MTGNexus

I am not going to speak for other contest hosts, or cast aspersions on their choices (again, I think a lot of this can be settled with a poll after the month is complete), but I don't want people to think that mind games are necessary. When I have hosted I have always set challenges and subchallenges with the idea that a perfect 25/25 card is out there. Is it likely that it will be submitted? Definitely not. Do I pick subchallenges that will deliberately push people into uncomfortable territory? Yes, especially in later rounds. I certainly sometimes notice people making a worse overall card just to earn the subchallenge point, which is generally a mistake, but I view there as being a big difference between creating a narrow tightrope (a set of challenges that could lead to disaster if you're not careful) and creating a rope that can't bear weight (a set of challenges that I cannot realistically imagine being fulfilled). The former is fun, like a minigolf course that tempts you into taking the risky path over the bunker, while the latter is not, like a windmill that is designed to just spit your ball into the water hazard even if you do make it past the blades.

Subject16 wrote: ↑

4 months ago

Should we be expecting subchallenges of a similar type going forward? Do we now have to play mind games with the judges?

On February and afterwards, that's no to both, that's for sure. As for the last round of January, I don't know what challenges Ryder has planned so I can't tell.

slimytrout wrote: ↑

4 months ago

When I have hosted I have always set challenges and subchallenges with the idea that a perfect 25/25 card is out there.

Me too, and I will continue to do so.

slimytrout wrote: ↑

4 months ago

Do I pick subchallenges that will deliberately push people into uncomfortable territory? Yes, especially in later rounds.

Same again, and I will continue to do this as well on the months I host.

slimytrout wrote: ↑

4 months ago

I certainly sometimes notice people making a worse overall card just to earn the subchallenge point, which is generally a mistake

That's a very true point that I think many people should remember. I've seen that too, and relatively often.

bravelion83 wrote: ↑

4 months ago

Subject16 wrote: ↑

4 months ago

Should we be expecting subchallenges of a similar type going forward? Do we now have to play mind games with the judges?

On February and afterwards, that's no to both, that's for sure.

Isn't that dependent on the host? I mean unless you mean to host every MCC from February until the end of days

I'll have more to say after the design time of Round 4 is over. It shall be posted soon, btw.

I was counting on whoever the host will be in February to go in a different direction, and I'm planning to host myself on March for the MKM month, and as I have already a vague idea of what I want that month to be, I know I will not do it again in March. It's good for each host to have their own style and have a rotation of different kinds of months in the MCC. I can't tell about April and afterwards, but I thought it was obvious that I meant for the foreseeable future, and that's a bit too far to be "foreseeable" now.

I also have a lot to say after the final round of January is over. Being involved directly as a judge gave me a direct experience of what I think has worked well in our experiment for the month and what has worked less well. But we'll talk more about that after the MCC month is officially over.

@Raptorchan had expressed a possible interest in hosting February and making it Universes Beyond Month. I'm okay with that and of course hosts can come up with challenges at their discretion but if this is done, then my advice is still to stick to UB settings that have already been released (so actually discounting Fallout, because that's not coming out until March).

If Raptorchan can't or doesn't want to host in February, I will do so, and of course they can host a later month. bravelion's traditional set-themed month was in my mental calendar but now we may as well make it official!

void_nothing wrote: ↑

4 months ago

@Raptorchan had expressed a possible interest in hosting February and making it Universes Beyond Month.

Yes, I remembered that, but I didn't know whether it was actually official yet, and still don't by the way. Official confirmation by either you or Raptorchan themselves would be nice.

void_nothing wrote: ↑

4 months ago

bravelion's traditional set-themed month was in my mental calendar but now we may as well make it official!

Yes, absolutely. March will be my MKM month. You all know the schedule by now:

September for the fall set coming out the same month if we have enough info by the beginning of the month as we usually do (like Wilds of Eldraine last year and Bloomburrow this year),
December for the one that comes out in November (like The Lost Caverns of Ixalan last year and Duskmourn this year),
March for the set coming out in late January/early February (like Murders at Karlov Manor this year),
June for the set that comes out in May (like Outlaws of Thunder Junction this year).

The same months that I also host the DCC. I think it's established by now, and I have all the intentions to go on like this. I like it, and I enjoy it. What more could I ask for?

First. I should apologize. I opened a can of worms with my confusion and then explaining why I designed it that way.

