[CC SUGGESTION BOX] Feedback Thread

[Flash Flyer - Sakura]

 Before we get into any specifics, ground rules:

 

1. All posts in this thread are to remain civil and on-topic. On-topic means your response to the proposals below and anything about what you'd like CC to have going forward. 

 

Shitposting or otherwise starting arguments in this thread will be harshly penalized.

 

2. Members who actively use Custom Cards and/or otherwise care about the well-being of the section are highly encouraged to post.

 

Some of these proposals will go into practice so it's in your best interest to speak up. You guys can offer your opinions on the proposals below, and anything else you'd think that would improve Custom Cards. If you don't use the section and/or do not care about its well-being, then please stay out of this thread. 

 

3. This topic only caters to how the forums are being run. If you have a comment about the Discord channel for CC, then don't bring it up here. 

 

Do not ask if CC mod candidates are being considered. As Zai mentioned, I have some ideas in mind but not pushing them unless Gadjiltron or I actually need the help.

 

4. If you have an issue with a current rule, ASK. There are a lot of them for both areas, yes, but most are common sense/courtesy and otherwise things that go in-line with general standards.

 

5. If you did not speak up in this thread [either in-person, have someone speak for you OR PM me about the issue], then DON'T COMPLAIN about the changes when they go into effect. You were given every opportunity to speak up, but chose not to.

 

=====

 

https://forum.yugiohcardmaker.net/topic/362392-cc-news-upcoming-changes-to-custom-cards

 
In case you guys don't want to read the entire text wall, a tl;dr version of the stuff in there:

• Restating of the major stuff concerning what was modified last month. 
• Dual format thing in CC, as to address the issue of Links leaving a bad taste in some members and giving them somewhere to make things for the current format (ARC-V)
• Redefining Advanced Cards to focus more on the competitive aspect (or make sure that cards can actually function in the current game, while being properly designed)

=====
This thread is for you to voice your thoughts on the proposed changes and any other things you'd like to see in the section. I have bolded the dual format idea due to the urgency in addressing it (S2017 releases on Saturday, and we just got new rulings on how stuff works). It is not intended to shun the VRAINS format (by allowing ARC-V era play to still exist), but again, to give members an option in designing because this is a major shift unlike past generations. 
 
I have provided three proposals as to how to address that: Two of them require tagging to some degree; another will be a separate forum. (1v1s will be moved back into Card Contests)
 
There are other things that were not addressed in the linked thread, but may be revisited at a later time. (While the focus will be on the bolded, you can also bring up the other stuff if need-be)
=====
 
As per the ground rules above, make sure you stay on topic because I will punish any instances of spam in this thread. 

[Draconus297]

Given that we're the only defined cardmaking club still active consistently, I'd like to reiterate here what I've said within said group:

 

The AGM is and will remain an Arc-V era format. Cards posted with the AGM in mind (with either [AGM] in the title, an AGM tag, or both) are not going to include any reference to Links, an Extra Monster Zone, or the like.

 

That said, I won't kill anyone else's fun. Given that quite a few CC people like the concept of Links, enjoy designing for them, et cetera, other Arc-V-centric card design should be tagged as such.

 

I personally recommend a PreVR tag/section in such cases, standing for "Pre-VRAINS", but that's just my two cents.

[Darj]

I suggest to stick with tags for differentiating cards intended for Legacy and Link formats. That way you avoid creating subforums for Advanced Section, nor there will be need off making a Legacy subforum for Casual Section either.

 

Some examples of what to post and what not to post in AC would be welcomed.

For instance, this is mainly my opinion, but making a support card for, let's say, "The Creator" monsters, no matter how good or strong it is, it won't be fit for Advanced Section, since "The Creator" monsters are techs at best. On the other hand, a card that is intended to push an archetype to higher tiers, let's say 2 or higher, should be acceptable. For example, if a support for even Cloudians, currently a casual archetype, is made that would allow them to access Bahamut Shark --> Toadally with more ease, then IMO it would be fit for Advanced, since not only is improving their efficiency at Rank4 plays, also it's taking said Toadally Bahamut play into account.

 

Kinda off-topic but I would say an Advanced Section card could push a deck to least Tier 3 but I don't fully understand yet the boundary between "Tier 3" and casual decks; IIRC some players have stated Tier 3 isn't actually a thing and that anything below tier 2 is regarded as casual. I would appreciate if someone could clarify this.

[Flash Flyer - Sakura]

Given that we're the only defined cardmaking club still active consistently, I'd like to reiterate here what I've said within said group:

 

The AGM is and will remain an Arc-V era format. Cards posted with the AGM in mind (with either [AGM] in the title, an AGM tag, or both) are not going to include any reference to Links, an Extra Monster Zone, or the like.

