Elements Updates

[regen2k9]

While it would be nice to get more toys to play with in a relatively short timescale, the only problem I see with this solution is that every person concerned/involved in the game and/or the community is somewhat biased towards ideas, concepts, or even elements - no matter how objective he/she may find themselves. I pretty much respect Zanz's viewpoint and judgement in balance/concept matters (though I still question the purpose of shards).

While I respect Zanz's judgement (except with shards), I do think that a relatively unbiased forum member or members (people we would suggest as being the most objective, compared to others), would be better than inactivity/lack of updates everyday.

If someone like OldTrees were responsible for this role, I would not be worried about idea, concept, or elements balance whatsoever.

I would.  For all of OT's great analysis, he does not have as much practical competitive PvP experience as some of our other members.  I think that a duo of him + an experienced PvPer would be great for testing card balance/power, but either one alone would not do nearly so well.

That's a pretty good point, Although for the sake of decision making, I would want it to be a sort of "triumvirate," so to speak.  Two-person decisions often lead to one person's wishes being overshadowed in favor of the others.  Three people ensures a more popular "majority-style" decision-making process.

[OldTrees]

While it would be nice to get more toys to play with in a relatively short timescale, the only problem I see with this solution is that every person concerned/involved in the game and/or the community is somewhat biased towards ideas, concepts, or even elements - no matter how objective he/she may find themselves. I pretty much respect Zanz's viewpoint and judgement in balance/concept matters (though I still question the purpose of shards).

While I respect Zanz's judgement (except with shards), I do think that a relatively unbiased forum member or members (people we would suggest as being the most objective, compared to others), would be better than inactivity/lack of updates everyday.

If someone like OldTrees were responsible for this role, I would not be worried about idea, concept, or elements balance whatsoever.

I would.  For all of OT's great analysis, he does not have as much practical competitive PvP experience as some of our other members.  I think that a duo of him + an experienced PvPer would be great for testing card balance/power, but either one alone would not do nearly so well.

I agree that someone with a great deal of deckbuilding and pvp experience should be involved. They can see exploits I would not, have a good grasp of practical balance and understand the shape of the meta and the impact new cards would have better than I would.

However I do not expect to be active enough in the future to take this role. However someone like me would be a good person to judge the structural design of cards.

[Cheesy111]

Spoiler for Hidden:

While it would be nice to get more toys to play with in a relatively short timescale, the only problem I see with this solution is that every person concerned/involved in the game and/or the community is somewhat biased towards ideas, concepts, or even elements - no matter how objective he/she may find themselves. I pretty much respect Zanz's viewpoint and judgement in balance/concept matters (though I still question the purpose of shards).

While I respect Zanz's judgement (except with shards), I do think that a relatively unbiased forum member or members (people we would suggest as being the most objective, compared to others), would be better than inactivity/lack of updates everyday.

If someone like OldTrees were responsible for this role, I would not be worried about idea, concept, or elements balance whatsoever.

I would.  For all of OT's great analysis, he does not have as much practical competitive PvP experience as some of our other members.  I think that a duo of him + an experienced PvPer would be great for testing card balance/power, but either one alone would not do nearly so well.

That's a pretty good point, Although for the sake of decision making, I would want it to be a sort of "triumvirate," so to speak.  Two-person decisions often lead to one person's wishes being overshadowed in favor of the others.  Three people ensures a more popular "majority-style" decision-making process.

My personal feelings would be that such a triumvirate would be structured as Experienced PvPer, Structural Designer, Admin/Other Authority (unless people have other, better ideas).

Spoiler for Hidden:

While it would be nice to get more toys to play with in a relatively short timescale, the only problem I see with this solution is that every person concerned/involved in the game and/or the community is somewhat biased towards ideas, concepts, or even elements - no matter how objective he/she may find themselves. I pretty much respect Zanz's viewpoint and judgement in balance/concept matters (though I still question the purpose of shards).

While I respect Zanz's judgement (except with shards), I do think that a relatively unbiased forum member or members (people we would suggest as being the most objective, compared to others), would be better than inactivity/lack of updates everyday.

If someone like OldTrees were responsible for this role, I would not be worried about idea, concept, or elements balance whatsoever.

I would.  For all of OT's great analysis, he does not have as much practical competitive PvP experience as some of our other members.  I think that a duo of him + an experienced PvPer would be great for testing card balance/power, but either one alone would not do nearly so well.

