Advanced Clause is back now.

[Guest Hatcher]

So after recent hilarious shenanigans, is Advanced Clause still out of effect?

[Guest Neo Galaxy]

So after recent hilarious shenanigans, is Advanced Clause still out of effect?

 

It would appear that way, but I've wondered the same thing myself. I still follow it regardless, but some clarity on whether or not its actually like, "in place", would be kinda cool.

[Enrise]

So after recent hilarious shenanigans, is Advanced Clause still out of effect?

 

I think the clause itself is out of effect, but the idea it was going after is in effect.

If that makes any sense.

[Cherz]

I want it back. There are too many people posting good 8/10. Nononono! AC needs to be back.

[Guest Circus Freak]

So after recent hilarious shenanigans, is Advanced Clause still out of effect?

 

Yes, but me and Alfred are working on bringing about a 3rd version which will go under tedious review before being put up.

[Mehmani]

One thing that I'm pleased about it despite it not being in place, I see more people paying attention to card viability when reviewing. That's something I've wanted for over a year. Me and Koko have decided that the AC needs to be a lot simpler for people to use it. The whole idea of it being proportional to post count - too complex, simple as that. The idea of new members being excluded from it is still a good one. What we need, in my opinion, is a very short guide, something that can be stickied, titled "How to review constructively and well with the Advanced Clause" or something similar. That would be excellent. We would encourage members to read it just to get a grip on the thing. Oh yes, and everyone who broke it would be 30% warned, without exception. That's how they dealt with it in Role-Playing, and it worked damn well.

 

Just to note: The Advanced Clause is currently NOT IN EFFECT.

[Guest Neo Galaxy]

One thing that I'm pleased about it despite it not being in place, I see more people paying attention to card viability when reviewing. That's something I've wanted for over a year. Me and Koko have decided that the AC needs to be a lot simpler for people to use it. The whole idea of it being proportional to post count - too complex, simple as that. The idea of new members being excluded from it is still a good one. What we need, in my opinion, is a very short guide, something that can be stickied, titled "How to review constructively and well with the Advanced Clause" or something similar. That would be excellent. We would encourage members to read it just to get a grip on the thing. Oh yes, and everyone who broke it would be 30% warned, without exception. That's how they dealt with it in Role-Playing, and it worked damn well.

 

Just to note: The Advanced Clause is currently NOT IN EFFECT.

 

If you'd give me a shot, I'll gladly try my hand at writing up a guide you could use. ^^;

[Mehmani]

If you'd give me a shot, I'll gladly try my hand at writing up a guide you could use. ^^;

 

Your input would certainly be appreciated, yes :D

[Guest Neo Galaxy]

Your input would certainly be appreciated, yes :D

 

Let me see what I can come up with; it'll help me with the system I'm trying to come up with for reviewing, anyway. I'll certainly PM you it as soon as I've finished.

[Mehmani]

Sure thing, that's good. I am planning to simplify it as much as possible.

[Guest Neo Galaxy]

A Member's Guide for Reviewing Cards - From One Member to Another

 

Card Making. While it might not be everyone's reason for inhabiting this wonderful forum, it is the one thing that brought most of us here, at least at one point or another. Hell, some of us may have even registered solely to save our cards, and then we decided to start posting them to get reviews and commentary from other members on how to make them better, or ideas to fix them, etc.

 

As a YCM Veteran who has been making and reviewing cards consistently since 2007, I do have some experience in the area. And the one thing I've learned is that sharing some simple, yet constructive advice is a great way to boost the activity of the community and improve your own cards, as well.

 

When reviewing cards, there's a system I like to go by, it's very simple, I call it the Five Point Review. (Trademarkin' that.)

 

* Name

* Image

* Balance

* Creativity

* Overall Design

 

Name: The easiest part of making a card. Some people prefer to find a picture and go from there, others might design the card first, then find a picture that fits. Either way, the name is one of the simplest, yet most important parts of a card. A good name can really pull together a card as the “complete package”.

