all of these useles subforums in custom cards need to be removed

[Dog King]

there is 4 other tcg sub forums which got 10 threads and 10 posts in 1 month, these need to be merge into 1 forum/section of its own
,
I feel like theres too many ygoh subforums too, i think realistic cards and written cards would be fine, and having to tag if its a set or single or
Having a single card forum and multiple card forum and having to tag if its written, if not then wouldnt need to be tagged

Remove other tcg contests and 1v1 contests,this is a ygo forum, new people who join only mostly play ygo,
If you want you could have a general card contest forum,

Experimental cards and joke cards should prob be merged again,

Thats it from me for now, forum would greatly benefit from those suggestio s

[Flame Dragon]

While CC isn't my section, I get where your coming from. The section was broken down in a bid for more organization, but looking at it just makes it seem cluttered. I think the best change to make would be putting the Single and Multi back together.
 
My personal break down would be
Realistic Cards
Pop culture Cards
Experimental Cards
-Joke Cards
Other TCG
Card Contests
-Other TCG
1 vs. 1
-Other TCG

Written cards could go into the three as subforms if needed, though I've never understood the need to give them there own section. Is having the card image really that important? I can get why it would be for some, but I've never seen it. If anything they can just be tagged as written cards.

I like having joke cards be there own thing since they aren't something I feel should be with a more serious section. Still it is very niche so if it doesn't get a ton of use, I can see merging the. 

 

As someone who plays other TCGs I like just giving it its own section since some amount of the members would want to share their cool ideas and they should have a place to do so.

[Blake]

Putting sets and singles back together is not a good idea. It's already proven to bolster both of their activities and lower clutter, speaking from experience.

Tags are honestly not helpful at all in CC, and they're too hard for newer members to follow.

[.Rai]

I've always felt CC was overcategorised. See MTGSalvation which is a much larger and well-organised forum, and its Custom Card section literally consists of this:

- Custom Card Creation
-----Custom Card Contests and Games
----------Card of the Month
-----Custom Set Creation and Discussion
-----Custom Card Rulings

Pop culture, experimental, written cards and everything all fits into there neatly, because the assumption is that the differences are frankly superficial.

Do we need Pop Culture as a section? Probably not. The underlying assumption (even if no-one dares say so) is that pop culture cards are inherently worse, hence why they are put into a different section.
Do we need Written Cards as a section? Probably not. Every other forum functions fine without one, and considering you have to put lore in anyway, what's the point?
Do we need Experimental Cards? Personal preference here, but also probably not. YGO is a TCG where mechanics are being introduced at an astoundingly fast rate. The rule is essentially, "Does your idea make sense within the current paradigm?" If so, then it's just a new mechanic. Not experimental work. These also come so rarely that surely it's fine just to keep it all together.
Do we need Joke Cards? Sure, this one can stay.

So what this actually boils down to is:

-Realistic Cards
-----Realistic Cards (Sets)
-----Card Contests
----------1v1
-----Joke Cards
-Other TCG
-----Other TCG (Sets)
-----Card Contests
----------1v1
-----Joke Cards

[Flame Dragon]

I've always felt CC was overcategorised. See MTGSalvation which is a much larger and well-organised forum, and its Custom Card section literally consists of this:

- Custom Card Creation
-----Custom Card Contests and Games
----------Card of the Month
-----Custom Set Creation and Discussion
-----Custom Card Rulings

Pop culture, experimental, written cards and everything all fits into there neatly, because the assumption is that the differences are frankly superficial.

Do we need Pop Culture as a section? Probably not. The underlying assumption (even if no-one dares say so) is that pop culture cards are inherently worse, hence why they are put into a different section.
Do we need Written Cards as a section? Probably not. Every other forum functions fine without one, and considering you have to put lore in anyway, what's the point?
Do we need Experimental Cards? Personal preference here, but also probably not. YGO is a TCG where mechanics are being introduced at an astoundingly fast rate. The rule is essentially, "Does your idea make sense within the current paradigm?" If so, then it's just a new mechanic. Not experimental work. These also come so rarely that surely it's fine just to keep it all together.
Do we need Joke Cards? Sure, this one can stay.

