</Marked for Modification>

[ragnarok1945]

[quote name='J-Max' timestamp='1322277439' post='5666155']
But what if how you feel about said card can only be summed up in around 10-12 words? Then you will hopelessly be sitting at your Keyboard finding a way to Pad out to make it the right length. The Clause may seem to be working right now but watch what happens when people really start to struggle to find the words.
[/quote]

That was my concern with it as well, J-max

the point is right now we're only experimenting to see if it'll work or not

I admit trying to write out that much for a mere vanilla was NOT easy

[Simping For Hina]

Think of this scientifically for experiments. You don't always get things to go the way you want them to. You always add things to it to prove your theory. They would add sub clauses for Vanillas if it is not working, but more proof would be needed and more people would need to make them.

[ragnarok1945]

yeah in the case with vanillas, it was why I wished the guy would put like a spell support, would have helped GREATLY

[Catterjune]

[quote name='ragnarok1945' timestamp='1322277231' post='5666142']and Mikhail had said nothing about the flexibility on that part.[/quote]
I haven't read the majority of the post in this topic. That's the first thing that stuck out at me when I read the opening post.

[quote name='ragnarok1945' timestamp='1322277231' post='5666142']
Pika, I'd like to show you an example from the 2003 film Bulletproof Monk.

You don't have to know the film recap, but there was a part of it with regards to the prophecy.

The 3 parts of it goes as following:

1. He will defeat an army of enemies while a flock of cranes circles above.

2. He will battle for love in the palace of Jade.

3. He will free the brothers he never knew with the family he never had.

Now later on in the film the person who is starting to fulfill the prophecy is questioned by some of the Tibetian Monks, since this guy is a pickpocket thief and everything.

They felt the prophecy can't possibly apply to such a person.

Main character monk pointed out that "The prophecy must apply to EVERYONE, otherwise it means nothing."

I don't think I need to explain to you further as to the point I'm getting at here.[/quote]

[center][img]http://i.imgur.com/HRMly.png[/img][/center]

If you think that the rules on a children's card game forum are equivalent to an ancient Tibeten prophecy, then you're more naive then I thought. And if you think that rules remain static from now until the end of time, you really need to pick up a damn history book and get an education. Specifically look into any chapters involving Amendments to the Constitution and the Civil Rights movements.

[quote name='J-Max' timestamp='1322277439' post='5666155']
But what if how you feel about said card can only be summed up in around 10-12 words?[/quote]
Exactly why 4 posts, 12 words each is a stupid rule.

Easiest solution: All posts must be at least equal in length of the card they're reviewing. Is a two line card? That's your bare minimum. Is it a vanilla? there is no bare minimum then.

[quote name='ragnarok1945' timestamp='1322277506' post='5666157']
I admit trying to write out that much for a mere vanilla was NOT easy[/quote]
Then... don't? You're not obligated to post in every single topic on the front page, despite what you think.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

Pika, the 4 point with 12 words a point has been changed. It is now a 48 minimum word review covering 4 points. Opens leeway with points.

[Catterjune]

[quote name='Mr. Striker' timestamp='1322278652' post='5666202']
Pika, the 4 point with 12 words a point has been changed. It is now a 48 minimum word review covering 4 points. Opens leeway with points.[/quote]
I'm not debating the exact number of words. I'm disagreeing with the fact that there's a 'minimum' at all.

If I was reading a story and all of a sudden one random word was a blue or something, and I made the comment "Why was that word blue?", that doesn't mean that I think the random word should have been red. My concern is more towards why make a word a random colour, not that the colour blue was chosen.

[J-Max]

[quote name='PikaPerson01' timestamp='1322278841' post='5666206']

I'm not debating the exact number of words. I'm disagreeing with the fact that there's a 'minimum' at all.

