Hearthstone
WCDC Season 4 Suggestions
We're in the middle of the last Weekly Card Design Competition of Season 3 and I'd like to discuss how all you awesome people feel about these competitions in general as well as your suggestions for changes. Since everybody and their mother will try out the shiny new Stormwind cards next week, I think waiting for Season 3 to end before giving Shadows & friends something to ponder wouldn't work very well.
So here are my two cents:
The WCDC has become a constant part of my weekly schedule, I think I haven't missed one of them since we got started on OOC. I'm super grateful for Shadows and all other members of the staff for creating this space on the site that encourages creativity, engagement with likeminded people and an opportunity to earn internet fame points. You are awesome!
The little grain of salt I've tasted this season came with the finalists votings. Participation goes down in that second voting phase and I really don't agree with people dishing out 1 star votes for perfectly cool cards just to push their favorite contestant. I admit both of these issues are very hard to overcome, but I have a few ideas I'd like to discuss with everybody who cares to do so:
1) Expand the rating system
I think it was DestroyerR who first used a fixed system of categories for their feedback posts in the discussion threads and maybe that's a good idea to help people rate cards a bit more objectively. I'd suggest a 5 star rating in three categories for every submitted card: Flavor, Balance and Execution (= no spelling mistakes, no watermark issues, ...). The average of these ratings would result in the voting person's overall rating for that card (there are arguments for and against showing that overall rating to the voter, but I don't want to go too far down this road without knowing if it's technically possible and what y'all think about the general idea). This idea should also reduce the number of ties since the final rating of a card would be the average of an average.
2) Cut the Finalists Voting
I get that the Finalists Voting adds some flavor and excitement to the competition, it's a little nod of appreciation to people who got close to winning. The decrease in participation in these votes compared to the first voting stage just isn't worth it though imho. The more people are voting, the more valid is the result of the vote.
3) Rewards & Leaderboards
While I'm very proud to wear my avatar border, it would be cool to dish out more rewards for doing well in the competitions. I'm thinking of site currency, forum titels, stuff like that - most importantly, these shouldn't be given to the winners exclusively, but to a to be determined number of runners up as well. Last but not least, why not add seasonal and eternal Leaderboards to the site, based on a system that rewards points for wins and runner up placements (win = 10 points, second place = 5 points, third = 4, ... whatever).
Well, those are my ideas, now I'd be curious what you think about them and I'd be happy to see some suggestions of your own :-)
Leave a Comment
You must be signed in to leave a comment. Sign in here.
We're in the middle of the last Weekly Card Design Competition of Season 3 and I'd like to discuss how all you awesome people feel about these competitions in general as well as your suggestions for changes. Since everybody and their mother will try out the shiny new Stormwind cards next week, I think waiting for Season 3 to end before giving Shadows & friends something to ponder wouldn't work very well.
So here are my two cents:
The WCDC has become a constant part of my weekly schedule, I think I haven't missed one of them since we got started on OOC. I'm super grateful for Shadows and all other members of the staff for creating this space on the site that encourages creativity, engagement with likeminded people and an opportunity to earn internet fame points. You are awesome!
The little grain of salt I've tasted this season came with the finalists votings. Participation goes down in that second voting phase and I really don't agree with people dishing out 1 star votes for perfectly cool cards just to push their favorite contestant. I admit both of these issues are very hard to overcome, but I have a few ideas I'd like to discuss with everybody who cares to do so:
1) Expand the rating system
I think it was DestroyerR who first used a fixed system of categories for their feedback posts in the discussion threads and maybe that's a good idea to help people rate cards a bit more objectively. I'd suggest a 5 star rating in three categories for every submitted card: Flavor, Balance and Execution (= no spelling mistakes, no watermark issues, ...). The average of these ratings would result in the voting person's overall rating for that card (there are arguments for and against showing that overall rating to the voter, but I don't want to go too far down this road without knowing if it's technically possible and what y'all think about the general idea). This idea should also reduce the number of ties since the final rating of a card would be the average of an average.
2) Cut the Finalists Voting
I get that the Finalists Voting adds some flavor and excitement to the competition, it's a little nod of appreciation to people who got close to winning. The decrease in participation in these votes compared to the first voting stage just isn't worth it though imho. The more people are voting, the more valid is the result of the vote.
3) Rewards & Leaderboards
While I'm very proud to wear my avatar border, it would be cool to dish out more rewards for doing well in the competitions. I'm thinking of site currency, forum titels, stuff like that - most importantly, these shouldn't be given to the winners exclusively, but to a to be determined number of runners up as well. Last but not least, why not add seasonal and eternal Leaderboards to the site, based on a system that rewards points for wins and runner up placements (win = 10 points, second place = 5 points, third = 4, ... whatever).
Well, those are my ideas, now I'd be curious what you think about them and I'd be happy to see some suggestions of your own :-)
I notice I am confused. Something I believe isn't true. How do I know what I think I know?
Harry James Potter-Evans-Verres, hpmor.com
I can see the world with more rewards for winning the competition. Finals does give people time to reevaluate certain cards, but I would not mind a lack of it.
