Custom Cards Reform

[AGATHODAIMON BANGTAIL COW]

I feel like I'm become a bit too much of an outsider to CC given my decreased interest in Yugioh, and you're already planning to implement the one thing I actually sorta-kinda wanted to see implemented ever since the Chaosboom incident (the restrictionless Casual section where people can post their silly 2-Tribute Naruto Cards who gain 200 ATK if Sasuke is dead or something).

 

Another thing that could be neat to try to encourage is Deckbuilding with custom archetypes. While that's kinda what DP is for, we could probably encourage it in AC, and maybe if it catches on enough, people could start to design their archetypes with a Deck in mind, and probably edge closer to making an archetype that functions better as well as having fewer drop-dead useless cards, rather than less organized mess. Not really something the rules can really cover (at the very least, the Advanced Clause could allow for a post that tries to build a Deck using custom cards, if it goes into depth in some aspects, but not just "3x all these cards, max copies of other power cards, done.")

 

Also, not sure if you've considered this or not, but perhaps an beginner's guide to card design for AC? From what I've seen, you've been mostly disappointed in the contests you've judged for recently, and I don't really know how those members are supposed to notice the difference between something that makes the card well-designed and what makes it utter bull. It seems like a difficult article to write, but it could vastly help out anyone who decides to read it.

[Flash Flyer - Sakura]

I already mentioned this to Black privately, but I'll at least mention the stuff he wrote in the original post for the rest of you (basically reasoning on why CC is the way it's currently structured and general thoughts otherwise).

 

My apologies for the text wall.
 
[spoiler=Things]
Casual and Advanced split
 
Advanced, which was what RC used to be called at the time before late 2014, is intended for higher quality design and the competitive game, despite its unpleasantness at times (how so is subjective).
 
You should have an adequate knowledge of card design and what's going on in the game itself (what Decks are trending competitively, cards that Konami has released recently, etc.)

 

Other TCG requires that you know the game that you're designing for / critiquing on. You all may know this, but at this time, I do not play MtG or Pokemon and my knowledge on CFV is very limited, outside of just the rules manual. At present, most cards are either MtG or CFV, something Gadjiltron and Black can help with, as they play these games respectively. 

 

(If the Naruto CCG ever returns, which is now dead and unlikely to return; I can do something. Yes, there was an actual card game for it, but for reasons unknown, it shut down.)

Casual, originally Pop Culture, is catered more towards people who are less in-tune with the current metagame or wish to be graded on general card design as a whole, as opposed to whether/not it'll function properly in the competitive game.
 
It is NOT intended to be a Miscellaneous of sorts for Custom Cards; you still need to design cards properly but you have more leeway to design things as opposed to catering towards competition. Here, the idea is for you to experiment with new ideas and stuff that your favorite Decks might like, including things that are more obscure and wouldn't necessarily work in the current game.

 

A note that the place was originally Pop Culture, and ideally, that's where a lot of these cards would remain. If people want to make Pokemon cards faithful to the games and stuff, that's what Casual is meant for.

 

You are allowed to make Pop Culture cards in Advanced, but be mindful that you WILL be graded on its interactions with the metagame and everything else.

 

If you want to post minimum effort cards, then use the Joke/OP section; that's what it's there for. (You all have seen it, right?)

Minimal metagame standards in Casual

Remember that the section is geared for more general design. As I just mentioned above, it's intended for newer members to get acclimated to this place before moving on to Advanced. Not all members will have the same amount of knowledge of the gamestate and design needed to make cards that can survive the current format. We have members who only play TCG, and such, do not know about the cards that Japan/Korea currently have that we don't.  
 
You can still grade cards as you would in Advanced (such as flavor, interactions and so forth), but keep it geared more towards general design and the cards as a whole. We are not saying to grade the Casual content in a vacuum, but simply be more open to interactions that aren't necessarily optimal, but can work effectively.

 

Regarding potential combos/interactions, you still need to make sure they function more often than not; no point in mentioning a combination that takes multiple steps to work; might sound cool on paper, but how practical are they? Same concept applies in Advanced.

 
Advanced Clause
 
This was a carryover from Black/Koko's original era, but over the past couple years during my modship, it has been altered to be more manageable for all while still requiring that members write properly. 
 
Ideally, I would like to set the minimum standard for replies at 2-3 complete sentences (for singles), or something that can show us that you can explain interactions with other cards and support it with details, but keep it a reasonable length that you can write. 
 
I don't wish to force you all to write essays while reviewing, but I want you to include enough information that can cover design implications and any improvements they'd like to recommend. If a card needs to be toned down / buffed, actually say why it needs to be fixed. Or if you think the card is perfect (which doesn't happen very often), point out specific usages that you can find.
 
