A way to ensure that we get all our cards fixed

The "Players' Card Game" Project aims to make it possible for creative users to see their art in action and level the playing field of the Yu-Gi-Oh! dueling scene.
Aleva
Secret Rare Duelist
Posts: 1848
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 12:15 am

A way to ensure that we get all our cards fixed

Post by Aleva » Wed Nov 10, 2010 4:40 am

This is an idea Akirus, EG and I were discussing earlier. Basically, it's a way to try and make sure people are taking the time to look at other cards.

The way it works is, instead of letting everyone make individual threads for each set, we combine everyone's sets into big community sets and release them all at once. This means that the cards you submit can't be added to the set file until everyone who has cards in the set has them all finalized, so you have to take the time to look at other people's cards if you want to play with your own. It also means we have less threads...

Thoughts?

User avatar
Zeronex
Ghost Rare Duelist
Posts: 6885
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 2:51 pm
Location: South-East Asia
Contact:

Re: A way to ensure that we get all our cards fixed

Post by Zeronex » Wed Nov 10, 2010 11:30 am

Sounds like a good idea. I agree with this.
Image

Image

User avatar
Arrowblaze
Ghost Rare Duelist
Posts: 5083
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 1:01 pm

Re: A way to ensure that we get all our cards fixed

Post by Arrowblaze » Wed Nov 10, 2010 11:32 am

Sure. Just so you know, it's gonna be a pain when people want to edit their stuff inside.
Image

User avatar
Laskeri
Parallel Rare Duelist
Posts: 2857
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 11:54 am
Location: Wherever I want to be.

Re: A way to ensure that we get all our cards fixed

Post by Laskeri » Wed Nov 10, 2010 11:45 am

how? you just tell the person who made the topic and they can make the changes? I mean, it's not as fast, but it isn't that much of a pain.
Image

-thePTguy wrote:
echohawk wrote:And the ptguy would ride off into the sunset on a magical unicorn surround by legions of LoLcats. :P
But, wait, I already do that every once in a while ... :P

Akirus
Secret Rare Duelist
Posts: 1161
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 8:54 pm

Re: A way to ensure that we get all our cards fixed

Post by Akirus » Wed Nov 10, 2010 8:31 pm

I was going to write up a more formal and detailed proposal for you guys but if you like the idea I can help with the specifics without bothering to go to such lengths. It's actually a fairly obvious solution to the biggest problems plaguing the PCG right now without restricting its main principles. Personally I still feel that this has strayed too far from my original intentions for me to participate as a card maker/player anymore but I am willing to help you guys with the logistics and organisation now that school is over.

User avatar
EvilGod10
Card Ruling Guru
Posts: 7608
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 10:53 pm
Location: Death Valley

Re: A way to ensure that we get all our cards fixed

Post by EvilGod10 » Wed Nov 10, 2010 8:49 pm

And we will appreciate any help you can give us Akirus.
Image
Any man who must say, "I am the king" is no true king.

Akirus
Secret Rare Duelist
Posts: 1161
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 8:54 pm

Re: A way to ensure that we get all our cards fixed

Post by Akirus » Thu Nov 11, 2010 4:14 am

This is the slightly edited version of my initial proposal. As you can see, I never actually got around to articles 3 and 4, which are actually the most crucial in terms of the way the PCG process works.

At the time, I noticed, and its even more evident now, that the original submission scheme (which is also the present scheme, too) is highly inadequate given the volume of cards that are getting submitted. It worked fine when it was just me and two others making a few small sets, but it's highly inefficient with so many people and cards. The quality control is low and the volume of flow is way too congested (case in point, there are more submissions than completed sets). Article 3 was intended to devise a more efficient system, but ultimately it was never started because the initial plan involved Schyster and I getting the first-stage plans drawn up (obviously didn't happen because he disappeared and I've been preoccupied for a long period of time). The idea that was suggested in this thread is one of the considerations that may fall under this category.

