Discussion in 'Card Hunter General Chat' started by Flaxative, Jul 29, 2015.
So my dwarf wizard will finally be able to use raging battler for more than a cycling skill
Yep. And for human wizards they will also work with All Out Attack. Mind Leak is another handicap they're not subject to.
Apologies for not being able to reply earlier, I have been quite busy. There have been quite a few replies since this post, some of which may contain things that I'm about to repeat, but since I was specifically asked for my response I will do be best to give it as clearly as possible.
I'll start off with why I think it was unfair. To do this I'll need two pieces of text that have appeared in every Aloyzo's Arsenal thread so far:
"... every month, he may have some restriction on what kind of item he’s willing to make."
"this month's restriction: ..."
To me that reads as if an item does not follow the restriction then Aloyzo will be unwilling to make it, i.e. it should not be eligible to win.
This month the restriction was in two parts: "monster theme, up to 1 monster-only card per item". Dealing with each part separately:
The clarification simply said that winning items should be "tightly themed around a monster already in the game". Do I personally feel that the five winners all fulfilled this criterion? No, actually, but this is subjective and I can certainly see an argument for all of them being labelled as tightly thematic. Ultimately this has to be up to the judge(s) to decide and this is my expectation when I enter.
The clarification stressed "each submitted item may have one (1!) currently monster-only card on it." I don't think it could have been put any more clearly and it is an objective measure; either the submitted item does obey this restriction or it doesn't. There is no indication that this rule can be broken if it makes an item particularly thematic, particularly cool, etc. and thus I have no expectation that a judge can/will overrule this decision. Hence, for an item which breaks this restriction to win feels unfair on people who submitted items which obeyed the rules in an attempt to win the contest. To me, it is no different to if, say, a divine weapon had won AA#2 when the restriction was "shield, boots, or racial skill only" even if everyone agreed that said divine weapon was the coolest/most interesting/most desirable entry.
I think there are a few things that could have achieved this, which may already have been mentioned.
Firstly, I think something less definitive than "restriction" would be better. I was going to suggest "guideline" but someone already referred to the restrictions as guidelines so maybe this wouldn't have helped! How about "suggestion"? Then make it clear that items which fulfil the criteria are more likely to be picked but items which do not are still eligible to win.
Alternatively, reword the ""... every month, he may have some restriction on what kind of item he’s willing to make" section at the start of AA to make it sound less final.
Secondly, if there are any clarifications then stick to them. Clarifying something only makes things worse if they are then ignored when making a decision!
Finally, adjust the "Q: Is there anything that will instantly disqualify my item?" question in the question thread. If the intention is simply that the answer is "no" then don't confuse the issue by putting more text after it. The way I interpret it at the moment is that it means that I can submit an item that I call a Jedi Lightsaber and it could win despite the fact that it would never be allowed to be called a Jedi Lightsaber in Card Hunter. Perhaps it would be better to move everything other than the "no" in the answer up to the item name section of the order form.
As I said previously, I think that the way that it has been handled after the winners had been announced is correct: make the Tasty, Tasty Staff a bonus item and select an item which obeyed the restrictions as an additional winner (I think there are arguments for and against it being a community vote, personally I have no problem with this). I also, as almost everyone else has said no matter their opinion, think that the Tasty, Tasty Staff is a very thematic and interesting item and I certainly bear no ill will towards the item, its creator, the contest, the judge(s) or Aloyzo
P.S. I have not had time to watch the video which discusses the entries. I hope to do so soon and if it changes anything that I have said I will reply and/or edit this post to reflect this.
Exactly. The whole thing is confusing. It specifically states "this month's restriction: monster theme, up to 1 monster-only card per item." I don't know how you can read it any other way.
So many entries would have been different had the rules been different. Why not at the very least pick another item to include later from the same set that follows the rules?
Also, what happens if Festering Guts becomes so overly problematic that tons of people run it and it changes the nature of the game? What type of fixing is possible?
Absolute, worst case scenario? Take away people's Infecteds and give them a consolation gift. But I wouldn't be too alarmist about it. The item's kind of bad on paper.
There is no why not... have you been following my posts? Seen the poll?
I think it changes the game because it creates a different game field where not killing is an optimal choice -- which is never really the case otherwise.
No. Why would I follow someone's posts? I only look at updates to threads I'm subscribed to. You should post it here with a link to it (even though I already found it) for those who don't want to hunt but are reading this.
I don't think introducing a new style of play is necessarily a bad thing at all. From ettsc, (im guessing cuz I wasnt around at the time) I'd think that accel time opened up a lot of new strategies that didnt exist before or weren't as useful. Festering guts, like Flax said, isn't even that great anyway when you think about mp and sp dynamics.
Also, http://forums.cardhunter.com/threads/poll-alozyos-arsenal-october-community-choice.8236/ for those looking for the poll regarding the compromise Flax came up with for this situation.
Sorry, I did link it here and it's been referred to a lot.
Gotcha. I must have just missed it then.
Well, I don't agree with Accelerate Time being a player card either. But that's an entirely different discussion.
In my opinion, some reactions are getting out of hand.
Aloyzo´s is a nice method to embed the community into the actual game design. CT5 and Flax put a lot of work into it and have to choose from many submissions and, naturally, this is an ungrateful job. They have their own personal criteria and preferences (like I am positively biased towards warriors, they seem to have a foot fetish for example...).
Would I have chosen the same set of items? Hell, no
Do I respect their decision? Yes.
Am I butthurt that my item was not chosen nor mentioned in the video? No, because I lost NOTHING. I had some fun creating a monster-themed-item and that is what the contest should be about, no? Additionally, we get some new items monthly and not only once a year when a new expansion hits. It remains to be seen how or if the new cards affect the meta.
I don't think anyone is taking it for granted. We all acknowledge that they put a lot of work into it and have their own criteria and preferences. The problem comes when an item selection could change the nature of the game for the worse (Festering Guts) or when an item is selected despite violating rules.
I don't really have a problem with the other selections. I wouldn't have picked them myself (they seem too similar and too much of a stretch to fit a monster), but I don't mind them.
To clarify, I don't think CT5 is involved in the selection process. Decisions are Flax's, CT5 just hangs out for the videos.
Sure, that's what they say. But when investigating these matters, always follow the bread. I mean the literal bread, CT5 keeps giving Flax bakery items. Flax chose a risky move only giving CT5 sixth place this time, but those glutenous favours will be called in eventually.
Correct. I do ask him what he thinks before I make the videos, so he's not just sockpuppeting for me. But I make the shortlist and Jon makes the final decision (usually, via approval).
Most people will assume you're joking.
I don't, and I know the power of baked goods.
Everyone makes fun of the bakers man, until they're hungry....
And Power of Bread now sounds like a funny card/item
So if anyone's upset about my item being too similar to Pawndawan's, I wouldn't mind if the Muscle Through on my item was switched to Violent Spin. It would be no problem at all. Really.
I like your item, and I'm totally going to buy it!
Male sure the Halloween store gives you your cut of the profits. ^^
Yes, I think you overvalued it. Amethyst would only be appropriate if you could choose when to play it (like Force Field). As a trait, most of the time it will be played before your opponent has used any moves, so they can just run away (and laugh as you Shuffle after them). I'd make it emerald, and that only because it can't be purged; if purge effects were changed to discard everything I'd drop it to gold.
Well, never before in MP. But yes, the prudent thing would have been to give players Mad Dog first and see what happens before even thinking about giving Festering Guts or Death Meld.
Separate names with a comma.