First off I would like to apologize to Scaredgirl for that PM spamming, I didn't intend for that to happen.
To let everyone know we have had this discussion below through PMs
I thought it would be a good idea to take the time and study Ideas that have fallen into the Archives.
Instead of looking back old smithy ideas, I think we should study failed ideas found in the Archives. We will evaluate them and figure out why they failed. We then can use that knowledge to assist others, and it will help us, The Communal Card Creation Team on our main project. We will need to establish a format for this study. It should based on some of the methods already used by the forum. I see a real need for this, because the constant recycling of old ideas and skills.
If there is anyone else out there that should be part of this team, please let OldTrees or myself know.
Great idea, but it definitely will be a challenge on how to do this effectively. Even if we don't evaluate each card on an individual basis, at least a compilation of past failed concepts and mechanics would be very helpful.
But only if we focus on cards which are not totally overpowered / which just cant work, for instance cards which allow insta-wins.
I think that there are still too many to do without an organized method, even if we ignore the small percentage whose bare concepts are OP.
I will work on designing an organized method. This may take a few days and the result will be a long term project.
So far I theorize that there are at least 4 factors
Professional Art (relative to the other cards at the time)
Unique Mechanic (or lack there of)
Thematic Resonance (or lack there of)
Balance (or lack there of)
I recently was busy for a while, so I just wanted to say thanks for keeping me updated on what CCC plans to do next. Also, I think there is a 5th design element as we are concerned - Metagame Influence. In other words, how big of an impact will the card have on the game itself?
Bringing up the past itself can be tricky. People rejected it once before, so they'll have a set mind to do it again.
We don't have to go to far in the past, maybe up to 6 months at the most. I was bored so this came to mind. What we would need is sub-forums set up in Archives. These sub-forums would be set up almost like the Crucible and Forge are now. When a idea fails in the voting it comes here to determine why. Somewhere a final determination will be noted per idea. If we want to limit the number of ideas discussed, we follow the same schedule already established in the Crucible and Forge. If this would be to much work for Kuroaitou, I vote make someone like OldTrees moderator of the archives. That is all I have for now.
Before this idea gets too much momentum we should:
Identify the rate at which ideas are placed into the Archives
Identify the time it takes to determine why an idea failed (or how to limit the examination to a reasonable time frame)
If this idea gets implemented it should be done in stages.
Stage 1:
Start at the oldest Forge Archived idea and evaluate each in turn until caught up.
Once a card is evaluated, a single post can be put at the end of the reviewed thread and linked to in an index.
Stage 2:
Continue to examine Forge Archive to see if interest in this project is sustainable
Stages 3&4, if implemented, would be the same as 1&2 but with the crucible instead of the forge.
My estimate is that this project will have its hands full with just the Forge and will not be able to work on the crucible as well.
However this may uncover a major problem that aesthetics may play too great a role in Crucible|Forge Voting.
What does everyone else think?
