The MCC Discussion Thread

[Ryder]

@Caspernicus please try a different browser or a "PC version" if you tried it on a cellphone.

I'm taking a break from the contests now, need to work on my set.

The poll will run for a week, on Feb 7th I'll post the results.

[bravelion83]

@Caspernicus This is how I have always seen it from Chrome on a Windows pc:

Screenshot

Show

Hide

Have you tried simply writing your username and hitting next, not caring about all the rest of what you're seeing? Anyway, I believe that part where it asks your username is just to make sure people don't vote twice, the important part is the next page, the one with the six questions. Any way you find to get there is good. What matters is that you get there. Unfortunately, I also have zero experience with that site, so I can't give you more help than this. I wish it was a Google form... Try again, and if you still can't enter the survey site, please write me via pm and we'll go from there.

@Ryder I'm also working on several custom sets at once, you might have heard about my huge table. I manage to do both in parallel, but that's probably because I have too much free time (I'm not currently working, this is the life of a precarious teacher here in Italy, and trust me, it's not good). At any time you feel like taking part in a contest, you know where to go, and I will stay here. All the feedback we're collecting won't be wasted, don't worry. I'm taking it, and I'm not going anywhere. I have the results page constantly open in another tab, so I see the collective results as more people take the survey. I can already see trends forming, but I'm waiting until the survey ends to say more about that. In the meantime, thank you very much for hosting January and for your will to always test new things and push the boundaries. I'm the exact opposite, you know, and I believe that's why we worked together so well this month, as in our past work together: we balance each other perfectly. Looking forward to the next occasion to work with you again.

[Caspernicus]

@Ryder, @bravelion83
I still don't know what the problem is, as I opened it with my Lenovo (i.e. Microsoft) laptop in Chrome and its still giving me the same screen as before. Is there still a way for me to participate in the quiz?

[Ryder]

@Caspernicus You can always post here or in the thread I created.

[bravelion83]

@Caspernicus You can always post here or in the thread I created.

Yes, but then their answers would be public. I'll send @Caspernicus a pm with the six questions right now, also including Ryder, and they will send us their answers by replying to that pm. Then we add them to the results at the end of the poll.

EDIT - Done. @Caspernicus, you have a pm in your mail right now.

EDIT - I and Ryder have successfully received Caspernicus's answers via pm and they will be added to the results at the end of the poll. Thanks again to Caspernicus for the feedback.
I'm ready to do the same for everybody who might be unable to take the survey. Everybody, if you can't take the survey for any reason, just pm me and we'll do the same for you.

EDIT - There is no link yet pointing to the new thread Ryder made from here, so here it is. Feel free to provide feedback there, just don't mention the specific wording of the questions or how you voted yet. I'm writing updates there right now.

[Raptorchan]

February MCC Round 1 is here.

[haywire]

@Raptorchan for February round 1, how much scrutiny is going to be placed on "main or significant character" for the main challenge? I ask because, if I for example wanted to do doctor who, I'd argue that all of the main and significant characters (every doctor, every companion, every major villain) got cards printed already, and the set already established that it was fine for them to print legendary creatures that were "monsters of the week" or allies that showed up only a few times due to the nature of the IP. Would a card in line with that, a monster of the week or less significant ally be ok for the main challenge, as long as its justifiably legendary?

[Raptorchan]

@Raptorchan for February round 1, how much scrutiny is going to be placed on "main or significant character" for the main challenge? I ask because, if I for example wanted to do doctor who, I'd argue that all of the main and significant characters (every doctor, every companion, every major villain) got cards printed already, and the set already established that it was fine for them to print legendary creatures that were "monsters of the week" or allies that showed up only a few times due to the nature of the IP. Would a card in line with that, a monster of the week or less significant ally be ok for the main challenge, as long as its justifiably legendary?

It's fine for as long It's a legendary creature that has a name.
Also keep in mind, you are free to do another version of any already printed character.

