Realistic Cards Comments & Suggestions - How can we make our section better?

[Just Crouton]

Thoughts on card design.

[b]#1: Do your homework[/b]
Look at the current popular cards/decks in the game (we have a TCG section, or you can check out DuelistGroundz TCG sections [url="http://duelistgroundz.com/index.php?showforum=536"]here[/url], [url="http://duelistgroundz.com/index.php?showforum=540"]here[/url], and [url="http://duelistgroundz.com/index.php?showforum=379"]here[/url]. You can also play on Dueling Network,) determine which current cards are actually broken and what gameplay styles are problems, then make "balanced" cards that don't do what the broken ones do, but can keep up with the current stuff.

[b]#2: Don't make cards meant for OTKs/ easy alt win conditions[/b]
The goal of winning at Yu-Gi-Oh! is to reduce your opponent's Life Points to 0. Therefore, cards made with the intent to First/One-Turn-Kills or enable easy alternate win conditions like Exodia are bad for the game.

First/One-Turn-Kills ignore player interaction and make it a one player game.

Alternate win conditions defeat the game's purpose of Life Points altogether.

[b]#3: Don't make support for existing OTKs[/b]
Goes with #2. We don't need more cards to help Exodia and Final Countdown. It doesn't matter if Konami made them. The Created Cards sections (especially Realistic and Written) are not Konami, and as such, we should understand common sense and know that intentiona.

[b]#4: Not EVERY card needs a drawback[/b]
This goes with #1. Not EVERY card needs a drawback. Adding a "Discard 1" or "Pay 1000 LP" doesn't "balance" Bull Blader. Maybe in 2005, but this is 2012, where 7 year olds can throw 8000-10000 damage on the board turn 1 with their weekly allowance. A Level 4, 2000 beater with no drawback isn't exactly insane. If anything, it's anti-meta. It gets over cards like Rai-Oh, Snowman Eater, and Geargiarmor. I'm not seeing the problem here.

The more drawbacks you slap on a card, the more it sucks. And, if it needs so many (2-3+), you probably shouldn't make it.

[b]#5: Rule of [x] ATK/DEF is crap[/b]
Goes with #4. On the Yugioh wiki, there are articles on Rule of [x] ATK/DEF which imply that monsters of certain Levels can only have a certain amount of ATK/DEF before they need a debilitating drawback. This is not a real rule. Now, I'm not saying that we should make Level 4, 3000 ATK vanillas, a 2-material Rank 4 with 2601 ATK to make Pearl useless, or a Level 1-4, 4000-5000 DEFer. What I'm saying is that making a Level 3 with 1800-1850 ATK, or a Level 4 with 2100 ATK, or a Level 4 with 3000 DEF without drawbacks isn't exactly ridiculous, especially if it's a standalone card. There's a lot more to the game than ATK/DEF.

Furthermore, I'm willing to argue that a Level 5-6, 2700 vanilla beater isn't necessarily a bad thing. Konami has proven they are willing to push aside the Level 6, 2500 Summoned Skull and Level 5, 2500 Cyber-Tech Alligator for the Level 6, 2600 Frostosaurus, so what's the damage in making a Level 5, 2700 Evil Death-Worshipping YCMaker besides having a topic with no discussion because there's nothing much to say about vanillas?

That's all I have for now.

[Alpakha]

[quote name='American Machismo!!!!!' timestamp='1354237999' post='6081324']
Thoughts on card design.

[b]#1: Do your homework[/b]
Look at the current popular cards/decks in the game (we have a TCG section, or you can check out DuelistGroundz TCG sections [url="http://duelistgroundz.com/index.php?showforum=536"]here[/url], [url="http://duelistgroundz.com/index.php?showforum=540"]here[/url], and [url="http://duelistgroundz.com/index.php?showforum=379"]here[/url]. You can also play on Dueling Network,) determine which current cards are actually broken and what gameplay styles are problems, then make "balanced" cards that don't do what the broken ones do, but can keep up with the current stuff.

[b]#2: Don't make cards meant for OTKs/ easy alt win conditions[/b]
The goal of winning at Yu-Gi-Oh! is to reduce your opponent's Life Points to 0. Therefore, cards made with the intent to First/One-Turn-Kills or enable easy alternate win conditions like Exodia are bad for the game.

First/One-Turn-Kills ignore player interaction and make it a one player game.

Alternate win conditions defeat the game's purpose of Life Points altogether.

[b]#3: Don't make support for existing OTKs[/b]
Goes with #2. We don't need more cards to help Exodia and Final Countdown. It doesn't matter if Konami made them. The Created Cards sections (especially Realistic and Written) are not Konami, and as such, we should understand common sense and know that intentiona.

