Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Open Forum => Off-Topic => Topic started by: Warrior_Monk on August 12, 2012, 04:26:40 PM
-
This is in Off-Topic because we have no general Redemption forum and no real good fit for it.
So after some talk at Nationals, and previously on the forums, there are many problems with this game, but I’d like to focus more on how the game is being run as a whole. I’ll outline a few potential solutions.
Right now the only system we truly have is the Elder system. I’d like to split this group up into more specifically geared into specific things.
-The first would be the ruling group, composed of people like Gabe, Jordan, and RDT, who know the rules extremely well. I suggest a test be composed of tricky rulings that you have to pass, because frankly, some of the current elders have made really bad rulings at times. They should not have the authority to make official rulings. I understand this would be tricky in some regions, but perhaps you could have a training program, or (somehow) a written guide to avoid bad rulings. We could also have a judge on-call weekly for difficult rulings, but that would be extremely difficult with so few great judges, who are undoubtedly very busy.
-The second group would be promoters/contributers. People like Roy, Bill, and Michallyzian (you know who I mean...) who bring joy and expand the game. I’m not sure what their role would be, but we already have Elders like that, so it seems silly to exclude them.
-The third group would be Card Creators. Pretty self explanatory, these people would be creative people who create innovative and balanced cards, and from there they would go to the fourth group.
-The fourth group would be the playtesters, who make sure the cards are indeed balanced. These people would have to be very active in playing, very good at deck building, great players, and careful about who they play with, so as not to let too many people in on the new cards. They would also test out new potential rules.
The division between card creators and playtesters would let fewer people know about what cards are being put in the new set, as well as avoid one person pushing cards through because they created them because, let’s face it, we all have an affinity for our own creations.
I also propose that there has to be 2 months notice for any rules can be made or changed. This allows for:
-Greater awareness of new rules. This gives time for people to hear about the rules.
-More time to properly adjust. If we know it’s coming, it won’t be as much of a reaction because our decks are suddenly illegal. We can playtest in time.
-A brief period of time to Vito the new ruling if somebody comes up with something broken that the rulers and playtesters missed.
-No chance for in-tournament changes. Yes, I’m referring to the CBP soul ruling at Nationals.
I had something else, but I forgot. I’ll edit if should I remember. I’m also expecting a thread later on improving the competitive aspect, but I would think that’s separate.
Thoughts? Disagreements?
-
-No chance for in-tournament changes. Yes, I’m referring to the CBP soul ruling at Nationals.
I had something else, but I forgot. I’ll edit if should I remember. I’m also expecting a thread later on improving the competitive aspect, but I would think that’s separate.
Thoughts? Disagreements?
CBP soul ruling at nats? lolwut?
-
Yes to the long time needed division of duties. Even bigger yes to a required Judge test, preferably with different tiers as well (ie. Level 1, 2, 3 Judge, Head Judge).
-
-No chance for in-tournament changes. Yes, I’m referring to the CBP soul ruling at Nationals.
CBP soul ruling at nats? lolwut?
They ruled that the FBTN soul negated CBP. This was how it worked last year, but changed around January, yet at nats they overturned the ruling.
Yes to the long time needed division of duties. Even bigger yes to a required Judge test, preferably with different tiers as well (ie. Level 1, 2, 3 Judge, Head Judge).
Definitely like the idea of different tiers.
-
-No chance for in-tournament changes. Yes, I’m referring to the CBP soul ruling at Nationals.
CBP soul ruling at nats? lolwut?
They ruled that the FBTN soul negated CBP. This was how it worked last year, but changed around January, yet at nats they overturned the ruling.
Yes to the long time needed division of duties. Even bigger yes to a required Judge test, preferably with different tiers as well (ie. Level 1, 2, 3 Judge, Head Judge).
Definitely like the idea of different tiers.
That's retarded and shouldn't have been done. And I agree with all of the splits as well.
-
-No chance for in-tournament changes. Yes, I’m referring to the CBP soul ruling at Nationals.
CBP soul ruling at nats? lolwut?
They ruled that the FBTN soul negated CBP. This was how it worked last year, but changed around January, yet at nats they overturned the ruling.
This was an incorrect ruling, and was later corrected. Nothing was actually overturned, and there is agreement now that SA that grant CB- to other cards are CBN. It was just an incorrect ruling, not a change in the rules. Just wanted to make sure that is clear.
However, this situation with the wrong ruling actually gives more credence to this sort of thread. The judges/elders involved in the ruling were not aware of the change, for a couple of reasons.
First, not all of the elders are on the boards constantly (let's face it, they have lives), and they will miss threads. This wouldn't be a problem, except that we expect them to know everything that has ever been posted. Fair? No. But major ruling threads are getting missed by those who are making the important calls in-game, and that is a problem.
Second, the thread in question (which can be found HERE (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/proposal-for-cbipn-granting-abilities/msg461511/#msg461511)) made a rather significant change to the game rules. Honestly, it was needed and the right thing to do for consistency and simplicity of the game, but it was just like any other thread in that board. Some elders could very well miss that thread and the ruling, even though there was a lot of agreement and no dissent. This sort of thing needs to find its way into something like this thread (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/redemption-official-rules/official-new-rulings-announcement-thread/), at the very least.
Third, there is nowhere in the 'rules' where this ruling was put. As I said above, there are threads to keep ruling changes, but that is also insufficient. We need to update the rules, as in the REG, and keep it updated. Otherwise, people who aren't on the boards all the time or happen to miss something will make the wrong ruling (as happened at Nats).
The elders are a great group of guys. They're helpful, honest, and willing to take the hit and judge instead of play. But some of them aren't the best on rules, just because of their inability to live on the boards (like some of us do). We need to implement a new system, or things like what happened at Nats (not just the ruling on CBP soul, there were other issues...) will continue, and will continue to cost competitive players games/placement.
-
Let me clarify the roles of the groups you mentioned as I understand them from your post:
1. Judges/Rulemakers - official staff position for those tasked with updating and changing the rules of Redemption
2. Supporters/SuperHosts - pseudo-staff position for those who greatly help popularize the game in order to get their thoughts on related game decisions
3. Card Creators - official staff position for those specifically tasked with creating cards for new sets
4. Playtesters - pseudo-staff position for those tasked with playing with unreleased sets in order to check card balance and/or rule changes
-
The elder is working but slowly, and yes they don't see every thing. But they should half to, we can make a ruling our selves. The trick to doing that is reading the cards then if that is confusing then you bring in an elder. We also need to get beater at posting card SA when asking a question.
-
The elder is working but slowly, and yes they don't see every thing. But they should half to, we can make a ruling our selves. The trick to doing that is reading the cards then if that is confusing then you bring in an elder.
The problem is there are elders who don't rule correctly. I wasn't going to bring this up, but two elders at nats said that Lurking could interrupt Balaam, even though Balaam was preventing the interrupt. That's frankly unacceptable.
-
The elder is working but slowly, and yes they don't see every thing. But they should half to, we can make a ruling our selves. The trick to doing that is reading the cards then if that is confusing then you bring in an elder.
The problem is there are elders who don't rule correctly. I wasn't going to bring this up, but two elders at nats said that Lurking could interrupt Balaam, even though Balaam was preventing the interrupt. That's frankly unacceptable.
It can how ever what artifacts where up? What Lost Souls where in play? who was lurking played on? What forts where out?
-
The elder is working but slowly, and yes they don't see every thing. But they should half to, we can make a ruling our selves. The trick to doing that is reading the cards then if that is confusing then you bring in an elder.
The problem is there are elders who don't rule correctly. I wasn't going to bring this up, but two elders at nats said that Lurking could interrupt Balaam, even though Balaam was preventing the interrupt. That's frankly unacceptable.
It can how ever what artifacts where up? What Lost Souls where in play? who was lurking played on? What forts where out?
Lurking was played on Balaam. Nothing was negating him.