[Freyleyes]

@Raptorchan , I also have a question related to the main challenge. I want to do Warhammer, and I want to do the Emperor. Does the character have to be in the current canon timeline of the lore, or can I create the character in an earlier point in the lore, i.e. in my case, the Emperor before the Horus Heresy, or should we stick with the current point in time of the story?

[Raptorchan]

@Raptorchan , I also have a question related to the main challenge. I want to do Warhammer, and I want to do the Emperor. Does the character have to be in the current canon timeline of the lore, or can I create the character in an earlier point in the lore, i.e. in my case, the Emperor before the Horus Heresy, or should we stick with the current point in time of the story?

Books and games about Horus Heresy where Emperor is alive and well are part of the Warhammer 40000 canon. You absolutely can use any version of him, let it be pre- or post-Heresy, in your design.

[Freyleyes]

Cheers mate, much appreciated!

[Ryder]

@shullz
@Yan_MTG
@netn10
@haywire
@KB52665
@kwanyeegor-ii
and whoever else might also be interested:

Please vote in the January MCC feedback poll! It will remain open for two more days.
Relevant links:
Round 1
Round 2
Round 3 (Versus)
Round 4 (Finals)

[haywire]

@Ryder just filled it out, and wanted to add a small addendum to my answer about the assigned colors in the versus round. I really like the concept, but it has to be approached carefully imo, since if the challenge is easier to accomplish with a given color than the opponent, that wouldn't be a great environment. For example, if the main or subchallenge was "gains life" or "uses mechanic from the newest set that was only in white and green", and the pairing is white vs blue or something lopsided with regards to the challenge, it wouldn't be a great experience. I think you did it well for January, but I scored it lower because I feel like it's very easy to do badly.

[Ryder]

January MCC feedback results are up!

[bravelion83]

Here is my spreadsheet that I had talked about, showing the results from Ryder's post in graphical form to visualize them better and also doing a very simple statistic analysis. My own votes are in bold.

MCC January feedback spreadsheet and graphics

Show

Hide

I can already tell you that I have already taken a few decisions for March (MKM month, I've been working on it since before the prerelease, it's taking a lot of work and you all will probably be able to tell once you see it all), based on these results and my own further tests in December (Round 3 pairings and Subchallenges with half goals in Round 4). Two of the changes we've tested on January will be back on March: Round 3 pairings depending on the scores from previous rounds, and the fast timing with the split weekend (I've already prepared the calendar). I can also say that on March there will be no Subchallenges comparing different submissions, a perfect score will always be possible for everyone. There will also be no default score set for the Main Challenge section or color assignments. I'll do the best I can about the difficulty of the sets of challenges for each round. Finally, I will try again my test for Subchallenges with multiple goals like I did in the final round for December, but only for Subchallenge 2 each round. Subchallenge 1 will always be a traditional one.

That's what I will do on March. I don't know what other hosts will do on April and onwards, but I already and heartly invite whoever they will be to keep these results in mind.

I had already written some comments to post after Ryder posted the results, so here they are:

My first comments

Show

Hide

First, the positive. I absolutely loved the Round 3 pairings depending on the sum of the scores from the previous rounds. I decided to try it in December as well and I'm very happy of how it went. It prizes contestants who did well in the previous rounds and makes the scores of the first two rounds actually matter, incentivizing players to do well since Round 1. Rounds 1 and 2 are no longer just about advancing to the next round, but who did better in those rounds matters now. You don't want to simply advance, but you want to advance with a good score to have a theoretically easier pairing in Round 3. I think it's a good way to add more competition in the early rounds. It's the only change among the ones we've tried in January that I would actually like to keep for real without any doubt.

I do NOT want to keep the way we've judged the Main Challenge section instead. I feel like 1/2 is too low for the default score there, and I'm one of the two authors of the current rubric, and specifically the one who wanted a section for the Main Challenge to be added (it wasn't there at all before), and I know what I wanted for that section. In my original thoughts, there was no default score for that section. Rather, I conceived it as any other section, where you start with the maximum score and apply deductions for eventual problems. I came up with the idea specifically to try to address those cases where the letter of the challenge was technically met, so no DQ, but the spirit of the challenge wasn't met, and that had to be penalized as well but we were lacking a place to do that as a judge, and that was supposed to be it.

