MTG Cardsmith Community Forums
The Great Cardsmith Designer Search - Stage 1: The Design Challenge
This discussion has been closed.
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
I know, I just couldn't find the actual source from which he had said that (which you did).
Thank you for clarifying.
I think there were 2 reasons why it appeared I rewarded more “safe” cards rather than more creative or novel cards:
1) the challenge was to design for a specific rarity in a standard legal set, which really restricts design space, power level, and complexity to a narrow band. A lot of the more novel designs submitted had either a power level issue that made them unsuitable for uncommon, or a complexity issue. And many of them had some play pattern concerns too. The best example I could give is Seek the Arcane by @fiskerton. It had multiple play pattern concerns, so much so that it would have been degenerate in any legal format. That being said, it was one of my favorite designs in a vacuum in terms of creativity, use of abilities, and fun. The card design category took both these things into account but because the card was so problematic it scored lowly. Had it not had these issues, it would have been a perfect card design score hands down.
2) I think this is the bigger of the two reasons: the nature of the grading scale. I structured the grading scale as starting at 20 and then going down from there if there were any flaws in each of the categories. Because the grading was done by taking away points, a lot of my written feedback was devoted to explaining why points were taken away rather than how they were earned. Because of this, I simply didn’t have as much time/space to explain the strong creative points of each design. I think this is something I can definitely improve on for the next challenge. In summmary, I took into account creativity/novelty for each and every card but didn’t always explicitly describe it in my written feedback and that value was kind of hidden in the card design score which was a combination of a multitude of factors, creativity included.
Thanks a million for the feedback, it was really helpful!
My responses:
1) this challenge was all about designing for a very specific set of constraints to test how well you embody “restrictions breed creativity”. Future challenges will have much more variation in rarities/other qualities than this one.
2) I like using point systems but I was even more regimented than usual because I know how much effort people are putting in and I want to make sure I am putting in the same amount of effort so that people know my selections aren’t biased or arbitrary and that they know how to improve going forward. I am definitely sticking with the point system, but I will be making the following changes going forward:
-reducing max point values for non-card design categories
-splitting card design into at least two categories
-including a category for overall submission when appropriate
For this challenge, the cards weren’t linked so I didn’t think an overall submission score was helpful but it will definitely be used in the weeks to come where it makes sense. So all in all, I am going to be iterating on the points system for the next stage and I think you made some good points that I will be incorporating.
3) I have no time to do an additional contest for those who didn’t make the top 8, but if you or anyone else wants to do that, feel free to go ahead and do so.
Thanks for the feedback, I really appreciate it!
I was able to infer most of what you said from what I've seen thus far. I still contend that having additional consultants would be better for you as host and the rest of us as entrants. People such as @DomriKade, @Memnarchitect, @Tomigon, @AustinSmith, @Beeswax, etc. would be very good individuals to run your conclusions by or get a second (third, fourth fifth...) opinion from.
I'm not trying to belittle what you're doing at all, but I think @ningyounk was hitting on some of the same points--much more eloquently--I was thinking of.
Enough debate. Keep up the good work!
I completely understand your viewpoint and I know you are not trying to belittle. I welcome the feedback and am glad you are sharing your thoughts. I considered having multiple judges but didn’t because of the time commitment. I estimate it took me about 18-24 hours in total to judge all the entries from Stage 1, and I was able to start early in the week because some Cardsmiths submitted their entries earlier so my time investment was somewhat staggered. As the challenges get harder, I expect the submissions to come in later on average, pushing most of the judging to the back end of the week. I doubt most Cardsmiths have that amount of time to invest to just judging and writing feedback for a single contest. I initially wanted to do it with a panel of judges as you suggested but after seeing how much time was required to give the level of feedback and transparency I want to give, it was clear that it would be unrealistic to ask others to do the same.
I did not know that about sloths, so I see why you chose first strike. Thanks for clarifying!
I would do your personal judging as you have been, then present the spreadsheet early to a small group of smiths for any additional feedback, rather than try and have each person do a "complete" and lengthy process as you've done.
Sloths don't make very much noise.
@Temurzoa
@TheCenterOfTheUniverse
@Faiths_Guide
Don’t forget to post your fave requests (3, 2, 1 respectively)
Faved!
https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/pulsing-informant
Faved!
Oh, I wanted to provide a little more information on that card as well as you seemed to find it confusing.
For a little background, the original wording was irrespective of the Informant's power and used the format "reveal it to you." However, after I'd discussed the card with a judge, I found that "A card is either revealed to all players or it isn't revealed (CR 701.15)" and I wanted it to only be "revealed" to the controller of the Informant. An opponent knowing what card you've drawn can be a catastrophic drawback.
Phelgming made the suggestion that the mechanics be linked, for synergy/playability sake, such that switching power made a difference to the amount of damage at stake. This made me nervous that the card was too powerful, and the judge and I discussed that the possibility of burning for 3 on each draw could be a very dangerous thing. Meanwhile the judge said that maybe "... that player may have you look at that card." would get my desired effect. After all, a single player at a table is able to privately look at another's cards, so this seemed the more appropriate wording. That judge did mention, however, that the high burn capabilities almost made this feel rare (which you noticed).
I hope this helps you understand the choices I made. I think you did a good job understanding rarity/color, but just misunderstood the wording and function portions a little bit. All-in-all I believe this to be one of my strongest designs, which is why I requested the favorite on it.
I could provide similar breakdowns for some of the other questions you posed, but I don't think it necessary unless you'd like to hear them.
Thanks for the additional insight. I think I understand your intention for the card much better and why you chose the wording you did. I think your reasoning for choosing “look” instead of “reveal” is correct. That being said, Pulsing Informant still a big rules/gameplay issue. Because the trigger occurs once a player has already drawn the card, the card is in their hand when they would have to reveal it to you. This is a major playability issue because there is no way for you to verify that the card your opponent lets you look at is actually the card they drew this turn. This is a major no-no for paper play and could never be printed as is. For that reason, the trigger would have to be reworded so that it was either some sort of replacement effect or was very complex with different wording. I should have listed this in my initial feedback but quite frankly I ran out of room and moved on to the next card as I had already written a lot on this one. All in all, I agree that this is a strong design in a vacuum and has a lot of interesting decision making which I like, but also a huge rules/play issue. This is unfortunate because what the card actually does is very easy to understand but writing it out correctly in terms of magic templating is quite challenging.
It would actually function under the same ruling guidelines as miracle does currently and wouldn't be an issue.
However, it would be a bit annoying when drawing multiple cards as each "draw action" is considered separate and would have to be dealt with singularly and in order (per official rules).
I do appreciate that you retracted some of your previous comments though.