If I was reading a story and all of a sudden one random word was a blue or something, and I made the comment "Why was that word blue?", that doesn't mean that I think the random word should have been red. My concern is more towards why make a word a random colour, not that the colour blue was chosen.
[/quote]
Why was that word Blue? Blue does not suit the Paragraph at all! It needs to be Black like the rest of the Paragraph and please remember next time to make it Black.
Urgh. It annoyed me having to type that XD

[Icy]

The whole thing with the word minimum thing (removal of the sentence requirement however did make sense), was to prevent sentence[i] "padding"[/i] as it were. And as things have proven, the quantity is actually about 20 words less than the minimum people are posting, so the quality should not be affected at all. Not only that but activity has seen a small increase (more varied hours and willingness to post). So it is succeeding.

Though I havent really been on the last couple days to do my rounds because of thanksgiving and skyrim and shopping... yeah.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

I had my doubts, but now I believe that this is a good idea. It isn't as difficult to follow as I initially thought.

[Stan Alda]

[quote name='J-Max' timestamp='1322277439' post='5666155']
The Clause may seem to be working right now but watch what happens when people really start to struggle to find the words.
[/quote]
Making them struggle to find the words would probably be a good thing. People should think about their posts and examine what they're about to say before they review. Saying "OMG this crad rox!!!1!! 1000000/10" or "This card is fake and gay" is not a review. I've had both kinds of posts in my threads, and they irritate me to no end. If raising the standards weeds out a workable proportion of idiots, I'll welcome it. If it also catches a few legitimate posters, it's their fault for writing improperly.

[ragnarok1945]

[quote name='Lord_Cow_Cow' timestamp='1322440339' post='5670831']
I had my doubts, but now I believe that this is a good idea. It isn't as difficult to follow as I initially thought.
[/quote]

it's really not, once you start typing it out and everything. It only seems a lot BEFORE you begin the typing, but it's not too bad

[This Account is Unplayable]

[quote name='ragnarok1945' timestamp='1322507678' post='5672451']
it's really not, once you start typing it out and everything. It only seems a lot BEFORE you begin the typing, but it's not too bad
[/quote]

Not trying to start anything... But this is the last person I expected to hear this from...

[ragnarok1945]

*rolls eyes*

it's 48 words, Evil Tristan

It's not like they're expecting you to give a 1000 word review

[.Rai]

[quote name='ragnarok1945' timestamp='1322507848' post='5672460']
*rolls eyes*

it's 48 words, Evil Tristan

It's not like they're expecting you to give a 1000 word review
[/quote]

48 words could have been easily done before the clause came into action. Just saying.

So far, the clause has worked vaguely well. Problem is, most of the more accurate and worthy reviews are from people who know their TCG. It's hard to encourage large reviews when what I think is happening is that not many people know how to review properly. Which does lead to inactivity ultimately. Luckily it hasn't happened in massive numbers, but some basic knowledge of balance is pretty important in order to review these things.

[Welche the crab]

"Review properly" is where we hit the big problem. Josh is strongly opposed to any kind of set structure for a review. This is, in his mind, a creative section and that creativity should flow through to the comments and the reviews given by the members, to the members which is why he implemented this clause as opposed to my original suggestion.

[.Rai]

[quote name='Welche' timestamp='1322508448' post='5672483']
"Review properly" is where we hit the big problem. Josh is strongly opposed to any kind of set structure for a review. This is, in his mind, a creative section and that creativity should flow through to the comments and the reviews given by the members, to the members which is why he implemented this clause as opposed to my original suggestion.
[/quote]

:S I kinda figured. Problem is that RC is almost like 4000 different TCGs, with different balance levels. There's no sort of universal balance system.

But RC is so against the idea because 'it restricts creativity' that it will never be implemented.

But, MtG uses the saying, "Restrictions breed creativity." There's a reason why they're considered the best development team for any TCG out there. Their development team is able to access a card, think "Is it good for the game?", then put it through. I'm almost arguing that balance isn't the problem here. I'm arguing is the card good for the game in the current environment? Which leads me to think that you will still need either: guidelines, or vague TCG knowledge. Just so you know what this current environment is. Because, frankly, RC is in a crazy dream world at the moment. The clause has helped lots, but there's still tons of progress to be made.