The other article, Article 4: Enforced Card Restrictions, is intended to seriously reassess the purpose of the ban list. Let me remind you that the ban list is NOT a part of the card creation system; in fact, it is merely a tool used for corrective purposes noticed only after the creation of a card. In my opinion, the function of the ban list needs to be seriously reduced, however that can be done. I suggest the implementation of 'sub-labels', which are distinct from the Types and Sub-Types, to assist in putting the element outlined in articles 1 through 3 such as boss monsters, etc. Most importantly though, consider why there is a ban list. It is because Konami cannot take printed cards and revise them readily. This is far from the case in the PCG, where the informality allows us to essentially do whatever we want. To this end, a part of my proposal in article #4 involves an 'errata' system that will assist in improving the functions of the PCG.

I bring this up because EG said that he would like to reinstate the first two articles as the guidelines for card design, so I'm wondering if anyone is interested in my proposals for articles 3 and 4 as I have just outlined. As I stressed in the initial post, they are my proposal only and subject to discussion (which will hopefully happen if you choose to use them this time) but I am willing to lay down the fundamentals for you if you wish. Need I also mention that most of this is over a year old and is in desperate need of revision. None of this can work without your input.

Aside from this 'framework' there are a few other suggestions I have, but before anything I believe this is a necessary step to make things happen.
Spoiler:
Article 1: Fundamental Framework

1. A Summon in itself should not result in more than 2000 points of damage.

What this means is very simple and it’s essentially followed in real-life as well. It simply means I should not be able to deal more than 2000 points of damage just by summoning something, whatever that may be; it should have costs, or conditions that allow it to do so. This assumes a direct attack. This is an important factor that needs to balance out with the associated card effects. For example, Breaker the Magical Warrior is clearly defies this design metric as it has ATK comparable to the greatest beatsticks in the game as well as a no-cost destructive effect. We can consider a vanilla 2000 ATK as the upper limit of this rule and everything should be scaled relative to this measure.

2. A card, by itself, should not create more than +/- 1 in card advantage. “+/-0 is the benchmark”.

Again, this is very simple. If I just play a card, it should not result in a net change in my hand greater than + or – 1. Obviously, combos are exempt from this clause.

This rule is important for card design in that it ensures cards are not excessively over or underpowered. If a card generates a +1, then it must have a reasonable drawback (for instance, Ojamagic is an exceptional +2 card, but it only nets you 0/1000 vanillas). If a card results in a -1, then its effect should be suitably powerful to compensate for this loss.

The reason or the restriction on negative advantage (or shall I call it card disadvantage) is simply this: if cards generally deplete your resources at a rate of 20-50% per play, the game will simply slow to a crawl. Yes, we don’t want explosive matches ending in 3 turns, but nor do we want slow, 50 turn games with two players top-decking 1 card at a time with no playable hand. Similarly, we don’t want decks to be so slow it starts off with both players setting cards for 5 turns until they get playable combos.

Well balanced cards do not tip the scale in either direction.

3. Cards that have the versatility to affect both rows of the field should be limited to finishers only.

I very much support the notion of “boss monsters” in this game. Yeah, Judgment Dragon is ridiculously explosive compared to your standard cards, but if every archetype had similarly exciting cards, how much more fun would this game be? The concept of pitting overpowered, but limited, cards against each other is not looking to be dropped by Konami anytime soon and frankly, I don’t want to either.

What constitutes a boss monster? To quote Jae, “a truly powerful monster is a card that can clear both s/t’s [Spells and Traps] and monsters (or answer any monster threat) while retaining card advantage. Each of these different bosses belong[s] to different decks [in reference to JD, DaD, Gyza, Rescue Cat Toolbox]; it’s almost impossible to splash them all.” It is perfectly acceptable in my eyes for each archetype or deck type to have one or two of these, so long as they are appropriately dictated by the ban list (or by the “Final” sub-type I proposed in another thread).