So what this actually boils down to is:

-Realistic Cards
-----Realistic Cards (Sets)
-----Card Contests
----------1v1
-----Joke Cards
-Other TCG
-----Other TCG (Sets)
-----Card Contests
----------1v1
-----Joke Cards

 

 

Thats actually a good point about pop culture cards. Personally, I really enjoy doing top down design and normally go off some character (Pokemon and Smash was what I made a ton of back in the day) so while everything about my cards was realistic they couldn't go into the section because I was designing off of Link for example. 

 

I personally like the idea of experimental cards since it lets you show off betas of an idea you have and try to work out problems before actually posting them in realistic which should be more strict in how it rates things. 

[.Rai]

I'm cool with Experimental Cards being a point of contention. I see arguments either way. If people feel like a dedicated section is better, I'm not heavily opposed to the notion.

[Rodrigo]

Rai, why are you not a moderator yet?

 

You're spot on with the forum divisions.

[Aix]

I agree with the point on Experimental Cards, I never saw the point of it. Pop Culture as well. There's no point in labeling any of these as "unrealistic," since it's... Custom Cards.

[Blake]

I agree with the point on Experimental Cards, I never saw the point of it. Pop Culture as well. There's no point in labeling any of these as "unrealistic," since it's... Custom Cards.

Speaking as ex-Mod

We removed PC in the past in multiple ways. We merged it with AoC (where absurd design was banished to + PC at that time), but no one liked that change. After overall lack of AoC PC activity, it was undone.

While I have no problem with cards of the ilk going in realistic, but with an original basis in outside flavor, the issue remains that the design of PC Cards is usually way more flavor oriented/newbie oriented than design oriented, which results in cards that don't fall under realistic.

PC Cards would have to be held to a higher standard of merged with RC.

[Flash Flyer - Sakura]

Out of fairness, PC does have some degree of RC expectations inside it at the moment (such as an Advanced Clause), but nowhere as strict as Realistic.

 

Basically, we don't want to see DBZ cards with 9000 ATK Gokus or something like that. While you're allowed to be creative with your design, we just ask that you put a decent amount of effort into design (and flavor).

 

That's what Zextra, .Saber and myself discussed earlier this year to an extent.

 

Don't turn it into a carbon copy of Realistic Cards and force everyone to design cards at that standard, but more or less curb the amount of over 9000 jokes + memes in there. To get that done, some of RC's principles would need to be implemented.

 

I agree with the point on Experimental Cards, I never saw the point of it. Pop Culture as well. There's no point in labeling any of these as "unrealistic," since it's... Custom Cards.

Experimental Cards (or AoC, if you will) is as its name suggests.

Basically, you design new card concepts or something the anime/manga showed off [along with your own renditions of god cards] in that section, with similar RC expectations.

 

Realistic is more/less for stuff that adheres to the standards Konami set in card making (namely the max 5000 ATK/DEF rule, using legal Types and other things).

Other TCGs is for the non-Yugioh players to have a spot to design cards from their favorite games.

 

To be fair, Dae was the one who asked about the idea of an Other TCG contest section; again it was discussed + then implemented.

 

----

As for Written, there really isn't much of a need to separate the sections in my opinion as well; considering the only thing that differs is you having a picture.

Quite frankly though, there are a few members who are adamant about not just using Written until they can get pictures for their cards that suit their liking.

 

In the case of Other TCGs, most of the stuff will be written [unless you use MtGMaker and/or the PCM one, but to be fair, the latter is essentially dead].

 

A merge can be done, but considering a lot of members already posted in there, it'll take some time to combine the two.

Then again, Zex and Nai should have a say in these matters.

[Blake]

wait what

Since when is experimental cards for anime adaptations? ._.

experimental cards is completely unneeded if that's the case, because there's no reason they can't be in RC

[Flame Dragon]

Speaking as ex-Mod

We removed PC in the past in multiple ways. We merged it with AoC (where absurd design was banished to + PC at that time), but no one liked that change. After overall lack of AoC PC activity, it was undone.