Despite not being my original ideas for that section, I could see a 1.5 default with a +0.5 bonus for a creative approach to the Main Challenge, but I also think we've focused about that "creative approach" too much. Where does the line between a "creative approach" to the Main Challenge and "cheating" the Main Challenge stand? That's a very thin line in my opinion. What others might see as creativity in the approach to the challenge, I often see as actually breaking the rules of the challenge, though that might probably just be a consequence of me being a very in-the-box thinker who has trouble going outside the box and fails every time he tries.

Rounds 1 and 2 for January have also demonstrated to me from the point of view of a judge that this approach to judging Main Challenge is heavily dependent on the nature of the challenge: it might be good for Main Challenges that are a spectrum, but not so much for binary ones who are either fully met or not met at all, which is a DQ, so there is already a way to take care of players who don't meet the Main Challenge.

Also, there is a difference between creativity in the approach to the challenge and creativity in the design of the card, that belongs in Uniqueness and not Main Challenge in the rubric. It's often not easy to tell when it's one or the other. I think we have already a place to prize creativity, and that's Uniqueness. I don't think we have to prize creativity twice. That's already taken into account in the current rubric.

I also don't like Subchallenges depending on a comparison between submissions. Unlike the Round 3 pairings, I feel this adds competition in a bad way. As it's already been said, it's the nature of the players to want to meet all the challenges, and that makes it no longer possible. The Subchallenges turn from additional obstacles you can jump over if you want into hard walls that you no longer have full control over. I like players to have full control of whether they want to meet all the challenges and how, not them having to hope their opponent makes bad choices. Also, it prizes too much posting late, so that you see what your opponent(s) did. It creates a dynamic of each submission in chronological order of posting trying to go on top of each other, and I don't like that. Round 2 in January has made that evident: only the player with the highest mana value got the 1 point from the Subchallenge. Everybody is free to go back to look at the order the submissions were posted: if you start at the top of the thread and go down you will see the mana value constantly increasing, with just a couple exceptions. The pattern is there for everyone to see. I noticed it way before the judging phase began, as I was watching submissions coming in. It encouraged players to post as late as they could, and that's not good. I want players to post early instead and edit their submission later if they wish, at least they have a backup option if they don't manage to edit before the design deadline. That's exactly why I, as a player, always try to post as soon as I can, and then maybe adjust my submission post later. I wish every player did that.

As for the timing, to me having one weekend day for judging didn't matter as I'm currently unemployed and I have way too much free time, even though in the last weeks a lot of that went away to take care of the consequences of my father's death, but that's my own problem, not one about the MCC. I think the correct way to finish within the month, and what actually allowed us to do that for real on January, is through good deadline setting, management, and enforcement by the host, even though I felt really bad for the one DQ we had this month, and I'm sure it didn't feel good to the DQ'ed player either. We don't want to create bad feelings in the MCC, for no one involved, be it players, judges, or hosts.

It's good for judges to finish early, but not to make the month advance quicker, rather to allow some time for people to comment about the judgments if they wish before they are final, which happens with the judging deadline. We're just not used to it anymore because there are judges who are too often late in judgments, and that's not good for the contest. I'm not blaming anyone here, I'm just talking in general, and yes, I'm the first to say that real life always comes first (and the death of my father in December is the demonstration of that), but the judging deadline is there for a reason. Yes, as a host you're required to give an extension if asked, but after the extension, the contest should be able to move on. Again, that's the way to actually finish within the month, proper deadline management.

I also think that it should always be possible to meet all the challenges. That's one of the reasons I don't like the Subchallenges comparing submissions, as I've written above. But on the other hand, Subchallenges must have a meaning, and that implies that they shouldn't be automatic as I keep repeating often recently. They should be possible but at the same time difficult enough to be meaningful and not just an automatic 2 extra points to everyone. Still, you should have full control over your own choices, so it should only depend on you whether you get the additional points or not, it shouldn't depend on choices your opponents make. Again, I've already talked about this above, so I won't repeat myself.