[b]#4: Not EVERY card needs a drawback[/b]
This goes with #1. Not EVERY card needs a drawback. Adding a "Discard 1" or "Pay 1000 LP" doesn't "balance" Bull Blader. Maybe in 2005, but this is 2012, where 7 year olds can throw 8000-10000 damage on the board turn 1 with their weekly allowance. A Level 4, 2000 beater with no drawback isn't exactly insane. If anything, it's anti-meta. It gets over cards like Rai-Oh, Snowman Eater, and Geargiarmor. I'm not seeing the problem here.

The more drawbacks you slap on a card, the more it sucks. And, if it needs so many (2-3+), you probably shouldn't make it.

[b]#5: Rule of [x] ATK/DEF is crap[/b]
Goes with #4. On the Yugioh wiki, there are articles on Rule of [x] ATK/DEF which imply that monsters of certain Levels can only have a certain amount of ATK/DEF before they need a debilitating drawback. This is not a real rule. Now, I'm not saying that we should make Level 4, 3000 ATK vanillas, a 2-material Rank 4 with 2601 ATK to make Pearl useless, or a Level 1-4, 4000-5000 DEFer. What I'm saying is that making a Level 3 with 1800-1850 ATK, or a Level 4 with 2100 ATK, or a Level 4 with 3000 DEF without drawbacks isn't exactly ridiculous, especially if it's a standalone card. There's a lot more to the game than ATK/DEF.

Furthermore, I'm willing to argue that a Level 5-6, 2700 vanilla beater isn't necessarily a bad thing. Konami has proven they are willing to push aside the Level 6, 2500 Summoned Skull and Level 5, 2500 Cyber-Tech Alligator for the Level 6, 2600 Frostosaurus, so what's the damage in making a Level 5, 2700 Evil Death-Worshipping YCMaker besides having a topic with no discussion because there's nothing much to say about vanillas?

That's all I have for now.
[/quote]

I think it's spam to quote someone without extra comments, but I can't agree with this more. +rep Btw, if I am spamming then sorry. Still though, I agree with this completely.

[Shinobi Phoenix]

[quote name='American Machismo!!!!!' timestamp='1354237999' post='6081324']
Thoughts on card design.

[b]#1: Do your homework[/b]
Look at the current popular cards/decks in the game (we have a TCG section, or you can check out DuelistGroundz TCG sections [url="http://duelistgroundz.com/index.php?showforum=536"]here[/url], [url="http://duelistgroundz.com/index.php?showforum=540"]here[/url], and [url="http://duelistgroundz.com/index.php?showforum=379"]here[/url]. You can also play on Dueling Network,) determine which current cards are actually broken and what gameplay styles are problems, then make "balanced" cards that don't do what the broken ones do, but can keep up with the current stuff.


[b]#3: Don't make support for existing OTKs[/b]
Goes with #2. We don't need more cards to help Exodia and Final Countdown. It doesn't matter if Konami made them. The Created Cards sections (especially Realistic and Written) are not Konami, and as such, we should understand common sense and know that intentiona.

[color=#ff0000][i](*All other text has been truncated*)[/i][/color]

[/quote]


I agree with the other statements, but not your reasoning behind #1. That's a far more subjective method. "Popular" changes by the hour and I notice older players don't complain or think about cards in such a way as everything younger players refer to as "broken". For example, people referring to an overused card as broken, whether it's actually powerful or whether it's simply useful (which happens to a lot of simple cards now made). Doing your research I feel IS important (I have Konami's new Card Database on quick bookmark as well as Shriek OCG blog and of course YGO Wiki) for understanding grammar applications when needing to adapt ones' own work (because if you do something different, you still need a good blueprint to expand on), but suggesting we should just go around and use so-called popular sites to dedicate to someone what is good because they say it is (opinions change like people change brands of toilet paper) isn't teaching people to think for themselves and make cards they wish to make and THEN balance them from there.

That should be what we're doing in the end, teaching someone to think for themselves, be educated enough to be able to make their case regardless of outside opinions, but humble enough to accept advice (not change it because someone told them they should mind you, we're all here to learn). Don't make someone to fit someone else's fears and prejudices, we have enough of that in real life.



On #3: Let's not invite discussions of arrogance and belief that any fan should be or is better than Konami, especially when most of that is fueled by personal bias (much like people after the Election whining because "they" didn't win). Plus Konami can change the game at whelm while we keep just arguing with each other about what should and should not be done based on what Konami themselves haven't done. Sort of puts a wrench in the we're better than Konami discussion then.