While I have no problem with cards of the ilk going in realistic, but with an original basis in outside flavor, the issue remains that the design of PC Cards is usually way more flavor oriented/newbie oriented than design oriented, which results in cards that don't fall under realistic.

PC Cards would have to be held to a higher standard of merged with RC.

 

 

Wait, are you saying designing to flavor doesn't make the design realistic? 

The card was made 100% to match the flavor of the Ice Climbers and nothing about it feels like it couldn't be done on an actual Yugioh card. Top-Down Design is a form of game design and just because Yugioh doesn't use it much in its actual game doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed.

 

I can speak on people's designing ability but wouldn't you want to try to help the newer members become better? As a side note, I feel the RC section is held to too high a standard but it isn't my section and I haven't used it in ages so I have no idea what was going on when the standards were changed.

 

 

Out of fairness, PC does have some degree of RC expectations inside it at the moment (such as an Advanced Clause), but nowhere as strict as Realistic.

 

Basically, we don't want to see DBZ cards with 9000 ATK Gokus or something like that. While you're allowed to be creative with your design, we just ask that you put a decent amount of effort into design (and flavor).

 

That's what Zextra, .Saber and myself discussed earlier this year to an extent.

 

Don't turn it into a carbon copy of Realistic Cards and force everyone to design cards at that standard, but more or less curb the amount of over 9000 jokes + memes in there. To get that done, some of RC's principles would need to be implemented.

 

A 9001 ATK Goku shouldn't have any right being in PC with or without increased standards. It is obviously a joke card. Why shouldn't a card that has a decent amount of balancing and flavor consideration put into it not be allowed in RC?

 

If your worried about card quality, just split the section into Serious Card Design and Casual Card Design since that seems to be what you want PC to be anyway.

[Flash Flyer - Sakura]

As I noted earlier, we're not trying to turn Pop Culture into another RC area; but essentially make sure people are putting some thought into their creations. 

Essentially, try to design the character with their characteristics/abilities in mind, whilst also maintaining good design.

 

There was one card in PC a few months ago that allowed the user to burn the opponent for 1800 damage straight by detaching 1 material (with a 25/18 body); I believe it was a Pokemon-themed one from a member I usually CnC.

 

RC-wise, basically try to help new members design cards that work well, but don't come off as overly broken.

Yeah, some of Konami's cards make a few designs impossible to do, without completely turning things on their sides.

 

Just need to keep in mind that some users don't really keep up with the metagame / recent cards (and don't know why some cards are hated/abused), so trying not to grade them on a competitive standard.

 

-----

As for why PC cards are separate, I really lack an answer for this, given it was like that back in '09 or something when Icy had reign over the place.

Could possibly be that some members complained about having to go through a few pages of cartoon character cards just to find legitimate things.

 

Your card is fine, FD.

-----

While yes, Experimental is for Speed Spells, Dark Synchros and a lot of other things Konami didn't put into the game; it's still mainly for new card concepts that've been thought out.

Or in some cases, standalone Normal Monsters (even though there are no rules banning their presence in RC).

 

Joke Cards does what it says; make stupid cards in there and not care about design. Lately, people are poking fun at certain Archetypes or some other ridiculous cards; provided that people don't spam the daylights out of that section [it has post count disabled], not really going to say much. 

 

I check in there every so often to make sure things are still in order.

 

Can't remember if there were a lot of troll/blatant OPed cards in PC prior to promotion, but as of now, there really aren't (either people read the guide I wrote for the section, or they get moved quickly on-sight; or they get fixed).

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

To be honest, FD's points make a lot of sense to me. Realistic isn't always separate from Pop Culture. Serious and Casual is actually a really good idea. It's simple, easy to understand, and separates things quite well. (Though maybe figure out a better pair of words, it's not bad but if there are terms that would be easier to understand use that instead.)

 

I think Multiple should still be separate, just to keep the clutter down.

[Flash Flyer - Sakura]

I'll bring this point up with Nai and Zextra in that joint mod PM we're using for stuff, and see what their input is.

Think I already gave a reason for the split, but granted, if PC cards are well designed; they can probably go into RC without any problems.