 

That said, I won't kill anyone else's fun. Given that quite a few CC people like the concept of Links, enjoy designing for them, et cetera, other Arc-V-centric card design should be tagged as such.

 

I personally recommend a PreVR tag/section in such cases, standing for "Pre-VRAINS", but that's just my two cents.

 

Well, the Legacy tag is intended to be for clubs like ours and other people who want to keep with ARC-V mechanics. I should've defined that in the source thread.

 

Personally speaking, while I don't exactly like the intrusiveness of Links (as in forcing players to use them in order to access their EDs) among other things, I'm willing to accept them over time. (Well, I did make the "Create a Link Monster" thread in Games and have made two of them)

 

I suggest to stick with tags for differentiating cards intended for Legacy and Link formats. That way you avoid creating subforums for Advanced Section, nor there will be need off making a Legacy subforum for Casual Section either.

 

Some examples of what to post and what not to post in AC would be welcomed.

For instance, this is mainly my opinion, but making a support card for, let's say, "The Creator" monsters, no matter how good or strong it is, it won't be fit for Advanced Section, since "The Creator" monsters are techs at best. On the other hand, a card that is intended to push an archetype to higher tiers, let's say 2 or higher, should be acceptable. For example, if a support for even Cloudians, currently a casual archetype, is made that would allow them to access Bahamut Shark --> Toadally with more ease, then IMO it would be fit for Advanced, since not only is improving their efficiency at Rank4 plays, also it's taking said Toadally Bahamut play into account.

 

I'm personally going for a tagging system myself. 

 

As for stuff that would be posted in the new Advanced area, there's still some gray area as to what would be classed as Casual-tier and Advanced. Let's take some stuff like Morphtronics and Watts into account; as they are now, they really have no chance of competing against Zoos or even lower stuff introduced in this generation. Like I mentioned in the source thread, you can post legacy supports but some Decks require a complete overhaul to be viable. 

 

===

I'm not in a position to say much more than this, but idea of Advanced will be to post cards that can either push something to competitive status or function on its own. 

[Darj]

As for stuff that would be posted in the new Advanced area, there's still some gray area as to what would be classed as Casual-tier and Advanced. Let's take some stuff like Morphtronics and Watts into account; as they are now, they really have no chance of competing against Zoos or even lower stuff introduced in this generation. Like I mentioned in the source thread, you can post legacy supports but some Decks require a complete overhaul to be viable.

 

Then defining those gray areas, boundaries and differences between Advanced and Casual should be one of the priorities.

I mean, one has to also keep in mind that Zoodiacs are pretty much a Tier 0 case, so it would be kinda abusive to pump every card to Tier 0 levels to make them fit for Advanced.

Meanwhile, personally I would put a card that supports Morphtronics, Watts and other casual archetypes in Advanced section if it greatly boosts them in consistency, power plays and/or "ceiling" and thus would let them clash with decks like, let's say, Tellars, which currently are what I would call a "Tier 3" deck, even if it isn't exactly a thing.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

It occurs to me that I would be the authority to say this:

 

Once links are available on Duel Portal, the DP tournament format (yes, it is coming back) will be using the rules regarding them. Since we will be starting from a relatively clean slate, we (myself, VCR, and SDB) see very little reason not to include them, as they open up vast design possibilities, as well as add additional depth to gameplay.

 

This works out quite well, as AGM will not be using them, allowing each group to have their niche, as well as giving users reason to be members of both.

[Flash Flyer - Sakura]

@Darj: Yeah, Zoos really shouldn't be considered as the dominant standard as to what Advanced should be based on (though I did say that they are nearly everywhere, even if not in their purest forms, in terms of competitive Decks).

 

But that being said, agreed on letting cards in that overall boost how the Decks work into Advanced and least push them up to current standards, even if not necessarily "tournament quality" (defined as seeing play in recent lists). That's basically what Advanced was intended to be; cards that are designed to work with the powercreep, even if they aren't up to par at the time you make them. 

 

===

@Parenthesis: That's part of the reason why the dual format thing was introduced; some groups like AGM won't be using them for the time being (this being due to our current stuff being mostly ED-reliant and the new system isn't helping*) and in your case (whenever sea fixes stuff), use the new standards for Duel Portal. 

 

(* when Draco will permit VRAINS mechanics in AGM, I don't know but may not be for a good while. As I've mentioned above, I have my gripes with Link Monsters but I'm willing to design around the new format for the foreseeable future. I cannot say the same for other active members in there.)

 

The tag system doesn't exist for DP yet (or wasn't intended on it for the moment). Once everything gets updated there, then we can look into having formats tagged as Legacy or Standard. 