Plus, while making cards support existing Win-Conditions (subjectively) be seen as a bad idea (it really depends), making cards to improve (so-called) bad cards tends to get just as ignored because people don't seem to want to show interest in cards they didn't get the time of day in the first place, so what are we really improving except existing cards that already win with different names slapped on. For example: For a contest on a forum I was judge on, before it started and people needed to get ideas together, I gave a few out to help people's Decks (after all, i wasn't playing- this was a contest where people actually DUELED with their cards), one of them was for [b][url="http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/Magic_Chronicle"]Magic Chronicle[/url][/b] as one of the members wanted to make that card useful. It was a noble idea, so I made a monster to that needed it. I ended up liking the idea I gave him and kept in my files for myself. Even made a proxy for it. [b]This [u]IS[/u] the sort of thing that should be promoted.[/b] I just fear how people treat such creativity around here.


---------------------------------------------------

Anyway, now to give an actual suggestion of my own:

A game that I played with friends on my original forum as an ongoing COMMUNITY exercise:

It's called "[b]Fix a Card - 3 Words or Less[/b]".

It's based on the idea and notice that many cards in the game can be improved, ruined or changed drastically with the addition or removal of a mere 3 words (some cases, a single word). Through this, we not only had to research cards, but learn the grammar as well as the power of subtle changes to invoke desired effects and nerfs (not to mention proper write card text). To make the game fair, interesting and constructive, we created rules that have eventually evolved into these:

[quote]Rules:

--- Effects Only, you may not change any of the stats, including ATK or DEF, Star Level, Main-Type (Atttribute), Sub-Type (Type), or Archtype (Unofficially known as "Subtype") or Mechanic of the Magic or Trap card (as in Quick-Play, Counter, Etc). You may however change the effect to alter the stats if possible.

--- You may erase or remove up to 7 words from the effect text as desired, but an exception can be made if a word would need to be removed to make the sentence proper for game-mechanics or proper English.

--- However, you may only change or add in up to 3 not including if you need to add a monster's name to an effect text. Those are freebies. All together with the previous rule, up to 10 words of the effect text may be changed.

--- Also, feel free to change Fusion and Synchro Materials, those are freebies as well as it would be a crock to waste "change slots" on those.

--- Out of fairness, certain phrases used normally in the game will count as only ONE word, especially when changing condition or how to pay a cost. This includes "Once per turn," "removed from play" and any of the official terms that are more than one word such as "Draw Phase."

--- Try to keep the nature of the original card intact.

--- Finally, improve the card, but use discretion, especially with amount changes. No changing Pot of Greed to "draw 5 cards."[/quote]


Please remember much of these rules and even some of my examples were written before even 5D's was under way, so anyone playing would be reflecting current day-changes.


For example a few of my fixes were:


"[b][url="http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/Cannon_Soldier_MK-2"]Cannon Soldier MK-2[/url][/b] (OCG: Megacannon Soldier):
You can Release 1 monster to inflict 1000 damage to your opponent.

[i]Notes: Amazon Archer is an EARTH/Warrior with 500 less ATK but almost the EXACT SAME effect. Difference? MK-2 is a Level 5. Why do I need to waste a monster or a card to summon this thing JUST to inflict a mere 300 more damage than a VERY old card that I can just slap down?"[/i]

- Incidentally, I'm still not sure anyone would use it unless someone made an OTK and thus ruined any of the fun of it (just like Mass Driver getting banned pre-Worlds for ONE SINGLE DECK in a scare).


"[b][url="http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/Chaos_Command_Magician"]Necklace of Command[/url][/b]:
When a monster you control that's equipped with this card is destroyed by battle[s], and this card is sent to the Graveyard[/s], you can either:
* Draw [u][b]2[/b][/u] cards, OR
* Discard [u][b]2[/b][/u] random cards from your opponent's hand."


- Removing "sent to the Graveyard" (again, one [u]standard[/u] phrase = 1 word), changing the amounts of return makes it 3 words. Now it would be more worthwhile to run the card as your opponent would be more relucant to kill it in battle and you would likely ram the monster into something to trigger the effect (riskier and worth the reward if successful, adding to the balance). Your opponent upon seeing it is still more likely to blow it up, so the actually occurance of triggering is less and usually up to tactics of the user. not waiting for actions of the opponent to react to.


I have a lot of fun with this game as an exercise as well as getting ideas for cards (among other exercises I use for making ideas). I think it would be interesting here.

[.Rai]

http://forum.yugiohcardmaker.net/topic/290524-realistic-cards-the-dilemma-the-solution-the-community/

[Mehmani]

The fact that no one (myself included, it has to be said) commented on .Rai's excellently worded proposal disappoints me deeply. We need more essays like this.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

[quote name='Mihails Tāls' timestamp='1354364512' post='6082252']
The fact that no one (myself included, it has to be said) commented on .Rai's excellently worded proposal disappoints me deeply. We need more essays like this.
[/quote]

Hey, Opal kinda brought this up in a club when the thread came out. I gave my opinion there, but I'll do so again.