 

This might also be a point that should be discussed with other CC users, for their input.

 

 

In terms of RC stuff, considering the OCG now has Level/Rank 0 stuff in Ultimaya and F0, they count as Realistic, so yeah go ahead + post them if you want.

[Flame Dragon]

As I noted earlier, we're not trying to turn Pop Culture into another RC area; but essentially make sure people are putting some thought into their creations. 

Essentially, try to design the character with their characteristics/abilities in mind, whilst also maintaining good design.

 

There was one card in PC a few months ago that allowed the user to burn the opponent for 1800 damage straight by detaching 1 material (with a 25/18 body); I believe it was a Pokemon-themed one from a member I usually CnC.

 

RC-wise, basically try to help new members design cards that work well, but don't come off as overly broken.

Yeah, some of Konami's cards make a few designs impossible to do, without completely turning things on their sides.

 

Just need to keep in mind that some users don't really keep up with the metagame / recent cards (and don't know why some cards are hated/abused), so trying not to grade them on a competitive standard.

 

-----

As for why PC cards are separate, I really lack an answer for this, given it was like that back in '09 or something when Icy had reign over the place.

Could possibly be that some members complained about having to go through a few pages of cartoon character cards just to find legitimate things.

 

If I'm being technical, power level isn't actually a card design concern, rather a developmental one. Like, to say that card doesn't belong in RC when the only change needed would be to pull back on the damage by lets say 800 points seems silly. Is PC's goal not to help make the cards more balanced? When I made PC cards that was always my intent, so being told, "you need to decrease the damage by 800" would have been kind of feedback I would have looked for and to say I wouldn't get it in PC just seems strange to me. The way I view the creation of home made cards is that the person themselves is the designer and when they post it on a forum the people that comment act as developers to get the card to the right place power wise. Honestly, I feel this should be the goal of all the sections since really, otherwise its just people showing off the cards they made without looking for any feedback to make the card better.

 

Pop Culture was always its own section all the way back in 07. Back when I was making tons of cards (I'd say I slowed down around mid 09) RC didn't have the strict rules it has today so the only goal with the separation of the section was more or less top down vs. bottom up. At least, that was how I always understood it. 

 

 

To be honest, FD's points make a lot of sense to me. Realistic isn't always separate from Pop Culture. Serious and Casual is actually a really good idea. It's simple, easy to understand, and separates things quite well. (Though maybe figure out a better pair of words, it's not bad but if there are terms that would be easier to understand use that instead.)

 

I think Multiple should still be separate, just to keep the clutter down.

 

 

Better words would be needed, but yea, the discussion here only seems to make me think that a distinction should be made in the type of feedback the people posting the cards want, not the place the design starts from. 

[Flash Flyer - Sakura]

That's sort of the reason why we adopted some of the RC things inside Pop Culture.

Basically, we want you to improve on your craft (both as a cardmaker and as a person taking time to review others).

 

So there's two goals for that section in particular:

• Members design cards to their heart's content, and
• Others step in and help them improve it by mentioning why card wouldn't work well; or what can be changed so it functions better and/or keeps the flavor/theme.

If a member just says "oh nice card 10/10", while it's a nice thing to say, doesn't really help either of you get better (the member at fixing their card to make it better, and the replier in knowing how to give good critique)

 

For RC and its Advanced Clause, I suppose it's quite similar to how Showcase is run to an extent; you don't rate work in that section, but rather give some form of feedback.

 

Take the following example: "This card's effects need to be toned down, because of [card]; or something along those lines".

You can review it with respect to other cards in the set (if any) or actual cards created by Konami; provided you say something relevant about the design, you're essentially fine.

 

Although it might imply that you need to know about the metagame, it's simply not true. Granted, you're more than welcome to apply RC logic while critiquing in PC; but it's not necessary. All you really need is just make a relevant comment on the design/flavor of the card.

 

--

With that said, I've brought the matter up with Nai/Zex; hopefully we come to a consensus + see what to do with the section.

[Blake]

Wait, are you saying designing to flavor doesn't make the design realistic?