I agree that someone with a great deal of deckbuilding and pvp experience should be involved. They can see exploits I would not, have a good grasp of practical balance and understand the shape of the meta and the impact new cards would have better than I would.

However I do not expect to be active enough in the future to take this role. However someone like me would be a good person to judge the structural design of cards.

That is unfortunate.  You have been a great aid to the forums so far, and it will be sad to see less of you.  Hopefully someone else will be able to pick up the mantle of structural designer.

[10 men]

Here's a few problems with card design. It's basically a three part problem. It is
a) a very complex skill that
b) lots of people think they are quite good at because
c) there is no clear and fast metric to decide what is good design.
The last point is especially problematic. The first two points are true for many cases, for example Elements PvP as well. However if you are bad at Elements PvP you will find this out pretty quickly if you join some PvP Events.
So what possibilities are there for card design?
- Forum Polls? - Doubtful. A card winning a forum poll basically means that a very small, highly unrepresentative portion of the Elements playership could imagine that card to be a good addition to the game. However, what expertise does a crowd have that the individuals in it don't?
- Opinions of individual Veteran Members? This of course depends on the member, a good designer is a good designer. However the difficulty of identifying good design obviously also brings a difficulty to identify good designers. A reputation of high Card design skill can come from both actual skills and a cycle of affirmation-reaffirmation by clueless forumers.
- Monitoring Card Usage statistics? Has the advantage of getting feedback from the entire playership but is of course also influenced strongly by a cards powerlevel (especially its usefulness in AI-grinders), habits, and card availability. The disadvantage is that a card has to be put in the game first.

Another problem with taking cards from polls is that while from time to time there may be a good idea among the winning cards, there would be no greater concept behind Elements sooner or later (such as Element A should be good at X, while not so good at Y, etc.).

[ZephyrPhantom]

Skimming through, so apologies if I repeated anything:

Here's a few problems with card design. It's basically a three part problem. It is
a) a very complex skill that
b) lots of people think they are quite good at because
c) there is no clear and fast metric to decide what is good design.
The last point is especially problematic. The first two points are true for many cases, for example Elements PvP as well. However if you are bad at Elements PvP you will find this out pretty quickly if you join some PvP Events.
So what possibilities are there for card design?
- Forum Polls? - Doubtful. A card winning a forum poll basically means that a very small, highly unrepresentative portion of the Elements playership could imagine that card to be a good addition to the game. However, what expertise does a crowd have that the individuals in it don't?
- Opinions of individual Veteran Members? This of course depends on the member, a good designer is a good designer. However the difficulty of identifying good design obviously also brings a difficulty to identify good designers. A reputation of high Card design skill can come from both actual skills and a cycle of affirmation-reaffirmation by clueless forumers.
- Monitoring Card Usage statistics? Has the advantage of getting feedback from the entire playership but is of course also influenced strongly by a cards powerlevel (especially its usefulness in AI-grinders), habits, and card availability. The disadvantage is that a card has to be put in the game first.

Another problem with taking cards from polls is that while from time to time there may be a good idea among the winning cards, there would be no greater concept behind Elements sooner or later (such as Element A should be good at X, while not so good at Y, etc.).

Regarding c) - there's also the possibilities of testing the cards as if they were in the game, which can determine balance pretty well if done right. The downside is that 1 Playtest Match tends to take longer than 1 PvP Match unless both players are using rushes.
I like the suggestions posted by plastiqe, though I have one question - what if an archived card is optimally designed and remaking it only makes the quality worse? Would there be a way to suggest/draw attention to archived cards without remaking them or making a post that is likely be ignored?
I don't exactly like the idea of a 'triumvirate' of players that select cards, because it feels a little odd to have 3 players determine where the entire meta may head next (a 2-3 council could also be subject to bias even if they are experienced,). I would rather prefer that cards be sent directly into trainer/beta for everyone to test, so that everyone gets their 2 electrum in.

[10 men]

Balancing is not really a concern there, for that you pretty much just need a good PvPer who are easy to find, and then there's still always Elements Beta too.

[OldTrees]

The best answers I have to C are:
1) Discussion. Opinions backed with reasoning where the goal is to leave with the correct answer rather than have others leave with your answer.
2) My opinion: Increased player enjoyment is easiest to create by increased desired play time and more players. Increased desired play time and more players both are easily created by more diversity in the options and experience. This is accomplished by growing the metagame. Good design relates to how much it grows the metagame. Cards that add are good. Cards that multiply are great.

