Hearthpwn

All right, Imma just post my updated set right here and then I'll get to reviewing stuff (might take me a few hours, I'm not sure, since I need to go out soon - but trust me, I'll get to it)! The rarities are all over the place right now, so just ignore the gems and go by the title. Name suggestions for un-named cards are welcome.

Also, Mods, can someone confirm if I'm allowed to edit my keyword like I have? The original one was 'Do something whenever a minion dies'.

Quote from ercjlee101 >>

Before I share my entire LONER set, I would like to get some opinions on which of the following two cards I should showcase as my Legendary:

 OR 

Reminder that the keyword Preserve means "shuffle a copy of a card to the bottom of your deck." Furthermore, please help me determine which card I should use as my legendary NOT based on the current balancing of the cards, but rather the concept/ flavor/ mechanics of the card overall. 

Quote from McF4rtson >>

Quote from Mewdrops >>

Alrighty then.

Soulsworn Acolyte: This is a tad weak at 1/2, but a little too good at 1/3. An option would be to have it 1/3 and gain +1/+1 when a friendly minion dies, though that does change the card entirely. If you want to play it safe, I'd go with the 1/2.
3-mana something: The problem with this one is that even counting strong cultist synergy, it's really weak if you can't get the Revelry off. I think 2-mana is better.
Blood Revelry: An interesting take on Innervate.
Soul Crush is probably ok at 5 mana, since you have to pay a cost for the +2 Attack anyways. Though, if you class is able to swarm really fast, then 6 mana is also ok.
Bloodfire Blade: This is pretty scary. If you have just two 1/1's and sacrificed them, you get a 6/3 on turn 4. This gets a complete no-go from me.
Cursed Child: Nice. I don't think the keyword for rarities existed yet. I know your rarities haven't been set in stone, but here's my suggestion: Swap this and Awakening's gems.
Bloodrage Berserker: Nice.
Angel of Flame: Also nice, but may limit design space for weapons in the future.
Immortal Devil: Kind of weak. 4/5 Taunt, probably.
Awakening: See Cursed Shield. Other than that, it's fine, it's a Bite that fits the class way more.
9-mana something: Alright.
Fire Herald Azura: Effect is streamlined and simple, good. You could bump up her stats, seeing as other, er, "unique effects that require you to spend cards" legendaries like: Fandral is a 3/5, and Hallazeal is a 4/6, and even Lyra is a 3/5. You can base her stats depending on which legendary you think fits her power level. Personally, I like a 4/6.

I'm almost ready with my stuff, I'll reply you with it in the near future.

All right, I guess I'm going to assume that the keyword change is allowed and move ahead! (btw Mods can any of you confirm whether it's OK?). These are just initial ideas that I haven't tried too hard to balance, and some may be a little OP as I tend to default to 'make it STRONG' over 'play it safe'. Some rarities are a little off since I made a couple of these cards in advance and can't be bothered to switch them around, so bear with that for a bit xD. Quite a few epics will end up becoming rares.

Class and Keyword Reminder:

Cards (just the ones I made):

 I'll try to return any feedback :D

All right, so I have a quick question: I'm considering changing my keyword to something like this so it can work on spells and be slightly less OP:

It essentially works like Combo does, but with minion death instead of 'play a card'. Potentially, I could also add an additional (X) thing to it, which gives me a bit more flexibility with cards but might be a little bit too complex since most effects will be (1) anyway. Is this a good idea? Is it even allowed?

Original keyword for reference:

Quote from Turkeybag >>

@Demonxz95
In my opinion that should count as it is pretty obvious that it's meant to be deathwing. Plus deathwing has mutated into weird things before so it's nothing new.

---

Looking to get some early feedback on my classic set if anyone has time.

Class reminder:

The Scribe
  


New Keyword: Tome 
These show up like a secret but visible to both players. They are buffs that will cancel under a certain condition. Makes deck building really interesting especially the more you try to have active at once. There are no tomes in the basic set however but I have many to show off in classic! 

Basic set and much more info available if you follow the link in my signature.

Classic Set:

Omens:

Cool note: There are 5 tomes total, a 1, 2, 3 4, and 5 cost!

Quote from Broeck1 >>

Naah, of course you're right. I actually didn't mean there existed Choose-One decks, or Overlead decks. The decks back then were just given their identity because of the Choose-One or Overload cards included. Back then, every single ramp Druid ran Ancient of Lore, Ancient of War, Nourish, Druid of the Claw, Keeper of the Grove and Wrath. I could do the same for Shaman and Rogue. See how many cards?

Anyway, you could of course just choose to do your own thing, there's nothing obligatory here. But to me, it just feels wrong not adding an extensive amount of class keyword cards. 

