Phase 1 - Proving of Worthiness

[QuantumT]

So I was just look at option 2, and I think the word minimum is way too high. 200 words is a ton of commentary to make on a single card. I'd change it to 50, or 100 tops.

To give an idea, your OP is 400 words. Typing half that for response to a card is a ton.

[Scaredgirl]

So I was just look at option 2, and I think the word minimum is too high. 200 words is a ton of commentary to make on a single card. I'd change it to 50, or 100 tops.

Have you counted the words on some posts? 200 words is much less than what it sounds like, and 50 words would be a joke. I will write this post so that it has exactly 50 words. How much in-depth card analysis would there be if posts were as short as this one?


The text above is 50 words and it took me less than 2 minutes to write it.

[QuantumT]

So I was just look at option 2, and I think the word minimum is too high. 200 words is a ton of commentary to make on a single card. I'd change it to 50, or 100 tops.

Have you counted the words on some posts? 200 words is much less than what it sounds like, and 50 words would be a joke. I will write this post so that it has exactly 50 words. How much in-depth card analysis would there be if posts were as short as this one?


The text above is 50 words and it took me less than 2 minutes to write it.

That aside, posts with >200 words in the crucible are incredibly rare. All that putting such a high minimum on it will do is encourage bloated responses (it will be like english class all over again ).

Basically, there generally isn't enough to be said to make 200 word posts. If you think that 6 100 word posts is too little, then increase the post number.

[Scaredgirl]

So I was just look at option 2, and I think the word minimum is too high. 200 words is a ton of commentary to make on a single card. I'd change it to 50, or 100 tops.

Have you counted the words on some posts? 200 words is much less than what it sounds like, and 50 words would be a joke. I will write this post so that it has exactly 50 words. How much in-depth card analysis would there be if posts were as short as this one?


The text above is 50 words and it took me less than 2 minutes to write it.

That aside, posts with >200 words in the crucible are incredibly rare. All that putting such a high minimum on it will do is encourage bloated responses (it will be like english class all over again ).

Basically, there generally isn't enough to be said to make 200 word posts. If you think that 6 100 word posts is too little, then increase the post number.

The average word count in Crucible posts is irrelevant. Reason for smaller word counts is that people tend to talk about only one thing, instead of doing an in-depth analysis (which is what this task is about). It's not like you are banned from using more words because others are using less.

I went to see the first topic in the Crucible. The post by willng3 http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,17440.msg259453#msg259453 is what we are looking for, and that one has 301 words.

12 of 100 word posts is not what we are looking for here. I could go and post a 100 word response to any card idea out there without any kind of thought or even a real point, and it would take me about 3 minutes. With 200 words, you need to think a bit more, making your feedback much more valuable.

Like I said before, I find it concerning that we have Challengers who complain about "hard work" during phase one, when at the same time we have hundreds of non-Challenger member posting 200+ word posts on the forums without any kind of "reward". It's something I will definitely take into consideration when voting in the last phase, because I think that Masters should be active posters with high quality posts.

[QuantumT]

The thing is that just like high school english, word minimums don't encourage well written posts, they encourage bloated crap.

Good writing should be concise, but word minimums encourage being bloated instead.

Additionally, there's not really room for multiple people to make 200 word posts on a single card because if you can't cover basically everything that needs to be said about a card in a 200 word post, than you probably aren't a very good writer.

[Korugar]

I totally understand your argument, QuantumT, but if a person with "bloat" their post with useless words to meet a 200 word minimum, why wouldn't they do the same for a 50 word minimum?

[OldTrees]

The minimum word limit was a good idea to force deep broad critiques of the card ideas. However from my review of the ones so far it was not a large enough limit. Due to the paragraph nature of the posts incited by the word limit they only get to the level of a quality comment (say 5mins each) and not to what I would expect from would be masters. I feel a clearer description of the minimum acceptable for one of these posts would be better for next trials.

I want to thank all who do take option 2 for their contribution and implore them to see the word limit as a minimum grade and try to exceed that expectation in order to achieve Master level of breadth and depth.