I do have a request if you don't mind @Ryder. Just in this part. "(2/3) Flavor - Can't help myself thinking it's a name and the card is missing the Legendary supertype." When I make a card (even the daily challenges or when I do the mini games) I do research partly out of habit and partly due to something I rather not say due to it being personal. Why was the name so bad and what seems like I'm marked down for not being legendary? I don't know if I was marked down for that I take things literally due another thing I wish to not say and I get confused. Just hard to explain.
The reason I'm a prior reply I said it's a bad name is I didn't know the card Akki Rockspeaker existed until after the results. And I did Stonespeaker. I use different websites (not just magic nor the just the name part. Sites related to STEM, mythology, history, philosophy, etc) and the official companion app for research. So for the name I looked at the wiki on goblins and the speaker part Prophetic Flamespeaker but when I think of flames I think of quickness. The Stone part I thought it akin to reading runes or other kinds of soothsayer such as scapulamancy (reading bones)
Please if you answer this only this part. The flavor. I did enough damage and discord by my last reply and I'm very sorry for that.

A question for all judges. I can't find the DM so I guess I never clicked sent to @void_nothing his thread viewtopic.php?t=23703 that's in the general not the contest area. Would it be ok if I waited a month/30 days to post an entry that wanted to explain my reasoning. I messed up here by saying the reasoning for the Jan 3rd round. I have entries with one main one in mind from the past that I wanted to get community feedback. But I know how inappropriate it would be anywhere in the contest area and I again see the damage I caused. It was honestly out of confusion.

I am fine with hosting February as UB month, although I have a slightly different idea - only a limited number of settings (because that's already surprisingly a lot) will be available - because I am afraid that I am, as a judge, not versed in lore of Fortnite, Transformers, Assassin's Creed and Stranger Things at all - and some settings are too narrow (Princess Bride) to include them. In other hand, we can include some additional settings as "potential" UB themes - if both judges are versed in them enough. How's that?
Guess I will post a judge sugnup thread in the next 24 hours.
The final decision about what to include is going to be discussed with a willing judge personally.

@Komandon I understand and appreciate the effort you took to craft the name. Flavor category is, however, entirely subjective. The name is part of it, but also the whole card, as complex as it was, screamed to me "legendary". I could be biased because of Subject16's legend that was really well done, but it in the end if was just my gut feeling, Akki Stonespeaker did not resonate with me.

@Raptorchan wins December. Congratulations! The next time I'll be hosting is for MKM in March. I hope you all are ready to solve some mysteries.

Komandon wrote: ↑

4 months ago

A question for all judges. I can't find the DM so I guess I never clicked sent to @void_nothing his thread viewtopic.php?t=23703 that's in the general not the contest area. Would it be ok if I waited a month/30 days to post an entry that wanted to explain my reasoning. I messed up here by saying the reasoning for the Jan 3rd round. I have entries with one main one in mind from the past that I wanted to get community feedback. But I know how inappropriate it would be anywhere in the contest area and I again see the damage I caused. It was honestly out of confusion.

I can try to answer for the two contests I'm involved with: the MCC and the DCC.

In the MCC, if you want to explain your reasoning behind a card you designed, which I have done multiple times myself, the best thing would be to wait until you're eliminated or when the month is over, but you can also do it after the round that you posted the card in is over and the judgments for that round are final. That's unless you're appealing your own card's judgment, in thich case you have to do it during judgments before the judging deadline for the round. If you're appealing another player's card, please do so via pm to the judge and not here, but still within the judging deadline for the round.

In the DCC, you can just do it on the next day in the DCC discussion thread, or if it's not too long even in your submission post, possibly in spoiler tags. The DCC is much more relaxed as a contest, both about extra content in the submission post and in the way of judging, it's just a peer system. If you want more details about the DCC, I would advise you to ask in the DCC discussion thread and not here.

@Ryder, I had a few questions regarding the 4th round of January's MCC:

1. Can we outline the combo in addition to supplying the cards? Or is the combo suppose to be evident just by reading the cards themselves?
2. Are you judging each card individually, or are you judging the combo? And if the latter, how will the current MCC rubric be transferred?

Caspernicus wrote: ↑

4 months ago

@Ryder, I had a few questions regarding the 4th round of January's MCC:

1. Can we outline the combo in addition to supplying the cards? Or is the combo suppose to be evident just by reading the cards themselves?
2. Are you judging each card individually, or are you judging the combo? And if the latter, how will the current MCC rubric be transferred?

1. Nope, we (the judges) need to be able to tell how the combo functions just by reading the cards.
2. The combo itself will be judged in the Main Challenge section. Every other section will refer to both of your cards, they will be considered both separately and as a whole.

Ryder wrote: ↑

4 months ago

Every other section will refer to both of your cards, they will be considered both separately and as a whole.

Just as a clarification, as always in the case of an MCC round asking for multiple cards (which should be a rare thing anyway, but we hadn't had one in a while), the judgment is still a single one taking into account all the cards together. There will NOT be a judgment for each single card, but all cards will be judged together in a single judgment, taking each of them into account into each area of the rubric. Again, this is the ordinary way things work in the case the Main Challenge asks for more than one card, nothing unusual. The only thing specific to this round is the combo itself being judged under Main Challenge, but that's the only thing out of the ordinary for this kind of rounds.