If you do intend to adjust your keyword to be able to generate more cards with it, I could try and help out?

Quote from Broeck1 >>

Quote from Cogito_Ergo_Sum >>

Quote from Mewdrops >>

Okay, not actually relevant to the 'random' discussion, but I have a question on class keywords. Currently, I think at least a few keywords (mine included) can only feasibly appear on minions and weapons. Since as of now, all the classes with 'exclusive' keywords have them appear on a large chunk of their classic cards, that would force the class's classic set to be very minion/weapon heavy.

Since I made that mistake (oops), I was wondering if the keyword introduced has to be like Druid and Choose One or Rogue and Combo, or if we could get away with something more like the relationship Warrior has with Enrage - especially since my mechanic (Whenever another minion dies) also appears on some neutrals.

I don't think you have to make most of your cards contain your keyword. It's certainly not an obligation, and your class can just be an exception to the rule, like Rogue Secrets! It's not absolutely necessary to plaster your class keyword EVERYWHERE unless it's a key part of your class's identity.

You can treat it like Warrior and Enrage, a keyword that Blizzard abandoned like I did with my hopes and dreams! :D

I don’t think I really agree. Imo a class specific Keyword should be used in the Classic set extensively, like 2/3 of all cards. I think the keyword shouldnt not only generate class identity, but with only the basic set and Classic set available, players should have been able to create an entire deck around that specific keyword. Since the keyword could not be used in the basic set, the Classic set should provide plenty. Making a comparison to Warrior’s Enrage is weird since Enrage was added in neutral cards to make a deck type viable (I remember people trying to make Enrage warrior work with Amani Beserker and Raging Worgen). Your class keyword should generate some sort of deck archetype and you’re just not going to pull that off with only a few cards. 

Same goes for Secrets btw. If you’re using them, make sure to add like 5 or 6 of them in the Classic set (or cards related to them). Unless you made 1-mana ones like Paladin, since they generate too minor effects to fill a set with. Paladin has 4.

Quote from Sinti >>

Quote from Mewdrops >>

Okay, not actually relevant to the 'random' discussion, but I have a question on class keywords. Currently, I think at least a few keywords (mine included) can only feasibly appear on minions and weapons. Since as of now, all the classes with 'exclusive' keywords have them appear on a large chunk of their classic cards, that would force the class's classic set to be very minion/weapon heavy.

Since I made that mistake (oops), I was wondering if the keyword introduced has to be like Druid and Choose One or Rogue and Combo, or if we could get away with something more like the relationship Warrior has with Enrage - especially since my mechanic (Whenever another minion dies) also appears on some neutrals.

Noone says you have to put the unique keyword on all of your cards. So you dont have to have minion heavy classic set, if your keyword doesnt fit on spells, just dont use the keyword that much. Easy ;-)

Okay, not actually relevant to the 'random' discussion, but I have a question on class keywords. Currently, I think at least a few keywords (mine included) can only feasibly appear on minions and weapons. Since as of now, all the classes with 'exclusive' keywords have them appear on a large chunk of their classic cards, that would force the class's classic set to be very minion/weapon heavy.

Since I made that mistake (oops), I was wondering if the keyword introduced has to be like Druid and Choose One or Rogue and Combo, or if we could get away with something more like the relationship Warrior has with Enrage - especially since my mechanic (Whenever another minion dies) also appears on some neutrals.

Wooo I made it!

I voted for challenges 2, 5, and 6.

The fact that my card that already has Deathwing on it is a KFT card makes me sad.

Quote from Demonxz95 >>

And looking at the scores, I now realize that I might actually not make it... -_-

Front page exposure really shook all the scores around.

Quote from nurgling13 >>

Quote from Mewdrops >>

Quote from nurgling13 >>

Quote from Viridian >>

Quote from Phoenixfeather >>

Quote from CheeseEtc >>

Quote from Schlauchneid >>

How many votes do you need to get further?

 Let's wait until the comp is advertised on the front page and the subsequent influx of voters which will no doubt completely change the ranking.

By the way, I'm currently doing stats on ALL THE BIG COMPS THAT HAVE EVER BEEN MADE to see to what extent people on the top receive more votes than people on the bottom, and that doesn't look pretty...

 It's an unfortunate circumstance that can't really be changed without completely revolutionizing the voting system as a whole. It's only natural that submissions that near the top get more votes as they're viewed more often. I'm sorry to anyone who ends up being disqualified by this manner.

Fortunately, this appears on the front page soon. That generally brings in a large influx of votes, and should even the odds of the competition.

The top ~26 entries will continue. We'll see about wildcards.