 

When reviewing a card, take a quick look at the name and compare it to the rest of the card? Is it unique? It is at least not a blatant rip-off of another card? Factor these questions into your response.

 

x/0.5 (0.0 – 0.5) – How good is the name?

 

Image: Let’s face it; the image is the third most important part of any Created Card. Most of the reason we post in the Realistic Cards section is to design a full card, otherwise you could just go to Written Cards and post your ideas. While it has become increasingly difficult to find good images to use, there are still plenty of resources out there, even custom ones here on YCM that the great showcase section members have come up with. Why not take a look around?

 

When reviewing a card, take a look at the image and come up with some thoughts? Is it unique? Does the image go with the name and the rest of the card? Is it commonly used? Is there writing on it, making it look sloppy? Factor these questions into your response. The image doesn’t have to be something you “like”, to be good, as much as it should be something that goes with the card itself.

X/0.5 (0.0 – 0.5) – How good is the image?

 

Balance: The single most important factor. In order for a card to be “Realistic”, it should be balanced, effective, and in some cases, useful. It is okay to design a card that may not be practical in the current Metagame, but might be useful in other scenarios. Still, you should strive to make the most effective, realistic cards possible, because it creates better card-making skill and generates more interesting discussion.

When reviewing a card, try and have at least a little knowledge of what’s considered good, useful, etc. For example, often times members will post that a card is “overpowered”, without really taking into consideration what that means. Some cards may seem bad at first, or they may seem too good, but you have to take into account how much of an impact it will have on the game and what kind of cards it can be combo’d with. Something like “Mass Driver” isn’t necessarily a good card, but it OTK’s and creates loops that are bad for the game, and thus bad card design.

Is the card useful? How does it stack up against Card “X”? Would it see play? And if the card isn’t balanced, provide some reasons why, instead of just saying it’s broken. Justify your arguments, otherwise you have no validity. Make sure you actually HELP the members with criticism instead of just throwing random things out there because you can.

 

x/1.5 (0.0-1.5) – How balanced is the card?

 

Creativity: Anyone can make a card. Hell, anyone can make a card with a good effect. I could make a Quick-Play Spell Card called “Powerful Spell” that has the same effect as Mystical Space Typhoon, and would be practical in the current game. But what is the point? Where is the fun and/or challenge in making cards along those lines when they’re duplicates of other ideas? Expand your horizons and put your card making skills to the test.

 

When reviewing a card, try and take into account these factors. Is the card unique? Does it have an effect that is useful, and somewhat “its own” as opposed to being a blatant rip-off?

 

x/0.5 (0.0-0.5) – How creative is the card?

 

Overall: In this crazy game we all know and love, how useful a card can be is ideally what determines how often people play it. Cards like “Forbidden Lance” and “Monster Reborn” have become staples because of how effective they are in virtually every Deck. But just because a card isn’t a staple, doesn’t mean it’s not a good overall card. Cards like “Awakened Hero Gagagigo” are very popular amongst players because of nostalgia and continued stories within cards. Try and incorporate these kind of things.

When reviewing a card, take into account all the factors from above, and decide whether or not it’s a good card overall.

 

x/2.0 (0.0-2.0) – How good is the card overall?

 

TOTAL – x/5.0

5.0 – A+ (A fantastic card, extremely well done, no errors)

4.5.-4.9 – A (A good card, with perhaps a slight issue here or there, but overall lreally good.)

4.1-4.4 – A- (Well-designed, with a noticeable error, but still very good.)

 

This scale is obviously self explanatory, just go down in letters as you go down in numbers. Try and provide some additional comments as well. If members get good reviews on their cards (and I mean well-thought out), they might feel inclined to do the same on other cards, increasing our community as a whole.