Here instead is why I voted the way I did for each question:

Leo's answers explained

Show

Hide

Q1: Was a 1/2 default score in the Main Challenge an improvement?

2/5 - I can understand why we did it, and that's why this wasn't a 1. But I also don't think it's an improvement, even though I'm absolutely open to improve my original ideas for the section that I wanted myself to be added to the rubric. This just wasn't the correct way to do it in my opinion. 1/2 is too low as a default. I could see a 1.5/2 as a default with a +0.5 bonus for creative approach, but I also think we already have a place to prize creativity, and that's Uniqueness. I fully agree with Ryder's final comment:

I'd say 2/2 as default may be good enough if we start considering the spirit of the challenge on a regular basis.

Q2: Were the new Versus Round pairings (Top vs Bottom) an improvement?

5/5 - By far the most successful among the tests we ran this month, together with the fast timing. This simple and single idea did two things at once: it made the scores from Rounds 1 and 2 actually matter behind just advancing to the next round, and it introduced more competition in the first two rounds in a good and healthy way. As I actually posted December Round 3 after Ryder posted January Round 3 (blame my father's death for that), I thought to try it in my own December MCC as well, and I feel like it was also a big success there. I'd be ready to add this to the guidelines document as the recommended way for hosts to do Round 3 right here and right now. Again, I fully agree with Ryder's final comment:

This came out as one of the successful experiments. It gave meaning to the first two rounds, where it's relatively easy to advance (place in the top 80% or 75% of your brackets). I hope for it to become the new standard.

I hope too. In the meantime, I will definitely bring this back in March for my MKM month for another test round. It will be the third test. If it's successful again, I'd seriously consider adding this to the guidelines, though that's not my own decision. It must be the whole community's decision, and also approved by the moderator. We'll see, but I, for one, will certainly keep this in mind.


Q3: Did you enjoy the relatively hard and narrow Main Challenges this month?

3/5 - I feel pretty neutral on this one, so I gave it the middle rating. I think it's good to have a rotation of different hosting styles in the MCC. This month was hard and narrow, other months will be easier and broader, and having some variety here is the way to go in my opinion. Again, I agree with Ryder's final comment when he says that:

The host can never satisfy everyone, but diversity is great in this case. Host a month yourselves!

Q4: Did you enjoy the "relative to other players" or "meta" Subchallenges?

1/5 - No doubts here. I just hated it, and it felt really bad from a judge's point of view to have to say to players that they didn't get a point because somebody else did. At the contrary of the Round 3 pairings, I feel like this introduces competition in a bad and unhealthy way. A perfect score should always be achievable, and as a player only you should be in control of your own score. This idea manages to go against both those goals at once. It wasn't a good idea in my opinion, at all. I honestly hope we just don't do this again in the future. This was a mistake, and you know how the saying goes: "learn from your mistakes". This month we've learned that this idea doesn't work. Let's remember it for the future, because repeating mistakes you've already done is not good. Again, I agree when Ryder says that this was:

A complete failure (...) Here it rewarded late submissions and it got one player DQ'd. (...) It wasn't fun though.

Q5: Did you enjoy color assignments in the Versus Round?

2/5 - I feel like this could be a good idea, but where it failed was this specific execution. As a host, you have to make sure that in Round 3 the two players who end up in the same pairing get treated equally, even though you can treat players who are in different pairings differently. If I were the host this month, I would have assigned the same color to each pair of players, while assigning different colors to the different pairings: for example, player A vs. player B both had to design a white card, player C vs. player D both had to design a blue card, and player E vs. player F both had to design a black card. If not using all five colors plus colorless is a problem, a possible improvement on this idea is giving each pair of players a choice between two colors, but both players in the same pairing have the same choice: player A vs. player B both have to design a white and/or blue card, player C vs. player D both have to design a black and/or red card, and player E vs. player F both have to design a green or colorless card.

I find Ryder's observation here very interesting though, and worth of further thoughts and discussion:

Most of the time, the differentiation between later submissions comes from dependencies on previous cards. This offers a way to break that pattern.