-
The elder is working but slowly, and yes they don't see every thing. But they should half to, we can make a ruling our selves. The trick to doing that is reading the cards then if that is confusing then you bring in an elder.
The problem is there are elders who don't rule correctly. I wasn't going to bring this up, but two elders at nats said that Lurking could interrupt Balaam, even though Balaam was preventing the interrupt. That's frankly unacceptable.
It can how ever what artifacts where up? What Lost Souls where in play? who was lurking played on? What forts where out?
I was in the game where this occurred, and after two Elders were going to rule it that Lurking could interrupt Balaam, a third Elder came in and flatly shot it down, siding with me.
-
So it didn't work then?
-
How could it work if multiple elders didn't even know the answer to an extremely basic ruling question?
-
I don't think these groups should all be mutually exclusive. Specifically, I think the top tier judges, maybe even the top two tiers, should be pulled directly from the card creators/playtesters. Additionally, if we're going to break it up, I see no reason not to expand the group of playtesters to include at least a few more of the major (10+ people) playgroups, so as to avoid overpowered cards in the future.
-
So after some talk at Nationals, and previously on the forums, there are many problems with this game, but I’d like to focus more on how the game is being run as a whole. I’ll outline a few potential solutions.
Many problems? Take a step back. How many cards are coming out that are broken and not getting counters? What won type 1 2p and t2 2p this year? A Unified Kingdom deck and a fbtnb deck...old school stuff, as great as the past sets have been, no complaints there from anyone, correct? How many rules have gone right at Nationals? Majority. The Elders made a mistake, and you make an entire thread stating how the game needs to be broken up, and all this stemmed from an incorrect ruling. How is this fair? Have you ever sat out of competitive play at a Nationals to solely and only judge? Have you had the responsibility of testing new cards, judging, not playing, and yet still getting bickered at? I understand what you are trying to say and I do believe some judges need to be more qualified, but if there is ever a debate at hand at Nationals, more Elders come to fix it. The only thing I do not like is how long it can take, and no time is giving back, which I understand why.
What other problems are there with the game? New cards every year at an affordable price. A place where you can voice such opinions and be heard. Tournaments year round long with dedicated players, and devoted workers behind the game.
The game, as a whole, is being run amazingly. How many broken decks, cards, and unfairness overall is there? The fact that it is a Christian Card Game still in print says something. Just take a step back and look at how it is being run, "as a whole".
Someone just posted- edit- About judges. So the few qualified to be top judges must take a test. Now they must exempt themselves from top tournaments due to their knowledge. Anyone want to volunteer for this, and do it consistently?
-
I don't think these groups should all be mutually exclusive. Specifically, I think the top tier judges, maybe even the top two tiers, should be pulled directly from the card creators/playtesters. Additionally, if we're going to break it up, I see no reason not to expand the group of playtesters to include at least a few more of the major (10+ people) playgroups, so as to avoid overpowered cards in the future.
The important thing I think is that no one should be creating cards AND playtesting them in a given year.
Someone just posted- edit- About judges. So the few qualified to be top judges must take a test. Now they must exempt themselves from top tournaments due to their knowledge. Anyone want to volunteer for this, and do it consistently?
Why would I volunteer to do something that's never happened before and has shown no signs of being considered? How would anyone know if I was qualified?
-
I don't believe that because the game doesn't have any extremely major flaws, we shouldn't strive to better it, or at least propose suggestions that would better it. I don't know if you were at Nats or not, but there was a lot of talk about this from quite a few different people, and the general consensus was that there are certain things, such as Westy outlined, that could be done better.
The question of judges is a tricky one, and the obvious solution is to adjust slightly the way large tournaments are run, so as to allow qualified judges to play and still be consulted. As far as I know, Gabe was consulted more than once last week even when he was in the middle of a game, and I see no reason why that cannot be done with more people, with a small grace period on time being awarded when that needs to happen. I just struggle with the idea that we care more about getting people out the door 30 minutes sooner than we do about having the best possible system for fairness. If we don't put a better system in place to make the game better for those of us who play it very competitively, then it's possible for some of us to start looking at other competitive card games.
-
The question of judges is a tricky one, and the obvious solution is to adjust slightly the way large tournaments are run, so as to allow qualified judges to play and still be consulted. As far as I know, Gabe was consulted more than once last week even when he was in the middle of a game, and I see no reason why that cannot be done with more people, with a small grace period on time being awarded when that needs to happen. I just struggle with the idea that we care more about getting people out the door 30 minutes sooner than we do about having the best possible system for fairness. If we don't put a better system in place to make the game better for those of us who play it very competitively, then it's possible for some of us to start looking at other competitive card games.
We do this all the time up here in MN.
-
If we don't put a better system in place to make the game better for those of us who play it very competitively, then it's possible for some of us to start looking at other competitive card games.
That sounds like a threat...which is fine if you want this to be worked out on that level. But if there is anything I have learned in 15+ years of ministry it's that if all you bring is a problem without a commitment to be a part of the solution, then you are better off walking away. I think that the PTB are not blind to the situations being discussed on this thread. As a matter of fact I know they have had these types of discussions on their own side of the boards. I agree with Tyler that if you are not willing to volunteer for something you are suggesting then you have no business suggesting it in the first place.
With that being said, I applaud those who are willing to take time to judge as I have done that on occasion. In the "other competitive card games" there is a system of training judges. Those people have to not only finish an online test successfully, but they also have to complete a certain amount of hours of training under an official judge. The only thing I see that those games do to give players an incentive to become judges are "Judge only promo cards" which are highly sought after versions of already released cards. Perhaps the full art versions of the dominants would be a good starting point for "Judge only promo cards" as long as they were tournament legal.
-
The only thing I see that those games do to give players an incentive to become judges are "Judge only promo cards" which are highly sought after versions of already released cards.
My name is YMT, and I approve this message.
-
Since the set hasn't been sent to the printers yet maybe a few cards could be modified to include in the set for judges?
Kirk
-
The problems you outlined are well stated, but can't possibly be solved without more people playing this game. As someone who has played for over 12 years, I can say that this game CANNOT be run any better without more funding. If we could pay artists to do our own cards, host bigger tournaments, create foil cards, have people with full time jobs just testing/creating cards and focusing solely on that, yeah the game would be better. And we could have official judges. And yet with SO little funding this game still manages to continue, and is awesome.
After playing 4+ other card games, this one is still the most balanced/strategic I have yet played. No other game tries for balance, they try for money. Play yu-gi-oh for just a TINY bit and tell me you're not 1. frustrated with ridiculous, stupid rule changes just to make certain cards very expensive/wanted and/or 2. sick of spending so much money just to have a chance of being competitive and/or 3. still losing to the same decks that take over 50% of the top 32 slots at major YCS tournaments, with only 1-2 cards different from each other. You want a well-run, well-designed game run by leaders that listen to their players? That's Redemption. And it can't really get a whole lot better being the niche game it is.
-
So after some talk at Nationals, and previously on the forums, there are many problems with this game, but I’d like to focus more on how the game is being run as a whole. I’ll outline a few potential solutions.
Many problems? Take a step back. How many cards are coming out that are broken and not getting counters? What won type 1 2p and t2 2p this year? A Unified Kingdom deck and a fbtnb deck...old school stuff, as great as the past sets have been, no complaints there from anyone, correct? How many rules have gone right at Nationals? Majority. The Elders made a mistake, and you make an entire thread stating how the game needs to be broken up, and all this stemmed from an incorrect ruling. How is this fair? Have you ever sat out of competitive play at a Nationals to solely and only judge? Have you had the responsibility of testing new cards, judging, not playing, and yet still getting bickered at? I understand what you are trying to say and I do believe some judges need to be more qualified, but if there is ever a debate at hand at Nationals, more Elders come to fix it. The only thing I do not like is how long it can take, and no time is giving back, which I understand why.
What other problems are there with the game? New cards every year at an affordable price. A place where you can voice such opinions and be heard. Tournaments year round long with dedicated players, and devoted workers behind the game.