Whether RC likes it or not, it'll have to happen sometime.

[Icy]

Well, you certainly have my attention. Get that draft written and I will consider it.

[Strider Tigerwolf]

Pointlessly verbose posts?

Simple provocative posts?

Choose 1.

[Icy]

Still waiting on you Cursed Reaction. It's in your hand now, your idea, it was your word that got me to listen. Now act on it.
I want that draft of your idea as a rule.

[.Rai]

[quote name='Icyblue' timestamp='1322619008' post='5675393']
Still waiting on you Cursed Reaction. It's in your hand now, your idea, it was your word that got me to listen. Now act on it.
I want that draft of your idea as a rule.
[/quote]

Hmm, yes, I am. Need to write up and refine. It'll shouldn't take too long, but it won't come that quick.

[Icy]

You have until Friday. (Wont be here all day Thursday).

[.Rai]

I'll hopefully expand on this some more, if I figure out an elegant way to say it.

[quote]
[b]Custom Cards: Designing The Correct Way[/b]

Many of you are probably used to designing cards quite often now. However, design is a complicated subject, and the chances are that no-one in the section actually knows the full story.

Card design is more than thinking up a card, and putting an effect on it. It's looking at it as a part of a massive jigsaw. The jigsaw is the game of Yu-Gi-Oh!. Therefore, you are not just designing individually, but designing for the whole card game. Remember that, people.

And people who rate cards: this is equally as important to you. How can you understand how to fix cards, if you don't know what needs fixing. These are your marking guidelines, if you will.

[center][u][b]Balance: What is it?[/b][/u][/center]

Balance refers to the so called 'power' of the card you design. Of course, the most important thing here is that power is dependent on the current game state in order for it to be relevant.

Raiza the Storm Monarch is a great example. Until quite recently, this card was Limited. Was the [b]card effect [/b]broken? Not really. But was it overwhelming in that current game state? Probably yes. In an ideal world, power creep (the gradual increase of 'power' in the effects of the cards in YGO) is non-existant. However, this isn't an ideal world. You MUST design cards in such a way that it is able to keep up in the current environment. Whether it lasts in the future is another matter, but that's for Konami to decide.

The general point is that the number one point when talking about balance is [b]knowing the current game state.[/b] No-one's really asking you to know about every single detail as long as you know the balance. Take the September 2011 lists:

The TIer 1 meta is ruled by Tour Guide of the Underworld and Black Luster Soldier - Envoy of the Beginning.

[b]First step: [/b]Rule these cards out of your balancing. Don't compare your card that you want to make to this. Neither do you want to compare it to anything on the banlist. The point of designing is to make it balanced. Things on the banlist aren't balanced.

Summoner Monk (Limited to Semi-Limited)
Icarus Attack (Semi-Limited to Unlimited)

[b]Second step: [/b]These cards were considered overpowered. Now, they're balanced. Ask yourself why. In the case of Summoner Monk, it was to encourage the play of more Xyzs. It was quite balanced too, because it doesn't give you that much advantage as it is basically a +0 (you lose a card, but also gain a card so the net profit is 0). Icarus Attack works in the same way (you lose 2, but get to destroy 2 too so the net profit is 0). Judgment Dragon is a whole other case. The conclusion you can draw from this is that non-recycable +0s are considered quite balanced in the current game state.

[u][b]Design Examples[/b][/u]

Heart-on-Bird
[Winged Beast/FIRE/Level 4/Effect]
[1450 ATK/1850 DEF]
When a Spell or Trap Card is activated: You can Tribute this card; Draw 1 card and change the Battle Position of 1 monster on the field.