The card was made 100% to match the flavor of the Ice Climbers and nothing about it feels like it couldn't be done on an actual Yugioh card. Top-Down Design is a form of game design and just because Yugioh doesn't use it much in its actual game doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed.

I can speak on people's designing ability but wouldn't you want to try to help the newer members become better? As a side note, I feel the RC section is held to too high a standard but it isn't my section and I haven't used it in ages so I have no idea what was going on when the standards were changed.

Where the hell did you get that I said that?

Top down design happens a lot in CC. I made an entire set of cards from that alone earlier, involving an Engrish pun as a reference. I usually design from such, involving a multi-layered pseudo-Union synchro to be a counterpart to a certain Xyz.

The thing is that too down design does not always work. For example, as a noblet, I made some Fire Emblem PoR/RD cards with dice based effects to simulate skills and/or crits. They were all high leveled and/or had a vanilla version requires to spit them out.

It may fit the game to a tee, but that doesn't mean it's a "realistic" design. RC could be renamed to reflect that it means realistic to the game par the most power creeped cards, as things like Qliphort, BA, TGU, Nekroz, Spirit Beasts, and so on are frowned upon.

In fact, it is extremely difficult to make a well designed realistic card. It often just becomes let deck design or broken design, with a very thin line between. Designing for flavor is awesome, but you can't neglect other facets of design in favor of flavor, as that creates a badly designed card not fit for RC in another way. Such was my point.

And I did say they should be fine in RC or something like RC. I've even posted a not!PC written set in the past, just loosely based on an outside source, instead of being blatant. Subtlety is superior to blatant (unless over the top and silly blatant, like Mechanical Yeti in Hearthstone) due to enhancing the flavor when it is understood, anyways, but it's understandable that new members wouldn't get such.

EDIT: Design evolves. The cards you design, unless in a CCG, are not in a vacuum, and the cards around it must be taken into account. As such, it is untrue to say that power level is not a factor in designing.

Also why are like all of the topics in CC, at least the WC sections, deleted? I wanted to go find my old WC threads, yet they're not there =t

[Maeriberii Haan]

Also why are like all of the topics in CC, at least the WC sections, deleted? I wanted to go find my old WC threads, yet they're not there =t

 

They're just hidden, nothing big. Just set the filter to not only show threads from the past 60 days,

 

Anyway....

 

I'm sorry, but I won't say any arguments regarding this for now. Probably a bad move from me as a CC moderator, but I decided that I'll go observe the situation first before making any arguments or decision here on my own.

 

Just want to say that after all this time and effort to increase PC's quality, it still and tbh, will always have the stigma of it being AoC 2.0. From all the time I've seen the section, that stigma's pretty much what's there, from my perspective. Not talking about the card designs themselves, but really, I'm talking about the mindset of people.

 

I'm probably wrong about this but eh.

 

That's all I have to say now, guess I need more time to weigh down the sides regarding this.

[Flash Flyer - Sakura]

It's actually 30 days, Nai. (Essentially the cutoff for necrobumped posts that's been in usage since the MyBB days or so)

 

Reason for the filter is to hopefully cut down on necrobumping, but we do have a fair amount of new members who don't check the last post date.

Your old cards are still in the section, Black. Just have to adjust the filters yourself at the top of the section to show "all", so you can locate them much more easily.

 

--

Nai and I are discussing this right now via mod PM (how will CC be cleaned up section-wise?)

[Dog King]

i feel like ycm should have a say in it rather than 3 mods,

I personally completely agree that written cards should be merged into singles and multiples realistic card forums,
And im more supporting the idea of pop culture being merged into them aswell

But cant you make some sort of poll or questionnaire to see the opinions of ycmers?

[Flame Dragon]

Where the hell did you get that I said that?

Top down design happens a lot in CC. I made an entire set of cards from that alone earlier, involving an Engrish pun as a reference. I usually design from such, involving a multi-layered pseudo-Union synchro to be a counterpart to a certain Xyz.

The thing is that too down design does not always work. For example, as a noblet, I made some Fire Emblem PoR/RD cards with dice based effects to simulate skills and/or crits. They were all high leveled and/or had a vanilla version requires to spit them out.