You should be able to fill the requirements without much difficulty if you write what you need to. 
 
For multiple cards, a paragraph (or roughly 4-7 sentences) should have sufficient (you have more cards to look at, so it makes sense that you write more). This does not mean you must critique the whole set at once; if you want to, break the set into smaller pieces and grade them separately. 
 
(I do feel that having a word count is easier to manage than mandating sentences, especially with longer ones)
 
Restating what the card does is fine if it helps you understand the content better, BUT you must also provide your own opinions and potential interactions that the card(s) have with the current pool. 
 
A reminder that the Advanced Clause is standard for both areas of CC.

----
As for the word requirement in opening posts, you definitely need to post the card and its effect underneath. Unsure on the additional content needed; maybe design intent so we can see where you're going and suggest ways to make it work as you intended. 
 
CC Judge stuff
 
Regarding the CC Judge group, that was given as a reward for members who had taken the Contest Exams and passed three times (using Saber/Zauls' system); tests were a set of two cards like in a 1v1 and members had to determine which was a better designed card and point out interactions.

 

In essence, do the members have adequate knowledge of design and can point out potential design flaws and whatnot?

To be fair though, the group was supposed to have been deactivated effective June 2015, but up until that time, I hadn't modified the point system in Contests to be independent of that (wasn't used very often). I will admit that it hasn't worked out as well as I had hoped. 

The group has been disconnected from the point system for Card Contests, and will not be given out at a later date. 

 

Potential user groups for tests

 

Out of fairness, I had considered using my personal group for CC Monthly winners, but after some discussion, decided to give the members their own groups instead. 

 

They will expire after 30 days, and members must otherwise win the contests again to retain it. Now, if a user wins three tournaments, they would get permanent membership. For the record, this is how Gadjiltron got his. 

 

Leaderboard

 

Yes, this needs some refining to be the type of thing that it was intended to be; a place where member's card designs are put to the test. 

 

By extension, 1v1 needs this (although the bulk of threads in this section are indeed Leaderboard, despite it not being a requirement that you HAVE to participate in the Leaderboard to do 1v1s).

 

Another boost to the Leaderboard winners might be nice, but would need to look it over a bit to see what else it needs. 

 

Regarding the anonymity issues, Black already went over them in detail and why it's needed. I would be amiable to doing a trial run to see how non-anonymity goes though. That in mind, members can reject votes if any show of bias appears. 

 

I probably have some more options that can be tried (including requiring both entries to be Written [which Gadjiltron has tested a bit lately], but let's see.

 

 

[Yuuji Kazami]

If you're referring to the Advanced Clause and its forum-wide applications, then it's been a thing since 2013; it simply hasn't been enforced enough between the time Black/Koko were demoted in 2013 and when I got promoted two years ago (I don't know how often Zex punished people for AC breaking).

 

The general scope of it has been modified over that time, but the concept is nothing new. 

 

Basically, it exists so that cardmakers can get proper critique on their works. I'm going to assume you were around during the days of ragnarok1945 and when he posted comments that were essentially pointless (basically rating because whatever). It is not intended to stifle activity in the section, but rather serves 2 purposes: Makes sure that the user who made the cards gets appropriate critique that they can actually use to fix the cards (if anything) and the reviewer being able to show that they know what they're talking about and back it up. 

 

(But as Black mentioned, you're really only advertising your DBZ thread, which is not helping us further discussion.)

 

 

I'm in agreement with this; if you want to participate in contests, actually post in the thread and not reserve PM entries. It's not fair for other members who didn't get their post privileges locked off that they still need to reserve spaces in contests in there. 

 

If you're post locked due to breaking rules, then you do not deserve to participate in contests nor get a free pass by PMing.

 

This was something that hadn't been addressed until now, but effective immediately, if people are going to vote or request a space in 1v1s or general contests, they must post in the threads themselves. PMed challenges or voting reasons will no longer be permitted.

 

-----

There are things that I wish to say regarding Black's proposals and why CC is structured the way it is, but I'll address them in another post.

....................

 

Sorry for having a brain to find a loophole imo. =3

 

I feel like I'm become a bit too much of an outsider to CC given my decreased interest in Yugioh, and you're already planning to implement the one thing I actually sorta-kinda wanted to see implemented ever since the Chaosboom incident (the restrictionless Casual section where people can post their silly 2-Tribute Naruto Cards who gain 200 ATK if Sasuke is dead or something).

