My take on the FE tasks - disclaimer - I will be harsh
I also agree with OTs comment about no one designing a system that can conform well to an ever growing card base.
- You didn't really look to deeply into any changes - you changed the location of the vote button - an aesthetic change having no real impact.
Having decks connected to the ideas isn't bad - but you added it more as an afterthought - something optional that a 'deckbuilder' can do if they choose. Either way it leaves little impact.
More than anything - this is basically a maintain the status quo suggestion.
- weighted voting is something I've suggested myself - unfortunately it has its own problems. You also based in on member rank - which is based on post count. This can create an issue where people make meaningless posts to quickly increase their post count so that they may have an extra vote - though certainly it may help a little to even out voting trends. You also mention an expert panel but fail to mention what exactly it does - I wish you would've expanded here.
You also mention a mechanics comparison being required. - This is certainly useful for balancing purposes and would help to ensure better crucible submissions - but it has no real impact on voting. Another issue is when a truly unique mechanic appears that is difficult or even impossible to find a relevant match to compare it to.
- Crucible - No art is something that has been previously suggested and something I personally am fond of. Your second point falters though - cost is directly related to balance, in this sense you seem to be saying: "balance aside, is the idea worth pursuing." This is something that should be taken care of in the Smithy long before it reaches the crucible. Also, balance is important at every level.
Forge - nothing changed: Balance is still important at every step.
Armor - Unfortunately, armory serves as nothing more than a holding tank for now - I had hoped for some suggestions regarding the armory itself.
- The idea of requiring others to submit your cards to crucible is interesting - and I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on it. I worry about how it would play out though. There could very easily be confusion about who's submitting what. There's also the possibility of a card being submitted before the original designer intends for it to be so.
The idea of an expert panel is not new - it's been discussed on multiple occasions - however the CIA is community driven - sure the experts are community members as well - but I worry about the impact of a double vote - particularly when vote rates are typically low.
I disagree heavily with the last point - more directed at the second part of it. I have constantly seen and experienced ebb and flow with some ideas. An idea may be 1 vote behind proceeding one week and then receive little or no votes the next. This is the issue of fresh submissions tending to heavier popularity. On the other hand - the opposite happens at time too. For example - a card of mine - desecration - sat in the death polls for over a year scraping by with just enough votes not to be archived each week - then suddenly it exploded and was moved up. Voting trends are not so predictable as to set such a threshold.
- I tried to stay out of this for the most part - though I did make several suggestions. I'm happy to see a submission that tries to pull away from the current vote based system. I don't dislike the idea of a continuous system based on average score - but your aim was to balance the difference between new card hype and older ideas. Unfortunately I'm not convinced this will be quite as effective as anticipated. New ideas will be scored more frequently than older ideas. I also have an issue with the 10 point scale. A scale system means many different things to many different people. Someone who's light in their evaluations may score 10 for ideas they like and 1 for ideas they don't while a more serious scorer will be far more discerning. Averaging can help - but some more work needs to be done for this to be truly effective.
- I know you're trying to earn votes for the competition - but the whole layout of your submission was entirely unnecessary. You added a recap - but it detracts from how you feel things are. I feel like you spent more time focused on the brawl and less on the subject. Of course there's nothing wrong with that - this is the Forum Brawl after all - but this topic is of enormous importance to many of the CIA members and your attempt to decorate everything turned me away a bit.
All that aside though - you bring up several good things - some of which have been discussed. I'm going to point out a few things.
Card art and vote visibility are both suggestions that have risen before and are ones that I'm personally fond of. I digress a bit with the art though as I do feel it helps with theme exploration and feel it has a positive impact in some of the higher levels of voting.
I don't agree with unlimited voting - though I see where you come from. I feel as far as the current voting system goes - the number of votes allowed being based on the number of cards in the poll is effective.
The synergies and deck ideas certainly have a place in the topics themselves - and I feel both could be effective at better smithy to crucible control. But I'm unsure whether decks being part of the polls is a good thing. This has a possibility to lead straight back to your issue with art. If someone makes a deck for their idea that just isn't as great as it could be, it could be easily overshadowed by another that may show a card to be more desirable ignoring the cards impact on meta-game as a whole. In the same sense - a single deck is a poor indicator of an idea as a whole. Then of course the voting is supposed to be based on cards not decks.
Including additional information about a card in its vote bar is something simple and easily manageable that I very much like the idea of.
Not sure about the new division of polls - it has its own merits - but I'd like to hear a bit more of your thoughts on it.
Lastly, I disagree heavily with the poll limitations as well as bringing back archived ideas into polls to fill them in. There are several issues here. - As pointed out by OT - the card base is ever growing - limiting polls to a 5 cards maximum is bad. What are you going to do about incoming ideas? What about polls that would already contain more than 15 ideas (if they would)? What if one level is capped and a lower level needs to push ideas up?
The idea of bringing back archived ideas to fill in polls is altogether messy and you didn't give enough info on how it would work for it to be given consideration.
All in all I'm surprised that most people opted for the current voting system as well as the current tiers and vote layouts.
I feel like more could've been put into this overall.
Poll
