Hearthstone
Inquiry Regarding Voting Standards
Submitted 4 years, 3 months ago by
JackJimson
Just wondering what are your standards for voting here?
Or is there an agreed upon standard?
For example, my current standards are:
- 1 - Pretty bad. Needs a lot more work.
- 2 - Not too bad, but still lacks in certain areas. Also generally boring.
- 3 - Average. Not bad but nothing spectacular.
- 4 - Stands out above the rest. Interesting concept.
- 5 - Head and shoulders above everyone else. Clear cut winner.
Leave a Comment
You must be signed in to leave a comment. Sign in here.
Just wondering what are your standards for voting here?
Or is there an agreed upon standard?
For example, my current standards are:
I think I'm trying to rate with something similar:
I'm probably overly strict about balance though, but I think it's easier to make a flashy, strong card than a solid mid-tier card, and I want to reward those who succeed in the latter.
1 - Either horrible balance, doesn't work within the rules of competition, or little to no effort was put on displaying the card.
2 - Very plain design, unless the design space really is that restricted by the rules.
3 - Middle of the road, not much else to say.
4 - Has a lot of stuff going for it but feels under or over tuned on stats / effect.
5 - Flavor, great artwork for the card, something I could see being played in a variety of standard decks. Good balance.
This is my general ranking, though I'm a stickler for format and balance.
1 — The card is flawed. There are multiple formatting errors (e.g. a keyword is missing; there are multiple spelling mistakes). Competition criteria are ignored or clearly twisted in a way not intended. Little to no thought has been put into mechanics, flavour, and balance (e.g. the card outright breaks the game; I cannot identify the card by its art alone). The card is not functional.
2 — The card is satisfactory. There are no formatting errors. If there are errors, they are minor (e.g. Choose One is followed by a colon instead of a dash). Competition criteria are met, but not expanded on in an interesting way. Thought has been put into mechanics and balance. The card has some flavour (e.g. the art is appropriate for the name, but the effect's connection is unclear). The card is pack-filler at worst and functional at best.
3 — The card is good. There are no formatting errors. Competition criteria are met and the card uses them in an interesting way. Serious thought has been put into mechanics and balance. The card is flavourful (e.g. the art, name, and effect are all clearly related). The card would be experimented with and may see play.
4 — The card is excellent. There are no formatting errors. Competition criteria are met and the card uses them in an innovative way. Effort has been put into mechanics and balance. The card is flavourful. The card would definitely see play.
5 — The card is exemplary. There are no formatting errors, and the effect text has clearly been tidied up. Competition criteria are met and the card uses them to pioneer a new archetype or play-style, or to radically improve existing ones. Serious time and effort have been put into mechanics and balance. The card is exceptionally flavourful (e.g. the effect replicates a World of Warcraft ability). The card would definitely see play, and I would craft it in Gold.
Started playing HS in May, 2015. The bad news: I missed the excitement of 'Naxx out?' and GvG. The good news: I never met an Undertaker.