Why would I consider this card good design in the current game state using the conclusion we learnt? Because this +0 has a decent and easy to fulfill condition, but is quite slow in the current format, yet has quite a good effect. The balancing is done in such a way that it's contained all in the same effect. Good effect with hard conditions is a good simple way of balancing a card. And vice versa. Its effect and general feel is good enough to add some sort of play, be it casual or competitive, but at the same time, it requires some skill to play with.

[u][b]Staying Away from the 'Situational Balance'[/b][/u]

The situational balance is a term I like to use when people decide to make a card more situational and unusable, instead of just toning the card down. Purposely adding conditions is [b]not [/b]an acceptable way of balancing a card. You should be aiming to instead just work on the actual effect of the card. Subtlety is much more simple. And simplicity is one of the key aspects of good design. If the card is pure broken, you should be trying to rework the effect completely while leaving the conditions alone as much as you can. If you can't, fine, but this rarely happens anyway.

[center][u][b]The Actual Guide to Design[/b][/u][/center]

Balance may be important, but it's hardly the most important thing. I shall be borrowing from a TCG known as Magic: the Gathering here. Their development team are one of the best in the entire world, with good reason. Their website is full of articles on design, and they have many rules to do with design. At this point, you may or may not be thinking: "I don't want rules. I want to be creative."

Unfortunately, one of Magic's key mottos is "Restrictions breed creativity." In other words, those rules are there to help you. It's the reason why designers have to work to a brief. It's the reason why the best products are the most simple. Restrictions are hidden everywhere in design. You just need to realise that.

Diette Rams. He is an industrial designer, from the company Braun. Does razors, electronics and all that. He followed 10 principles for good design:

1. Good design is innovative.
2. Good design makes a product useful.
3. Good design is aesthetic.
4. Good design helps us to understand a product.
5. Good design is unobtrusive.
6. Good design is honest.
7. Good design is durable.
8. Good design is consequent to the last detail.
9. Good design is concerned with the environment.
10. Good design is as little design as possible.

They are all equally important points. It may not be obvious, but every single point here is actually related to Yu-Gi-Oh!. I doubt that Diette Rams even meant it to be like that. Why does it apply? Because card games are fundamentally massive design networks.

[u][b]Good design is innovative[/b][/u]

Quote from the Magic: the Gathering website:

It has to be new, or at least new to the field in question. When you innovate in design, you bring a new element or elements to the table.

The game must fundamentally move forwards. Not necessarily in power level, but definitely when it comes to new ideas that define the game more. In Yu-Gi-Oh!, the best way to actually go about this is to [b]support the current game state, but making subtle differences that will change the game in the long term. [/b]Change shouldn't be sudden. Change has always been risky, and doing it in smaller increments is much more safer.

[u]How do you do this?[/u]

- Use new ideas...
- Or old ideas, but use them in a different way.
- Simply just support existing themes, but developing them much more so that the game evolves.

[u][b]Good design makes a product useful[/b][/u]

Cards must be able to do the above statements on a small scale, and on a larger scale. On the smaller scale, the card should be able to make other cards useful. Whether this is because it supports other things, or that its presence gives other cards the opportunity to be used with it, it doesn't matter. As long as it gives a [b]positive [/b]interaction with other cards, it's fine.

On the larger scale, it should support the card game's function. Its function is to be fun. Simple as. As long your card is fun, you are in good territory.

[u]How do you do this?[/u]

- Make a conscious effort to make your card interact with other cards as much as possible. Don't overdo it though.
- Is your card simple enough for a 8 year old to understand? Do they like it? Then it's fun.

[u][b]Good design is aesthetic[/b][/u]

ATK, DEF, Attribute, Type and also image are all very important to the card's design. Is your card a big colossus or a tiny thing? Make the stats reflect that. Make everything reflective of the art. Also, make the card's aesthetics reflect the card's effect. If your card is some random devil from hell that blows things up in the picture, I don't really expect an effect that tells everyone to gain lots of Life Points because the demon's feeling nice. Flavour is important, even on these Effect monsters with no apparent flavour text. The flavour text is the effect! Remember that!

