Genesis Judging Criteria!

[Nerafim]

This is where I will post the general Genesis Judging Criteria and where discussions will be carried out. People are welcomed to do feedback on the actual judging criteria here.

As an introduction, we only had 3 Genesis so far(Though it seems like a lot lol), and I looked back and it's even surprising how well we improved it in Genesis 3, and can still improve it for further contests. This is what I feel is a very good final general form, I put a bit of thought into it. Of course the new judging criteria will be added or modified, or points added depending on the theme of each contest, but so far this is the general form.

I'd appreciate feedback on especially the things in brackets and with "?" at the end.

Judging Criteria
(For Creatures)

Balance
0 Broken
2 Very unbalanced
4 Unbalanced
6 Slightly unbalanced
8 Balanced

Theme
Thematic qualities: Name, Civilization, Race, Effect, Flavour Text, Theme Synergy.
0 Less than three thematic qualities fit the same theme.
1 Three thematic qualities fit the same theme.
2 Four thematic qualities fit the same theme.
3 Five thematic qualities fit the same theme.
4 Six thematic qualities fit the same theme.

+1 point for extra potential qualities.*

How's the card's theme?
1 Basic, just fits the standard qualities.
2 Good, stands out well.
3 Awesome!/Inspireing/Sets it's own great standards.

Card Synergy
Relative to the focus of the card.
0 Gimmick/Vanillaish.
1 Alright/ Just enough.
2 Good.
3 Excellent.

Card Strength
Relative impact on the gamestate/meta/duel, opponent.
0 Gimmick/Vanillaish.
1 Sturdy.
2 As strong as it needs and then some.
3 Smites with great vengance!

-1/2 points allowed if the card is overpowered.**

Civilization
0 Doesn't belong in its civilization
1 Does belong in its civilization

Race
0 Doesn't belong in its race
1 Does belong in its race

Flavour Text
0 Sucks/None/Not related to card
1 Good/None because the effect text fills the card
2 Awesome!

Does the effect + flavour text fit on a card?
0 No way!
1 If you force it/fiddle with the card or type format.
2 Easily.

Is the effect/*contest goal* cool?
0 Nope
1 Yep
2 Awesome!

Is the effect/*contest goal* original?
0 No
1 Original spinoff/twist
2 Unique or unique practical application.

Is the effect(/card?/*contest goal*) cohesive?
0 No/Thrown together randomly.
1 Yes, good.
2 Very well woven.

Does the name fit established patterns?
0 No
1 Yes/There is no pattern

*Not the contest specific things, those will be added separatly. If for instance the creature has more Civs and/or Races and they all fit as opposed to just some, or if the mechanic somehow fits(only ones existing in the game so far), or even stuff like power or creature(card) cost or type, or art(description). Not if it seems forced enough that they are aiming for this extra point.

**Not mandatory,and to be used at the judges discretion.(-2 should probably be for seriously overpowered cards that are scoring high in other areas nontheless)

TOTAL: 33 (+1=34)

General Notes

I should also post some extra observations on how to use the score but I am too lazy for that now.

Anyway, I feel this is a very good general score and criteria. As you can see I made some changes, first of all being the addition of new criteria:

For one I added one more for the theme. Aside from a card fitting theme patterns, as I judged more on Genesis III I noticed that even if cards minimaly or mediumly fitted a lot of thematic qualities, it was still not something necesarilly outstanding about the general theme. Fitting thematic qualities is not necesarilly the same as having a good theme.

Not all DM cards are flashy set key cards, fatties(that usually have better theme) or fanservice cards, so it's not fair to judge it just like that. A card can have a great and interesting theme with less thematic qualities, and a card that touches on all aspects that carry a theme might seem bland. This criteria is more a matter of artistic appreciation, and I think it would free some creativity as opposed to just being obsessed to touch on everything.

Then I added a score for the card, or at least effect being cohesive. That's because I saw enough of people adding different and more effects on the card that are kind of arbitrary and random, though this can raise their score. The whole "get a card that can do as much things as possible just because that's awesme" mentality exists as well.

Other than that, the Synergy thing really needed a lot of work and idealy still would. Until now there was no serious appreciation of the card in terms of actual use, playing and impact on the game. The balance thing is more like a good penalty to keep people in check.
However talking about the goodness of the card can be very difficult. Good cards don't need to have lots of synergy, they can just be strong in one particular area, and very synergetic cards aren't exactly strong or intense necesarilly(Hulcus, Energy Stream). One might consider synergy as "metagame potential" but on the othe hand DM is also about lots of specific effects and applications.

One can probably not judge a card so well on it's "goodness" unless they are uber gosu or one of the actual game designers, let alone creating a card. Creating cards is fundamentally less about what it actually does in playing as well, so that's why this current criteria in its' more lax form and with general, subjective adjectives on the scoring is as far as we should go, but we DID need something better.

In thematic qualities, Race and Civ need to be different, and I added "Theme Synergy". This probably means more things...Like how well the different parts of the theme on a card actually relate to each other, or on the other hand how far a particular theme promoted by this card can be used further in the game, or even how it reacts in theme with other existing cards: name archtype families(Alcadeias, Ballom, Bolmeteus, etc.), Aqua Buster and Aqua Surfer and generally speaking the cards often quoted in the flavor texts can offer some of this. And the extra point that I already talked about.