With that said, I do not believe normal cards should exist with this level of power. From Jae’s blog again:

“Yu-Gi-Oh Metric 3- Effects were never allowed to target either a monster or a spell/trap. Effects that received this type of versatility, such as Raigeki Break and Phoenix Wing Wind Blast, were tied to significant costs”

Cards like Snipe Hunter or Caius, in my opinion, should be allowed no penetration into the N-PCG (new-PCG) Meta. This will allow for much more variety in card creation and deck construction; it’s not just a matter about picking the jack of all trades. Well, it shouldn’t be, anyway.

4. No effects should be designed to end the game quickly in one turn (F/OTK).


Anything that can consistently F/OTK with a simple combo (elaborate, situational setups are exempt). Easy OTKs greatly detract from the skill factor and are extremely anti-climatic. For this reason, no cards or combos should be designed to do such, and any found to will be moderated with the ban list.

5. "Remove from play" is more powerful than destruction.

This is just a brief note I felt like adding in. This line simply states that when considering effects involving RFP, it must be scaled more highly relative to destruction effects. This factor may not make a significant difference to all effects so it should be considered only on a case-by-case basis.

6. Cards should not be clones of others, unless there is sufficient justification.

Again, quite simple: don’t make cards with the exact same function as another, in a different skin (or vice versa). That is, we don’t need 5 different Destiny Draws in the N-PCG. Previously, this was difficult to accomplish if we wanted to level out with real-life decks. The “drop 1, draw 2” is perhaps the most solid draw engine available and because almost all powerful real-life archetypes have these, it’s difficult not to use them to match it. However, there should be no excuse for such repetition after the transition to the new created cards-only system. The only exception to this clause should be if there is a good reason for it, such as theme relevance, whether it is for the archetype it is designed or the card itself. It is very plausible to add creative spin to standard "drop 1, draw 2" cards and the like.

Article 2: Archetype Structure and Limitations

1. Archetype Ace


An ‘ace’ (also ‘boss monster’, ‘trump card’, ‘finisher’) is defined as a card that can deal with a large range of threats at no cost in terms of card advantage. They are exclusive to specific decks and due to their power, are restricted in some way by the ban list. A well-known example of such a card is "Judgment Dragon".

An archetype should generally have one to two of these, depending on its strength. Use existing cards as a benchmark; instances of powerful, no-cost field nukers and the like, such as JD and DaD, should only exist at 1. Weaker, more conditional monsters such as the Scatterstar/Voidspawn Envoy duo are cases where it may be acceptable for an archetype/deck type to have two finishers.

PROPOSAL: Finishers, rather than through banlist regulation, should simply be tagged by an appropriate sub-heading. See ‘Article 4: Enforced Card Restrictions’ for elaboration.

2. Deck Flow and Speed

This clause refers to cards like "Destiny Draw", "Solar Recharge", "Reinforcement of the Army", "Black Whirlwind" and "Charge of the Light Brigade"; cards which are fundamental in managing the flow and speed of the deck. An archetype should only have one such dedicated draw card and one such dedicated utility searcher (as a general rule; there may be exceptions). Also remember to consider generic supports, such as "Allure of Darkness".

For creative purposes, "discard 1, draw 2" and "add 1 card from your Deck to your hand" cards should not be submitted unless you can add an interesting spin or extra to it (eg. Charge has an effect that is extremely beneficial to "Lightsworn" decks and gives it a defining characteristic compared to conventional deck searchers).

2a. Deck Drivers

This clause refers to the trend in many deck engines that will yield great benefits. This may be in the form of advantage (+1s), versatility (morphtronics) or other such perks. A slight degree of tolerance will be allowed in this regard to allow for smooth gameplay. When creating these cards, use other engines as precedence to justify the power of yours. Here are some possible examples:

Black Feathers -> Black Whirlwind
Lightsworns/Shadowsworns -> Charge of the Light Brigade/Solar Recharge / Incursion of the Dark Horde/Dark Renewal (highly possible to get advantage from milled cards)
Gladiator Beast -> Inherent +1 battle theme (every time you destroy a monster, you can SS another from your deck, whose effect will usually yield advantage; eg. Bestiari, Darius, Equeste)
Six Samurai -> Six Samurai United (+1 for swarming the field) / Decree of the Imperial Shogunate (ability to toolbox the effects of your Six Samurai monsters)
Morphtronics -> Morphtronic Accelerator (versatile at the cost of advantage)
Rituals -> Manju (toolbox your Ritual cards, and convert a +1) *Note: This classification is still blurry, I'm not sure about it.