"Truth is in the shadows, waiting to be revealed by the light. But light only disperses the shadow." - Me
"If other people shared traits of those considered naive, the world would've become a better place." - Also me
I like the idea, and we talked about it a little bit before. I don't know jack about the coding part, so whether or not it's possible is not up to me, but I assume it could be doable. You just need a second and third "star system" in place, and name them to fit the categories.
From a personal angle, it should eliminate situations where I receive an all-1-vote; which, frankly, I don't think I should ever earn, because at the very least my cards are well executed and without mistakes. At least give me a 2!...Does that make me selfish for saying that? lol :/
As much as I like the idea of having three categories to have a more accurate and representative rating of each card, it's a lot to consider for each card that could be submitted to a comp. I personally quite like taking about 30 seconds to a minute to look at a card and then just slap a 1-5 star rating on it, kind of like Hearthstone Tinder. Then again, putting more thought into how I think about cards isn't really a bad thing, I'm just concerned that this slightly more complex system could turn people off from voting thus leaving less votes overall.
As for scrapping the finalist phase, it feels almost blasphemous, but I do agree that it might be better if it goes away. The amount of times you look at a Transparency Report, and see who got the number 1 card in the voting phase also gets last in the finalist phase or something similar is kinda disheartening. I'm all for scrapping the finalist phase.
As for increasing rewards, why not, seems like a fantastic idea.
If the finalist phase isn't scrapped, then there is one proposal I have for it. If a card had a description box in the voting phase and makes it to the finalist phase, can this description box be kept on the finalist page? I know a card should speak for itself, but sometimes that description just helps to imagine decks where the card could be useful, or strategies with the card, design decisions or maybe even flavour. Like I said, the card should speak for itself, but seeing these extra little bits is so helpful towards giving an accurate and fair rating.
Tbh, I don't think that makes you selfish at all, when I've looked at the transparency report before there's often situations where I shout "how in the ever-living f*** did that get 1 star?" I understand there's personal opinion and things, but like you say, lack of mistakes is a pretty objective success, even if you don't like the effect or flavour.
1) Expand the rating system - i get where ur coming from, and technically we could try this, but it could also put ppl off by having to think harder about the card. Not saying we couldnt/wouldnt do it, just something that would need more thinking about. If we keep finalist voting, maybe we could implement it for finalists only, that should make for more fair voting field.
2) Cut the Finalists Voting - that is something that is worth considering for sure, but again, not a light decision. We'll see.
3) Rewards & Leaderboards - more rewards were supposed to be a thing already, but other stuff got priority, sorry! We definitely plan on implementing those in the future. Leaderboards should be possible as well, probably just the question of dev time vs working on other stuff with higher priority.
~ Have an idea? Found a bug? Let us know! ~
~ Join us on Discord ~
Thanks for all your replies so far and +1 on keeping the description boxes visible if we should stick to the finalist voting.
I notice I am confused. Something I believe isn't true. How do I know what I think I know?
Harry James Potter-Evans-Verres, hpmor.com
Since I'm new I don't really have a good feel for the current system yet, so take this with a grain of salt.
I am personally not a fan of this option. I'm afraid that depending on how many submissions there are, too many sliders might become either overwhelming or tedious. I tend to give 2 stats to lacking cards, 3 to okay cards and 4 to the more interesting ones, with 1 and 5 being reserved for exceptions. My main concern being that with specific criteria we might lose track of the bigger picture. What about originality? If we split them up, are 3 aspects to rate really enough? And should they all be of the same value to the final average?
Another issue, although this one is not too difficult to solve, would be defining the different aspects. Does card rarity belong to balance or execution?
I like this solution better. In a way we can already get voting through feedback, resulting in this being the third vote. My only concern is that it puts a hole in the competition, resulting in the submission phase being too long. And I think there should somehow still be credit given to the runner-ups.
I won't dive too deep into the details on this one because I don't have the necessary experience for it yet.
My concern is that long term scores might discourage people who simply don't usually score very high or don't always participate. That being said I do like the idea of more people getting credit than just the winner. Currently that would be the finalists, so I would like for the competitions to keep something similar.
Another solution could be ordering the finalist (from best to worst) to decide on a winner. It feels stupid to rate cards you already rated a few days ago. This way the finals continue being special and it doesn't create a hole (time-wise) in the competition.
I don't like the idea of expanding the rating system. It adds additional steps to the voting process and doesn't really change the overall outcome. When voting, I already consider playability, balance, flavor, and execution, and add or dock stars how I see fit. Adding a different set of stars for each of those categories wouldn't change anything, it would just make it more complicated.
Carrion, my wayward grub.
I like removing the Finalist Voting stage, however I also feel you would need to adjust how voting works too. Looking at the Transparency Reports, you see that some cards had 50 votes (those who submitted early) vs people who only have a handful (submitted at the end). The cards with more votes are more representative of how a card is received in the community than a card with only a handful of votes. The Finalist Phase currently fixes that as all cards can be seen when voting starts.