[D.A._Sakuyamon]

Ehh, I would apply for the mod thing but I move sites to much. Also, I'm most likely not the most qualified to do the job anyways.

[Catterjune]

The problem with the entire CC community is that they're completely ignorant to the idea that a person can come onto the site, be bad, and stay bad forever with no improvement whatsoever.

I know you all wanna be optimists and the like but honestly, it's never gonna happen and thinking otherwise just damages the entire board as a whole.

Proposed Solution #1: Change the names of forums and move them around.

I'd probably combine Pop-Culture and Any Other into one section, take all the good cards out of Pop Culture and Any Other and move them to realistic, and then change the sections into something like "beginner" and "advanced" only probably not sounding so fruity.

Proposed Solution #2: A card planning subforum

Here people could shoot of vague, half formed ideas. "I wanna make an archetype loosely based on chess." "I wanna make a good Senet archetype" and people would give quick one sentence answers. "The phrase is 'banished' now, not 'removed from the game'."

Proposed Solution #3: The advance clause is stupid and needs either a massive rehaul or to be abolished.

The problem with the advance clause is that it implies typing a lot and knowing what you're talking about are synonymous. They're not. Sure, cutting down on "Great! 9/10!" is commendable but sometimes you just don't need that many fucking words to get your point across.

if it were up to me, the advanced clause would be based on who posted. First post can be tl;dr, second post can be shorter, third can be shorter, fourth and beyond are fine with just a sentence or two.


tl;dr - You can't teach people who don't wanna learn. Either segregate the bad people from the good, set up ways to improve the bad, or make it easier for the good to ignore the bad.

[Sora1499]

[quote name='Hatcher' timestamp='1354422159' post='6082917']
The problem with the entire CC community is that they're completely ignorant to the idea that a person can come onto the site, be bad, and stay bad forever with no improvement whatsoever.

I know you all wanna be optimists and the like but honestly, it's never gonna happen and thinking otherwise just damages the entire board as a whole.

Proposed Solution #1: Change the names of forums and move them around.

I'd probably combine Pop-Culture and Any Other into one section, take all the good cards out of Pop Culture and Any Other and move them to realistic, and then change the sections into something like "beginner" and "advanced" only probably not sounding so fruity.

Proposed Solution #2: A card planning subforum

Here people could shoot of vague, half formed ideas. "I wanna make an archetype loosely based on chess." "I wanna make a good Senet archetype" and people would give quick one sentence answers. "The phrase is 'banished' now, not 'removed from the game'."

Proposed Solution #3: The advance clause is stupid and needs either a massive rehaul or to be abolished.

The problem with the advance clause is that it implies typing a lot and knowing what you're talking about are synonymous. They're not. Sure, cutting down on "Great! 9/10!" is commendable but sometimes you just don't need that many f***ing words to get your point across.

if it were up to me, the advanced clause would be based on who posted. First post can be tl;dr, second post can be shorter, third can be shorter, fourth and beyond are fine with just a sentence or two.


tl;dr - You can't teach people who don't wanna learn. Either segregate the bad people from the good, set up ways to improve the bad, or make it easier for the good to ignore the bad.
[/quote]

1. If we separate the "bad" from the "good", how can the "bad" get any better? The community will just stagnate at the supply of members we already have, instead of grow, and I for one would like to see it grow. We need to focus on rounding up the crop of new "bad" members and make them better so that we have more "good" ones. Then, more people will move to CC because there will be more cool and interesting cards available to review, which in turn will further grow the community.

2. The card planning subforum of which you speak already exists, and I'd say it's doing pretty well.

3. I do agree that the Advanced Clause needs work, but the problem with changing it from a required word count to something like a required standard for quality is a shaky and controversial idea at its best. The problem with quality is that it's entirely relative, and making an absolute standard for it is extremely difficult without depending on arbitrary decisions from an authority figure. Who's determining the standard for quality? The mods, presumably. So basically any reviewer who posts is entirely at the mercy of the mods' decisions. You guys are quite capable of what you're doing, but I don't think CC needs to delve into a dictator-esque state. Word count presents a fixed, easy to follow standard for reviews. The problem with it is that it deters people from posting and that there are quite a few loopholes around it.

[Sleepy]

From a personal point of view:
I used to be a regular RC member, but haven't been around for a long time, although I occationally come up here to check.
It's really a vicious cycle:
-You try to comment, and sometimes, the thread owner doesn't fix the pointed issues, neither does he/she ever respond saying why he/she thinks it's not wrong. Sometimes not just applying to card makers. An example: I got to reply to Ragnarok's posts several times in the past back in the day, and never did I get a counterargument. On the contrary, he just "corrected" the same mistakes at other threads.
-You try to post a card with a fair amount of thought behind it, then no comments happen.
^That said, the insentive to stick around kinda fades away.