NOTE: With recent developments in the TCG banlist, such as the limitation of Black Whirlwind and Charge of the Light Brigade, I believe this point should be re-evaluated in the context of both actual experience with the TCG/OCG and the PCG itself.

2b. Deck Speed Caps

The general guideline is simply this: no deck should be able to consistently OTK without at least a somewhat lengthy preparation. This means duels should reasonably be expected to last an average of 5+ turns per player. Any cards (or cards that can be used in tandem) that allow a deck to violate this rule will be dealt with accordingly and without exception.

STANDARD: A materiality clause should be used, similar to the materiality standard used in professional financial accounting. I quote AASB1031 Materiality, para.15:

“An amount which is equal to or greater than 10 per cent of the appropriate base amount may be presumed to be material unless there is evidence or convincing argument to the contrary”

For a QUANTITATIVE MEASURE, if an element is causing a long-term streak of OTKs at a rate above 10%, it needs to be put under scrutiny. This rule exempts cards that will allow for OTKs once in a blue moon. Note, it is only a GUIDELINE and not a RULE.

3. Black Horse Concept

Each archetype is allowed 1 existing card (i.e. you cannot intentionally make a "Black Horse") that should be banned as per the defined guidelines to be left on limited. For Lightsworns, this would be Garoth, for Feathers, Shura, for Glads, Hoplomus. I restate myself again in saying that this is a CORRECTIVE MEASURE ONLY. Furthermore, this rule only applies if the card in question does not break gameplay in a significant manner.

Article 3: Operating Processes


Presently inapplicable.

Article 4: Enforced Card Restrictions


Like the TCG/OCG/CCG, the PCG is similarly bound by a list of card restrictions ranging from 0 to unlimited. See ban-list for further details.

Aleva
Secret Rare Duelist
Posts: 1848
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 12:15 am

Re: A way to ensure that we get all our cards fixed

Post by Aleva » Fri Nov 12, 2010 3:44 am

I think, for the things in Article 1, we should probably have some discussion on that. Personally, I really don't like the idea that cards that can destroy both rows on the field should be finishers only. The other five are fine with me.

For Article 2, it's mostly all fine, except the idea of a 'Final' Sub-Type is a bit iffy to me...

Akirus
Secret Rare Duelist
Posts: 1161
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 8:54 pm

Re: A way to ensure that we get all our cards fixed

Post by Akirus » Fri Nov 12, 2010 11:11 am

Basis for your objection to the multi-target? I believe my contention is solid. The only reason I can see for disliking the rule is so you can keep more of the cards you like using unrestricted.

The revised 'Final' concept is not a sub-type; it is merely another label on the card that indicates that it is limited to one copy per deck (as well as any other restrictions you want to attribute to the label). It's essentially putting "LIMITED" on the card rather than referring to a ban list for it. Article 4, which has not been and may never been written, will expand on this concept (which can be applied beyond boss monsters; for instance, it can be used to formalize the 'Dark Horse' concept, as well as limitations on deck drivers, staples, etc).

eg. Judgment Dragon - Monster/Effect/Final => it is an effect monster that can only be run one copy per deck. Basically it formalizes the ban list limitation into the card rather than as a 'corrective' measure applied post-publication. It is not a sub-type as in Judgment Dragon - Monster/Final/Effect. To clarify, here's another example:

Blue Eyes Toon Dragon - Monster/Toon/Effect/Final => it is a Toon effect monster that can only be run one copy per deck.

Again, its based around the theory of article 4; I can write it up but only if there's interest. The idea of this system is to eliminate the ban list for card creation considerations. What I mean by that is, you don't have to think, "okay, I'm going to make this card, but limit it once its done" kinda thing. There are several obvious advantages to this, some of which have already been touched on.