 

Another thing that could be neat to try to encourage is Deckbuilding with custom archetypes. While that's kinda what DP is for, we could probably encourage it in AC, and maybe if it catches on enough, people could start to design their archetypes with a Deck in mind, and probably edge closer to making an archetype that functions better as well as having fewer drop-dead useless cards, rather than less organized mess. Not really something the rules can really cover (at the very least, the Advanced Clause could allow for a post that tries to build a Deck using custom cards, if it goes into depth in some aspects, but not just "3x all these cards, max copies of other power cards, done.")

 

Also, not sure if you've considered this or not, but perhaps an beginner's guide to card design for AC? From what I've seen, you've been mostly disappointed in the contests you've judged for recently, and I don't really know how those members are supposed to notice the difference between something that makes the card well-designed and what makes it utter bull. It seems like a difficult article to write, but it could vastly help out anyone who decides to read it.

Okay, time to be semi-serious imo. I really like what our YCM Elephant said about the beginner's guide to card design and such. This would be one of the most, if not the most, important articles for card creators who have already mastered basic OCG and the likes. However, it looks like only you can write this guide/article Uncle, since it feels like you have the most knowledge when it comes to this area.

 

The issue I'd like to bring up is the segergation between those who are experienced in card making, and those who are just starting out in creating their own cards. Just leaving a CnC doesn't really feel that they are improving in their craft from what I usually see from the Multiple Review Threads. All it really does is fix any problem with the cards they created in terms of balance and/or general mechanics. Perhaps a few OCG errors here and there, but that's it. The cycle would only repeat, with nothing new or outstanding that's worth mentioning.

 

I think that perhaps aside from an Advanced Card Design guide, some other guides would also be helpful to see if it can help that issue. For example, creating an archetype vs creating a single card guide, a guide for drawing the line between experimental/fake and legal cards with unorthodox effects, etc. 

 

As much as I would like to suggest a How to Make a Card 101 class for complete beginners, which might be possible since Discord does exist, it could prove to be a complete bust if no one would bother to go to it, or if no one is willing to take time out of their hands to teach it (I sure for hell wouldn't). Guides may be the best thing for cardmakers to improve at this point from what I see, if someone with enough knowledge can write them.

[Maeriberii Haan]

The issue with establishing any kind of standard to aim for when it comes to making cards, the game changes from time to time.

 

Some basic common sense standards would definitely still need to be introduced be it on guide or on the standard of the Advanced section itself in a way, but the general idea itself is what's important.

 

What I found out from past cardmaking guides, they're too stiff and wordy, and just feel like a laundry list.

 

Rather than focusing on developing the cards posted in Advanced, it is better to focus on making a supporting environment for high-quality cards and discussions.

[Yuuji Kazami]

The issue with establishing any kind of standard to aim for when it comes to making cards, the game changes from time to time.

 

Some basic common sense standards would definitely still need to be introduced be it on guide or on the standard of the Advanced section itself in a way, but the general idea itself is what's important.

 

What I found out from past cardmaking guides, they're too stiff and wordy, and just feel like a laundry list.

 

Rather than focusing on developing the cards posted in Advanced, it is better to focus on making a supporting environment for high-quality cards and discussions.

As I've mentioned segregation, the inexperienced stay inexperienced, while the better get... Better?

 

I agree that the game changes from time to time so it's hard to place a standard on it. However, the guide can also change if the game changes, if someone's willing to make edits or re-write a new guide altogether should another game mechanic be introduced. It'll be up to that person to keep the guides up to date.

 

So if you're speaking from your experience... Then yeah, it might not apply to everyone. However, if I were to speak for myself, I would feel for it to be a really large help personally.

 

I agree on developing an environment like the one you have described. However... Wouldn't it just be the same members posting over and over again? This is the main issue that I am trying to bring up. The Casuals would only stay in Casuals, and the Advanced would only stay in Advanced if the divide becomes any bigger. There really isn't a way to build a bridge in between from the reforms introduced.

 

Satelllite and the Tops imo. We need a Daedalus Bridge imo.

[Maeriberii Haan]

And the daedalus bridge here would be an environment that promotes growth.

 

Rather than making an arbitrary bar of "you need to be this tall to post here", the aim is improving the environment by putting more emphasis on high-quality reviews and discussions. Even novice cardmaker should be able to post in Advanced and get constructive reviews that is done according to Advanced's standard.

 

Guides aren't useless, but i feel like they're too wordy and focuses on the wrong thing by focusing on strict standard of design that could've easily change with time.

[Blake]

You cannot force someone to leave casual. You can only incentivize such.

 

Card design guides have been tried before, but they don't work out, because YGO design changes every 3 months to 12 months, depending on sets.