The game, as a whole, is being run amazingly. How many broken decks, cards, and unfairness overall is there? The fact that it is a Christian Card Game still in print says something. Just take a step back and look at how it is being run, "as a whole".
Someone just posted- edit- About judges. So the few qualified to be top judges must take a test. Now they must exempt themselves from top tournaments due to their knowledge. Anyone want to volunteer for this, and do it consistently?
Okay, I shouldn't have said many. The game works, just not as well as it could, but I'm not going to get in a giant tangent on gameplay.
And I'd totally volunteer to do any of the roles I suggested, with the exception of perhaps the Supporters as I'm not gifted in that area. I don't understand the rules as well as I think the top judges should, but I was the main judge at our tournaments for the past 5-6 years, unless of course RDT was there. The problem is what Olijar said--these roles are not freely given to those who want it, you have to be chosen. Right now though, that choosing is for a specific reason (i.e. a supporter role), and yet they're given authority over everything else too (i.e. rulings). That's just silly.
I have other examples besides the Balaam/Lurking ruling, but I don't want to attack the elders, which is why I didn't want to mention the nats ruling. That's not what I'm trying to do here. I'm trying to have them focus on what they're gifted on. However, nats is where the most rulings should go right. I am concerned that certain elders will make bad rulings at other tournaments when there are not more elders to correct it. This obviously won't fix it entirely, but it may shift the ruling power into somebody who better deserves it.
The problems you outlined are well stated, but can't possibly be solved without more people playing this game. As someone who has played for over 12 years, I can say that this game CANNOT be run any better without more funding. If we could pay artists to do our own cards, host bigger tournaments, create foil cards, have people with full time jobs just testing/creating cards and focusing solely on that, yeah the game would be better. And we could have official judges. And yet with SO little funding this game still manages to continue, and is awesome.
I agree that we simply have too few people who play. I would like to think this would help boost the game's player base because it will be better managed. All it's really changing is the Elder system into more specific gears. Add a few more people (but realistically more people test than just the "playtesters", such as the playtester's playgroup), and we'll be fine.
-
So this is all about some bad rulings? Then what you are proposing will not fix that, because the elders are all human, and are not infallible they will get stuff wrong they will miss things.
-
That seems like a correct understanding on a broad scale, but rules being consistent in their teaching and enforcing on the local level can only lessen the occasions where those mistakes happen.
-
So this is all about some bad rulings? Then what you are proposing will not fix that, because the elders are all human, and are not infallible they will get stuff wrong they will miss things.
No, it's not. It's about the failures with the Elder system being a 1=4 system.
For example:
The important thing I think is that no one should be creating cards AND playtesting them in a given year.
-
@Soundman, there's a difference between sometimes making mistakes and making ridiculous mistakes. If a judge were to have been asked whether Covenant with Death restricts Good Weapons, getting that wrong would be an example of human error. But the example of Balaam and Lurking, where two Judges were about to rule incorrectly on one of the most basic rules of Redemption is something other.
I totally agree that the catch-all "Elder" should be split into its four constituent parts.
-
I would love to see the playtesters split into designers (or creators) and developers (the ones who take the cards from the designers and make them into the playable versions that get printed) I'm not calling either a playtester because really the cards should be playtested at every step, the designers should playtest the cards, its just that there job isn't to decide the finalized abilities.
This would not only keep cards more balanced, but it would keep cards from being pushed through because the card's creator wanted it, even though it might be too powerful or complex or whatever.
And yes, I'd volunteer to be either a designer or developer.
-
What won type 1 2p and t2 2p this year? A Unified Kingdom deck and a fbtnb deck...old school stuff, as great as the past sets have been, no complaints there from anyone, correct?
This is the wrong way to look at this. The tournament is played on a flawed system of strictly lolswiss format. The correct way to look at it is how many of each type of deck topped.
How many rules have gone right at Nationals? Majority.
With a field of the 'best' Judges for this game all accumulated in the biggest tournament gathering of the year, the correct answer to your question should be 'all'.
In the "other competitive card games" there is a system of training judges. Those people have to not only finish an online test successfully, but they also have to complete a certain amount of hours of training under an official judge. The only thing I see that those games do to give players an incentive to become judges are "Judge only promo cards" which are highly sought after versions of already released cards. Perhaps the full art versions of the dominants would be a good starting point for "Judge only promo cards" as long as they were tournament legal.
I fully agree a similar incentive program should be put in place for those dedicating their time to becoming a qualified Judge. The card game I'm currently playing does Judge playmats.
After playing 4+ other card games, this one is still the most balanced/strategic I have yet played.
Have to disagree with you there, many broken cards that remain unchecked still plague this game.
No other game tries for balance, they try for money.
Half true. All of the top mainstream games try for balance. And if you aren't trying for money to fund your game, then you probably shouldn't be in the CCG business.
Play yu-gi-oh for just a TINY bit and tell me you're not 1. frustrated with ridiculous, stupid rule changes just to make certain cards very expensive/wanted...
The playerbase are what makes cards expensive.
3. still losing to the same decks that take over 50% of the top 32 slots at major YCS tournaments, with only 1-2 cards different from each other.
I'm failing to see how this is any different from seeing Speed/TGT/Sam's top every major tournament in the past. If something is good, and you're a player that plays to win, why on earth would you use something that is a lower tier? It's common sense that the Tier 1 decks will be the decks you see top consistently at tournaments. I would also like to remind you that absolutely zero of the decks you are referencing to topped Worlds this past weekend.
You want a well-run, well-designed game run by leaders that listen to their players? That's Redemption. And it can't really get a whole lot better being the niche game it is.
It can, and it has. There is always room for improvement, and a game should not limit itself in quality simply because it's a 'niche' game.
-
I would also like to remind you that absolutely zero of the decks you are referencing to topped Worlds this past weekend.
I heard it was less than zero percent.
I fully agree a similar incentive program should be put in place for those dedicating their time to becoming a qualified Judge. The card game I'm currently playing does Judge playmats.
My name is YMT, and I approve this message.
-
Have to disagree with you there, many broken cards that remain unchecked still plague this game.
Hm... but what wins most of the time isn't the 'broken' cards. In other games like yugioh, those broken cards do win. And they're expected to.
Half true. All of the top mainstream games try for balance. And if you aren't trying for money to fund your game, then you probably shouldn't be in the CCG business.
I think I disagree. I don't think for a second anyone thought tour guide was 'balanced.' But they knew he'd bring in money, so they went with it.
-
@Soundman, there's a difference between sometimes making mistakes and making ridiculous mistakes. If a judge were to have been asked whether Covenant with Death restricts Good Weapons, getting that wrong would be an example of human error. But the example of Balaam and Lurking, where two Judges were about to rule incorrectly on one of the most basic rules of Redemption is something other.
Had they done that before? Is it habitual for them to do that? (if it is booth of them should be fired) Looking at how the card is printed the last part can be easily forgotten (I do this all the time). It was caught before it went any further. Doing it this way would turn rulings into a debate.
-
Your pronouns need some clarification, son!
-
Most of the changes have little to do with broken cards. Really the bigger issue is with the pace at which rulings get made and the speed at which they become known. The idea of splitting the people is so that some groups can focus on rules, some can focus on new cards and some can focus on spreading the game. (of course there can and probably will always be overlap between them, but it gives different people different priorities in what they are doing)
Other reasons for the split:
Design and develop: to keep cards from being pushed through the system by their creators.
Playtesters and rules people: To keep the rules from being made better because of rule makers like the card combos they helped design (whether or not the combo is good for the game).
Spreading the game and rules people: There are some people who are incredibly important in spreading the game and they are good at that, but it is no guarantee that they are good with rules.
Of course the big problem is that basically everyone involved in this process is volunteering and in general they have lives outside of this game there may be a lack of time and/or people to achieve this.