Well that aside... visiting the section and finding this thread kinda exites me. I'll at least stick around and see what happens.


I wanted to point out, back in 2008 (when I joined), there WAS a specific and helpful OCG place. I don't remember if it was a sticky or what, but it had a huge list of terms.

I could try to reply a "terms" sheet though I'm not sure if there might be one already. Gotta see what all the stickies are.

EDIT:
[url="http://forum.yugiohcardmaker.net/topic/293716-about-ocg/#entry6083021"]http://forum.yugiohc...g/#entry6083021[/url]

If it doesn't solve too much, it at least helps a bit in some way.

[Mehmani]

[quote name='Hatcher' timestamp='1354422159' post='6082917']
The problem with the entire CC community is that they're completely ignorant to the idea that a person can come onto the site, be bad, and stay bad forever with no improvement whatsoever.

I know you all wanna be optimists and the like but honestly, it's never gonna happen and thinking otherwise just damages the entire board as a whole.

Proposed Solution #1: Change the names of forums and move them around.

I'd probably combine Pop-Culture and Any Other into one section, take all the good cards out of Pop Culture and Any Other and move them to realistic, and then change the sections into something like "beginner" and "advanced" only probably not sounding so fruity.

Proposed Solution #2: A card planning subforum

Here people could shoot of vague, half formed ideas. "I wanna make an archetype loosely based on chess." "I wanna make a good Senet archetype" and people would give quick one sentence answers. "The phrase is 'banished' now, not 'removed from the game'."

Proposed Solution #3: The advance clause is stupid and needs either a massive rehaul or to be abolished.

The problem with the advance clause is that it implies typing a lot and knowing what you're talking about are synonymous. They're not. Sure, cutting down on "Great! 9/10!" is commendable but sometimes you just don't need that many f***ing words to get your point across.

if it were up to me, the advanced clause would be based on who posted. First post can be tl;dr, second post can be shorter, third can be shorter, fourth and beyond are fine with just a sentence or two.


tl;dr - You can't teach people who don't wanna learn. Either segregate the bad people from the good, set up ways to improve the bad, or make it easier for the good to ignore the bad.
[/quote]

Your problem, a problem that I think stems from the very nature of spending time in the TCG section, is that you (and almost everyone else, with some notable exceptions) have a mild inferiority complex towards everyone who isn't knowledgeable about the game. This is characterized by a general impatience towards anyone who doesn't adapt very quickly. The truth is, you, me and absolutely everyone on this forum was as some point bad at the game. Yet you learned, as did I. Observe:

http://forum.yugiohcardmaker.net/topic/60085-my-first-set-the-golden-generation/#entry1386842
http://forum.yugiohcardmaker.net/topic/83049-rate-my-naruto-cards/#entry1400564

As I look back on those, I cannot tell you how ashamed I feel. However, at the same time, it's rather funny. I guess the point is "Look at me now." See how much I've changed. Your second solution has already been done through the "Card Concepts Discussion Thread." It's an excellent idea, which is probably why I thought of it as well. With regards to the section dilemma, I am going to wait until CC's democratically elected moderator joins me, so as to have a second opinion and someone else to bounce ideas off. As for the Advanced Clause - I would love to make it as complex as the UN Convention on Human Rights and add loads of sub-clauses full of detailed rules that do, in theory, produce results. The reason I have made it so simple is because I tried to make it complex last time and it failed.

[Aerion Brightflame]

I say there is nothing wrong with being Optimistic when it comes to this. If we thought that there are people who aren't going to improve, why would we even bother helping in the first place. Yes we will run into people who refuse or just can't get any better, but we will deal with them when we encounter them. Everyone on the site will have been improved in some section or another, be it the Card Makers, the Graphics artists, or the people who post in CW. If people are willing to be helpful, then there is at least a chance they can improve.

The advandced clause as it is isn't perfect, but its still a better start than anything before it. Cutting out on the 3 word posts already encourages the better card makers to post again, becuase it is just annoying to recieve. And whilst yes it could be made better, I for one think the actually content should be checked, so that it isn't a rant of the same thing over and over. But a simple solution is still a solution.

[Catterjune]

[quote]If we separate the "bad" from the "good", how can the "bad" get any better?[/quote]
No one said anything about making the bad get any better. The topic title says "Realistic Cards [...] how can we make our section better?" It doesn't say anything about making people better card makers.

[quote]The card planning subforum of which you speak already exists, and I'd say it's doing pretty well.[/quote]
You mean written cards? I'm not refering to that. I'm refering to an actual subsection where you can plan stuff in and get feedback for small things.