 

The most a "design basics" guide would cover is what the facets of design mean, which... Will be posted in the updated rules to explain the difference be between Advanced and Casual (still needs a rename), provided these changes happen.

 

And while a word coins req would likely be in place for Advanced, it would likely not be the focus, because focusing on the content is more important than how much. Both matter, so it'll be a mix, but it will encourage what posts should contain.

[Simping For Hina]

If you want to reform custom cards, you should also update the card maker. More members using up to date programming could do wonders for bringing in activity.

[Yuuji Kazami]

Alrighty, you sold me. I agree that promoting the environment should come first now after consideration. It was mostly a personal preference of learning through the looks that caused me to make my suggestion of putting guides as a priority.

 

So has there been any updates as to when these changes will begin to be implemented?

 

EDIT: Nvm, looks like it's still going to be August from the lack of response.

[Blake]

Well, I guess if no one is opposed to the rule so and doesnt want to discuss how to implement them, especially then advanced clause, I'll just draw it up myself and it'll have to do =T

 

I'll lock this in 48 hours if nothing changes.

[goodfusion]

A question about the reformed advanced section:

 

Will I be able to post a casual card (as in one that isn't intended for competitive use) in the "Neo New Advanced" (please call it this) section, supposing I at least consider current card design? I am wondering because it is sometimes difficult to judge how much impact a card will have in a competitive metagame if you are not completely familiar with it, yet still feel you have put thought into it with regards to card design.

 

For example, if I made a card like Tuner's High - Not necessarily a lot of competitive impact at the time of release/posting, but certainly something that could be very good in the future - would I post it in advanced or casual?

 

Or lets say I made support for a casual deck like Cloudians. Just some stuff to speed them up, make Fog Counters, provide Normal Summons, etc. Would I post them in advanced or casual? I would like to be able to post them in advanced, even though they're cards to support an extremely casual deck, and the support might still leave them being a casual deck (as there is nothing wrong with that).

 

I hope I got the question accross clearly.

[Trebuchet MS]

 

The Advanced Clause has been largely forgotten, but I feel that it should be. However... I want discussion to decide what it should be, if it is implemented. I never finished refining it with Koko before I lost my position, and it's basically rotted since, so it needs to be redone from the ground up.

 

Members would be required to follow a minimum post limit for both posting a topic AND commenting, so as to increase the quality of replies. While this can be cheesed, it's the best the staff can do without constant monitoring of comments. That said, I will try my best to keep a watch over comments, so that the cheesing is kept to a minimum. The amounts need to be discussed here.

So, members have to have spent some time around the areas where post count matters before they can begin putting their cards up?

 

Granted, we've seen several times where a member posts their cards up to share and just leaves without doing much after receiving feedback. Adding the minimum requirement would discourage just dropping by with a thread on cards and then leaving, so those who do post would usually be those more invested than just the drive-by commenters. But of course these limits shouldn't be too high or it'll deter too many new members. I'd say 10 for comments and 25 for new threads, but what are your ideas for these requirements?

 

However, I wish to incentivize this section. Where Casual (which is probably due a rename... Maybe to Create A Card, and leave Advanced Card Design or Advannced Design or something) will be restrictionless and free, with only site rules applying, Advanced will give you some sort of reward.

...

There's not much to do for incentivizing posting outside of points, which lead to name changes/member groups/etc., so suggestions are welcome.

So, with this, Casual Cards (ignoring the subsections like Experimental and Joke/OP) would look like a "practice ground" to new members before they become confident enough to pitch their cards into Advanced?

 

If this is implemented, the bonus points should go to cards deemed to be actually good. We've had a few attempts with something similar like the Hall of Fame, and we know how that turned out. I presume the new system of Tests will also verify whether one can reasonably weigh in their opinion on whether and why a card is good or not.

 

Now, as for what to do with those points... there hasn't been any good functions that make use of the points barring shop items. Maybe an expansion to the forum shop is due to increase the effects of incentives, but that's a separate issue.

 

 

These will also give rise to two new series of CC Tests. One for Casual and one for Advanced, where your knowledge of design, flavor, and impact will be judged. I would like these to be a monthly occurence.

...

It is important to note, however, that the Advanced CC Test will yield more points than the Casual CC Test. This is to promote growth and polishing your ability to design/critique, but it does not punish members who do not take the harder test.

As of now, I believe you would only be allowed to take either the ACCT or the CCCT, not both. PMs would be sent to [Me][All Three CC Mods][Etc.], which needs to be discussed. I neither wish to forcibly include nor exclude my colleagues in this endeavor, leaving them to opt in or out.