To fix this, no voting should be allowed until the Submission Phase is complete. This way, every card would be in when the voting commences and all cards could be seen by all who vote. Now, this would segregate people who only have time in the beginning of the week to cast their vote, but would give everyone equal footing.
Submission Phase -> Voting Phase -> Winner
As far as expanding the rating system, I don't think we need that. I can't speak for everyone, but I already take all three potential categories into consideration when I vote on a card. Are some people going to vote a 1 star to a good card? Probably, but they'll do that in an expanded system too.
TLDR: I think the only change that needs to happen is removing the Finalist Phase and separating the Submission and Voting phases into two distinct phases. If that happens, all cards that are in the comp will get equal representation.
Thumbs up for bringing up this discussion, anchorm4n. I agree that the current system still has some room to improve.
So far, my favorite proposal is AeroJulwin's reimagination of the final phase. People are already voting cards not individually, but to favor their favorites. So, why not make a system that takes this into account but in a honest way? Not sure if dragging cards to reorder them could be easily done, from a technical perspective, but I really like the idea.
The idea of making the description visible in the finals is also very good. I'd personally put it in a spoiler box or something similar.
(Also, now that we're talking about the current system being a bit disheartening, I was a bit sad to go from second place to sixth in the last competition. Snif.)
I agree that AeroJulwin's idea for the finalists voting is a very cool and clean idea if the staff decides to keep that phase, I second that suggestion. It solves the issue I was aiming at far more elegantly than an expanded voting system with categories. Too bad that's no option for the first voting phase due to the sheer number of cards.
If dragging cards to reorder them isn't technically possible, I'm pretty confident there's a workaround like applying numbers to them for first, second, third place and so on.
I notice I am confused. Something I believe isn't true. How do I know what I think I know?
Harry James Potter-Evans-Verres, hpmor.com
An alternative to rating cards on a scale of 1-5, we could be shown cards in pairs and pick which one we like better. I honestly don't think this would be a huge improvement, but I thought I'd share it anyway for the sake of discussion.
It would work largely the same where you only see a pair once and the pairs that haven't been shown as much would have an increased chance of being shown. There would be an incredibly larger number of entries to vote on, but not everyone would have to vote on each pair. Also, it's much easier to pick which card you like more than decide how much a card is worth.
Again, this probably won't be imp implemented, just thought it was an interesting idea.
Carrion, my wayward grub.
Well i think expanding the Rating System would be better than an Overall Rating - i mean you could still get an overall rating after the Expanded One but with an Expanded System i can give sort of extra Points or Minus Points because of for example spelling errors - right now i can only reduct a star if there is an error so i guess this would work better in an expanded system.
Also what kinda bugged me a little since i sometimes join in the WCDC - we can't give half Stars - maybe a card is worth 3.5 but i can only give 3 or 4 ... also maybe it would be better if the votings would start all together because it seems that someone who submits a card early on has a litte bit of voting advantage ...
Cutting the Finalist Voting could be a good step because like the OP mentioned often times there will be just a push for the card you like the most etc.
Rewards would be kinda nice but i guess the rewarding system is still fine because i mostly do this for fun but if we would get some sort of reward out of it that could spike up the numbers on people competing - maybe :)
Also sometimes i feel like the WCDC Community ( or at least some votes) are way to harsh - sure we want a good and perfect card with no errors but sometimes a card is very good but does not make it to the finals because the Watermark is from a wrong expansion or the flavour is ok but not in the right kind etc. so i guess with an expanded rating system this could be improved.
Also maybe we could implement some sort of Beginners Challenge or something like that - don't know but sometimes i have the feeling that beginners or people who are pretty new to WCDC almost never have a chance against the "Old Guard" of WCDC :) :)
Challenge me ... when you're ready to duel a god!
Then make it 10 stars rating system.
I agree with this. Most often I choose a watermark only because it is suitable for the look of card, and not by the set theme.
Advanced revards? Sounds nice.
Cutting finalist voting? Give it a try.
About my thoughts... I often feel that a whole week is too long. I want the competitions to be more often or there were more of it. (...this long time between wcdc seasons...) Or add that meisterz39 is offered - a creation of a mini set / new archetype. Creating multiple cards will take longer and the week will be enough, isn't it?
I don't know if I'm the only one, but I wouldn't mind if they experiment with a few different changes to WCDC. I understand a need for continuity, but changes shouldn't need to be a season long if they turn out disappointing. We could always just keep a change 2-3 weeks and revert it afterwards, or improve it based on feedback. Seems like a great way to test some of the well-received ideas.
As for a 10-star rating system, I'm still against making the current vote more complex/broader. However, I definitely like this version over having multiple voting categories. But may I suggest another change to go with it? I would actually like to see this nonetheless of other changes, but most certainly if we get a 10-star system.
In our voting page, we see the submissions in a seemingly random order (I haven't really paid attention to it). I would like to see them ordered by how many stars I have previously given them. I often like to revisit all the previous submissions once I have more to compare them to. This would make it easier to look at the cards I have given the same rating and decide which ones might deserve to be put up or down a place.
It might only be a small quality of life change, but besides the time put into programming it, I don't believe this has any downsides.