Your Opinion Is Needed

[Jyiber]

So how do you judge and rate ideas posted in the CI&A section? I'm trying to gather other people thought's about how card ideas should be best done for my own reasons as well as for the benefit of others. This applies to others and yourself. Please contribute.

This is mostly about mechanics, I've always felt that art is completely separated judgement system that come after the idea. I never care about posted art unless it's extremely good, and then I'll ask you why you aren't getting paid. But I digress.

There are a few ways I go about rating mechanics and here are my criteria:

   1) Has to be at least partially original (I can see the same mechanic used 10 times and be fine with it if it's implemented uniquely)
   2) Has to be written clearly. Occasionally a idea is too complicated to convey in easy terms and it doesn't work because of that. Even if I understand what it means, it has to ring with the truth of the saying "simplicity is genius".
   3)  I ask myself how many synergies and strategies it can fit into. Why add a boring isolated card?


Where do I think people go wrong?

They get stuck on only creating original ideas and none of them are particularly interesting or relative to the currant game flow. Yeah it might create a unique synergy, but where does it fit into the currant strategies of Rush, Stall, and Control? In that element or any duo it'd go with? Then I sometimes I see a idea that's just too wordy or uses too much math. It comes down to "Could I see this in the game now?"

[Drake_XIV]

1- Is it wordy? Is the effect complex?

Nothing turns me off to a card if it fills the entire text area with a bunch of specific clauses.  I personally would like to try to keep effects vague.

2- Is it original?

We've had so many card ideas submitted.  Despite that, we still get a flow of new ideas, be they of original design or a twist on a pre-existing idea.  If the idea gets approval, it should be bring something new to the table instead of reusing in-game mechanics.

3- Can this card be abused to easily with current popular/obvious mechanics.

Due to lack of cards that do make it into the game, card ideas should be made with the in-game cards in mind since this is the card pool they will be interacting with.

One of the first things to consider if it's a creature is Fractal.  Can this creature cheap and easily fractalled?  Does it have a trigger/ETB effect that would be troublesome en masse?

Aside from that, for other cheap things, it's kind of important that how easily can it be added to a Rainbow deck.  Some effects aren't used as a general utility spell and would probably like to be seen in a more versatile manner...

4- Is it worth playing?

On the opposite end of the spectrum of being abused is if it worth using at all.  When comparing it to the current card pool, your ideas shouldn't overshadow current ones.  Nor should they be overshadowed by current ideas.  And there should be some enticement to actually use the ability in itself.

There's no point in making an idea if there is no one who would use it.

5- Is this card in the right element?

One of the things I do judge on is thematics.  Yes, a card may be element-shifted to prevent abuse or to make it more viable with another combo, but did it do so by sacrificing theme?

Honestly, theme plays a very minor role in card design and it is a pain to find an appropriate one for your mechanic if you didn't base the effect on the theme.  But it is still part of card design.

6- How is the name?

Very little to do with the mechanics, but the entirety of card design is not the mechanic.  As stated above, theme is part of it.  And a theme is only conveyed well by a proper name.

We must remember that Elements is a fantasy-style CCG, so anything too modern or science-y immediately sounds out of place.  While some names are technically correct, I feel there is some lenience needed in naming it in order to get things to fit as long as the theme isn't stretched too far to make it relevant.

Also, Elements is a relatively simple game.  As such, I feel that the naming of cards should be kept with brevity in mind.  Something short that delivers impact without sacrificing the theme, but still descriptive enough to convey the theme.

[timetock]

how am I supposed to give opinions in such well-thought posts/points?
agreed. I see new cards all the time and I'm like "ehhh... maybe.. maybe not..."

and people always question the thematics, the cost.. and yes fractal does get mentioned a lot. maybe fractal breaks the game :|.

[Rutarete]

Since you're asking about how we rate ideas and not cards, I agree art is a separate thing.

I form my opinion through only a few big things:

1) Is it original?
2) Is there a connection between the thematics and mechanics?

It's not that I avoid an idea if it's unoriginal, but I tend to be more excited about an idea if it is.
After those two sometimes come these 'sub' details - this often includes for me 1) Has it been done before? (Meaning a concrete post to link to exists) and 2) Is it balanced?

So unlike drake and likely many others, I don't rely on so many facets of the idea to 'rate' it, (I'd just say 'have an opinion about it'). I don't need much to form an opinion. Now, if I'm judging ideas, then I bet I'd be looking at a lot more deliberately. I think I find that if I'm making an idea, I try to fit in much of what Jyi and Drake have already said, rather than when just commenting on another idea.

[Captain Scibra]

My first pet peeve of CI&A is if the card is thematic.  Like if vampires found their way into Life, it would fail.

Second is balance and mechanical belonging to the chosen element, including strength relevant to similar ideas (does the magnitude mean strength, efficiency, or a healthy balance of both?).  Compare cards like Rain of Fire and Thunderstorm.  This I important, but not stressed initially until it were to be submitted.

Third would be reasoning why the element deserves this card.  This isn't crucial, but it stresses if the game is really ready for the mechanic as well.  Typically, it challenges the meta at hand, like if it can be countered with reasonable means according to elemental themes, or if it is just another card we have plenty of the mechanic until the general card base is larger.

A smaller point would be more personal, but is the designer considering all options and suggestions?  Is at least a small explanation said for disregarding or accepting suggested changes?

how am I supposed to give opinions in such well-thought posts/points?
agreed. I see new cards all the time and I'm like "ehhh... maybe.. maybe not..."

and people always question the thematics, the cost.. and yes fractal does get mentioned a lot. maybe fractal breaks the game :|.

Fractal is fine.  It just stresses that we pay attention to a balanced power curve when considering how effective and efficient the card is (see my second consideration of a card's ideological value.)

[dragtom]

I find the most important factor I rate cards on being the synergy with the current card pool.
Mainly point 3 and 4 of what drake said.

Because, honestly, most of the other things can be fixed without changing the card's effect.
You simply have to increase the cost, or find a new name (=theme) for it.
A big text can be cut down to a few lines, even if it makes the effect not totally clear (adrenaline, catapult).

Sure, these things should be considered, and the idea should be adapted to them- but creativity is way more important.

[Jyiber]

Good to hear people are mostly holding their standards on to originality and synergy. That aside, I've been surprised at some of the answers, especially the value people place on thematics. I've always thought of it like this:

Someone brings a great mechanic and a less than ideal theme. Finding a better theme is easy. This is more ideal than the reverse;

Someone brings a cool theme but the mechanics are lacking or are just plain terrible. The game is in the mechanics and ideas that affect the flow of duels, not the aesthetics, that's just a bonus. I like people who bring new ideas for the game, not new themes.


I'd like to add that I might change my stance on that if Elements ever changes to have more story depth and lore. Then--and only then--will themes change to have an equal importance to mechanics.

[Submachine]

What I usually try to avoid but see some people doing is modifying existing mechanics. Increasing attack, spamming creatures, using existing mechanics, buffing aether, using random factor effects, adding new elemental weapons, using percentages on a skill to actually happen, adding new shields to an element that already has 2 and picking an idea that is repetitive in the CIA are bad.