 

However, all of this requires the community to both help me, and the other CC mods, figure out exactly what we want to do in this area AND to show support/turnout for these events. More events may come if the CC Tests are successful, which will lead to more opportunities to build up

As mentioned before, I think passing ACCT enough times should prove the user's prowess and knowledge of the game enough to give a proper opinion on what cards being posted in Advanced are worthy of bonus points. I am not certain what purpose the CCCT will serve other than a slightly longer means of earning points and getting the rewards. Based entirely on our current Advanced and Casual definitions, it appears CCCT will test on general design while ACCT looks for greater awareness of the metagame in addition to the above. Doing well on CCCT shows that you know how to generally design a card... and then what?

 

At the moment, I'm struggling to think up a suggestion to utilize with good performance on CCCT.

[Flash Flyer - Sakura]

A question about the reformed advanced section:

 

Will I be able to post a casual card (as in one that isn't intended for competitive use) in the "Neo New Advanced" (please call it this) section, supposing I at least consider current card design? I am wondering because it is sometimes difficult to judge how much impact a card will have in a competitive metagame if you are not completely familiar with it, yet still feel you have put thought into it with regards to card design.

 

For example, if I made a card like Tuner's High - Not necessarily a lot of competitive impact at the time of release/posting, but certainly something that could be very good in the future - would I post it in advanced or casual?

 

Or lets say I made support for a casual deck like Cloudians. Just some stuff to speed them up, make Fog Counters, provide Normal Summons, etc. Would I post them in advanced or casual? I would like to be able to post them in advanced, even though they're cards to support an extremely casual deck, and the support might still leave them being a casual deck (as there is nothing wrong with that).

 

I hope I got the question accross clearly.

 

1. Something like Tuner's High can go into the Advanced section; technically it's a generic that can work for any Deck at present. Doesn't necessarily need to be usable in a competitive deck at the time you make it. As long as you factor in the metagame and higher design, should be alright.

 

I stress this point very often you do not have to be completely knowledgeable about the current metagame to post in Advanced, but at a minimum, you need a decent amount of knowledge of the competitive world and also know about certain cards that get released (either TCG-side or for Japan), plus a good amount of design skill. 

 

If you want to post it in Casual though, that's fine. 

 

2. Regarding stuff like Cloudians, much like the above, you can post new support cards in Advanced if you keep in mind the gamestate (which has long since eclipsed it to the point where they REALLY need a boost to survive). Not all Decks need to be Kozmo, Blue-Eyes, Monarchs or whatever dominates the game at this time, but yeah, keep in mind that whatever you design in Advanced should be made with the mentality that it's supposed to give the Deck a boost to compete on the same level as those Decks (or at attempt to make them viable). 

 

Some Decks do require a massive overhaul to make them function properly (including newer members and expanding into other summon types), but Konami opts not to give them that in favor of supporting more recent stuff that sells (i.e. [main] protagonist cards, world exclusive sets, etc.)

 

If you want to reform custom cards, you should also update the card maker. More members using up to date programming could do wonders for bringing in activity.

 

We'd like to get the card maker updated with Pendulums (because they have been out for a while now) and make everything more up to date with what the card game is actually doing, but that's still something only YCMaker can fix at the moment.

 

Plus, the issue with Imgur that hasn't been dealt with (there is a way to upload cards without having to manually save it, but it still takes some time. Basically open Imgur in another tab, right-click your card for the long URL and then upload it from there])

 

Would be helpful though, as there are some newer members who aren't fond of written cards for Pendulums and other stuff. That, and they aren't aware of TCGEditor's existence, which does offer Pendulums. 

 

So has there been any updates as to when these changes will begin to be implemented?

 

Ideally, I would've liked for a discussion between myself, Gadjiltron and Black to have already taken place about how to approach these things and iron out specifics (i.e. what sort of opening post should members have when posting besides the card itself, Advanced clause structure and basically whatever was brought up here); from there, design something that we can agree on that will boost the area to where it should be. 

 

As I mentioned earlier, Black was already told the content in the spoiler tags a couple days prior, regarding why CC has the policies it currently does, and what my general opinion on the things he wants to do. I have also been talking with Gadjiltron on Discord about his thoughts on certain matters in CC and measures that may be needed to address them.

 

However, there hasn't been much discussion over the matter, but comments are being looked over and being taken into consideration. 

 

----

(Actually wrote this a couple hours ago, but just didn't get around to posting it)

[Yuuji Kazami]

Can we like... I don't know. Overlook necrobumping in CC if a post is a decent review?

