New concepts = failure

[ZephyrPhantom]

I honestly still dislike the whole reps thing because then we not necessarily be getting a public opinion, and some people might be put off by the fact they can no longer freely vote.

Yeah, this, as I've said, would be a con for sure.

So we stand static; interacting cards shall continue to fail.

I'm not trying to deter you from implementing the system, I just want to find the best method.  Don't get me wrong - the reps system is well planned-  I personally just don't like it.

However, after rereading a few posts, I think I have an idea. Why not give the reps "weighed" votes? (aka their votes count as 2-3 votes depending on number of cards).  That way the public could still vote, but the reps will ultimatley have more power when it comes to deciding cards.

[Ajit]

I honestly still dislike the whole reps thing because then we not necessarily be getting a public opinion, and some people might be put off by the fact they can no longer freely vote.

Yeah, this, as I've said, would be a con for sure.

So we stand static; interacting cards shall continue to fail.

I'm not trying to deter you from implementing the system, I just want to find the best method.  Don't get me wrong - the reps system is well planned-  I personally just don't like it.

However, after rereading a few posts, I think I have an idea. Why not give the reps "weighed" votes? (aka their votes count as 2-3 votes depending on number of cards).  That way the public could still vote, but the reps will ultimatley have more power when it comes to deciding cards.

Yes I like this solution muchos, as QuantumT has thought quite a similar solution with the 50/50 split vote.

[OldTrees]

I do not like the Reps voting even the weighted versions. However I also do not like popular voting.

I think as long as the Reps are selected and have only weighted votes then it may be an improvement.

Just to be clear. I would be unwilling to be or to trust a rep that was not appointed by election. (I don't like meritocracies)
In addition, I would be unwilling to be in or trust a group of reps that did not disagree with each other frequently. (I don't like groups of yes men)

[Uppercut]

Just to be clear. I would be unwilling to be or to trust a rep that was not appointed by election. (I don't like meritocracies)

Not to politicize this point or this thread, but wtf? If anything someone doing something because they've earned it makes a Hell of a lot more sense than someone getting a position because some under qualified people deemed so. While not really comparable, could you imagine if any random bum could be a dentist without meeting strict qualifications? I'd rather have someone who understands dentistry do my dental work. I'd also rather have someone who understands card games to make decisions relating to what cards seem well enough designed and balanced enough to make it. The problem is I don't trust anyone on this forum enough to have enough knowledge about card games to do that.

[OldTrees]

Just to be clear. I would be unwilling to be or to trust a rep that was not appointed by election. (I don't like meritocracies)

Not to politicize this point or this thread, but wtf? If anything someone doing something because they've earned it makes a Hell of a lot more sense than someone getting a position because some under qualified people deemed so. While not really comparable, could you imagine if any random bum could be a dentist without meeting strict qualifications? I'd rather have someone who understands dentistry do my dental work. I'd also rather have someone who understands card games to make decisions relating to what cards seem well enough designed and balanced enough to make it. The problem is I don't trust anyone on this forum enough to have enough knowledge about card games to do that.

Because static meritocracies are prone to problem 2 (the yes men problem). The yes men problem is significant because over time the theories and opinions it holds tend to breed errors. Meritocracies have their place like private business decisions but should not substitute for when the opinion of the masses is the important factor(design for the consumer). That is why I feel that a meritocracy would be worse than a popular voting system in this case. Also elections allow fresh blood to enter the pool and spread their ideas.

[az4rel]

we could aways get a theocracy ,
or maybe the reps could have a group of people chosen to fulfill some kind of role,
that to avoid the "yes men" and they could rotate thorough those roles.
but this would be need having a debate each time, and it would seem too difficult.
so just ignore this post lol  ???

[Bieber4Ever98]

New concepts  =/=  New status


In my opinion people are already satisfied by the number of status in the game. They are looking for simple new cards with new abilities.

The solution to the problem would be making a new thread for introducing new statuses alone.

[Rutarete]

In my opinion people are already satisfied by the number of status in the game. They are looking for simple new cards with new abilities.

Satisfaction This is a major point in every game. is it good enough as is it? does it need something new?
Satisfaction is the key to a game's continual success.
I realize now that my friend doesn't reject my ideas merely because of dislike of them or their radical-ness, but because he's happy with Elements as it is. This is why New concepts often = failure. By adding such variety, even with already-existing mechanics, we (the community) are imbalancing Satisfaction.

[EmeraldTiger]

I will put this here also http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,19940.0.html

[Werdbooty]

This is the whole reason I added the "Deja Vu" ability to my Will-o'-the-Wisp. (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,18926.0.html) I noticed early on that new mechanics, for some reason, don't get the vote. I figured if I wanted my Wisp's "Entrance" mechanic to make it into the game, I should make the card as close to pre-existing cards as I could.

People are comfortable with familiarity. And I think it's just easier for folks to imagine the card in action if they already know what it can do.

[Ajit]

This is the whole reason I added the "Deja Vu" ability to my Will-o'-the-Wisp. (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,18926.0.html) I noticed early on that new mechanics, for some reason, don't get the vote. I figured if I wanted my Wisp's "Entrance" mechanic to make it into the game, I should make the card as close to pre-existing cards as I could.

People are comfortable with familiarity. And I think it's just easier for folks to imagine the card in action if they already know what it can do.

Very well put.  Its a shame that in order for a card to do well it has to settle for an ability already in game

[Uppercut]

I've never gotten anything past Smithy but I think its more because I don't ever have art. I think in general my ideas stand well enough on their own even when trying something new.