Aloyzo's Arsenal Discussion Thread

Although I'm not likely to put it as eloquently as others, I would like to echo what has already been said, to perhaps clarify the issues that some of us see, and offer some suggestions for future.

The Tone of the Rules
Flax set out the rules clearly at the beginning of the contest. They were short, clear and to the point. Rules with apparently special significance were expanded upon or had text stressed in bold and/or caps. For example:

• "Each submitted item may have up to one(1!) currently monster-only card on it."
• "Items do not need to include a monster-only card to have a chance at winning: you may include one, or zero."
• "...given that there aren't any really cool monsters with Wall of Stone I doubt we'll see a winning item this month with the card."
• "Q: When you say 1 monster card do you mean 1 copy of a monster card or just any copies of a monster card? A: 1 card on the item can be a monster card."
• "Winning items will be those tightly themed around a monster already in the game"
• "DO NOT submit any accompanying explanation of why your item should be selected. Submit only the above 4 pieces of information. Submitted items should not be discussed anywhere until after submissions are closed."

Later in the discussion thread, Flax even appeared to signal his surprise and/or disapproval of people not following the rules:

• "I have to say, while there are a lot of cool submissions, it's amazing how small the percentage of them is that actually follow the guidelines. Probably about 1/5 though I haven't actually tallied it."

And when challenged about the rigidity of the rules, Flex responded:

• "Yes, and? There're always going to be more things disallowed by the rules than allowed."

From this, it was apparently clear what was required: an item, designed tightly around a monster, of which up to one card may currently be monster-only. Following the rules seemed to be pretty important, and the constraints were as much a part of the challenge as coming up with a good submission.

The Caveat
Flax has said twice that there is no instant disqualification. However, this is a relatively minor (when viewed in light of the emphatic rules above), and he stressed that doing anything outside the rules is likely to damage that submission's chances of winning. For example:

• "Q: Is there anything that will instantly disqualify my item? A: No... but if your item name includes references to intellectual property not owned by Blue Manchu, such as Mickey Mouse or Iron Man, Aloyzo guarantees he will change it should it be selected for crafting."
  
• "You can submit something that defies this, just know it's not likely to be accepted."
• "[Using OP cards] won't disqualify you automatically. I don't think it's a safe bet for being selected but in the grand scheme of things it won't hurt you."
• "Assume item levels won't change when you make your item if you want to play it safe."
• "That said if there is an item that bends the rules slightly or needs some modifications to truly shine, it may happen. I did state explicitly that there is no instant disqualification."

From this, we can add that submissions which break the rules in a minor way may be eligible if they are otherwise outstanding, but that breaking the rules is unlikely to result in an entry being accepted. Though this waters down the rigidity of the rules, it does so only very minorly. It's worth noting that a lot of this 'softening' came in the discussion thread (which not everyone would read), not in the rules themselves (which people probably would).

What Actually Happened
Given Flax's comments above, we would not expect to see any winning entries which broke the rules, and - if they did - probably only very minorly. Instead, two of the top five entries were outside the rules in multiple respects:

Argy Bargy Brand Sneakers
1. contain a card which isn't a monster card (Ooze Shove does not, to my knowledge, appear on any monsters in the campaign);
2. are not based on a monster which appears in the campaign (Ooze Blockers are not in the campaign);

Tasty Tasty Staff
1. contains multiple (3) different monster cards;
2. contains duplicates (2) of the same monster card;
3. contains long-range melee cards (which are otherwise not 'alike' other cards already in multiplayer and arguably don't 'fit' on a staff).

Some have also questioned whether the Spritastrophe counts as 'a' monster, or multiple.

In the #3 results video, Flax and CT also then go on to criticise a number of entries for not following the rules (either not using monster cards, not being based upon a monster, being too high in level, including cards which shouldn't go in that item type, or the name not being 'tightly' focused on the monster - most of which are issues with the above entries).

The Problem
The problem is the emphasis with which the rules were stressed and deviation discouraged. When participants are allowed only one entry, it does not seem wise to gamble it all on something which is, for all intents and purposes, not an eligible entry.