(keep in mind, I have very little knowledge of if and how often cards get pushed through or rules don't get changed because of people's cards/card combos, I'm more saying it could happen and a way to avoid it, or at least manage it better, is to have different groups working on different things)
-
The sheer volume of posts online are why rulings are complicated. I'm very ative on here, yet have lost games because I hadn't heard about the Goliath/WoP ruling, that Hormah+Outpost didn't work, or that the change in what negates actually negate had been corrected. When threads go for 8 pages with members sometimes just giving opinion, and a broken seach function, I can't even find rulings. What we really need is an admin that reduces closed threads to just the question, cards' abilities, and the one or two posts that make the ruling and explain it. It could even be a summary post. Threads with quick questions can just be deleted once answered and thanked. An organized board means judges will see correct rulings. Alternately, frequent updates to the REG and a quarterly pdf version judges can search on a phone would make rulings more consistant.
Adding new judges just gives more voices authority. What we have now works, as long as a judge making consistently poor rulings is educated or removed from judging. Tiers will just mean that low-tier judges are ignored, as was the case before elders were specified.
I think that player education may be just as significant an issue. If someone is playing at the nats level, they should have read the rulebook well enough to understand prevent. While I recognize differences, chess tournaments run smoothly because you don't have ruling issues to deal with because players know the rules.
In my opinion, it is not important that the card designer and playtester responsibilities be split, but it may be good to have a couple extra casual playtesters that would spend considerable time building unexpected decks. More testers means more games, more play styles considered, and better awareness of what could dominate. In fact, playtesting privileges might be a good way to attract potential hosts or dedicated judges. Since they don't play in tournaments, yet see the top decks, they could be ideal playtesters that won't have a self-serving agenda.
-
I assume that the CBP LS vs. FBN LS ruling being mentioned in this thread is referring to one of my games at Nats. I was a player in the game, and I remembered that there had been a big discussion of that ruling a while back, but couldn't remember how it turned out. After the game, we checked the forum and discovered that the official ruling was that the CBP LS is basically CBN and therefore the FBN LS doesn't affect it. Therefore the in-game ruling was incorrect. I am sorry that we got that wrong, but I hope that people can understand that the judge did his best to make a fair ruling. The wording on the CBP LS says "can't be prevented by a good card" and the FBN LS is NOT a "good card" but is a neutral card. It is easy to see why the judge would come to the wrong conclusion (and in fact, the original ruling of many elders including myself was the same until the most recent thread came along and changed our minds).
I'm assuming that the Lurking on Balaam ruling is referring to another of my games at Nats, although I'm not sure because I don't think anyone was ruling that it WOULD work, but rather that it was unanimously ruled that it did NOT work. The confusion here again was that Balaam says that he "can't be prevented". However since Lurking "interrupts" afterward, it SEEMS like it MIGHT be able to work. And in my particular game, this was the only possible way to avoid handing over the 5th LS, so it was worth at least checking with a judge. The judge made the right call, and the game ended.
I just want to say that I really appreciate the judges at Nats who sat out personally so that the rest of us could enjoy playing in a really fun tournament. I agree that we all need to continue to streamline the organization of rulings to make them easier for everyone to find and know. But I also think that we've come a long way with that over the last year, and appreciate everyone's efforts in that direction.
-
I just want to say that I really appreciate the judges at Nats who sat out personally so that the rest of us could enjoy playing in a really fun tournament. I agree that we all need to continue to streamline the organization of rulings to make them easier for everyone to find and know. But I also think that we've come a long way with that over the last year, and appreciate everyone's efforts in that direction.
Prof, I really appreciate your input, especially as the only elder to post in this thread. What do you think about some of the other proposals?
-
maybe this topic should be in gameplay variations? but then again most of those aren't serious...
-
maybe this topic should be in gameplay variations? but then again most of those aren't serious...
This has nothing to do with gameplay. We should really have a general Redemption forum...
-
I guess I semi support this. I don't think playtesters/designers need to be split up. That'd work if Redemption was a larger game, but the pool of qualified people just isn't that large. The pool of qualified people with the time and willingness to do it is even smaller.
If you're worried about play-testers pushing their own cards through, there's an easier solution to that. Keep the same people doing both, but divide them into two groups. Group A makes card set A which is play tested exclusively by Grou[ B, while Group B makes card set B which is play tested exclusively by Group A. I think it's unnecessary however.
The big part I agree with is the distinction between contributors and rulers. I might just be bias after what happened to me at nast 2011 though :angel: (asked 4 elders a ruling question, none of them answered it right until I objected, one of whom was involved in the exact same ruling question a month earlier).
-
maybe this topic should be in gameplay variations? but then again most of those aren't serious...
This has nothing to do with gameplay. We should really have a general Redemption forum...
actually changing how the game is run would/could change gameplay
-
Prof, I really appreciate your input, especially as the only elder to post in this thread. What do you think about some of the other proposals?
I think that from a purely objective level different people have different strengths. Some people are truly amazing at how they spread the game, and have done so for many years without burning out or resting on their past success. I personally have seen the ebbs and flows of a playgroup and know how difficult this is to do. It is a gift from God, and our game needs people like that.
Some people are truly amazing at how they are able to create unique and powerful deck combinations from the available cards in this game, and are able to pilot these decks with an abnormally low number of mistakes even against top competition. I personally would not put myself in this category, but see it in other elders. It is also a gift from God and our game benefits from people like that.
Some people are truly amazingly creative and are able to think of new and interesting cards that are both fun to play with AND Biblically-based. I find myself to be better at tweaking ideas than coming up with them from scratch, so I respect this ability of some of my fellow elders a lot. It is also a gift from God, and our game needs people like this as well.
Some people are truly amazing at taking new card ideas and really wringing them through the gauntlet to find all the possible ways to abuse those cards, and therefore the ways to reword them so that they do not break the game. Their skills are also a gift from God, and our game needs people like this as well.
Some people are really dedicated to spending a LOT of time on the forum to keep up with all the rulings, and try to really make everything consistent and understandable when it comes to making rulings themselves. Many people don't have the free time in their life to be able to do this sort of thing, and those who do have been given a gift from God as well, and our game needs people like this as well.
Thankfully there are people on the elder team who have each of these skills. Some people even have multiples of these skills, and I am thankful for all of them and their willingness to give so generously of their time and abilities to help this game that we all love.
While the proposal here of separating the duties of elders seems at face value to be make sense, I'm not sure how practical it really is. I'll focus on this in my next post.
-
I started a long post that got more specific, but then realized that it was impossible to do that without things getting more personal than I think they should be. So I guess I'll just sum up by saying that dividing the elder team into smaller groups has 3 main problems:
1 - there wouldn't be enough people on each subgroup to accomplish their tasks with consistency. If one or two elders happened to be unable to make it to Nats, or were busy at crunch time of the year for playtesting, etc. it would REALLY cause problems.
2 - there would be hurt feelings.
3 - it's actually really hard to get good leadership to add to the mix. I know from running ROOT for a while that it was harder than I thought to find people to take it over (Jordan obviously being an exception). This is especially true when people who are very dependable on the forum (or in the game in general) one year, turn out to kinda disappear the next year.
-
I started a long post that got more specific, but then realized that it was impossible to do that without things getting more personal than I think they should be. So I guess I'll just sum up by saying that dividing the elder team into smaller groups has 3 main problems:
1 - there wouldn't be enough people on each subgroup to accomplish their tasks with consistency. If one or two elders happened to be unable to make it to Nats, or were busy at crunch time of the year for playtesting, etc. it would REALLY cause problems.
2 - there would be hurt feelings.
3 - it's actually really hard to get good leadership to add to the mix. I know from running ROOT for a while that it was harder than I thought to find people to take it over (Jordan obviously being an exception). This is especially true when people who are very dependable on the forum (or in the game in general) one year, turn out to kinda disappear the next year.
Very good points Prof.
1. You would need to appoint a few new people. For example, I look at Redoubter and Pol and they definitely have the ruling knowledge to be on that committee.