[Cheesy111]

The best answers I have to C are:
1) Discussion. Opinions backed with reasoning where the goal is to leave with the correct answer rather than have others leave with your answer.
2) My opinion: Increased player enjoyment is easiest to create by increased desired play time and more players. Increased desired play time and more players both are easily created by more diversity in the options and experience. This is accomplished by growing the metagame. Good design relates to how much it grows the metagame. Cards that add are good. Cards that multiply are great.

What is growing the metagame? Is it increasing the number of viable cards, or the number of viable strategies, or something else?

[OldTrees]

The best answers I have to C are:
1) Discussion. Opinions backed with reasoning where the goal is to leave with the correct answer rather than have others leave with your answer.
2) My opinion: Increased player enjoyment is easiest to create by increased desired play time and more players. Increased desired play time and more players both are easily created by more diversity in the options and experience. This is accomplished by growing the metagame. Good design relates to how much it grows the metagame. Cards that add are good. Cards that multiply are great.

What is growing the metagame? Is it increasing the number of viable cards, or the number of viable strategies, or something else?

I would measure it by number of viable strategies using number of viable decks as a rough estimate. UP cards do not affect the metagame, balanced cards grow the metagame (usually by addition) and  OP cards shrink the metagame.

[Cheesy111]

The best answers I have to C are:
1) Discussion. Opinions backed with reasoning where the goal is to leave with the correct answer rather than have others leave with your answer.
2) My opinion: Increased player enjoyment is easiest to create by increased desired play time and more players. Increased desired play time and more players both are easily created by more diversity in the options and experience. This is accomplished by growing the metagame. Good design relates to how much it grows the metagame. Cards that add are good. Cards that multiply are great.

What is growing the metagame? Is it increasing the number of viable cards, or the number of viable strategies, or something else?

I would measure it by number of viable strategies using number of viable decks as a rough estimate. UP cards do not affect the metagame, balanced cards grow the metagame (usually by addition) and  OP cards shrink the metagame.

I do not like this definition because the number of viable strategies and the number of viable decks are not highly correlated.  RootRanger's idea of metagame changes, for example, would absolutely destroy all forms of denial and I would consider that a large blow to the metagame even though relatively few decks are affected.  Entire archetypes can still consist of a small number of decks.

[OldTrees]

The best answers I have to C are:
1) Discussion. Opinions backed with reasoning where the goal is to leave with the correct answer rather than have others leave with your answer.
2) My opinion: Increased player enjoyment is easiest to create by increased desired play time and more players. Increased desired play time and more players both are easily created by more diversity in the options and experience. This is accomplished by growing the metagame. Good design relates to how much it grows the metagame. Cards that add are good. Cards that multiply are great.

What is growing the metagame? Is it increasing the number of viable cards, or the number of viable strategies, or something else?

I would measure it by number of viable strategies using number of viable decks as a rough estimate. UP cards do not affect the metagame, balanced cards grow the metagame (usually by addition) and  OP cards shrink the metagame.

I do not like this definition because the number of viable strategies and the number of viable decks are not highly correlated.  RootRanger's idea of metagame changes, for example, would absolutely destroy all forms of denial and I would consider that a large blow to the metagame even though relatively few decks are affected.  Entire archetypes can still consist of a small number of decks.

I guess my definition of deck is closer to archetype. My definition of strategies is more abstract.

[Kuroaitou]

It could be done if Zanz were willing. I would understand if he were unwilling.

...and this folks, is the crux of the problem.

I wanted to refrain posting in this thread because, hey, any idea of 'community-based development' is cool, right?

The issue with this all ties in directly to zanzarino and him alone; unless he decides to extend his development team beyond himself, the game's progress is dwindling rather than speeding up (for an extensive flash game, which is essentially death). What hurts more is that even if we managed to get the 'optimal solution' to card design (yes, I know we're using Kael's/SG's old system still), the idea of the community having a more active part in developing the game is moot, because without the ability to actually hard-implement or test the concepts in question, card ideas and suggestions (or anything related to game development) feels somewhat fruitless.

As long as he remains unwilling, the public will, in turn, be unwilling to subconsciously continue on.