This is true in every round if you think about that, and I had never thought about it before. I think that to address this we would need blind submissions as well, but does anybody have other ideas about potential ways to break the pattern here?


Q6: Was the time format of this month's contest (4d Design, 3d Judging, split weekend) comfortable?

5/5 - Also with no doubts. This is how an MCC is supposed to work, ending within the month or at most a few days into the next one, and this is how it used to work once even though now it feels like a dream. I've brought this specific point up myself several times before, and I have also tried it several times before as a host, but I had never managed to do it. It turns out all that was needed was a co-worker who also shared my thoughts on this point. I and Ryder had a shared goal here. He wanted to make it happen, and I wanted to show everyone here that it CAN be done for real. We both reached our goals.

We made it! January MCC actually ended in January. The split weekend is what I consider the true winning formula
Most of us have busy working days, and having a Saturday or a Sunday (especially as a judge!) was a saving grace.

As for me, I think that proper deadline setting, management, and enforcement is the key to do this more than the split weekends, though I can announce that the fast timing, including split weekends, will also be back on March for another test round.

I think this is all from me as far as feedback for January is concerned. I thank Ryder for hosting this month, and everybody else who has given feedback. As I said, I will keep this feedback in mind for my own future MCC months. I hope other hosts do as well.

[void_nothing]

I agree with bravelion on most or all of those points and if I have more to say I will do so later, but for now I intend to finish February's round 1 judging tomorrow.

[Raptorchan]

Round 2 is up

[Komandon]

Would an event that is know for its title but not have a place or character name be meeting the subchallege? Such as the title of a chapter of a book. There and Back Again while not an event was a Saga in the MTG set. Would that count? (I'm not recycling a name from the set just an example.)

[Raptorchan]

Would an event that is know for its title but not have a place or character name be meeting the subchallege? Such as the title of a chapter of a book. There and Back Again while not an event was a Saga in the MTG set. Would that count? (I'm not recycling a name from the set just an example.)

I said that personal names can belong to objects. Book is an object, so the title of a book retold as a Saga counts.

[Raptorchan]

@netn10 you better reread clarifications for main challenge if you don't want to be DQed.

[Komandon]

Saturday 11:59 when it's due. If I need a day extension am I allowed to ask for one? A lot happening offline.

[bravelion83]

Saturday 11:59 when it's due. If I need a day extension am I allowed to ask for one? A lot happening offline.

Answering as author of the guidelines document. A player or judge can always ask for a time extension, and it's the host's duty to grant it according to the guidelines. The guidelines don't set any duration for the extension, but 24 hours is usual practice. After that, no more extensions can be granted and the contest must move on.

[void_nothing]

Kaer Morhen Defend Itself 2WW
Enchantment Battle - Saga War (Mythic)
(You defend your Wars. As this Saga enters and after your draw step, add a lore counter. If it's defeated, exile it, then put it onto the battlefield under your control transformed to the bad ending.)
Each opponent must attack Kaer Morhen Defend Itself each turn if able.
I — Create three 1/1 white Witcher creature tokens with prowess and ward 1.
II — For each Witcher creature you control, destroy up to one target creature with power 3 or greater.
III — Exile this Saga, then cast it transformed to the good ending.
{3}
///
Ruins of Kaer Morhen
(Bad Ending) Land (Mythic)
T: Add C.
T: You draw a card for each opponent you have and each opponent draws a card.
///
Kaer Morhen Have Prevailed
(Good Ending) (W) Sorcery (Mythic)
Put a +1/+1 counter, an indestructible counter and an hexproof counter on each Witcher creature you control.

Yup, as Raptorchan said, unfortunately this challenge calls for single-faced Sagas.

[netn10]

Thanks Raptorchan and void_nothing, I'll change my card. I appreciate your comments.

[Raptorchan]

Saturday 11:59 when it's due. If I need a day extension am I allowed to ask for one? A lot happening offline.

Fine, I can add one day.
If in need, please tag the host (me) in the post.