2. I thought about this, and it was why I had attempted to refrain from posting examples. I apologize that both involved you, I didn't realize it. This is not an attack, just making things work better, but sadly it will be personal. There's no avoiding that, but again, hopefully the game will be better for it in the end. I would hope most people would acknowledge their weaknesses, but it's not that simple.
3. People are more likely to stay when they are appointed to a position. It's true that our player base ebbs and flows, but if somebody leaves, a new person can take their place.
-
First:
EDIT: The tangent discussion has been taken care of. --> Friendly moderator.
Second:
I appreciate an Elder responding at all to this thread. I was afraid some posts might come off as attacking and you as a group would stay back and discuss this yourselves (which would be perfectly fine, IMO). However, I will disagree that it was just an isolated incident of incorrect rulings. The cases brought up suggest a systemic problem that we do have. I pointed out why the CBP Soul ruling was not known by those who made it, and it makes perfect sense. The Lurking vs Balaam ruling, however, was apparently ruled incorrectly by two separate judges/Elders when it is one of the most fundamental rules of the game: You cannot stop CBN. You cannot interrupt CBN. You cannot. That this fundamental rule was ruled wrong by multiple Elders is troubling.
However, these two cases are by no means the only situation where there was a problem, they just haven't been posted. I have an example that truly was truly disruptive, and others have more to add from what I've heard from them. However, we would be calling out one or two people in particular in each case, and its not fair to do so. If an Elder wants more information, please contact me by PM.
The problem is that these issues are able to be resolved, and shouldn't happen in the first place. Not at Nats or at the several Regionals where I have heard head-scratching rulings come out of (again going to my point that this is not isolated), or where the rules just were not known. I don't disagree that feelings can get hurt, and given the nature of this game, I'm not sure that it is more important to improve the game if it hurts people. However, there are ways we can help these problems in the future without 'demoting' anyone, and they should be pursued.
-
The Lurking vs Balaam ruling, however, was apparently ruled incorrectly by two separate judges/Elders when it is one of the most fundamental rules of the game: You cannot stop CBN. You cannot interrupt CBN. You cannot. That this fundamental rule was ruled wrong by multiple Elders is troubling.
You are misremembering why Lurking doesn't interrupt Balaam, its because Lurking is prevented by balaam before it can interrupt (Balaam is not CBN, he's CBP)
On the actual subject matter, I agree that certain Elders really shouldn't be the judges at high level tournaments if they are going to get basic rulings wrong. While the misruling of the CBP soul was a bad call, I can understand how someone could have missed the new ruling (and really we need to have a better system in place for ruling changes, because such a major ruling going by so quietly is not good), the messing up of the Lurking/Balaam ruling was a bad sign as to overall judging quality. I appreciate all that the elders have done for Redemption, but splitting the elders into different groups so that those who are better versed in the rulings are counted on for judging the larger tournaments would be, in my opinion, better for the game. I think it is a problem that one term, elder, is being used to encompass too many roles, and a split is warranted.
-
You are misremembering why Lurking doesn't interrupt Balaam, its because Lurking is prevented by balaam before it can interrupt (Balaam is not CBN, he's CBP)
Thanks for correcting my statement, it's what I meant to say...and I actually used that in a thread in the last 10 minutes, so I have no clue why I used the wrong rule ;)
Agree with the rest of your statement as well.
If you do not like it, then please, do feel free to ignore it and go off on your own tangent.
Sorry, but you are the one on your own tangent, and it is not helping or adding anything useful to the thread (especially the bits about how awesome some people are in another CCB and how credible their opinions on another CCG are). It doesn't belong here.
-
I'm sorry if I kept a tangent going on a little longer than it probably should have. I have a tendency to want people to know what they are talking about.
More on topic, I think the first step in improving the ruling quality would be to keep the REG up to date on rulings, especially definitions of things that exists but maybe aren't too clear to everyone, like special initiative and how negates work. Much work has been done to make those work better and it really isn't helping anyone to have those rulings hidden in topics that could be buried in the ruling questions section of the boards.
This has the advantage of not needing any major changes to how the game is run, but would at least make it easier for a judge to look up rules. I would do this myself, but I have a hard enough time keeping up with the game rules as it is (and I'm usually the rules expert in my gaming groups).
I would like to see designers, developers and rule makers somewhat split (although there can be overlap) but it may not be possible at this time.
I do want to say something about comparing to other games, yes the game might be different and the community might be different, but game design and marketing principles are usually quite similar among even vastly different games, something might not work exactly the same, but the basic principles are usually the same in any kind of game design, especially among similar game times (like CCGs). But as Cactus is a small company, we have to be aware of realities that we aren't going to have a paid playtester team or anything like that and have to make due with what we have.
-
This has the advantage of not needing any major changes to how the game is run, but would at least make it easier for a judge to look up rules. I would do this myself, but I have a hard enough time keeping up with the game rules as it is (and I'm usually the rules expert in my gaming groups).
I agree with this sentiment, and that one of the most important things for us to correct is for there to be updates in the REG (for it to be searchable would also help ;)) or another central repository of rules.
-
1. You would need to appoint a few new people. For example, I look at Redoubter and Pol and they definitely have the ruling knowledge to be on that committee.
I assume that you are talking about the "ruling elder" position when you mention these two guys because they both have a good grasp on the intricacies of the rules right now. I would also say that Pol has shown considerable skill in card creation over the years, and might fit on that team as well. But it's not really that simple. Redoubter is really pretty new here in the community, and it remains to be seen whether he's here for the long-term (which I sure hope he is). Often there are players who come in and make a big splash in the community, and then totally disappear (I'll avoid naming names if possible). Pol would be a better example because he's been around forever, but there are issues there too. Nats was Pol's first live tournament in several years. It's not too helpful to have a high level judge who's never at high level tournaments. Personally I would still support his addition to the elder team, but I just want to point out that this sort of thing is actually more complicated than it first appears.
I apologize that both involved you, I didn't realize it.
No problem pal. I consider you a friend, and I don't take things here on the forum personally anyway. I'm actually glad that the examples you gave involved me instead of other people who might be more sensitive. And as I mentioned previously I think both examples that you gave aren't really that bad when looked at in detail. The first was a ruling that was in line with the official position a year ago, and the Lurking/Balaam was ruled correctly. Both involved cards that had some wording that was a bit tricky, and all the people involved were trying to do the right thing.
3. It's true that our player base ebbs and flows, but if somebody leaves, a new person can take their place.
Again this is more complicated than it sounds. How long does someone have to leave before they get demoted and replaced? There is at least one elder who disappeared from the forum for a year or so but who has been one of the most active elders for the last couple years. There is another elder who has disappeared for the last several years, but came to Nats, so I'm hoping that they will become more involved again. There is another elder who has recently disappeared, and I don't know if they'll ever come back. So how long do we wait on these things? The value of these people's input makes me very reluctant to choose a short time, but if you choose a long time, then there can be gaps in coverage of responsibilities if we divide the elders into smaller sub-teams.
-
The amount of close-minded individuals and stubbornness in this community is hopelessly sickening.
The problem is the continued discussions of particular combos being OP in another card game and not relating at all to this discussion. The rest could be relevant, but there are entire posts of that. That is where there is a problem.
I agree with Redoubter that the specific cards referenced from Yu-Gi-Oh going back and forth during the ensuing history lesson is where the tangent took place. I, for one, found it interesting to read through the stories of top tier Yu-Gi-Oh decks and ensuing game changes, but several others are mainly voicing that isn't the point of this thread.
I do think there is benefit from looking at other CCGs from a macro level rather than a micro level (lots of specific card examples). You have brought up a good point that Redemption has and does look to other CCGs for inspiration. The game would not be here in the first place if this were not the case. However, I don't think it is beneficial to use words such as "stubborn" and "sickening" - they both carry a negative stigma and will potentially lead to emotionally-charged responses that are not beneficial to anyone.