[quote]I do agree that the Advanced Clause needs work, but the problem with changing it from a required word count to something like a required standard for quality is a shaky and controversial idea at its best.[/quote]
The only forum that has a "required word count for comments" is Role Playing, and at least that makes sense because you're working your art there with someone else. To say it's "shaky and controversial" is to have complete ignorance of the forum outside of this section.

[quote]Who's determining the standard for quality? The mods, presumably. So basically any reviewer who posts is entirely at the mercy of the mods' decisions. You guys are quite capable of what you're doing, but I don't think CC needs to delve into a dictator-esque state. Word count presents a fixed, easy to follow standard for reviews. The problem with it is that it deters people from posting and that there are quite a few loopholes around it. [/quote]
I can understand the cards themselves needing some kind of quality control, but the comments after it most certainly do not. There's no minimum word count for comments on a fanfic and no minimum word count for comments in design. You're just holding yourselves to some ridiculous standard for no reason.

[quote]Your problem, a problem that I think stems from the very nature of spending time in the TCG section, is that you (and almost everyone else, with some notable exceptions) have a mild inferiority complex towards everyone who isn't knowledgeable about the game. This is characterized by a general impatience towards anyone who doesn't adapt very quickly. The truth is, you, me and absolutely everyone on this forum was as some point bad at the game. Yet you learned, as did I[/quote]
Your Mister Therapist speech is cute and all, but not only is it grossly innaccurate and even if it were true has little to know bearing on this conversation.

"We shouldn't listen to you because you have an inferiority complex towards people you think are bad at the game!"

Piss off.
[quote]Your second solution has already been done through the "Card Concepts Discussion Thread."[/quote]
I didn't say "make a thread". I said "make a subsection".

[quote]As for the Advanced Clause - I would love to make it as complex as the UN Convention on Human Rights and add loads of sub-clauses full of detailed rules that do, in theory, produce results. The reason I have made it so simple is because I tried to make it complex last time and it failed.[/quote]
I never said to make it complex. I said to reform it.

For an Englishman, you're terrible at the language you invented.

[quote]I say there is nothing wrong with being Optimistic when it comes to this. If we thought that there are people who aren't going to improve, why would we even bother helping in the first place. Yes we will run into people who refuse or just can't get any better, but we will deal with them when we encounter them.[/quote]
Fascinating.

For the people who you claim "refuse or just can't get any better", how exactly do you "deal with them"? How do you decide when someone's refused, or at what point do you realize they can't get any better? Is any level of "bettering" themself acceptable? What if the rate is exceptionally slow?

tl;dr - The problem with CC isn't that your standards are too low. It's that your standards are too high. Talk like friggin' normal people and you'll see people are way more likely to remember what you say, especially newcomers.

[Agro]

I suddenly want to say Hatcher for CC mod and shift the nominations to TCG.


[quote name='Mihails Tāls' timestamp='1354462238' post='6083224']
Your problem, a problem that I think stems from the very nature of spending time in the TCG section, is that you (and almost everyone else, with some notable exceptions) have a mild inferiority complex towards everyone who isn't knowledgeable about the game. This is characterized by a general impatience towards anyone who doesn't adapt very quickly. The truth is, you, me and absolutely everyone on this forum was as some point bad at the game. Yet you learned, as did I.
[/quote]As far as I know, Hatcher doesn't really pay attention much to the game, and certainly doesn't act in the way you're suggesting she does. Actually, that sounds downright insulting.

I also support the idea of a planning section for cards. It's done wonders for the Creative Writing section.

[Mehmani]

[quote name='Hatcher' timestamp='1354508658' post='6083892']
No one said anything about making the bad get any better. The topic title says "Realistic Cards [...] how can we make our section better?" It doesn't say anything about making people better card makers.

[b]Aye, there's the rub - if this section has better cardmakers, then better reviewers and critics will come here. If that happens, it becomes a better section. That's pretty easy to understand, and it's something I have based all of my policies on here.[/b]

You mean written cards? I'm not refering to that. I'm refering to an actual subsection where you can plan stuff in and get feedback for small things.
[b]Look at how much activity there is in the Card Concepts Discussion Thread. Forty posts in slightly over two weeks. That's active, but not active enough to warrant an entire sub-forum. It would be less active than debates, and that got removed. One another note, "referring" has two 'r's. I'm awfully terrible at "my" language (a fusion of Anglo-Saxon, Early German and Latin, three languages that were first formulated over a thousand years before my birth), aren't I?[/b]

I can understand the cards themselves needing some kind of quality control, but the comments after it most certainly do not. There's no minimum word count for comments on a fanfic and no minimum word count for comments in design. You're just holding yourselves to some ridiculous standard for no reason.
[b]Really? How about you have a look at the comments before the Advanced Clause was introduced. Look at the links I posted where I dubiously "reviewed" a set of ill-advised Naruto cards, not to mention everyone else's conduct in my own punctuation mark-ridden "LOLLLLL GOD CARDZ" thread. You can say what you like about the Advanced Clause, but you cannot deny that it has changed the culture of commenting in RC for the better. There are now far more comments on viability than there previously were. I consider that, along with growing activity, to be a success.[/b]

Your Mister Therapist speech is cute and all, but not only is it grossly innaccurate and even if it were true has little to know bearing on this conversation.

