On Balance

[Mehmani]

[center][b][size="6"]On Balance[/size][/b][/center]

Ah! Thank you for joining me. You may have thought that I was content in my own little world, my weird Communist bubble, but I have been, see. I have been thinking logically yet innovatively. This little idea of mine has been floating around my head-bubble for approximately ten months. The idea was like many that come into my mind - weak, drowned, like a neglected kitten it sat there at the back of my mind, mewling for food. A certain offhand comment by [member='Cursed Reaction'] triggered a spark that set that little kitten alight like a newborn star. And like a kitten on fire it burns brightly and is faintly hilarious before fizzling out and leaving you with an awkward mess and a pang of guilt. I hope that this idea will not be a flaming kitten, but rather a fed one. Like a fed one it inevitably dies, but like a fed one that could be way down the line.

I think that metaphor was a bit weird.

My little idea has actually been around longer than you think. [member='Deustodo'] once had a little quote in his signature saying something along the lines of "My cards are not overpowered. You just think they are". This quote is surprisingly eloquent, a sort of micro-oasis amongst the Atacama-esque barrenness of YCM. Like a micro-oasis amongst the several thousand square kilometre Atacama desert it was also difficult to find and ignored except by people thirsty for knowledge (or water). But my little theory is slightly different. My idea (Alfred's Theorem, call it that or I'll set my lawyers on you) is that all balance is relative. What is the collective noun for a group of lawyers? Prey. A prey of lawyers. Sounds good. But back to the idea - when YCM reviews cards it has a hugely varying spectrum of balance. Some members define any form of decent strength or usability as imbalance. They are idiots. Some define any form of strength except game-breaking as too weak. They are a lot less prominent that the previous idiots, yet idiots nonetheless.

In the two CCGs I work in, I am exposed to entirely different perceptions of balance. Leo's CCG sees balance as relative to the leader's ideology - he thinks that the current metagame is hideously disfigured and that all prominent decks are broken, so he sees a card of about Tier 3 level (think a random attribute support card in Labyrinth of Nightmare) as being balanced. In OCCG, they see cards as being usable in the current metagame as balanced. A card of Tier 1 quality is balanced in one place, a card of Tier 3 quality is balanced in another. This seems drastic and obvious, perhaps, but it isn't just different environments. It's different decks too.

Look at Flamvells. They have Rekindling, almost a guaranteed +3 or +4 that in turns guarantees two synchros. However, Rekindling summons from the Graveyard and Flamvells have no cards that mill or dump. Flamvells are Tier 2. Now, everyone in TCG (including me) considers Rekindling broken, but the sort of subversive understatement (which also happens to be my opinion) is that although the card is broken, the location of the card deems it balanced. Elegant Egotist is a card that instantly summons any archetype monster from your hand or deck - broken in a Tier 1 archetype, but because it is support for Harpies it is balanced. Balance is relative, regulating it is difficult.

The only solution I can see to this misguided reviewing is to better regulate card reviewers. People respond to incentives - perhaps organize some kind of community scheme where if you see someone giving a good review you give them a +rep. Point or competition incentives could also work. CC is about getting good feedback for your cards. If we start getting better reviewing standards then perhaps card standards would in turn rise? Who knows? It's up to the moderators to decide.

Goodnight, ladies and gentleman, and thank you for listening.

[Mehmani]

BUMP

[Icy]

[i]"If we start getting better reviewing standards then perhaps card standards would in turn rise? Who knows? It's up to the moderators to decide."[/i]

And therein lies my problem. When we rate cards, we rate them on balance according to the immediate Card Game's Meta (as if their cards were thrown in as a series of Magazine/McDonalds Promo's). However, I being an art student find that to be extremely conflicting of what Custom Cards is about. Creating Cards (realistic or not the creative aspect takes dominance in all cases). So you end up having to contend with a Cruel Standard that has no grounds on the creative aspect of it, or you end up having a Superficial Standard based on whatever era of the game the person is returning from.

Thus I am left with letting members decide on their own individual standards with a TCG focused insert so people understand how cards work rather than second guessing it and creating an even larger ugh. Not to mention if we create universal standards, commenting on little more than an "I like/dont like this" becomes more important than a structured reply followed by that...

[Master White]

Well, I may or may not have a solution. If you can do this that is.

Have 2, 3, or 4 Sub Sections under RL.

Names:

Realistic Cards CCG
---For people who want to be rated or commented by the Custom Cards CCG system

Realistic Cards OCCG
---For people who want to be rated or commented by Custom Cards OCG system

Realistic Cards Masters
---For people who want to be rated by or commented by the masters or by both CCG & OCG systems

Realistic Cards
---For people who want to be rated or commented like it normally was and for starting people.

---------------------
If you can't, I would understand....Its up to Icy though....If you did that, people could get rated the way they want to be rated. Title Names are just suggested as a brief understanding

All I know is that whatever OCG, CCG, Both or regular, as long as I get a good rating, I'm okay...