MKC, I do think that with your extensive experience in other CCGs you could be a great source to summarize some key ways that these other games, such as Yu-Gi-Oh, train their judges and how they inform players across the country about rule changes.
Pol would be a better example because he's been around forever, but there are issues there too. Nats was Pol's first live tournament in several years. It's not too helpful to have a high level judge who's never at high level tournaments. Personally I would still support his addition to the elder team, but I just want to point out that this sort of thing is actually more complicated than it first appears.
I think the biggest addition Pol would make is in regards to card creation. A quick glance at the "New Card" section of the forums will reveal entire expansions that Pol has dreamed up. There is a lot of great material he has already put out and I know he will continue to have a lot of other great material.
However, in regards to Pol being able to judge - the ruling debates that arise at high level tournaments end up on the forums in most occasions and Pol is well-versed on what transpires on the forums. I would not say that his lack of physical presence at a plethora of tournaments in recent years makes him any less strong as a judge.
Thanks,
Kirk
-
This has the advantage of not needing any major changes to how the game is run, but would at least make it easier for a judge to look up rules. I would do this myself, but I have a hard enough time keeping up with the game rules as it is (and I'm usually the rules expert in my gaming groups).
This really is the heart of the issue. There is absolutely no way--apart from spending several hours a week on the boards--for a judge to be able to stay current on rulings.
Currently we have judges who had not heard the ruling on the CBP lost soul (and the elder who announced the ruling forgot what he announced ;)). Last fall it was the fact that I didn't know that Jersualem Tower was ruled to be a protect overturning the long standing ruling that it was a prevent. You can talk about restructuring the elder group, but that is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic if even experienced judges have no easily digestible way to keep up on the latest rulings.
On a side note directly related to this thread--I am really glad Kirk is back posting.
-
3. It's true that our player base ebbs and flows, but if somebody leaves, a new person can take their place.
Again this is more complicated than it sounds. How long does someone have to leave before they get demoted and replaced? There is at least one elder who disappeared from the forum for a year or so but who has been one of the most active elders for the last couple years. There is another elder who has disappeared for the last several years, but came to Nats, so I'm hoping that they will become more involved again. There is another elder who has recently disappeared, and I don't know if they'll ever come back. So how long do we wait on these things? The value of these people's input makes me very reluctant to choose a short time, but if you choose a long time, then there can be gaps in coverage of responsibilities if we divide the elders into smaller sub-teams.
I think this would be the biggest obstacle to the proposed changes. It is hard to place specific responsibilites on a limited number of elders. Not all of them are as active as others or have as much time to volunteer to put into the game as others. If one disappears, then that would place added responsibility on the other elders in that specific group. Naturally some are going to drop off as life gets in the way or as they get burned out for whatever reason. I think the system is working overall, but may need a few tweeks. I do agree that it would be helpful to have a couple elders who keep the REG current and would also love to have a working search function :)
-
I do think there is benefit from looking at other CCGs from a macro level rather than a micro level (lots of specific card examples). You have brought up a good point that Redemption has and does look to other CCGs for inspiration. The game would not be here in the first place if this were not the case.
I find great value in looking into how other successful CCG's have balanced their game and become more efficient at the practices they implement behind the scenes (as well as the history behind that), and how that can possibly be applied towards Redemption to make it a better game. I'm glad you're one of the very few on this board that can share in that sentiment.
However, I don't think it is beneficial to use words such as "stubborn" and "sickening" - they both carry a negative stigma and will potentially lead to emotionally-charged responses that are not beneficial to anyone.
I'm not going to be anything but brutally honest, as I certainly do not intend to sugarcoat anything for anyones sake, but that is exactly the way it has felt by someone looking from the outside in. I have not been active with this game since last years Nationals, and just very recently visited these boards again. It has greatly disheartened me to see the same amount of obstinate and short sighted behavior being displayed on this board that I left this game with. No one can mention any other CCG outside of Redemption without the internet police showing up and inducing nerd rage all over it.
MKC, I do think that with your extensive experience in other CCGs you could be a great source to summarize some key ways that these other games, such as Yu-Gi-Oh, train their judges and how they inform players across the country about rule changes.
Judge tests usually occur online and are open for anyone to take. Testing covers everything from the rulebook, basic and advanced game mechanics, and tournament policies. For Yugioh, the Level 1 Judge test is taken online and may be taken by anyone wishing to do so. 20 questions, must pass with at least 80%.
Regarding how Judges network, for Yugioh at least, there is no place greater than the Judges Facebook group which has over 1,800 registered Judges worldwide. Here Judges are able to answer rulings questions posted on their wall, view upcoming events and announcements, upload files for others Judges to view, and easily find everything in one streamlined location. You can visit the Yugioh Judges Facebook group, Adjudication Conflagration, at https://www.facebook.com/groups/248499755248/?ref=ts (https://www.facebook.com/groups/248499755248/?ref=ts) for more information and to see how things are run over there.
-
An online could could be a pretty easy thing to do. That could be included in the rulebook for anyone interested in being a judge, put on the website, whatever.
-
No one can mention any other CCG outside of Redemption without the internet police showing up and inducing nerd rage all over it.
We either have extremely inconsistent moderating or moderating that enforces the board rules, which I did not set but am charged to keep. Your posts were reported because they were speaking to the specifics of game play in other CCG's. Generalities are fine but where you took it was not. (too bad I don't have a nerd police emoticon cause I would use it right here)
-
Tangent and offending posts have been deleted. Please stay on topic and civil.
-
I'm so bummed that I missed the apparent chaos. FWIW, I think MKC's input is valuable, even if he needs to work harder at avoiding the specifics of "other CCGs." I vote MKC as a future Elder, just to add objectivity to the current Board of Elders. ;D
-
Your posts were reported because they were speaking to the specifics of game play in other CCG's. Generalities are fine but where you took it was not.
What.
This thread was started to identify and fix problems with the judging system, the tournament structure, and the game itself. If we are only allowed to discuss Redemption, then you're forcing us to re-invent the wheel, by re-solving the problems that Magic, Pokemon, Yu-Gi-Oh, etc, have already solved. If you're really worried about references to these other games corrupting teh childrenz, then move this thread to Open Discussion.
-
No one can mention any other CCG outside of Redemption without the internet police showing up and inducing nerd rage all over it.
We either have extremely inconsistent moderating or moderating that enforces the board rules, which I did not set but am charged to keep. Your posts were reported because they were speaking to the specifics of game play in other CCG's. Generalities are fine but where you took it was not. (too bad I don't have a nerd police emoticon cause I would use it right here)
It may have possibly been a bit out of place, but it was never at one point harmful towards the discussion at any point until someone started crying about it. Considering the details discussed therein had nothing to do with anyone but the person/people I was addressing and not at all detrimental towards anyone else, and offered insight in how other CCG's specifically operate and how it can relate to this game, perhaps putting in practice the method of simply not affording any attention to something that which certainly does not concern you (generalization, of course) would cut down on the unwarranted crying. Just a thought.
...even if he needs to work harder at avoiding the specifics of "other CCGs."
Sometimes that is a crucial and necessary element to getting a point across. If we're just going to rage ban every specific instance of a CCG popping up in a discussion (heaven forbid), then the endeavor is lost on intolerable convictions and the effort is completely futile.
Back on topic.
An online could could be a pretty easy thing to do. That could be included in the rulebook for anyone interested in being a judge, put on the website, whatever.
Yes, an online test on Cactus' website would make the process very easy. Of course, it would probably have to have far more than 20 questions, as there will be fewer Judge candidates than that other CCG-Which-Must-Not-Be-Named, therefore the average Judge must be expected to retain a substantial amount of information about this game.
-
This thread was started to identify and fix problems with the judging system, the tournament structure, and the game itself. If we are only allowed to discuss Redemption, then you're forcing us to re-invent the wheel, by re-solving the problems that Magic, Pokemon, Yu-Gi-Oh, etc, have already solved. If you're really worried about references to these other games corrupting teh childrenz, then move this thread to Open Discussion.