"We shouldn't listen to you because you have an inferiority complex towards people you think are bad at the game!"

Piss off.
[b]Oh, it means quite a lot. I remember rather vividly how people who were bad at the game were constantly mocked until they improved, rather like "Jocks" bullying the weaker kids until they got too big to mess with. That doesn't mean I dislike it - if anything, it got results. However, it probably drove out quite a few people through the mere fear of posting something wrong. I often abstained from posting because I thought I'd get ripped to pieces by people who disagreed with me. The whole culture of "Terrible, next", which you quite happily propagated, is an example of unproductive the section could, at times, be. The Advanced Clause stops "Terrible, next" or anything similar from ever occurring. It makes people explain why a card is "Terrible, next", which means that the person who made the card actually receives constructive criticism. It also means that everyone who doesn't know (and who might have just gone along with that smart member at the front who posted "Terrible, next", hey, he looks cool and he looks down on other people for being ignorant, let's agree with him and make our egos inflate a little) will learn from that comment. And when the resource of knowledge is pooled, the community bears fruit for all to see. Oh, sorry, I'll dumb that down for you, the same way I removed my old vocal quirk of using the pronoun "one", a totally harmless trait that merely comes from having a parent who teaches "the language one, sorry, I invented". I removed it because some people in the mod forum thought it was pompous and blah-blah-blah, so I rather considerately capitulated to your quite unreasonable demands. But hey, we're off on a tangent here. That's not particularly relevant, but what's wrong with being open about mod relationships in public?[/b]

I didn't say "make a thread". I said "make a subsection".
[b]Answered in the first paragraph.[/b]

I never said to make it complex. I said to reform it.
[b]You know, if you had the knowledge that comes from trying out different incarnations of the AC over the period of year, maybe you would understand that anything more complex than something extremely, extremely simple simply does not work.[/b]

For an Englishman, you're terrible at the language you invented.
[b]Don't be such a bloody wanker In case that needs to be spelled out, I am making a joke by pandering to a commonly considering manner of speech that foreigners pigeonhole us into.[/b]

Fascinating.

For the people who you claim "refuse or just can't get any better", how exactly do you "deal with them"? How do you decide when someone's refused, or at what point do you realize they can't get any better? Is any level of "bettering" themself acceptable? What if the rate is exceptionally slow?
[b]Then we persevere. Every person is different and they mature at different rates. Like cheese, or wine. If they are just posting bad cards or ill-informed comments, that doesn't bother me. They aren't breaking any rules. It's when they flood, spam or break the Advanced Clause consistently that we may be forced to take action. Unless they really are a poison on the community, the same way Ragnarok was, I shall remain patient and care for them. Eventually they'll be bludgeoned with the same message of "IMPROVE" so frequently that they will do just that. That's what happened to me, although at a far slower rate because the quality of criticism was lower. The AC makes it higher, therefore bad card-makers get better faster.[/b]

tl;dr - The problem with CC isn't that your standards are too low. It's that your standards are too high. Talk like friggin' normal people and you'll see people are way more likely to remember what you say, especially newcomers.
[b]Be populist and everything will be alright, essentially. I'm surprised someone of your remarkable intellect isn't a government advisor across the pond. Although if you were, it would probably explain a lot.[/b]
[/quote]

[Sora1499]

@the both of you
We really shouldn't be sitting here arguing over who's the bigger hypocrite when there's work to be done. You're both mods of astounding intellect with different ideals, end of discussion. I'd like to know if Hatcher has any ideas on how to improve CC, as she's made her opinions rather vocal.

[Synchronized]

So this is something I went into a bit of detail about in my CC Mod application, but I seriously think the idea or concept of bringing back relevant contests is something that would definitely give the section an incredible boost. Something like "Diamond in the Rough", the Contest Series that used to be held every couple of months that offered big prizes like Name Changes, significant amounts of points, and/or other things, always attracted a ton of members and I think it was a big part of getting the community active with one another.