[QuantumT]

I totally understand your argument, QuantumT, but if a person with "bloat" their post with useless words to meet a 200 word minimum, why wouldn't they do the same for a 50 word minimum?

That's just where the quality of the post comes in. It's something that's a bit harder to judge, but it much better represents what your posts should be like.

If can can convey the same information in 50 words as in 200, then you should always choose 50.

[Xinef]

The problem is that it is impossible to ensure by rules that all posts will be high quality, since high quality is a subjective thing.

Luckily, the problem is already solved, since the voting phase is after phase 1, so each voter can decide whether he finds someone's posts high quality or not. If someone makes 6 bloated posts and someone else makes 6 well-thought posts, people will generally favor the second one (unless they are too lazy to do some research before voting).

Anyway, if someone wants to write high quality posts with 50 words, rather than 200, there is a simple solution. Write a 50 word high quality post. Add 150 words of examples or further explanation of your ideas. Separate the 50 word part from the 150 word part, for example like this:

50 words yadda yadda yadda
150 words yadda yadda yadda
yadda yadda yadda
yadda yadda yadda

This way, if someone doesn't feel like reading bloated posts, he can simply skip the longer part after reading the 50 word summary, since he already understands what you are writing about.

[chum3]

I don't really like the idea of banning cards for this in the first place. If there weren't any banned cards, then this would be a HUGE head start on the AI5 ttw study. As it is, everyone has to play suboptimal decks, so it's worth much less.

Its supposed to be some kind of a challenge. Honestly, half bloods suck, and are beatable by nearly anything. We dont even have to log the win rate for the decks.
Also, everyone is running against players from their own element. It doesnt matter if "only entropy is left with perma control". I, as a challenger, dont give a crap if entropy got it easier or not, as long as I'm on the same playing field with my fellow death lovers. I'm perfectly fine with having bans, though I would have picked them differently.

Making it a challenge is good, but I agree with what QuantumT pointed out: banning cards makes less optimal decks, making for a less optimal start on an AI5 ttw study (which some people seem interested in). You can argue the same about last trials' Phase One deckbuilding challenge, which was to make an anti-FG deck that could beat a good portion of the False Gods with the deck being at least 50% of a given element, but I think there were a lot more interesting/useful things coming out of that one as opposed to what we'll see from this one. Plus, the deckbuilding rules on the last trials are less restricting than this one.

As for the topic of word count in posts, yes, being concise is the best. But if you can be concise and have 200 words of things to say, more power to you.

EDIT: Also, did the phases get moved around? I thought the voting phase was now the third one, but it doesn't say that in the rules (thought I read it in a post somewhere in the forums).

[Xinef]

Making it a challenge is good, but I agree with what QuantumT pointed out: banning cards makes less optimal decks, making for a less optimal start on an AI5 ttw study (which some people seem interested in).

I think it would make sense to ban rare cards. Many AI5 grinding decks are designed by experienced players, who have so many rares, they don't even remember what's the difference between a rare and a common card
Designing and studying AI5 grinding decks without rares would be beneficial to anyone who wants to 'become rich in one day'. In other words, people who just created or restarted their account, and want some challenge, rather than mindless AI3 grinding.

So, no rares and no upped cards. That would make sense, while also filling the less explored area of AI5 grinding.

[Malduk]

Making it a challenge is good, but I agree with what QuantumT pointed out: banning cards makes less optimal decks, making for a less optimal start on an AI5 ttw study (which some people seem interested in). You can argue the same about last trials' Phase One deckbuilding challenge, which was to make an anti-FG deck that could beat a good portion of the False Gods with the deck being at least 50% of a given element, but I think there were a lot more interesting/useful things coming out of that one as opposed to what we'll see from this one. Plus, the deckbuilding rules on the last trials are less restricting than this one.

Honestly, there's absolutely nothing wrong with suboptimal decks for AI5. People should learn to have fun on the game. Playing AI5 with whatever deck is already not an "optimal" gameplay if you're in for the grind, so the whole AI5 ttw study project seems pretty pointless to me. Its like saying "best way to achieve results that are not the best is this".
Maybe I'm looking at this whole thing the wrong way, but I'd rather see some fun and somewhat different decks, than decks made for grind.