User avatar
Arrowblaze
Ghost Rare Duelist
Posts: 5083
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 1:01 pm

Re: A way to ensure that we get all our cards fixed

Post by Arrowblaze » Fri Nov 12, 2010 11:46 am

Multi-target should be fine with non-finishers. Because even with Multi-target, it doesn't create advantage. It only gives you the flexibility of card choice for more stuff inside the deck. Like say 5 multi-targeters, and 5 free slots for something else, like reviving or search. But if you have this rule, your kinda forced to put 5 monster destruction, and 5 Spell/Trap destruction. Kinda feels pretty bad when deckmaking. The thing is, by forcing non-finishers to only target 1 row, you kind of force people to use unsavory cards. Also, with a much lesser card pool, it could be ugly, deckmaking.
Image

Akirus
Secret Rare Duelist
Posts: 1161
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 8:54 pm

Re: A way to ensure that we get all our cards fixed

Post by Akirus » Fri Nov 12, 2010 9:35 pm

I disagree. Deck-making is infinitely more interesting if you have to actually make a choice to pick one or another rather than "one-for-all". It's not that multi-targeting is 'broken'; it's that there are more dimensions to the game if cards only do one or another, because that means you can't just choose one card to serve every function. This applies not only in deck-building but also in the card creation process. I don't see what you mean by "unsavory cards". Are you saying cards that only target one row are not as interesting as "I kill everything" cards?

User avatar
Arrowblaze
Ghost Rare Duelist
Posts: 5083
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 1:01 pm

Re: A way to ensure that we get all our cards fixed

Post by Arrowblaze » Fri Nov 12, 2010 11:30 pm

Well, choosing that 1 card to serve "every function" isn't really serving "every purpose" just that it frees up space for other things to put inside the deck. You are correct in the sense that there are more dimensions, but my stance is firm that you waste slots in your deck trying to make with both Monster only and Spell/Trap only destruction. Then again, usually in an archetype, there wouldn't be more than 2 or 3 multi-targeting non-finishers, so it's not really that much of a big deal.
Image

Akirus
Secret Rare Duelist
Posts: 1161
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 8:54 pm

Re: A way to ensure that we get all our cards fixed

Post by Akirus » Sat Nov 13, 2010 12:25 am

"Wasting" would imply they aren't worth playing, no? You make the point that there needs to be space for other things, but how are they any less of a waste than monster/spell/trap-specific destruction? Is there a lack of deck-space to put all of these important elements into your deck? If anything, the 40 cards is already more than you need - that's why we use draw power and deck thinners. I think it's a poor argument to argue that there isn't enough space, particularly when there isn't even a limit to the number of cards you can put in one deck (as far as I know).

User avatar
MysticJhn
Super Special Awesome Duelist
Posts: 19620
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 5:42 am
Location: Amity Park

Re: A way to ensure that we get all our cards fixed

Post by MysticJhn » Sat Nov 13, 2010 1:25 am

Akirus wrote:... particularly when there isn't even a limit to the number of cards you can put in one deck (as far as I know).
Just to jump in here, the current Official Rulebook does limit Main Decks to 60 cards along with the minimum of 40.
It's one of the changes released in the first 5Ds era rulebooks.
To Discuss Moderatory Actions, Click Here!
If you need an avatar, check out the Avatar Encyclopedia!

Akirus
Secret Rare Duelist
Posts: 1161
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 8:54 pm

Re: A way to ensure that we get all our cards fixed

Post by Akirus » Sat Nov 13, 2010 12:01 pm

Ah, thanks for the clarification. I believe my point stands though; the contention that cards should be allowed to be more powerful to fit in "reviving" and "searchers" is more or less tantamount to saying "we should make more powerful cards so we can fit in more cards to bring out these powerful cards". I have played rather extensively with this clause and I don't believe it causes the game to be considerably slowed at all. If anything, it makes it more balanced. My 2 cents.

Locked