that you elaborated on it so the rest of the section understands. Updated the description though to reflect what we expect here. (If people understand your concept of the RC split and like the idea, perhaps we'll implement it (Saber should have a say in this, since he's also responsible for keeping an eye on stuff here now)

 

Just because your card isn't getting activity, doesn't mean this place is dead. Granted, it's less active than we'd like it to be, but people still comment on stuff.

 

I have some doubts about the tag system as well; considering that they didn't go well in RPs (granted that section is more active than over here).

 

@J-Max: I think regular mods like Saber and I can go edit points ourselves as well, though I'd rather not overstep that boundary. (Considering someone got their rep count considerably edited beyond what they actually earned...)

 

Point taken though about the tag system; we still have a few members who think their card is the best and don't listen to comments; it hasn't been as bad lately [aside from the occasional flare-ups].

[Darj]

Huh? New Mods? When did that happen?

 

Anyways, I got a couple of suggestions for improving RC:

 

1.  A Subforum for Finished Cards/Sets from RC.

I think most of us saw how the attempted Hall of Fame thread failed and quickly degenerated into some kind of fancier "rate my card" thread. In my opinion, it was executed poorly because instead of organizing a competent team that chose the good cards themselves, they asked the community to pick the cards to be evaluated, and we can see which was the result: users nominating bad cards or, worse, nominating their own, wrongly believing that their cards were worth of the Hall (yes, I admit I'm guilty of this). And really, we should have seen this coming, because when the average YCMer barely understands card design (if at all), how the hell do you expect them to nominate actually good cards?

 

Thus, my suggestion is to do it right this time, and create a subsection where a mod can archive the threads from RC with good, finished cards. Here is an idea of how it could work:

1. Create the subforum for Finished cards (and perhaps another for sets from Multiple Cards). This subforum would be locked in the same way as the "News" forum, where regular users cannot post, but everyone can read it.

2. Organize a team of users who have proved to know about the game and card design (not too different to the Adjudicators from the Hall of Fame thread). They could be called "certified reviewers" or whatever, Also sticky a thread on RC listing them so users will recognize them.

3. In order for a card to be worthy of the section, it must fulfill the following conditions:

a. It must be finished. That means the owner doesn't plan to make further changes to the card.

b. It must be fixed and/or reviewed by at least 3 of the "certified members" and be given good rates (for those used to X/10 ratings, it would be a rate of 8/10 or higher).

c. Flawless OCG.

4. If the card fulfills the conditions, the card owner should add a [Finished] tag on the thread title and let a RC Moderator know that his/her card is done and wishes for it to be evaluated for the "Finished" subsection. The tag in the title is to make it easier for the Mod to identify the threads with finished cards, in case the owner doesn't tell him/her.

5. The Mod will evaluate if the card has been properly fixed and/or reviewed by the certified members, and if everything is in order, move it to the subsection.

 

As you can see, this procedure should make it easy for a Mod to find and move the good cards to the section, instead of leaving to him/her the tasks of finding and reviewing the good cards from all the bad ones.

Of course, this would also require the cooperation of the certified reviewers, because if they don't review, no cards will make it to the Finished subsection. For that reason, only users who not only know about card design, but also are genuinely interested in improving RC should be chosen as certified reviewers. After all, as it was already pointed out, everyone should contribute with the improvement of RC, rather than leaving everything to the Mods.

 

2. A weekly/monthly Card Improvement Contest

Sometimes, an user posts a card and get comments like "it is balanced", "it looks fine", etc. and in theory the may be right, BUT in practice the card might actually be subpar because the conditions to play it are impractical, it is outclassed by staples or other cards, etc. My point is that said card could be better, and I believe that if we want a RC with a higher quality, reviewers should also consider suggesting ways for improving the cards they evaluate, or in other words, suggest changes to turn a card that is merely "ok" or "fine" into a "good" or "great" card (in rating numbers, that would like be turning a card with a rate of 8/10 into a 9/10, or even a 10/10).

 

Now, a contest where users get the chance of suggesting improvements to cards would be ideal for both encouraging and practicing what I would call as "card improvement". As for how this contest could be executed, this is what I had in mind:

1. A card is posted by a Mod or a certified member. But there is catch: said card must have room for improvement; that means it must have a flaw here and there. It can be either a custom card, or why not an official card.

2. Ask the community to post suggestions for improving the card and make it actually worth running it, BUT without breaking it.

3. The user who gives the best suggestion would get reps, points, title or whatever as a prize.

 

Yeah, I put it simply, but I think you get the idea.

[Zauls]

Firstly, sorry I've been away this whole time, I've been on holiday and haven't had much time to access the internet. I will give my views on the suggestions that have been put forward:

 

With regard to splitting the RC forum into casual or competitive, I see where you are coming from. There needs to be a clear line drawn between competitively oriented cards and casual cards. I suggested something similar to Toyo with the "Booster Filler" clause. I am in support of splitting the section up into competitive and casual. Looking through AOC, there are actually quite a few cards that would be placed in this Casual RC section, so the AOC section can be left for joke cards and the like. 

 

I don't like the idea of Point/Rep incentives for reviewing cards well. It would make the activity in the section feel forced in a way because people obviously just want the reward. I would rather have a less active forum where the people posting do so for the right reasons, not just for rep collecting. Its just not the right way of increasing activity and doesn't get to the root of the problem we have with activity. It kinda just feels like a cheap short-cut solution, to be honest.

 

The idea of "Review of the Week" sounds interesting, though it will be difficult to manage properly. Who will decide who gets nominated? Who has the time to look through pretty much every post and decide who is reviewing better overall? Judging quality of reviews is more difficult to judging quality of cards and it is difficult to say which review is better because they are reviewing different cards so it is really difficult to compare. 

 

I'm actually really pushing for a "Hall of Fame" or "RC Archive" for the outstanding cards we see. It gives people a reason to post cards because they can create a name for themselves and get a good reputation round here, and it also shows newer members examples of what a good card is. It won't even be difficult to manage because the idea is that you just find a card while browsing generally, so it doesn't take up too much extra time. Members could PM whoever runs the Archive if they see a card they think is worthy of being nominated. I might set the whole thing up myself then get a bunch of people to help decide whether a nominated card is worthy of the Hall of Fame. That would probably end up being a voluntary thing.