I came up with a "Power Series" idea, just because it clicked honestly, that would be a series of contests that focused on different game elements to get people more familiar with what its like to design "Realistic" cards. I'm not sure if anyone's got any comments on the idea and whatnot, and if I were to get the Modship I'd definitely go into it further, but just leaving this here to maybe get some feedback on the idea.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

TBH Neo, it seems some of our ideas are just different ways of doing the same thing. Heck, I'm going to leave this here for people to look at. It's basically the general idea of what I'm planning with my proposed Contest Series. I do have a more detailed place, but I want to see if you guys like the general concept first. Mind you that the content in the spoiler was made in September, so thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.

[spoiler=So, I'll leave this here instead.]
[b][font=Arial][size=4][background=transparent]Every week, a Championship Series Contest would be held. Anyone can enter a CS Contest, even if they haven’t entered one before. Each contest would go from Sunday to Friday, with judging and score revealing happening that Saturday. The winner of each contest would receive 10 CS points, second would receive 8 points, third would receive 6 points, fourth would receive 4 points, and fifth would receive 2 points (plus any other prize that would be offered such as regular points and likes). Their points would then be added to their overall CS point total. During the last CS Contest, the top 5 people with the most CS points would compete in a final contest to determine the champion for that series. The champion shall receive a large prize that includes points, likes, and a logo. The CS would be held about every 3 months, but this is still up for consideration. At the end of each year; however, the individual CS champions would meet in yet another contest to decide the year’s champion.[/spoiler][/background][/size][/font][/b]

[Synchronized]

Just another thing I've been throwing around after I noticed .Leo mention it, definitely doing [i]something[/i] with Finished Cards/Sets would be a good idea. Whether it's a Custom Version of Your Deck, which really would only make sense with Duel Portal or another program being more relevant, or a "Concepts Discussion" section, I think it should have some improvement. As it is, it's just sitting there and something "New" in that sense might be an additional bonus for people who may not be the best card maker can get some advice and ideas.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

We had a CC Your Deck before, but I think there wasn't that much activity. I do think we should at least give it another test run. And, I think it would be a good idea to have a Concept forum, like Creative Writing.

[Not-so-Radiant Arin]

[quote name='- Neo -' timestamp='1355461426' post='6092716']
Just another thing I've been throwing around after I noticed .Leo mention it, definitely doing [i]something[/i] with Finished Cards/Sets would be a good idea. Whether it's a Custom Version of Your Deck, which really would only make sense with Duel Portal or another program being more relevant, or a "Concepts Discussion" section, I think it should have some improvement. As it is, it's just sitting there and something "New" in that sense might be an additional bonus for people who may not be the best card maker can get some advice and ideas.
[/quote]

Except right now, Duel Portal sucks.

[Synchronized]

[quote name='みゆきサン' timestamp='1355461831' post='6092724']
Except right now, Duel Portal sucks.
[/quote]

I'm aware, but I'm not suggesting we implement this overnight. I'm just saying Custom Cards is really the one section of the site that didn't get a re-haul when Pika got the Admin thing to work. Sections like TCG and Creative Commons actually feel refreshed and new thanks to some small differences. CC has been the same for so many years, changing it up, condensing it, and even adding a new mod (whoever that may be) will all be steps in the right direction. After all, the purpose of the site is Card Making, but it feels like the CC Section is like five steps behind the rest of the site.

Just my honest opinion.

[I Hate Snatch Steal]

I will be honest, the advance clause word count requirement keeps me from reviewing stuff [s]more[/s] basically at all. (Yes I know numeric rating posts are bad, but I think that we will get more activity in the forum if we get rid of the advance clause and deal with spammers, however you define them, on a moderating basis). I just feel that I am playing with fire whenever I would review something, so I don't do it.

edit: I've been in this game and making cards for it for 6 years, and I've had even games using my created cards agains Glads, HEROs, and many others over the years. I'd love to share my knowledge, but I won't do it under pressure from the advance clause.

[Zazubat]

I will be honest, the advance clause word count requirement keeps me from reviewing stuff more basically at all. (Yes I know numeric rating posts are bad, but I think that we will get more activity in the forum if we get rid of the advance clause and deal with spammers, however you define them, on a moderating basis). I just feel that I am playing with fire whenever I would review something, so I don't do it.

edit: I've been in this game and making cards for it for 6 years, and I've had even games using my created cards agains Glads, HEROs, and many others over the years. I'd love to share my knowledge, but I won't do it under pressure from the advance clause.

This should really be in the AC comments & suggestions thread instead of here. I see what you mean, sometimes there is not much to a card, and I can't explain that he shouldn't be making a such generic card without also breaking the AC. I think there should be an execption to this so you can explain that to people.

 

EDIT: We should have certain rule saying that any Normal Monster that does not in some way support an other card should not be here also.

[edda0199]

I think, what we can do is try our best do our things better, o-O

Of course, we should use the right way!