[u]How do you do this?[/u]

- Try to reflect your card's aesthetics in the effect. Simple. Make things logical too.

[u][b]Good design helps us to understand a product[/b][/u]

Basically, design should be obvious (although take the next 'good design' point in note as well). It should immediately give you clues of what to do with it. You shouldn't have your commenters thinking, "Where on earth can I use this card?" Is your card designed in such a way that it shows its true colours vaguely obviously. Doesn't have to directly quote, but if it's simple enough, your commenters will be quick on the combo trail. By the way, don't aim to make obscure, bad combos. They're just bad design because of this point.

[u]How do you do this?[/u]

- Simplify your card. Simplicity is key once again. Does the card convey the point properly?
- Don't get to the point where you have to directly quote certain archetypes if you want some support, not part of the archetype, mind. Common keywords should be enough to help you.

[u][b]Good design is unobtrusive[/b][/u]

Good design is not obvious. I went there. Your card shouldn't be blindingly obvious. Design should not be seen. It should be natural. Not as if someone plonked a random effect and then another one onto a card. Make your card flow. If someone can see that you've just put something in in order to counter something else, that's bad.

[u]How do you do this?[/u]

- It relates to the situational balance point. Don't balance situationally.
- Your card shouldn't work too mechanically. The best designed cards can be used in various ways, which makes them more life like.

[u][b]Good design is honest[/b][/u]

Design should still have passion. It's still your creativity that's eventually make it.

[u]How do you do this?[/u]

- Don't feel restricted by these rules. It's more of 'How can I manipulate these rules to my liking?'
- Don't just put in things because it makes it ideal. Not all cards are Tier 1 material. Casual play is great fun, and certain cards are best designed for there. Keep it real.

[u][b]Good design is durable[/b][/u]

Now, breaking my point in the Balance section, yes, a card must stand the test of time. Your card should be original enough so that it isn't replaced by something else. In games without massive power creep, this is much easier. In YGO, with the power creep it has, this is a difficult feat to achieve. It is possible though.

[u]How do you do this?[/u]

- Keep your effect original. Stay away from completely exclusive search and draw.
- Make it sufficiently powerful, but not broken or dominating.
- Wait for it to be durable in the future by choosing an obscure, non-used effect and hoping that more support for it is made.

[u][b]Good design is consequent to the last detail[/b][/u]

Your card has to be good in Yu-Gi-Oh!, but look at the smaller picture. The card must be really outstanding and memorable. How? Get every little detail correct. Perfect it, distill it, filter and refine it. Make it memorable enough so that people look for its playability, and so that casual players use it. If competitive players use it, all the better because you just made a competitive card that hopefully wasn't horrendously broken.

[u]How do you do this?[/u]

- *insert first few sentences of paragraph here*

[u][b]Good design is concerned with the environment[/b][/u]

Not eco-friendly environment. The YGO environment. It should be so that the card interacts with other cards. It should be linked to as many things as you can in this massive design network that is Yu-Gi-Oh!

[u]How do you do this?[/u]

- Research other cards. Make it interact with them. Make it relevant to the current game state. Basically, follow the other points in this guide.

[u][b]Good design is as little design as possible[/b][/u]

Simplicity. Everything boils down to simplicity. Games work by this concept. Simple games are more fun than boring, complicated games. Complicated and diverse are different things, by the way. You can have a simple, but diverse game. On a smaller scale with cards, they should be concise and to the point. Make it easy to understand, make it stand out. A small concept is all you need for one card. Don't try to fit it all in on one card. That's what sets are for. Design is still a precious resource. Don't spend it all on one card, because, frankly, you'll be robbed of what the design is for.

[u]How do you do this?[/u]

- "If something can be removed and the card will work, it needs to be removed."