For the balance section/rating the cards/combo in a play environment, is the assumption that the cards are in the same set for the purposes of limited? Do we need to design the cards with the idea that they're from the same set?

bravelion83 wrote: ↑

4 months ago

@Raptorchan wins December. Congratulations! The next time I'll be hosting is for MKM in March. I hope you all are ready to solve some mysteries.

Komandon wrote: ↑

4 months ago

A question for all judges. I can't find the DM so I guess I never clicked sent to @void_nothing his thread viewtopic.php?t=23703 that's in the general not the contest area. Would it be ok if I waited a month/30 days to post an entry that wanted to explain my reasoning. I messed up here by saying the reasoning for the Jan 3rd round. I have entries with one main one in mind from the past that I wanted to get community feedback. But I know how inappropriate it would be anywhere in the contest area and I again see the damage I caused. It was honestly out of confusion.

I can try to answer for the two contests I'm involved with: the MCC and the DCC.

In the MCC, if you want to explain your reasoning behind a card you designed, which I have done multiple times myself, the best thing would be to wait until you're eliminated or when the month is over, but you can also do it after the round that you posted the card in is over and the judgments for that round are final. That's unless you're appealing your own card's judgment, in thich case you have to do it during judgments before the judging deadline for the round. If you're appealing another player's card, please do so via pm to the judge and not here, but still within the judging deadline for the round.

In the DCC, you can just do it on the next day in the DCC discussion thread, or if it's not too long even in your submission post, possibly in spoiler tags. The DCC is much more relaxed as a contest, both about extra content in the submission post and in the way of judging, it's just a peer system. If you want more details about the DCC, I would advise you to ask in the DCC discussion thread and not here.

For feedback on an older one where would be appropriate. I think the main one I wanted to explain is from November. But possible community feedback.

I don't understand DCC so I didn't do that much. Am I allowed to add a similar card that I did in MCC? And I know in MCC and CLL I can't explain in the post itself. I'm assuming that is the same for DCC. Such as "I make this cost **** because these two similar cards combined" (no card I made is like that. It's just a quick example)

Komandon wrote: ↑

4 months ago

And I know in MCC and CLL I can't explain in the post itself. I'm assuming that is the same for DCC. Such as "I make this cost **** because these two similar cards combined" (no card I made is like that. It's just a quick example)

Actually, only in the MCC is explaining your card disallowed. In the CCL, and the DCC too, I believe, one can explain their card. (This is assuming I understood what you mean here correctly.)

void_nothing wrote: ↑

5 months ago

Note that the CCL doesn't actually have a rule against including text other than card text in entry posts.

Correct. Only the MCC has such a rule. The CCL and DCC allow extra text.

Komandon wrote: ↑

4 months ago

For feedback on an older one where would be appropriate. I think the main one I wanted to explain is from November. But possible community feedback.

Which contest was your November card for? If it was the MCC, I think right here in this thread would be fine. If it was another contest, that contest's discussion thread instead.

I don't understand DCC so I didn't do that much. Am I allowed to add a similar card that I did in MCC?

In the DCC, you make a card each day, any card you want with no challenges or requirements. Literally any card you want. Say today you post a card in today's DCC thread. Tomorrow your card will be voted by other contestants, and the day after tomorrow you will see the results of the vote and how well your card did. Now imagine to do this every day, and you've got how the DCC works. The things you have to remember are to go in the correct thread for the day (each day has its own thread with the date in the thread title) and to vote yourself for exactly two of the cards that are up for voting today (which are the cards designed yesterday, and that you can find in each day's OP). Any kind of extra content in the submission post is allowed, including explanations for the very same card you're posting. If it's long, it's good to put the explanation within spoiler tags. That's all. I participate every day in the DCC and I host the DCC once every three months, so feel free to take a look at my own posts there to get a feeling for what the DCC is and how it works. If you want to discuss points specifically about the DCC, I invite you to do so in the DCC discussion thread rather than here.

And I know in MCC and CLL I can't explain in the post itself. I'm assuming that is the same for DCC.

No. Only in the MCC you can't. In both the CCL and the DCC you absolutely can.

Such as "I make this cost **** because these two similar cards combined" (no card I made is like that. It's just a quick example)

That would be perfectly fine in the CCL or the DCC. The MCC is the only place you can't do that.

bravelion83 wrote: ↑

4 months ago

There is synergy between the cards, but it's not a game-winning combo. The "each opponent loses 1 life" part can only happen once per turn under ordinary circumstance and can't be iterated because nothing untaps the Geode. Sorry.

I think there is a game-winning combo. Undercover Agent's etb trigger allows the geode to become untapped, which lets you start the loop again.