I agree that a move to OD may be in order. However, I think MKC is a master enough that he can get his points across without direct references to specific cards from "the others." Besides, the tangent discussion was more about tournaments and ban-lists and such, which was TMI, IMO. ahhh, acronyms...
FTR, I have no qualms about the other CCGs in particular, especially since I would more likely be ostracised from the church for being a D&D Dungeon Master. :o
-
What if we used SurveyMonkey or a similar website to create quizzes that judges need to take.
We could have general quizzes that are not particularly related to an individual tournament season (meaning questions would incorporate a wide range of things).
Then throughout each season as major rulings happen, we can take questions asked on the big ruling threads and add them as quiz question with a couple choices for answers. Then judges can take these quizzes throughout the tournament season as a way to be caught up on new rulings. So we could have a 2011 tournament season quiz that would contain ruling questions pertaining to cards released that season as well as changes to previous rulings, etc. This would require some individuals monitoring the ruling section of the forum fairly closely and continuing to add questions. Judges at major tournaments would be expected to take the quiz for the most current season before officiating at big tournaments. They would also need to take the basic quiz (or quizzes) as well.
What do y'all think of my suggestion? Upon initial research it looks like some of the better survey/quiz websites would cost money but we can use some of them in a limited fashion for free.
I would happy to help put together some questions and help with this process but would want some help from others.
This would help work to kill two birds with one stone: not having new ruling in an easy to access format and judges not being familiar with rules.
Kirk
-
That's an excellent suggestion Kirk. Just implementing Judge tests is a step in the right direction, and at the very least, as you mentioned, will enable Judges to keep up to date and refreshed on any current rulings during a season.
I would also be interested to see who would be able to contribute questions towards the test, as well as what type of questions will be covered.
-
I think this is a great idea, Kirk. This is certainly an example of how Redemption can learn good things from other CCGs.
A couple of cautions:
1. What happens if the judge fails, especially if there are no other qualified judges available for that State Tournament (for example)?
2. You mentioned a "couple choices," but as a teacher I would suggest a minimum of four options for each question to lessen the likelihood of randomly meeting the minimum scoring guideline.
-
I would say that these tests shouldn't apply on a local or district level, and if nobody else is available, a state one as well. District and national tournaments are where this needs to be enforced. I still hold that we need a system put in place for how to pull a higher ranked judge out of a game to make a ruling if it's necessary. Otherwise, it doesn't matter how many high ranked judges we have if not enough of them are willing to sit out to judge.
-
I would suggest several different tests.
Deck Building Rules--include things like Dom Cap, Site Cap, Max Cards in a deck (i.e. can you have a John [ul] and John [promo] in the same deck, or Joseph Before Pharaoh [Pats] and Joseph Before Pharaoh [RoA2]), etc.
Rules--include things like Order of Operations, Definition of Protect, etc.
Card Interactions. It's one thing to know the rules, it's another thing to know how they play out (and vice versa). This would have examples of the rules.
Recent rulings--just a way to see how up to date people are, this one would have new rulings, such as the Mayhem errata, the CBP soul ruling, and any other new ones.
-
I would also be interested to see who would be able to contribute questions towards the test, as well as what type of questions will be covered.
Well, now you're in my territory! I may not make a good Moderator because I am too moody (unless we get Mooderators), but I can certainly write test questions. :maul:
I would say that these tests shouldn't apply on a local or district level, ...
I think every host, at every level, should take the test, if for no other reason than self-evaluation. The judge may not necessarily be banned from anything, but at least they know they will need more work. We could even create podcasts (or similar videos) that can help educate beginning judges.
-
I think this is a great idea, Kirk. This is certainly an example of how Redemption can learn good things from other CCGs.
A couple of cautions:
1. What happens if the judge fails, especially if there are no other qualified judges available for that State Tournament (for example)?
2. You mentioned a "couple choices," but as a teacher I would suggest a minimum of four options for each question to lessen the likelihood of randomly meeting the minimum scoring guideline.
1. I agree with Chris that we don't have the luxury of having enough judges where we would use the quiz as a method of keeping individuals from judging smaller tournaments. I think that judges definitely on the regional/national level HAVE to pass with a certain %. 80% sounds good. What I envision this looking like is having a "Study Guide" which is a run-down of links to topics with major changes/rulings from the current season and the judges can study before taking the test. So the judge should be able to pass provided they take the time to get familiar with new rulings. The basic quiz will be such that the individuals can take it more than once to pass if needed.
2. I think of a "couple" as meaning 2 choices. In some questions, it is either a "Yes/No" answer or pretty clear-cut one way or the other. In some instances I could see 3-4 answer being appropriate.
I like Westy's suggestion. I think we have a good idea of where to start from and now we need a few more people willing to be involved in coming up with the subject matter for test questions and even help flesh out the questions. Who is willing to help?
Kirk
-
I think this is a great idea, Kirk. This is certainly an example of how Redemption can learn good things from other CCGs.
A couple of cautions:
1. What happens if the judge fails, especially if there are no other qualified judges available for that State Tournament (for example)?
I believe having the option of Judges retake the test should be a viable option.
2. You mentioned a "couple choices," but as a teacher I would suggest a minimum of four options for each question to lessen the likelihood of randomly meeting the minimum scoring guideline.
I agree. The Judge tests I have taken in the past include at least 4 answers, and all answers very similar in nature to ensure attention to detail is not missed. I encourage anyone to take a look at the KDE Judge Program Test (http://www.yugioh-card.com/en/judges/index.html (http://www.yugioh-card.com/en/judges/index.html)) to see an example and get an idea on what types of questions and answers are given as well as how the test is presented. No registration is required to view or take a mock test.
-
Would there be anyway to do a "Show your work" type thing? It'd be good to know whether people are just guessing or whether they know why it's a certain way.
-
The basic quiz will be such that the individuals can take it more than once to pass if needed.
Not that any judges would do this, but we would have to have a test generator that changes questions and answers so that a judge could not just retake the test over and over until they get the right answers by process of elimination.
2. I think of a "couple" as meaning 2 choices. In some questions, it is either a "Yes/No" answer or pretty clear-cut one way or the other. In some instances I could see 3-4 answer being appropriate.
If the test has some "easy" questions, then a judge would only have to get a few of the hard questions right (which they have a random 50/50 chance to do) in order to meet the 80% requirement. I would still suggest 4 choices to decrease the probability of random success to 25%.
-
The basic quiz will be such that the individuals can take it more than once to pass if needed.
Not that any judges would do this, but we would have to have a test generator that changes questions and answers so that a judge could not just retake the test over and over until they get the right answers by process of elimination.
2. I think of a "couple" as meaning 2 choices. In some questions, it is either a "Yes/No" answer or pretty clear-cut one way or the other. In some instances I could see 3-4 answer being appropriate.
If the test has some "easy" questions, then a judge would only have to get a few of the hard questions right (which they have a random 50/50 chance to do) in order to meet the 80% requirement. I would still suggest 4 choices to decrease the probability of random success to 25%.
Good points. The websites I am familiar with do randomly take questions from a larger question base.
We could make sure all questions have 4 answers.
Westy, I am not familiar with a way to do a "show your work" option but I could certainly play around with it.
Kirk
-
It's possible we could do a "Yes, because X" "No, because X" "Yes, because Y" "No, because Y" format, which would give us 4 formats and do somewhat of a show your work aspect.
-
It's possible we could do a "Yes, because X" "No, because X" "Yes, because Y" "No, because Y" format, which would give us 4 formats and do somewhat of a show your work aspect.
Yes that would work well. This is similar to the format of the Yu-Gi-Oh quiz MKC showed us.
Here is an example set of answers:
Ben cannot Set “Secret Village of the Spellcasters” because there is a Field Spell card currently active on the field.