A lot of entries were therefore hamstrung by the narrow design brief (and several were even edited once the 'one monster card' rule was clarified, so as to stick to the rules). It was difficult, for example, to submit 6-card items because the 'one monster card' limit diluted how well people could tie their submissions to the cards. It is probably not a coincidence that there were so many 3-card submissions. Good ideas were probably lost as a result.

There is also the obvious emotional response that two entries were rewarded for not playing by the rules. That's somewhat disappointing when people have done their very best to tick all the boxes required.

The Consequences
If this isn't resolved:

• people will pay less regard to the rules, which will probably result in more work for Flax in identifying good entries;
• the contests will be devalued, as they will descend into a theme-free free-for-all;
• some people will stop trying to enter, as they will deem it to be decided on a whim rather than on any principled basis.

The Solution
I can see a number of solutions to this:

1. Make clear which requirements are violable and which are inviolable;
2. Make clear the actual extent to which deviation of violable rules will affect an entry's chances of success;
3. Clarify all rules in the rules topic (not scattered throughout another thread);
4. Allow more than one entry per person;
5. Only select entries which meet the requirements, but reserve the discretion to include any cool, ineligible entries 'on top of' those requested.

 

If you've been following my posts you'll see this is what is happening.

The Oozeball Blocker is a monster (Oozeball league). I never said the monster had to be campaign-only, did I? If I did, I'm sorry. Necromancers, geomancers, league guardians, etc., were all fair game as far as I knew. In any event, I do not think that the Argy Bargy Brand Sneakers broke any guidelines. They seemed like a "safe" submission to me (unlike Tasty, Tasty Staff which I assure you looked like it broke some rules to me!).

 

Well aware, and I think it's a good idea. It's perhaps something which should be done as a matter of routine to get around the 'it's outside the rules' issue.

I'm sure I'm not alone in reading 'monster' to mean 'any non-player-controlled' character. One to chalk down to clarity, perhaps.

Don't take this personally. It's your baby. I'm just trying to put into a logical format what I perceive to be some issues, and to offer some potential solutions.

 

Blizkenripper may only have 2 cold attacks, but it does account for 6/13 attack cards though. Well, I thought he was like the ice dragon or something, since his scenario was snow based. Would Blizzard Breath really be emerald quality? I mean it's stronger than cone of cold but the damage isn't that much higher. Oh well, maybe there will be a decent double major pure cold staff someday.

 

Blizkenripper is the Alabaster Dragon (though you can call him the ice dragon)
Xanthicius is the Yellow Dragon
(A/The) Hydra is the Fire Dragon (Lizard)

 

I'd recommend for the next contest, break the rules into "seriously, these are actual rules, if you violate them you won't win" and "these are guidelines that you should probably follow if you want to be considered, but Rule of Cool will trump these."

e.g.
Serious Rules
1. Human Skills (or whatever) only this month
2. Item level must be 21 or less
3. Standard item rules - item has the correct number of cards for its slot, etc.

Suggested Guidelines
4. Should not use cards that are not already available to players and in this slot
5. Should not use cards that are incorrectly valued
6. Should not have more than one card that draws cards, including traits

 

Did Flax give an official comment on items based on multiple monsters? I was a little upset about the sprite staff too.

I took Flax's comment to mean that items containing OP cards or that bend the rules would be changed to fit. For example, the quality change for Festering Guts, the card change on the Melvelous item, and the slot change on the Reinforced Door item.

And the "no instant DQ" comment is hard to take seriously when the videos always start with "we're never giving players this card, or that card, and this card isn't allowed in this slot (according to rules we refuse to show players), and this item isn't even trying to fit the theme ... ". And of course Flax better be instantly disqualifying anyone who submits multiple times.

I want clear rules, and I expect the people making the rules to follow them. I actually liked the "only one monster card" rule because it forces you to really think about what makes that monster distinct. So I was very upset to see a prize go to an item that broke the rule so thoroughly that I assumed it was a joke submission.

How should the rules have been worded? First of all, Flax should not have repeatedly said "one monster card". He should post the secret rules about what is allowed in each slot. (Frankly, I'm surprised Jon isn't objecting to giving players range 5 melee attacks.)

 

Personally, I'm thinking of this less as a range 5 melee attack, and more of a 5 damage range 5 wizard spell that goes under the category of melee. Card games often have weird cards that mix things up in a strange manner, why can't this one?

