May MCC Round 4, Finals - All Together Now
Welcome to the May MCC! It's Graphic Design Month here at the MCC. We'll be celebrating an underappreciated team in R&D: Graphic Design.
Main Challenge: Design a card with at least one of the new watermarks from Round 1, at least one of the new symbols from Round 2, and at least one of the new frames from Round 3, none of which were designed by you.
Subchallenge 1: Your card's rules text includes the word "choose" but not the word "target."
Subchallenge 2: Your card's name (or names) includes at least two different pieces of punctuation.
DEADLINES
Design deadline: Tuesday, June 4, 23:59 EDT
Judging deadline: Saturday, June 8, 23:59 EDT
Clarifications
Show
Hide
Main Challenge:
I think this should be fairly straightforward: you have to look back at each of the previous rounds and incorporate a required element included by one of your competitors (it can be one who's been eliminated) into your submission. But if I'm missing something feel free to ask for further clarifications.
One clarification that just occurred to me: you must follow the basic functionality of the symbol and frame you are using, but given the difficulties that some folks had with elegance and ambiguity in the last round I will allow modest changes to reminder text as long as you don't deliberately change how the card worked. You could also choose to leave it off, but that does incur risks of penalties in elegance and/or quality.
Subchallenge 1:
Forms of both words count (chooses, chose, chosen, etc. are allowed while targets, targeted, targeting, etc. are forbidden).
Subchallenge 2:
The easy ones to include are comma, hyphen, and apostrophe, but if you want to be bold there have been black-bordered cards printed with periods, exclamation points, ellipses, and colons in their names. If you want to be even bolder you could figure out how to put a semicolon in a card name. Also if your card has multiple names (due to being double-sided, for instance), you can spread the punctuation between them however you wish, but they still have to be two different ones.
I think this should be fairly straightforward: you have to look back at each of the previous rounds and incorporate a required element included by one of your competitors (it can be one who's been eliminated) into your submission. But if I'm missing something feel free to ask for further clarifications.
One clarification that just occurred to me: you must follow the basic functionality of the symbol and frame you are using, but given the difficulties that some folks had with elegance and ambiguity in the last round I will allow modest changes to reminder text as long as you don't deliberately change how the card worked. You could also choose to leave it off, but that does incur risks of penalties in elegance and/or quality.
Subchallenge 1:
Forms of both words count (chooses, chose, chosen, etc. are allowed while targets, targeted, targeting, etc. are forbidden).
Subchallenge 2:
The easy ones to include are comma, hyphen, and apostrophe, but if you want to be bold there have been black-bordered cards printed with periods, exclamation points, ellipses, and colons in their names. If you want to be even bolder you could figure out how to put a semicolon in a card name. Also if your card has multiple names (due to being double-sided, for instance), you can spread the punctuation between them however you wish, but they still have to be two different ones.
@Subject16
@void_nothing
@bravelion83
RUBRIC
MCC Rubric
Show
Hide
The MCC Rubric is given below, in an easily "copy and pasted" form. (Courtesy of Rithaniel.)
Code:
[b]Design[/b][b](X/3) Appeal[/b] - Do the different player psychographics (Timmy/Johhny/Spike) have a use for the card?[b](X/3) Elegance[/b] - Is the card easily understandable at a glance? Do all the flavor and mechanics combined as a whole make sense? [b]Development[/b][b](X/3) Viability[/b] - How well does the card fit into the color wheel? Does it break or bend the rules of the game? Is it the appropriate rarity?[b](X/3) Balance[/b] - Does the card have a power level appropriate for contemporary constructed/limited environments without breaking them? Does it play well in casual and multiplayer formats? Does it create or fit into a deck/archetype? Does it create an oppressive environment? [b]Creativity[/b][b](X/3) Uniqueness[/b] - Has a card like this ever been printed before? Does it use new mechanics, ideas, or design space? Does it combine old ideas in a new way? Overall, does it feel "fresh"?[b](X/3) Flavor[/b] - Does the name seem realistic for a card? Does the flavor text sound professional? Do all the flavor elements synch together to please Vorthos players? [b]Polish[/b][b](X/3) Quality[/b] - Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.[b](X/2) Main Challenge (*)[/b] - Was the main challenge satisfied? Was it approached in a unique or interesting way? Does the card fit the intent of the challenge?[b](X/2) Subchallenges[/b] - One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition. [b]Total: X/25[/b]*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.Ink-Treader
slimytrout
Statistics: Posted by slimytrout — 3 weeks ago — Replies 7 — Views 279