It may fit the game to a tee, but that doesn't mean it's a "realistic" design. RC could be renamed to reflect that it means realistic to the game par the most power creeped cards, as things like Qliphort, BA, TGU, Nekroz, Spirit Beasts, and so on are frowned upon.

In fact, it is extremely difficult to make a well designed realistic card. It often just becomes let deck design or broken design, with a very thin line between. Designing for flavor is awesome, but you can't neglect other facets of design in favor of flavor, as that creates a badly designed card not fit for RC in another way. Such was my point.

And I did say they should be fine in RC or something like RC. I've even posted a not!PC written set in the past, just loosely based on an outside source, instead of being blatant. Subtlety is superior to blatant (unless over the top and silly blatant, like Mechanical Yeti in Hearthstone) due to enhancing the flavor when it is understood, anyways, but it's understandable that new members wouldn't get such.

EDIT: Design evolves. The cards you design, unless in a CCG, are not in a vacuum, and the cards around it must be taken into account. As such, it is untrue to say that power level is not a factor in designing.

Also why are like all of the topics in CC, at least the WC sections, deleted? I wanted to go find my old WC threads, yet they're not there =t

 
 
"the issue remains that the design of PC Cards is usually way more flavor oriented/newbie oriented than design oriented, which results in cards that don't fall under realistic"
 
This reads like you believe designing to flavor is secondary to designing around a mechanical idea. Obviously not your intent, but that is the impression is gives. 
 
What isn't realistic about those cards though? The fact that the power level is low? Most cards in most TCG aren't going to be on the top end of the power scale. In fact, even strong cards might not see play. You also have the argument that if you keep designing to match the power level of already existing cards you just end up with nothing but power creep. Finally, isn't the point of RC to take a card concept and get them to a more reasonable power level? Any design can be made more or less powerful by just changing a few numbers. 
 
And power level is not the primary goal of a card design. Using MTG as my example, they divide the game design process into design and development. Design is tasked with coming up with mechanics, and initial concepts while development is tasked with fine tuning those designs to create fun play environments. The way I view the CC section is that it should serve the role of development and should aim to fine tune things to the correct power level. Yes, some cards are unsalvageable but I don't think them being designed around a pop culture point is relevant to that.
 
And again, all this talk is about POWER LEVEL concerns, not if the card is designed around pop culture. If you want to make a distinction along that angle fine, and I'd support that. However to make that distinction around if a card built around pop culture because their is something inherently inferior about their power level seems ludicrous to me.

 

i feel like ycm should have a say in it rather than 3 mods,

I personally completely agree that written cards should be merged into singles and multiples realistic card forums,
And im more supporting the idea of pop culture being merged into them aswell

But cant you make some sort of poll or questionnaire to see the opinions of ycmers?

I can agree with this. If any major changes are to be made to the CC section getting the feedback of the forum at large seems like a wise move. The name of the site is Yugioh Card Maker so the CC section should be our flagship and the best thing about the site. Ultimately I feel the final call should come down to the mod team and the CC mods in particular, but seeing what everyone else things is at the very least a free role. 

[Blake]

No, I said the flavor overtakes design, and that renders the cards less than suitable. You quoted where I said that, so you dropped the ball there.

"By just changing a few numbers"

... No.

Is TGU any better a design by changing her numbers? her level can make her more or less unfair, but the design will still be wrong.

And as much as you want to use MTG as an example, you can't when this is
A. Not Konami, so design and development come together for each card maker
B. Yu-Gi-Oh, which has different standards than MTG. A card like Lavalval Chain is fine in MTG, in terms of enabling or so I've been told, but it's fucking broken in Yugioh. Even now it should really be no less than limited, and should truly be banned.

MTG and Yugioh are different design animals. Yugioh evolves constantly, like Rai said, whereas MTG has rotation to keep iron check. The cards may apply in another format, but they're designed for a fairly consistent power level.

I get tired of MTG players acting as if the design between the two games is the same. It isn't, and only Rai seems to account for that.