 

I just really don't see why it would cause such a fuss if a old post is bumped due to a good review. I can't think of any repercussions that would result from doing so either. Considering that reviews are rarely given in Casual Multiples, I just see no need to punish (mainly me) for bumping up old posts with decent reviews.

[Blake]

A question about the reformed advanced section:

 

Will I be able to post a casual card (as in one that isn't intended for competitive use) in the "Neo New Advanced" (please call it this) section, supposing I at least consider current card design? I am wondering because it is sometimes difficult to judge how much impact a card will have in a competitive metagame if you are not completely familiar with it, yet still feel you have put thought into it with regards to card design.

 

For example, if I made a card like Tuner's High - Not necessarily a lot of competitive impact at the time of release/posting, but certainly something that could be very good in the future - would I post it in advanced or casual?

 

Or lets say I made support for a casual deck like Cloudians. Just some stuff to speed them up, make Fog Counters, provide Normal Summons, etc. Would I post them in advanced or casual? I would like to be able to post them in advanced, even though they're cards to support an extremely casual deck, and the support might still leave them being a casual deck (as there is nothing wrong with that).

 

I hope I got the question accross clearly.

With what I'm proposing, we abolish the arbitrary metagame standards that CC and AC currently have. Designing in a way that ignores the gamestate just... doesn't work. You don't need to have full metagame knowledge to design up to snuff.

 

And it's not like anyone has forbidden, say, tagging a post to be a support for Goat Format. Then there are things like cubes, where you can design a card specifically for one of them. For example, a card like Breaker the Magical Swordsman, who, modern day, would be a design that goes straight into cube drafts.

 

So long as you explain the intent of the card's design, should you design for something like that, you'd be fine.

 

Back on target, in the reformed AC and CC, all cards would be welcome everywhere, provided that they fit the requirements of AC... that being an opening post with some sort of explanation of intent in design. Unlike Contests, design intent can and should be shown regularly in AC/CC, though not required in the latter, due to it helping people critique a card.

 

@Tuner's High: it belongs in the current advanced, js

 

Glad to see some actual content added.

  

Name changes for casual would also be appreciated. Standard Card Design/Card Design/Create A Card/etc. all work, but ideas are still welcome.

 

So, members have to have spent some time around the areas where post count matters before they can begin putting their cards up?

 

Granted, we've seen several times where a member posts their cards up to share and just leaves without doing much after receiving feedback. Adding the minimum requirement would discourage just dropping by with a thread on cards and then leaving, so those who do post would usually be those more invested than just the drive-by commenters. But of course these limits shouldn't be too high or it'll deter too many new members. I'd say 10 for comments and 25 for new threads, but what are your ideas for these requirements?

No requirement based on post count or account newness, just what you output.

 

10 what? Words? Sentences? I assume the former, but 10 words for a card is rather... low.

 

I'm considering making the AC for initial posts have a light restriction (2-3 sentences, loosely) with a set of general guidelines to follow/ideas of what to post, but unsure.

 

So, with this, Casual Cards (ignoring the subsections like Experimental and Joke/OP) would look like a "practice ground" to new members before they become confident enough to pitch their cards into Advanced?

 

If this is implemented, the bonus points should go to cards deemed to be actually good. We've had a few attempts with something similar like the Hall of Fame, and we know how that turned out. I presume the new system of Tests will also verify whether one can reasonably weigh in their opinion on whether and why a card is good or not.

 

Now, as for what to do with those points... there hasn't been any good functions that make use of the points barring shop items. Maybe an expansion to the forum shop is due to increase the effects of incentives, but that's a separate issue.

Not entirely. While that is the intent, there is no requirement that you ever post in AC. You could stay in CC forever. My aim is not to force people into AC, but to encourage them to go to a place that, hopefully, promotes growth and discussion.

 

 

Rewarding only cards that are good does not seem right. At all. We're looking to reward GROWTH, not reward those who have already grown, alone. Nevermind that this goes back to a Hall of Fame approach.

 

The test has nothing to do with deciding if people have merit or not. That is making AC too exclusive and, honestly, borderline elitist. It is simply about encouraging people to think about how they critique, and to show them where they are/how far they've come/etc.

 

Everything I propose is for the sake of encouraging growth, not systematically sorting our members into smart and dumb or whatever else.

 

As for points... Name changes, showcase shops, VIP, etc.

 

As mentioned before, I think passing ACCT enough times should prove the user's prowess and knowledge of the game enough to give a proper opinion on what cards being posted in Advanced are worthy of bonus points. I am not certain what purpose the CCCT will serve other than a slightly longer means of earning points and getting the rewards. Based entirely on our current Advanced and Casual definitions, it appears CCCT will test on general design while ACCT looks for greater awareness of the metagame in addition to the above. Doing well on CCCT shows that you know how to generally design a card... and then what?

