Suggestions and Feedback

[Lunaris]

If you have any suggestions on how we could make the Mentor Program a more enjoyable and productive place, this is the place to make your voice heard! Also, if you don't like the way something is being done, let us know and we will do our best to fix it

[Zawadx]

I like the division into three separate aspects, though I will admit I wasn't very familiar with the earlier system. I agree with MMC that grinding/vAI Deckbuilding might merit its own section, as the bore of grinding is something all newbies encounter. I don't think there are any other aspects of the games or forums that really require mentoring.

Perhaps we could have some sort of 'Ask the mentors' thread? I know it's similar to  the 'Ask a simple question' thread, but we should have something which exposes the newbies to more than one mentor and allows more free flow of info.

Criteria for different sorts of mentors is a bit vague, at least on first reading. How well do you have to place in PvP? How active must you be in CIA? What level of knowledge would be knowing like the back of your hand? I've been TrO for a long time and have a lot of enthusiasm for the event, but even I wouldn't be able to give something like a history lesson on early trials. Does that mean I can't be considered an expert for the Trials section?

Instead of achieving one first place or three top 3s, maybe we could adopt a system similar to PvP WC? i.e. Assign points to placing high in an event, and a person would require a certain amount of points in total to qualify?

As for the strictness of requirements, I believe they should be harsh enough to ensure all the mentors are very good. I'm unsure about what this would mean for CIA mentor, but I agree with 1 year and 200 posts for Forum Expert. They should be required to have a general knowledge of all the public forums though, including rules like which deck goes into which deck forums, the restrictions for joining any pvp event etc. (Or at least they should know where to look for the answers).

So in conclusion, please update the criteria into a proper set of restrictions for applying mentors. The current style is good if you wanted to tell them what sort of experience they might need, but if you want to have fixed rules for selecting mentors they should be clear and well-formed. Also, could the requirements be edited into the first post?

[Lunaris]

I agree with the idea of breaking DB into two, however, it would be very difficult to create criteria that would make sense for both PvP deckbuilding and AI grinding deckbuilding. An "Ask the mentors" thread could prove very useful for incoming members and newer players, and once we get more mentors applying I will make that happen. If you looked at the updated version of the criteria, I made it a bit more detailed. However, the questions you asked are very good points, and will do my best to clarify them.

A point system for the PvP mentors could be very difficult to keep up with, and how exactly would it work? If you can figure out an efficient way for this to happen and for it to be managed, I'll happily listen.

I will most definitely edit the criteria into the first post

[Solaris]

A point system for the PvP mentors could be very difficult to keep up with, and how exactly would it work? If you can figure out an efficient way for this to happen and for it to be managed, I'll happily listen.

Just look at the WC Qualifiers points system. Appoint a certain amount of points to 1st/2nd/3rd/4th in Weekly Tournaments, winning a PvP Event, League placements, etc., and set a threshold for points to determine whether an applying mentor is worthy of being a PvP Mentor or not.

[Lunaris]

True... it would still be difficult to keep track of, in my opinion anyways. If someone was willing to keep track of it, I would be much more open to the idea

[kirbylover314]

Why not directly use the WC Qualifiers system as a basis? Or elk's unified PvP leaderboard? They have a majority of the events anyways.

[Solaris]

True... it would still be difficult to keep track of, in my opinion anyways. If someone was willing to keep track of it, I would be much more open to the idea

Errr, the person keeping track of it would be either you or www3... If you aren't willing to keep track of the score, don't entertain the idea, IMO.

[Sera]

True... it would still be difficult to keep track of, in my opinion anyways. If someone was willing to keep track of it, I would be much more open to the idea

Errr, the person keeping track of it would be either you or www3... If you aren't willing to keep track of the score, don't entertain the idea, IMO.

You could just have applicants link requirements, like in Trials. You only really need to hit the minimum anyway, so a link of evidence for something like 10(?) points will be enough.

[RootRanger]

I think we have the entirely wrong perspective on this program. Right now, the program seems to be more about having inexperienced players mentoring newbs, rather than having advanced players mentoring semi-experienced players. But the former is of almost no value, because newbs do not need individualized mentorship; they can learn from guides. In fact, having an inexperienced player teach them inaccurate concepts would likely do more harm than good. I would consider mentorship to only be superior to guides when the apprentice is already somewhat experienced and can no longer learn very much from guides.

[Hyroen]

...

As far as mentorship goes, it's true that from a gameplay perspective, you do, of course, want Tournament winners and experienced PvP players serving as mentors, however that does not consider the value of the social connection.

To pair a newer player/community member with even a slightly more experienced one gives newcomers soneone they can rely on, not only as a source of advice but also as someone to intoduce them to the community and, through the mentor's support, to really let them grow and develop within it.

Through this however, RootRanger may be correct in that it's possible that experts in their fields should be treated as such (Forum Game Expert, PvP Expert, Card Design Expert) at the discretion of Mentor Managers, or throgh vote, while other, less experienced but equally eager members could be considered as Community Guides (on their ways to more experience as well).

[Submachine]

There seems to be a problem in the OP of the "Join as Apprentice" thread. A lot of mentors listed there are the same as those listed in the resigned mentor list. Furthermore, all mentors are listed under Card Ideas and Art and there are no cathegories for PvP and other type of mentors yet. This might be just because it's still in progress, but I thought I would point it out.

[Lunaris]

There seems to be a problem in the OP of the "Join as Apprentice" thread. A lot of mentors listed there are the same as those listed in the resigned mentor list. Furthermore, all mentors are listed under Card Ideas and Art and there are no cathegories for PvP and other type of mentors yet. This might be just because it's still in progress, but I thought I would point it out.

It will be fixed. Thanks