[/quote]

[Nathanael D. Striker]

That was quite a good read Cursed.

[Strider Tigerwolf]

So this has basically turned from a topic of "spam posts" to "correct card design". I agree with the correct card design, but then what about "counter" archtypes.

For example: Dark Worlds. Discarding is no longer being regarded as a "-1" but rather a "+1" with these guys, giving them an advantage to other cards. Now let's say you created an "counter archtype" that actually revolves with them "loosing" cards to "negate" or "reject" these "+s". It should balance out, but then you get to the idea of other archtypes and now you see that negating these "+s" from one archtype now leads to a double threat on another.

[spoiler=For example:]
[img]http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/1209/499193.jpg[/img]
Lore: When your opponent discards a card(s) from their hand: You can Special Summon this card (from your hand). If the card your opponent discarded was a Spell or Effect Monster: Add that card to your hand.
[/spoiler]

How would cards like these "fit" into the restriction when they work "against" the flow of another. Would this be considered good card design, or bad card design?

With this new ruling on cards, there should be no problem in creative ideas. However, this is a forum based on "Yu-Gi-Oh!" am I correct? There should be some amount of game concept and terminology already at play at least to a decent level. It's almost like saying That someone who doesn't play yugioh can make a card. Yes, but will it be a "correct" card as you state? Maybe once in a blue moon, but most frequently not often. OCG will be off, playability will be off, even spelling could be off. Commenting on such a card is pretty simple.

"OCG needs fixing, maybe like [insert correct OCG format of a card's effect here]. I though it was good/bad/meh. Insert optional rate here."

Now what about cards that have the correct "design" guidelines, but not the "correct created card" guidelines set here. As in, the OCG is correct, picture is nice, etc, etc. Here's an exaggerated example:

[spoiler=Example:]
[img]http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/1724/499193m.jpg[/img]
Lore: When this card is Summoned: Send up to 2 cards on the field to the Graveyard. When this card is sent to the Graveyard: Send 1 card from your opponent's hand to the Graveyard and draw 1 card.
[/spoiler]
Obviously this card is OPed. It sets up way too many +'s in the current meta and it's effect is incredibly easy to pull off. OCG is "mostly" correct (I may have missed something) but it's just a wreak of a card.

To some extent, saying something along the lines of:
"Broken. Way to abusable. Tone down the effect."

Doesn't seem much to ask. Why? Because it sets up for conversation. "Small talk" can lead to big talk and allows for people to first look back at their card and fix it themselves before they are criticized by others. Small talk, (spam posts in this case as they are under the 12 word requirement) breed conversation leading to in-depth analyzing and simulation on the card itself.

I do agree with what is said about MTG, that "Restriction breed creativity" because it really does. But that's in card design, and not how people comment on the cards themselves.

---

If you don't want to read all my mumbo jumbo, here are my "main questions" my post above tries to state:

1.) Where would "exceptional" cards play out if the design is deemed both good AND bad?
2.) I like the rules on card design, but why restrict posting and not letting it be as is?

[Strider Tigerwolf]

--------

As an added bonus, here's a few extra words.

Right now, it seems that RC will plummet to the point where members will only be posting cards...but most of the members won't bother with the commenting on the cards themselves, which will inevitably kill about 90% of this section. Quantity over quality is good on certain aspects...like the providence of a section.

Quantity is good for discussions. Why? It gives people various view points.

Restriction to Quality in this form: Kills discussion. It's almost like saying we can't say certain things and so we lose several points of views as well as any form of partaking in conversation.

Loss of Conversation: Kills the thread. No one's talking.

Quality of the card making process itself is good. Why? It gives a basis for improvement and understanding gameplay.

Too much creativity and no found rule for card making in this form: Kills gameplay. We make overpowered cards without thinking and soon other have OTK/FTKs that pop out with the draw of 1 card. That kills player to player interaction.

Loss of player-to-player interaction: Game is dead.