Ben can Set “Secret Village of the Spellcasters.” Khoi’s copy of “The Sanctuary in the Sky” is destroyed and sent to the Graveyard.
Ben cannot Set “Secret Village of the Spellcasters” because a player is not allowed to Set Field Spell Cards.
Ben can Set “Secret Village of the Spellcasters.” “The Sanctuary in the Sky” remains face-up and active on the field.
None of the above.
Kirk
-
The other option would be to add a comment box to every question. I think for our purposes it may be beneficial to also have at least one question where the answer is not one of the choices. Every question could have the fifth choice of "None of the Above," just to keep people honest.
-
I'll volunteer to do the questions about deck building. I haven't been this excited about Redemption since lp's Redemption Online idea.
-
Thanks for volunteering Westy. Others willing to help?
I think that is a good idea YMT.
Most websites are going to cost $20/mo to get features we want otherwise we have a limited number of questions per quiz and a limited number of individuals who can take them within a given period of time. Do others think that Rob would go for this? $240 a year to help improve judging?
Kirk
-
I think Minnesota should pay for it.
-
It seems silly to spend money before this has proven its effectiveness.
-
I am researching/experimenting with a lot of different survey/test/quiz websites. So far I haven't found one that we could easily do what we want to do for free. I would welcome anyone else to do some research alongside me!
Kirk
-
I think $240 is a steal to have Judges become officially certified. The cost can also possibly be offset by a small increase to the tournament fee application, which is where Judges will be spending the most time anyways.
-
Have we looked into different tiers of judges? I think that may be useful when two judges disagree.
-
It seems silly to spend money before this has proven its effectiveness.
This method has proven successful in other CCGs, so I would not disregard that experience.
The cost can also possibly be offset by a small increase to the tournament fee application, which is where Judges will be spending the most time anyways.
Increasing the hosting fees will only decrease the number of tournaments. I push past my budget as it is. We should brainstorm other fundraising ideas.
-
I am continuing to research free quiz creation options. So far I think http://kwiksurveys.com may be our best bet. Cannot do randomization of questions from a larger pool though.
Even with some of the paid websites, many of the websites do not allow for a randomization of questions on the test from a larger pool of questions. Many of them will put the questions in random order or randomize the answer order but they will have all of the same answers.
Kirk
-
This method has proven successful in other CCGs, so I would not disregard that experience.
The success doesn't necessarily translate to Redemption because it's a much smaller game, though. I'm just trying to offer a different point of view :angel:; a lot of projects that are discussed on the boards never make it off the ground.
-
a lot of projects that are discussed on the boards never make it off the ground.
Like an updated REG, for instance.....
Have we looked into different tiers of judges? I think that may be useful when two judges disagree.
We have a tier in place - last name alphabetically. This is why Professor Alstad gets rulings correct and Professor Underwood does not. ;)
-
Have we looked into different tiers of judges? I think that may be useful when two judges disagree.
I think at the very least we need some kind of Head Judge/Community Manager in charge of this proposed Judge program. Someone that is not only very knowledgeable in all aspects of judging, but can also build a foundation and support any current Judges and bring in new ones.
-
I am continuing to research free quiz creation options. So far I think http://kwiksurveys.com may be our best bet. Cannot do randomization of questions from a larger pool though.
Even with some of the paid websites, many of the websites do not allow for a randomization of questions on the test from a larger pool of questions. Many of them will put the questions in random order or randomize the answer order but they will have all of the same answers.
Kirk
We could just create a second quiz on the same subject. If they fail the first, they can try the second at a later time.
-
I am continuing to research free quiz creation options. So far I think http://kwiksurveys.com may be our best bet. Cannot do randomization of questions from a larger pool though.
Even with some of the paid websites, many of the websites do not allow for a randomization of questions on the test from a larger pool of questions. Many of them will put the questions in random order or randomize the answer order but they will have all of the same answers.
Kirk
We could just create a second quiz on the same subject. If they fail the first, they can try the second at a later time.
Good idea - I will start working on questions and hope to have some working quizzes in the coming week or two. Can you PM me your questions when you make them? Thanks.
Kirk
-
a lot of projects that are discussed on the boards never make it off the ground.
Like an updated REG, for instance.....
I love the idea of certifying judges, but this is the most important thing to do. Without the centralized base of knowledge to go off of, it only hurts our efforts. In addition, we need that centralized system just to have somewhere to have consistent rulings. The current system is obviously not working.
I know plenty of people (myself included) would volunteer time and effort to make something like an updated REG work. I have a feeling some of it is in the works (with the new set, likely a new rulebook, and some comments on these boards hint at a complete revamp being done), but again, it needs attention, time, and volunteers. If it would help, just let me know and I'd be happy to compile lists of changes (I live on the Rulings boards anyway ;)).
-
Just hope the questions are not like this:
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.math-fail.com%2Fimages-old%2Fmultiple-choice.jpg&hash=87d8f56ae4ddefc63904aad1b919aaee2720b31f)
-
You forgot option E: None of the Above, and you could even add in option F: More than one of the above are correct, maybe
-
I'm not sure what you are needing to pay for. It can easily exist on the Cactus site/server. The quiz itself can be built in PHP or something and submit a score to judge and Rob's emails. If anything happened to goof things up third party, it could disrupt several tournaments. From another thread, we know at least a couple members can do this (or better). If my vision wasn't so goofy, I would whip something up on a test server.
That being said, an exam will just cause frustration if there is no accurate, standardized, and regularly updated place for rulings. If a new judge comes into the exam having just read the rulebook and REG, they may not pass. There needs to be one simple resource or document to study, as reading though thousands of old rulings on the message boards (many of which are wrong, outdated, or contradictory) isn't practical.
-
Just hope the questions are not like this:
OK, that is just twisted. Naturally randomly getting the right answer on a 4 choice question is 25%. But since half of the answers in this case are "25%", the chance of randomly answering this question right is 50%. But now that there is only answer "B" is correct, the probability drops back to 25%, and the cycle starts all over again.
That's just mean :)
-
Just hope the questions are not like this:
OK, that is just twisted. Naturally randomly getting the right answer on a 4 choice question is 25%. But since half of the answers in this case are "25%", the chance of randomly answering this question right is 50%. But now that there is only answer "B" is correct, the probability drops back to 25%, and the cycle starts all over again.
That's just mean :)
When you select "50%", you're no longer guessing randomly, so B is the answer regardless.
Has anyone actually talked to Rob about this? We're making all these decisions and we don't even know if he'll go for all this.
-
Just hope the questions are not like this:
OK, that is just twisted. Naturally randomly getting the right answer on a 4 choice question is 25%. But since half of the answers in this case are "25%", the chance of randomly answering this question right is 50%. But now that there is only answer "B" is correct, the probability drops back to 25%, and the cycle starts all over again.
That's just mean :)
When you select "50%", you're no longer guessing randomly, so B is the answer regardless.
If the correct answer was B, then the correct answer would not be B. It doesn't matter if when you are actually picking the answer that it would be B, since the question specifically asks what the answer would be if you picked randomly.
-
Has anyone actually talked to Rob about this? We're making all these decisions and we don't even know if he'll go for all this.
I have not asked Rob if he would be in favor of a judge's test. I figured it made sense to throw out some ideas on the boards first and then put together some sample questions and then put it in Rob's hands.
I think that those who are interested in being involved with the REG, such as Redoubter, should reach out to Rob and ask if they can help. I am not sure who actually updated it for the 2.0 version - was it Mike Berkenpas?
Kirk
-
Mike updated it with Tim and Bryon's help. I do agree that more player involvement may be helpful, but we also need to be careful about how we proceed with many hands on such a document. I will be posting a topic that will help players become more involved as they are able shortly.
Overall I like the way this thread is going. Players are offering constructive advice on what kind of changes the game may need, and that is always a good thing when done appropriately. Rob and the playtesters are still busy trying to get the new set ready for release, but hopefully we can also focus quite a bit on these kinds of changes to improve the game once that process is done.