 

There doesn’t even have to be a maximum word count or anything. Just post with some actual thought, otherwise what’s the point of even commenting on the cards other than a +1 post count? And guys, post count is irrelevant. It won’t get you anywhere.

The one last thing I’d like to mention is one of the most time-wasting things: OCG.

 

Don’t mis-understand me. OCG is extremely important to a card, especially a Realistic Card. But people that simply post about OCG being wrong don’t do much to help the person at all.

 

It’s great to post updated OCG and help members out to better their cards, but OFFER SOME THOUGHTS along with it. Otherwise, you’re just +1’ing post count, which as I said, is irrelevant.

 

Hopefully this will give you an idea on how to properly review a card and help boost the intelligence and the activity of the Realistic Cards community as a whole!

 

©Neo Galaxy 2012

[Mehmani]

I'm a fan of reviewing schemes, and encouraging them is a good idea. However, the problem I see with this is the lack of a hierarchy. In the Five-Point System, the brilliance of a cards name is given equivalent status to its viability. Look at the reviewing scheme in my signature: viability and balance are the two single most important things about a realistic card. The picture and name are interchangeable, and while I do agree that they matter a lot, the two main points are paramount. You'll see that it is possible to get an A rating with my scheme even with appalling aesthetics. That's because anyone can select a good picture and even a creative, snappy name, but sense of balance and viability are far more difficult to nail, as well as being entirely relative.

 

It's a good system and well-explained, but I'm very cynical about it.

[Guest Neo Galaxy]

I'm a fan of reviewing schemes, and encouraging them is a good idea. However, the problem I see with this is the lack of a hierarchy. In the Five-Point System, the brilliance of a cards name is given equivalent status to its viability. Look at the reviewing scheme in my signature: viability and balance are the two single most important things about a realistic card. The picture and name are interchangeable, and while I do agree that they matter a lot, the two main points are paramount. You'll see that it is possible to get an A rating with my scheme even with appalling aesthetics. That's because anyone can select a good picture and even a creative, snappy name, but sense of balance and viability are far more difficult to nail, as well as being entirely relative.

 

It's a good system and well-explained, but I'm very cynical about it.

 

Fair enough. I mean, I typed this up at work, and I'm in the midst of working at the same time so I probably could have elaborated further on a few points.. One of the things I considered was having the name and picture be part of the same "point", while increasing the balance and overall by a .5 value, each, making it so they're much more important than everything else.

 

It was a quick guide, but I could definitely go through and change some things.

[Mehmani]

Fair enough. I mean, I typed this up at work, and I'm in the midst of working at the same time so I probably could have elaborated further on a few points.. One of the things I considered was having the name and picture be part of the same "point", while increasing the balance and overall by a .5 value, each, making it so they're much more important than everything else.

 

It was a quick guide, but I could definitely go through and change some things.

 

That would work excellently.

[Guest Neo Galaxy]

That would work excellently.

 

Sure, I should be home shortly, so I'll make some edits and then you can do with it what you please.

[Guest - Neo -]

Just wondering if you'd had a chance to look over the updated guide.

[Mehmani]

Now, I'd say it's an excellent guide. I'll write up a guide for my scheme too. What I want to do is post a thread about reviewing cards, but in a vox-pop style. We'll have me, you and Koko talking about card reviewing and our thoughts on it before showing and explaining each of our reviewing schemes.

[Guest - Neo -]

Now, I'd say it's an excellent guide. I'll write up a guide for my scheme too. What I want to do is post a thread about reviewing cards, but in a vox-pop style. We'll have me, you and Koko talking about card reviewing and our thoughts on it before showing and explaining each of our reviewing schemes.

 

Works for me. Koko actually messaged me earlier to ask if she could use my Grading System. ^^;

[.Requiem]

What exactly was the advance clause? I was out of the loop for awhile.

[Guest Kokonoe]

What exactly was the advance clause? I was out of the loop for awhile.

 

It made members post in a more elaborate manner by writing a higher quantity than they have to right now.