The loop that I see is:
1 - Tap the Flickering Geode flickering Private Saboteur/Undercover Agent.
2 - Private Saboteur dies on reentry, triggering itself and returning under an opponent's control as Undercover Agent.
3 - Undercover Agent's etb triggers, tapping down an untapped permanent and untapping the geode. (And there will always be an available untapped permanent in the form of itself)
4 - Private Saboteur's etb resolves and each opponent loses 1.
5 - Repeat step 1

Unless there's something I've misread/misunderstood about the cards, there is a combo here and it shouldn't get a DQ.

Yeah, looking at the cards, Subject16's reading is 100% correct. The only thing that's required is any opponent controlling any permanent able to be targeted, and I'm assuming we get to assume they control lands.

Yeah we had a discussion about the cards with Leo and we both missed it initially. Subject16 is absolutely correct though and there will be no DQ this round.

Yes, no problem. We both missed that the Agent enters "under an opponent's control", which is the key piece that makes everything work. We didn't see anything that could untap the Geode, having read the Agent as if it didn't have those words I've just put into quotation marks. I caught it while writing one of my usual lenghty explanations including all the rules details that made the interaction NOT work to put under the Main Challenge section of the rubric, only to realize that those words ARE there, and so the interaction DOES work. I pm'ed Ryder as soon as I realized it. He hadn't noticed either, as he mentioned himself here, so we unmade our intention of DQ. Caspernicus will not only NOT be DQ'ed, but they will also be prized for this, at least in the Main Challenge section. That lengthy explanation will still be there in the final judgment, but modified accordingly. I'll take care of that tomorrow. In the meantime, I've removed that part from my judgment post, and you all please pretend that I never wrote it. It was an unintended lie. I apologize to everybody for the inconvenience. No guarantees, but I'll try to finish my judgments within tomorrow night.

EDIT - And yes, I've managed to do exactly that. I've finished within tonight. Here they are. It feels really nice to be technically done with writing judgments for the month and there is still one day left in that same month... also a little strange, it hadn't happened to me in a while! But yes, it can be done. We were used to it once, now not anymore. It's just a matter of regaining the habit.
I hope you all also enjoy how deep I go in explaining the technical rules details of the combos in the Main Challenge section. It was certainly a lot of fun to write those for a huge rules and templating fan/nerd like me!

Lol Leo, from a player's perspective, I'd love to get as extensive of a card review as you do. I'm nowhere close. Thanks for cooperating this month!

All hail @Subject16, champion of this year's first MCC! Well played all.

I will put up a poll with a few questions regarding this month's experiments tomorrow.

EDIT: Actually... It's up already! https://q653tbmqq.supersurvey.com

Ryder wrote: ↑

4 months ago

Lol Leo, from a player's perspective, I'd love to get as extensive of a card review as you do. I'm nowhere close. Thanks for cooperating this month!

No problem, it's been a pleasure! And you should know me from our past work together, I'm still the same person I was back then. That's what you get when you put together a person who just loves both writing and Magic. It's just who I am. I wouldn't be myself if I wrote one-line judgments, or anything one-line actually. You all can like it or not, but that's who I am and I am proud of it. And about you getting such a review for a card of yours, all it takes is for you to play in a month when I'm hosting and/or judging and for you to end up in my bracket! I don't think it would be too hard if you wanted it!

Now I'll go and check out that survey you made. In the next days, I will post my own thoughts and feedback from the point of view of both a judge and a "cooperator", as you said yourself. I just need the time to put it all together, and rest assured that post will not be short either... you all know me by now. Especially you.

EDIT - Ok, I have voted in the survey, and after seeing the questions, which are exactly the ones I would have asked myself, no more and no less, I will definitely wait until the survey is over to post my thoughts and feedback, as I don't want to influence the results. I will also reveal how I voted after the survey is over, explaining why I voted that way for that specific question, because I have reasons to vote how I did for each single one of them.

I heartly invite everyone who cares about the MCC, and especially whoever has been involved in the January MCC, to take that survey. If you care about the MCC, it's important that you speak right now. It's just six questions each asking for a rating from 1 to 5, very quick and easy to do, but I really think the results will be very helpful for the future of the contest.

@Ryder How long will that survey be open? When does it close?

EDIT - Added the link to the survey to my signature to make it more visible. We need all the feedback we can get.

@Ryder,
Maybe I'm just not used to supersurvey, but the survey doesn't appear to be working, at least for me. None of the buttons worked for me, so I couldn't answer any questions. Attached is a picture of the screen I'm stuck on when I open it:
Also, @Ryder and @bravelion83, thanks for the incredible feedback this last round! I had a lot of fun making the cards (can you tell I'm a Johnny?), and I'm sorry the combo wasn't easily recognizable! Believe me, it was initially more complicated. But either way, I had a lot of fun. Can't wait for February!