I already stated that RC is an area that accounts for the power level, which means that cards in it should adhere to such. On top of that, a direct reference to something isn't realistic, whereas a deck like Spellbook is. Spellbooks are basically Persona 3 the Yugioh deck. That's well and good, but it's not "Minato the fool" or whatever, hence me saying that subtlety is superior.

I am not opposed to relocating PC, but you have to consider where it would go. RC is "Modern design", in an essence, and PC is rarely on the same levels. Changing numbers around is rarely enough to fix things on its own, and often ruins the creator's image of their creation. Say I make a Dynasty Warriors set based around equips... That's either going to be absurd or trash without a lot of fine tuning. A lot. It won't be fit to go into RC as it is.

[Flame Dragon]

No, I said the flavor overtakes design, and that renders the cards less than suitable. You quoted where I said that, so you dropped the ball there.

"By just changing a few numbers"

... No.

Is TGU any better a design by changing her numbers? her level can make her more or less unfair, but the design will still be wrong.

And as much as you want to use MTG as an example, you can't when this is
A. Not Konami, so design and development come together for each card maker
B. Yu-Gi-Oh, which has different standards than MTG. A card like Lavalval Chain is fine in MTG, in terms of enabling or so I've been told, but it's fucking broken in Yugioh. Even now it should really be no less than limited, and should truly be banned.

MTG and Yugioh are different design animals. Yugioh evolves constantly, like Rai said, whereas MTG has rotation to keep iron check. The cards may apply in another format, but they're designed for a fairly consistent power level.

I get tired of MTG players acting as if the design between the two games is the same. It isn't, and only Rai seems to account for that.

I already stated that RC is an area that accounts for the power level, which means that cards in it should adhere to such. On top of that, a direct reference to something isn't realistic, whereas a deck like Spellbook is. Spellbooks are basically Persona 3 the Yugioh deck. That's well and good, but it's not "Minato the fool" or whatever, hence me saying that subtlety is superior.

I am not opposed to relocating PC, but you have to consider where it would go. RC is "Modern design", in an essence, and PC is rarely on the same levels. Changing numbers around is rarely enough to fix things on its own, and often ruins the creator's image of their creation. Say I make a Dynasty Warriors set based around equips... That's either going to be absurd or trash without a lot of fine tuning. A lot. It won't be fit to go into RC as it is.

 
 
I don't understand how "flavor overtakes design". Trying to match a concept shouldn't make the design any worse.
 
Make her work with level 1s. Make her a level 5. What exactly would be bad about her design then?. But yes, not all cards are so simple as just changing a few numbers. Which is why I said some effects are unsalvageable. 
 
I'm not saying design shouldn't try to get the cards in a good starting place. I'm saying that the MTG approach where people make the cards and then use the forum as a resource to help develop them. Again, this to me should be the whole point of the RC section, to get the cards to the right place in terms of power. This can be done with a card regardless of if they were designing around a pop culture piece or not. 
 
I know full well that what in considered broken in Yugioh is very different from MTG. Yugioh in general is a much easier game to make cards with more inherently powerful effects because it doesn't have a mana system. But that doesn't mean cards with inherently powerful effects can't be designed in such a way that they are't broken. Using Lavalval as the example, making it Rank 6 and need 3 Level 6s and make the effect detach all 3 might not make it fair still, but it would be a lot less broken. And again, the only reason I bring up MTG is because I feel the system that divides design and development is a good one to use here. Not because I think the two processes are alike. 
 
As for how to build a theme around equipment. Make it such that it cares about equipment you yourself designed to avoid all the busted things currently in the game. You can also do things like them getting effects when equipped or having something happen when given an equipment. Thats 3 different design routes those kinds of cards can take where the current game is less of an issue. The fine tuning from there would just be playing with levels, stats, and the numbers on the cards effects. 

[Blake]

I don't understand how "flavor overtakes design". Trying to match a concept shouldn't make the design any worse.

 
There you go.
 
More on Chain later.
 

Make her work with level 1s. Make her a level 5. What exactly would be bad about her design then?. But yes, not all cards are so simple as just changing a few numbers. Which is why I said some effects are unsalvageable.