(ab) / c = x is the current formula. a = your votes, b = number of submissions on the page, c = number of total votes on the page

one idea: d = your submission's position on the page (from 1 to 20, always less than or equal to b, excepting page 1, where d is 1 to 19)

((ab) / c )+ d/b = x

that gives you a fixed bonus for being further down the page, the higher up on the page the lower scored you are. You can fiddle with the strength of that...

((ab) / c )+ 0.5(d/b) = x

another idea, or even an additional idea, is to add a variable that tracks which page your submission is on. e = the page your submission is on, f = total number of pages. Starts at 1 and goes up (we don't want 0)

((ab) / c )+ 0.5(d/b) + (e/f) = x

you could also weight this with a fixed number.

I'd say trying all three at once on one competition... figure out which seems most fair (overall you'll have to use some extra research— like what Cheese is doing regarding the upvote pattern down a page and across pages— to figure out how you should modify the weighting of the d/b and e/f ratios), and then implement it for future contests. You'd have to make these 'bonuses'/counterbalances very small however, as otherwise people will try and game the system by posting farther down and along.

You can't use a system like this. You're assuming there is some intrinsic effect to being on the top of the page, but that's not the issue. The issue is how long was there between the time that the person at the top submitted and the person at the bottoms submitted. That varies wildly depending on both the level of participation in the competition and how long the submission page was up. It is exacerbated in the second phase of the large competitions because there are so few participants and the submission page is up for so long.

The best solution is to not have the submission thread up for so long. If you had a week to plan Phase II, but everyone posted in the same 24 period, there would be virtually no difference in upvotes between the tops and bottoms of pages.

 Actually, I'd argue that there is an intrinsic effect to being on top of the page. You're among the first submissions people see, and therefore the one they pay most attention to. As you scroll through several walls of text to get to, say, the 15th entry, you get kinda bored and stop caring as much, something that may seem 'pretty cool' at the top of the page starts seeming just kinda 'meh'. Especially when each entry is a massive wall of text and images.

 

I used to think this was true, but I'm pretty sure that effect is actually negligible. Position on the page doesn't seem to have any effect for advancing to Final Polls in the WCDCs. 

Quote from nurgling13 >>

Quote from Viridian >>

Quote from Phoenixfeather >>

Quote from CheeseEtc >>

Quote from Schlauchneid >>

How many votes do you need to get further?

 Let's wait until the comp is advertised on the front page and the subsequent influx of voters which will no doubt completely change the ranking.

By the way, I'm currently doing stats on ALL THE BIG COMPS THAT HAVE EVER BEEN MADE to see to what extent people on the top receive more votes than people on the bottom, and that doesn't look pretty...

 It's an unfortunate circumstance that can't really be changed without completely revolutionizing the voting system as a whole. It's only natural that submissions that near the top get more votes as they're viewed more often. I'm sorry to anyone who ends up being disqualified by this manner.

Fortunately, this appears on the front page soon. That generally brings in a large influx of votes, and should even the odds of the competition.

The top ~26 entries will continue. We'll see about wildcards.

(ab) / c = x is the current formula. a = your votes, b = number of submissions on the page, c = number of total votes on the page

one idea: d = your submission's position on the page (from 1 to 20, always less than or equal to b, excepting page 1, where d is 1 to 19)

((ab) / c )+ d/b = x

that gives you a fixed bonus for being further down the page, the higher up on the page the lower scored you are. You can fiddle with the strength of that...

((ab) / c )+ 0.5(d/b) = x

another idea, or even an additional idea, is to add a variable that tracks which page your submission is on. e = the page your submission is on, f = total number of pages. Starts at 1 and goes up (we don't want 0)

((ab) / c )+ 0.5(d/b) + (e/f) = x

you could also weight this with a fixed number.

I'd say trying all three at once on one competition... figure out which seems most fair (overall you'll have to use some extra research— like what Cheese is doing regarding the upvote pattern down a page and across pages— to figure out how you should modify the weighting of the d/b and e/f ratios), and then implement it for future contests. You'd have to make these 'bonuses'/counterbalances very small however, as otherwise people will try and game the system by posting farther down and along.

You can't use a system like this. You're assuming there is some intrinsic effect to being on the top of the page, but that's not the issue. The issue is how long was there between the time that the person at the top submitted and the person at the bottoms submitted. That varies wildly depending on both the level of participation in the competition and how long the submission page was up. It is exacerbated in the second phase of the large competitions because there are so few participants and the submission page is up for so long.

The best solution is to not have the submission thread up for so long. If you had a week to plan Phase II, but everyone posted in the same 24 period, there would be virtually no difference in upvotes between the tops and bottoms of pages.

Quote from LarryMoments >>

Lol this is bugging me too mush plz halp DX