 

At the moment, I'm struggling to think up a suggestion to utilize with good performance on CCCT.

 I disagree. I honestly do not expect solid turnouts for a while, and I want to get it rolling so that people can start to see where they fall short and why. You seem to be putting forward ideas that are idealistic, but they don't work, and only serve to stroke the ego of a few (if even) while breaking the others.

 

There is no metagame focus here. That is an archaic and failed construct. Yes, I backed it in the past, but the moderation team should have noted its failure and removed it not long after implementation, as it simply is idealistic. It was mostly proposed to appease complaints about people's design not being "up to snuff", anyway.

 

There is simply regular design and design where you must follow some stricter rules in posting. That's it. The latter will reward you, the former will not.

 

CC Design is to test for general design/just give people a place for their critiques to be critiqued, but AC is about encouraging certain facets of design. Flavor, Balance, Elegance, etc. While it can and will also serve as general design, there will be curveballs thrown in here.

  

 

As for Sakura... I feel like you added nothing. I've read your thing over and over, but I don't really see opinions. I see a text wall that's just an info dump, with only sheer points put in, most of which didn't need to be restated. It desperately needs a tl;dr.

 

 

Can we like... I don't know. Overlook necrobumping in CC if a post is a decent review?

 

I just really don't see why it would cause such a fuss if a old post is bumped due to a good review. I can't think of any repercussions that would result from doing so either. Considering that reviews are rarely given in Casual Multiples, I just see no need to punish (mainly me) for bumping up old posts with decent reviews.

The problem is that people forget about those cards. Their design intents, their older versions, etc. Allowing this to happen doesn't really add much at all, as a critique on a work you've forgotten about does not tell you much.

 

Just try to keep commenting on new ones.

 

As a final note:

Ignoring the gamestate in design is an archaic and flawed mindset, and it desperately needs to be thrown away. If you are designing in a proverbial vacuum, there is no point to be found or discussion to be had, you are just stroking egos.

 

You can design for certain gamestates, but state your intent, and keep in mind that cards would be legal today.

 

IE: Do not design a card for cube draft that is unfair in the true gamestate, but you can design a card for draft that is weak/fine in the true gamestate.

 

You don't need to know the metagame to design well, but you do need to understand current design to a degree, which is what I aim to teach. YGO's design changes at LEAST yearly with how the complexity, power, or other forms of creep change each year. These ebb and flow, and are a major factor in why the gamestate changes.

[Trebuchet MS]

 

No requirement based on post count or account newness, just what you output.

 

10 what? Words? Sentences? I assume the former, but 10 words for a card is rather... low.

 

I'm considering making the AC for initial posts have a light restriction (2-3 sentences, loosely) with a set of general guidelines to follow/ideas of what to post, but unsure.

Oh. It appears I have misread something. I interpreted as a minimum post count before you could begin posting in Advanced.

 

But, yeah, minimum word/sentence count in posts in Advanced Cards makes more sense. Creative Writing does have its own Advanced Clause of 100 words minimum, so drawing a parallel to that and easing the restriction a bit, since it's card reviews instead of prose, I think a minimum post length of 50 words would suffice.

[Blake]

So I assume things are good to go in a week, after I've whittled down a bit, considering only 1 person has given thoughts on count.

[I Hate Snatch Steal]

My hope is that pop culture isn't again limited to its own subforum like it was back in the day. I very much liked the change of letting pop culture cards be posted in a sub forum based on merit.

[Blake]

My hope is that pop culture isn't again limited to its own subforum like it was back in the day. I very much liked the change of letting pop culture cards be posted in a sub forum based on merit.

I have no intent to do such. It was an archaic rule that was needed for its time, but is not now.

 

So long as it's not Naruto gets 200 ATK when Sasuke is dead, it should be treated with the same scrutiny as otherwise, though flavor needs to match.

[Darj]

I want to mention I'm really looking forward to the implementation of an "advanced clause" for OPs as well. It certainly is easier to understand, fix and review a card when the card maker includes in its thread an introduction of its card explaining what it is intended to do and mention combos and interactions with other cards, compared to threads where the card creator simply posts the card picture, its card text and a mere "CnC", if at all. Also, I can see this change becoming some kind card quality filter, in the sense that, by requiring the card maker to post an introduction of his/her card, in order to fulfill such requirement he/she will be forced to research a bit on his/her card and its potential impact on the game, and thus learning and understanding more about his/her own card in the process.