Dustons, Djinn Disserere, potentially Infernities, and Ghostricks for Level 1 

Making her a tribute monster completely changes the design of the card (thus unsalvageable, though Yosenju Magatsusenran and Battery Charger are both examples of why not to do this type of design either), and Level 1/2/4 are not better design, as design is not solely based on the pool of cards available, but also the capability of the design to be abused/limit future design.
 

I'm not saying design shouldn't try to get the cards in a good starting place. I'm saying that the MTG approach where people make the cards and then use the forum as a resource to help develop them. Again, this to me should be the whole point of the RC section, to get the cards to the right place in terms of power. This can be done with a card regardless of if they were designing around a pop culture piece or not.

You should be trying to design it with the power level in mind in the first place. The forum has never been nor should ever be "I made this now fix it", as that just encourages mindless posting. Design DOES include power level in its equation, and to omit it from design here is just eliminating almost any sort of effort put into design. Flavor can come through, but that's it. And this card is one I designed all by my lonesome:



The flavor is there on multiple levels, the design of the card is geared towards being a not!support card for the DD(D) archetype but generic all the same so Synchrons/Yang Zing can make use of it, but it's not too weak when you consider the design's purpose and direction. Intent does not dictate what a design does, but understanding the intent of a design can illuminate new ways to look at it.
 
In fact, this card is weak unless you can make it during the opponent's turn (Yang Zing, Synchron) or you have a restriction that forces Fiend-type/DARK/etc. (DDD), and even then it might not be optimal. I spent time and effort designing it because, while feedback is nice and can help you see what you've done wrong, you should know what you're doing in the first place before you post. Not so much newer members, obviously, but members who have been here a while. What you describe is the case for newer members, not veterans... and we have veterans that need to improve just like newbies, so why would we use a system that's only catered to drawing people in as opposed to working through it after drawing them in?
 

I know full well that what in considered broken in Yugioh is very different from MTG. Yugioh in general is a much easier game to make cards with more inherently powerful effects because it doesn't have a mana system. But that doesn't mean cards with inherently powerful effects can't be designed in such a way that they are't broken. Using Lavalval as the example, making it Rank 6 and need 3 Level 6s and make the effect detach all 3 might not make it fair still, but it would be a lot less broken. And again, the only reason I bring up MTG is because I feel the system that divides design and development is a good one to use here. Not because I think the two processes are alike.

... Lavalval Chain would be utter shit if it cost that much. And, again, design completely changes and your idea ignores flavor. Lavalval Chain is an Xyz Monster made by the monster Gishki Chain and a sacrificed Laval Monster. Its effects are tributes to both the Laval an the Gishki; Send a card from deck to grave (Milling is a Laval thing, card as opposed to monster because of the Gishki's ritual spell) and stacking cards on top (supporting multiple effect Gishkis and the Evigishkis Levianima and Zielgigas).
 
A similar card is Daigusto Emeral, who was made by the binding of Gem-Knight Emerald and Caam, Serenity of Gusto. It takes an effect from both, albeit in edited ways, giving you Emerald's revival (in the form of any non-effect monster now for cheaper) and Caam's draw (More "expensive" but generic).
 
And what's notable about these brothers? They're examples of flavor overtaking design. They're wonderful flavor, but neither are very well designed. Emeral is less offensive, despite being a generic mini-Avarice, but they're both offensive design, especially considering WHEN they were released.
 
Already covered the process.
 

As for how to build a theme around equipment. Make it such that it cares about equipment you yourself designed to avoid all the busted things currentl in the game. You can also do things like them getting effects when equipped or having something happen when given an equipment. Thats 3 different design routes those kinds of cards can take where the current game is less of an issue. The fine tuning from there would just be playing with levels, stats, and the numbers on the cards effects.

Noble Knights are equipment based. They've always been either insanely inconsistent, had stupid one-off plays/power cards, or both. All three of the designes you mentioned were used by the deck.

And the power cards aren't even that powerful to the gamestate, so they did end up flopping, despite many stupid design choices (Medraut, Merlin, etc.)

Fine tuning in those manners you mentioned doesn't change the deck at all, really.