 

A range 5 melee attack that warriors and priests will never be able to get their grubby mitts on (Advanced Battlefield Training and Duck shenanigans aside) is perfectly acceptable. Wizards already have access to melee attacks so that part shouldn't be an issue either.

 

There are no 'secret rules' about this. There is only following what exists in the game. Before you put a card on an item, ask yourself if there are cards like it on existing items in the same slot. It's also an area where there's some, but not much, flexibility. As always, you can play it safe by sticking to what's obviously okay.

 

I don't understand why people are getting so bent out of shape about a rule breaking item winning. Sure, it seems a little unfair but not following the rules imposes handicaps that makes it harder for your submission to make it through. If a spectacular item that bends the rules but follows them in spirit gets picked, I'm ok with that. It's probably better to think of the rules as guidelines, like pants.

 

Regards, @Inkfingers

@Founder pretty much covered the rules as listed, which is what I was concerned with.
If @Flaxative was going to accept items with multiple monster cards, it would have been best to state it at the outset, or at least change or amend the rules in the first post. If he had, I think we'd have had more interesting submissions. Something along the lines of, "You may use monster cards, but they should be comparable to current player cards. The item should be tightly themed around a monster, and must comply with the rules for the item slot it fills."
[Crusty old senior NCO mode]I've learned never to make a rule unless I am going to enforce it strongly, fairly, and equally. Allowing some to violate a rule can lead to the perception of favoritism, and/or undermine credibility.[/mode]
Contest rules kind of fall into their own category. It's a matter of keeping faith with the contestants, and the matter is of small enough consequence that there should never be an overwhelming reason to break them.
At the base of it, I'm kind of feeling bad for Flax. I remember him before he organized the first tournament, and founded a guild, and became a dev. Very much a, "Let's Do This!" kind of guy. I want to see him excel in CH and Laboratory Mayhem. I think he's hurt some feelings this time, and I don't believe he intended to.
TL;DR
It's often okay to break other people's rules, but not your own.
In this context, if you don't make a rule, you can't break it.

 

I should just like to repeat this, because it does bear repeating:

We're all still with you, Flax!

 

No matter what anyone says, (especially me), I think that Flax and all the dev's working on CardHunter are doing an excellent job. Its your game to shape, its ours to enjoy, if we dont like it, then the close button is right there in the top right hand corner

 

I think it's because it wasn't just a rule/guideline, but a rule that specifically made it harder/more challenging to design your item around a monster(which was the 'spirit' of the competition). Basically, not having to follow this rule makes it easier to design a monster themed item and therefore gives a clear advantage, so some people probably feel cheated. Also, I vote that Aloyzo has to choose something other than boots and staves next month.

P.S.
Just to be clear, I actually like the staff a lot. I thought it was really cool the second I saw it, but I have to wonder what other cool submissions we could of had if it wasn't heavily suggested to use one monster card or none at all.

*edit: had the wrong quote.

 

Blizzard Breath is much stronger because it also acts as Purge. Goodbye, Impenetrable Nimbus, Force Field...

 

Seconded.

Including some cards that Purge cannot remove: Blind Rage, Festering Guts ...

 

Congrats to the winners. One or two not very interesting or on theme imo, but a few are exciting/gems and it's great to see some more up for selection in the community choice poll. Overall, I think some of the best submissions were selected, some of the best are up for selection and some of the best are in the third category, which isn't a bad outcome.

My main disappointment with the results would be that I don't think the art for the 2 boot items is at all evocative. A couple of mouths would fix the sneakers (which I upvoted primarily for the visual description), but the muscle-bound boot art is just a flat out missed opportunity, especially considering the Halloween theme.

What exactly are the interactions that the Tasty, Tasty Staff will have that differ from other magical attacks? Is it just parry, or are other strange features?

 

Off the top of my head, frenzy damage will be increased by 1, they won't trigger on Brain Burn, and they won't be affected by Defensiveness or Counterspell. As you stated, melee blocks will work, but missile blocks won't. I've probably missed some things.

 

Blind Rage, frenzy bonus, frenzy aura(and the other thing), mimetic stuff, and more.