 

But yeah, with the tagging system, you have the option to design for ARC-V mechanics (with any non-Link support cards made in the VRAINS generation factored in) or VRAINS at any given time.

 

As I said before in the definition of Legacy, while Link Monsters will not be in this, any Cyverse-Type monsters and cards released in Series 10 that do not explicitly support Link Monsters or the monster zones will be permitted.

 

(This does mean that you all will need to be familiar with two formats; well, get acclimated to the VRAINS style if you haven't already and remember how stuff functions right now for ARC-V mechanics [which encapsulates everything from DM era up until now])

 

=====

With that being said, the dual format thing WILL be going into effect, but how do you all want to go about it? I had been thinking about this since Links were revealed last month, but didn't have time to post this proposal due to coursework and other matters. 

 

Personally going for the tag system; it will be slightly more work on member's ends to tag things, but otherwise no major changes to forum setup. (The tags will be available as presets; you don't need to manually put it in your title)

[The Nyx Avatar]

I fear I am too late, but I will say this.

 

Advanced should not have the design notes.

 

They should be something preferred, not enforced.

[Flash Flyer - Sakura]

Reasons why the design notes exist:

• Justify why you made the card a certain way, or why it was made to begin with? (This is the same concept as you would find in academics)
  • We are not mind readers and cannot know what you planned to do. Also gives reviewers a baseline to work with in helping you fix the card (either along the path you want, or something else if it isn't possible without breaking something else / requiring external support.)
    • Again, reviewers are not required to actually help you, but if they choose to do so, then they have something to work with. 
  • Shows that you understand what's going on in the current game and actually put in effort, as opposed to tossing your card into the section and saying "okay, review my stuff." 
• Eliminate blatant rehashing of a card's functions in reviews (as this has been seen a few times over the years)
• Differentiate Casual and Advanced (there will be the redefinition as well, but will be dealt with once things are ironed out completely.

This isn't supposed to be essay writing for card making, but back up your design with some degree of explanation. You can write a general overview of what the card is intended to do, and that'll be enough. (Another idea would be to scale it based on the number of effects you have, but then those of you with large sets WILL be writing literal essays; those of you who make simpler cards won't have to write so much.)

 

===

Kinda off-topic but I would say an Advanced Section card could push a deck to least Tier 3 but I don't fully understand yet the boundary between "Tier 3" and casual decks; IIRC some players have stated Tier 3 isn't actually a thing and that anything below tier 2 is regarded as casual. I would appreciate if someone could clarify this.

 

I would probably consider Tier 3 to be a competitive casual Deck of sorts (i.e. something that isn't Zoo quality or whatever the "money" Deck for Konami is that's topping nationals, but can at least take care of itself for the most part in the power creep). I honestly don't have an answer for whether/not Tier 3 is actually a thing, but suppose it's preference to say if Tier 3 should be classed as a minor level of competition or lumped in with stuff you'd probably use for fun. I know that 'tellars were common a few formats ago, but yeah.

 

For the most part, if a card is designed to either push an existing Deck to at least be functional in the power creep, then it can go into Advanced. No, it doesn't have to be top quality, but intended to either function on its own or push an existing Deck to current standards (i.e. let them do a lot of things they were intended to do at a quick enough pace). The Cloudian example you mentioned would work; get a new Level 4 to accelerate plays (maybe let them SS or something), then Rank 4 in Bahamut/Treatoad.

 

=====

 

At the time of writing, the tag system has been implemented. You have the option of using the predefined tags or mentioning it in the topic title. I would've liked to have posted this when Links were first brought up in mid-February, because it would've given more time for you to give a better opinion on how to address the dual format (I personally liked the tagging one, because easier to implement and doesn't add on more forums that aren't going to be used very often). As I've said before, I do not believe in shifting ARC-V era stuff to Casual simply because they no longer function in the new mechanics (at least not as efficiently). 

[The Nyx Avatar]

For a set, this works fine. Reviewer has more work with. But with a single card, it's needless (especially with the push for being more relevant to the meta game).

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

If you don't want to perform to advanced's standards, post in casual.

[Blake]

Keep the design notes stuck to spoiler tags.

 

a design's impact based on initial impression is important, because info that explains INTENT, but not impact, clouds constructive criticism.

 

It helps after the initial reaction, but that might be too late.

[Flash Flyer - Sakura]

That much can be done; can still keep the notes, but if people don't want to read them until later, then that's also fine. Main point of having the notes is as I mentioned above; back up your design choices with valid reasoning instead of throwing card into the section.

 

To be fair, I didn't specify whether or not you needed to keep them revealed or in spoiler tags; I know you posted something earlier (and spoiler tagging everything is perfectly fine). So yeah, can modify the rule on "design notes" to keep them in spoiler tags.