I made the originality thing more clear. This one is tricky because DM is made in a way that specific mechanics and applications are made, and there are base values(power, draw, discard, breaking) that are manipulated in the process. There is a lot of unique effects and originality, that's true, but things like the card cost/civ/race or slightly different application or combination of the effect can yeld different uses. An original thing is also something not technically with a precedence in DM, even if it isn't that necesarilly original to create. And a card can be really unique in application even if the effect doesn't seem like it.
That's why, I did a bit extra on it but it's still sufficiently flexible and subjective.

And finally I think that the coolness of the effect and/or originality should and could easily apply, at the same, instead or separatly, on whatever the goal of the cotest is. Like the mechanic being cool in Genesis 3 for instance.


Anyway, I guess that's it for my rant on the changes, feedback please. I think this scoring is now more flexible and provides more overall scenarios for judgeing, and should hopefully simplify it. With this there should also be less close calls and subjective differences. And remember, the point of a score table is not necesarilly to score top marks, but to provide a wide enough range where there is at least something with a higher score to be made.

-Nera

[Rin]

Balance
6 Slightly unbalanced -- pretty good format but too many numbers

Theme
4 Six thematic qualities fit the same theme. -- sticks well to the theme of 'card judging criteria'

How's the card's theme?
1 Basic, just fits the standard qualities. -- actually 0, since it's not a card

Card Synergy and/or Strength
0 Instantly redundant; no reason to exist given alternatives/Stupidly specific.

Civilization
0 Doesn't belong in its civilization

Race
0 Doesn't belong in its race

Flavour Text
0 Sucks/None/Not related to card -- flavour text sucks

Does the effect + flavour text fit on a card?
0 No way! -- tl;dr

Is the effect/*contest goal* cool?
0 Nope

Is the effect/*contest goal* original?
0 No

Is the effect(/card?/*contest goal*) cohesive?
0 No/Thrown together randomly.

Does the name fit established patterns?
1 Yes/There is no pattern -- fits the pattern of lameness

12

[Nerafim]

Haha, gtfo!

But yeah, that's right! You'll work for it!

A hardworking lumberjack such as yourself should appreciate this.

[Phoenix]

Card Synergy and/or Strength
Value this card in terms of actual use and value in the game/a duel, practical efficiency or strength/impact of what it does.
0 Instantly redundant; no reason to exist given alternatives/Stupidly specific.
1 Weak.
2 Average.
3 Good.
4 Great!
5 Superb!

Examples?

-1/2 points allowed if the card is overpowered**

You mean, halve the synergy score if balance is 4 or lower?

Thread moved to where it belongs.

[Nerafim]

Card Synergy and/or Strength
Value this card in terms of actual use and value in the game/a duel, practical efficiency or strength/impact of what it does.
0 Instantly redundant; no reason to exist given alternatives/Stupidly specific.
1 Weak.
2 Average.
3 Good.
4 Great!
5 Superb!

Examples?

Hmm, hard to really. Like I said, the actual different uses of a card in practice, in a deck a strategy or how you manipulate it ingame weren't so much covered.

But it's really tough to talk about that, at least not without putting more effort than comfortable for judging into it.

That's why, like I said, it's a judge of both strength and synergy, and the adjectives in the points are kind of abstract. It gives more power to the judge to aproximate it freely as it were.

Like I said, it's not perfect, because talking about the actual use of the card is like already going into a CotD type shit, but it definitley needed to be larger.

And about the point reduction thing, that one is simple...

If a card is overpowered it's obviously supposed to have either too good strength or synergy, as opposed to when it is underpowered, in which case, now that this score is also larger it should technically score more even if it lost points on balance.

It's easier to create overpowered cards, like out of noobish enthusiasm for example, as opposed to when they are made underpowered, which can be a result of at least trying to be balanced with what you do. So that's where the unfairness is really.

That's why with overpowered cards you can reduce the score of that by 1 or 2 tops, or not at all really. It depends more on the specific case, that's why. A card could proly' deserve a point reduction even if it scored 6 in balance. But cutting it in half alltogether is sort of biasedly harsh, not all overpowered cards deserve that, some can be more balanced with a slight modification and such.

Anyway, how's it looking overall though?

[Phoenix]

I'd get confused if I tried to use it.

[Nerafim]

I'd get confused if I tried to use it.

If you are talking about the Synergy/Strength thing then I can see how, but then again that's also probably because you haven't really played the game in a long time. Just saying...It might turn out better than you imagine when confronted with the situation aswell.

Plus there is the poster's description to go by or other judges that do play(like how I usually tend to offer more details on it) so I think it's all good.

Or look at it this way...With the old score, it really didn't take much for the card to score 2 anyway, most properly made cards got it and we had enough of that, and even if it got 1 it still wasn't much difference in the end, so you can pretty much still see it and do it the same now because it's abstract enough, it's just that you get more wiggle room.

And even so this is can still be worked on and it's more the general criteria, I will try to make it more maneouverable depending on contest theme so it's all good.


But just so you get a better understanding of it, the thing is that when saying "synergy" that can mean different things and is thought about differently. Synergy of a card in a deck/deck type is not the same as the synergy of a card in certain tactics/combos, or synergy of the card with the entire game or just some situations, which is also why it's not technically difficult to score high with it.

When you think about synergy in general one tends to get cards like Soulswap or Energy Stream and not all cards are like that.
Fortress Shell for instance is one of the best cards in the game, but "synergy in general" is not exactley it's thing and it has a rather clear cut goal, however her power is incredible and it takes the deck build to bring out it's synergy.

That's why it's troublesome trying to judge either synergy or strength or both at the same time, but at the very least it's aimed for in the criteria, which in turn is at the very least professional and ideal, even if it's still narrow and subjective in practice.