 

In fact, I'm thinking this requirement could be enforced on the "neo-Advanced Section", but left as an option in the "neo-Casual Section", further empathizing the difference between casual and more "serious" players. For instance, if a player wanted to post a card in Advanced Section, he/she will have to come up with that advanced clause introduction, then I foresee 1 of the 3 scenarios will happen:

1) The card maker is already aware of his/her card and potential impact and can write the introduction with no problem.

2) The card maker will go on to do his/her "homework" and research in order to have something to write about.

3) The card maker won't bother or care enough, if at all, in which case he/she can simply take the card to the neo-Casual Section.

 

In this way, the sections would be filtering those players who are genuinely interested in improving at card making, from those who are not and instead make their cards mostly for fun or kill some time.

 

 

EDIT:

Note that I'm not suggesting that cards without impact or relevance shouldn't be posted in this "neo-Advanced Section". Any card should be fine, as long as the card maker complements it with this so-called advanced clause introduction.

[I Hate Snatch Steal]

I support the idea of writing a statement on what the card will be used for

[Blake]

Still not a full mod/issues with this aren't resolved, heyoooo

 

But really, I wanna bring something new up: Card Fixes.

 

When someone comments on your card, you should not expect fixes, at least in my eyes. They are there to "comment and critique", not to simply rate it (thank God this trend seems to be mostly dead) and fix it for you.

 

If your design has no forethought put into it, you shouldn't be posting it, least of all in Advanced, now or in the future. It is a section for design, and while it's not as "high" a design category as GFX or other art forms, it is still in a similar vein. If someone wants to help you, sure, but it is not on them to fix your flawed product, and you should not expect them to tell you how to fix a card. It is your design, not the commentors'.

 

Working together as a community to work on a design is definitely fine, but I want to make my stance clear: Your design, your responsibility. Do not post willy-nilly and expect a fix.

 

I am genuinely considering warning members/locking topics who do this once the reform is implemented, so this is technically discussion for a new rule.

 

But that's just my 2 cents, and I'd be interested in other peoples' take on this. Am I alone in this, or is this something other people feel?

[Darj]

Personally I'm fine with the above being enforced in neo-Advanced, but not in neo-Casual, mainly to give those card makers who are not at interested, devoted nor dedicated to improving in card making a place to share or show off their ideas.

 

Also, there is the other side of the spectrum: While there are card makers who expect their cards to be fixed, I have noticed cases where a card maker posts a card, but actually doesn't intent to nor bother with fixing or changing it (if needed), or otherwise discussing it (e.g. they aren't interested in inquiring, explaining or discussing how the cards would affect the game if it was to be released); in short, they don't care about feedback. This is a different kind of annoying because they are pretty much just showing off their cards, which is fine and acceptable, but in those cases IMO they should state their intentions in the OP or perhaps through a tag system, just so that the viewers won't dedicate their time to fix and review a card only to be blocked and rejected with practically "I don't care about fixes" or "I won't be editing this card" responses from the OP, or no responses at all. I suggest to allow these kind of "show off" threads in the neo-Casual section.

[AGATHODAIMON BANGTAIL COW]

That leaves people who may end up wanting to seek collaboration with a card/set of cards with three other places, presuming they're being public about this if they don't have a helper in mind to PM.

 

The first of which is Casual Cards/later to be Create a Card, which is probably an alright place so long as there are always a number of people in Advanced that also check CaC. Best case, someone posts there, someone else from Advanced sees it, and voila. Worst case is it gets ignored, or we end up having Advanced's design standards seep into CaC, albeit in only certain threads. An CaC-frequenter might try to innocently offer some ideas, only to be told that their ideas are just bad, and I think we're trying to stray away from these things happening.

 

Then there's the status bar, in which the request may be seen by someone before it gets swept under five other statuses and buried until the person makes another status about it. Having to repost the same status might get a tad annoying but it might be fine. And then there's Misc., and in that case, good luck.

 

I saw the thread where you got this idea (or at least one of them), and I do agree that that idea was just lazy. I'd just like to have a determined place for people to proactively ask for collaboration or others to help fix their card, instead of in reaction as was the case in that thread.

 

 

 

 

Edit: I was tired a the time of posting and it didn't even occur to me that it's perfectly ok to ask about this stuff in statuses/Misc., so I guess it's a whole lot of asking about posting in CaC.

[Blake]

I wanna make it clear that I'm not saying people cannot get help. Of course they can.

 

But it's wrong to post something then expect others to fix it, instead of working to fix it yourself. You have to meet them at LEAST half way.