Removing Numerical Reviewing from DLCRs

14 posts / 0 new
Last post
I'm aware that the name itself contains "Ratings" but bear with me.

I enjoy discussing each cards' specific strengths and weaknesses and their dynamic value in a meta / deck. I just don't enjoy rating a card.

"0,5, I'll sometimes sideboard this card but I'm never happy about it." <- This tells me nothing about the strength or weaknesses of a card.  

I enjoy exploring every aspect of a card and then having a certain notion about it - I don't care about "pic order based of community rating value" or something silly like that. Magic, limited and draft all are dynamic, never-set-in-stone things, and you can't play Jace in every single deck. 

So CG, I think you'd be doing the community a service if you removed the ratings segments of your daily posts and promoted discussion instead of blanket numbers.

>inb4 "3/5, I liked the contents of the post but I wouldn't always read it"
>inb4 op can't inb4 
The mage formerly known as kedi. Team GFG - Goons From Ghana - Playing sweet decks since 2010 1:31 AM Nighthavk_: I'm actually playing B/r zombies 1:31 AM Battle7: nice 1:31 AM Nighthavk_: yeah it's pretty sweet really 1:31 AM Battle7: playing esper tokens 1:32 AM Nighthavk_: I like that deck 1:32 AM Battle7: it's sweet
I rate this post 0.5 <- I might sideboard it sometimes.

I may be new to this forum, but I don't see how adding a number rating stops you from discussing a cards strenghs and weaknesses.

I don't see how removing a number rating will make discusion of said card better.

I wholeheartedly agree with these posts. Numerical ratings are a complete distraction.


When you remove numbers people are forced to go more in depth about a card, and there are a lot less misunderstandings. About misunderstandings, I'll sometimes give a pure sideboard card a 1.5 or 2.0 solely because of its strength against a certain deck, and that makes sense to me, on average I'd definitely pick it much higher than your standard sideboard card.


And the numerical system doesn't really help when it comes to cards like Phyrexian Hulk. The system is broken and misses the point. I think any system that uses numbers (besides possibly average pick order, which is boring and not as helpful) would be.

The system makes sense and works for Sealed, but draft is cheaper, more skill-testing, and more fun, so who plays sealed after the prerelease? The system just deosn't work well for drafting. Perhaps replace it with a pick number?
Check out my cube!
Show
My sig was so awesome it broke Browsers, [url= http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29455423/For_some_reason...]I had to remove it.[/url] Support Magic Fiction! Or Bolas will eat you
57193048 wrote:
You should never explain layers to people unless one of the following is true: they're studying for a judge exam, you're both in a Ben Affleck movie and it's the only way to save the world, or you hate them.
56663526 wrote:
We try to maintain the illusion that Magic cards are written in English.
56333196 wrote:
69511863 wrote:
Hell, if they steal from us, we'd be honored.
oh my god, AWESOME! Then changing the Slivers was your idea! haha lol
56734518 wrote:
Occassionally when catering, I've been put the task of arranging Fruit and Cheese or Grilled Vegetable platters. More than once a high class buffet has started with the mark of Phyrexia upon it. Since i've got a good eye for color so it looks great to people who don't get the "joke" (it's a niceley divided circle after all: the outline gives you 4-6 "regions" to work with), this has actually got me put on platter design more often, resulting in Phyrexia's presence at more private and industry events.
I have 6917 Planeswalker points, that's probably more than you. [c=Hero's Resolve]"Destiny, chance, fate, fortune, mana screw; they're all just ways of claiming your successes without claiming your failures." Gerrard of the Weatherlight[/c]
I think having a grade is a good thing. Relying on it to convey all information is a bad thing. I'm aware that there are some DLCRs where I simply put stuff like "1.5", but in general I try to add a constructive comment onto it. I think that's best. The problem with not using a rating at all is that we can disagree a lot on a card verbally only to be revealed to rate it roughly the same, which is a waste of everyone's time.
Preparing for the M14 Prerelease - New article up! IN THE TANK - my very own blog for rambling about Magic!
I think having a grade is a good thing. Relying on it to convey all information is a bad thing. I'm aware that there are some DLCRs where I simply put stuff like "1.5", but in general I try to add a constructive comment onto it. I think that's best. The problem with not using a rating at all is that we can disagree a lot on a card verbally only to be revealed to rate it roughly the same, which is a waste of everyone's time.


Except it is a rubric style grade rather than an overall "how I feel about this card" type thing, which is riddled with problems because Magic cards can't be simplified that easily.

Even a "how I feel about this card" grade has problems though. Every single person has a different interpretation of what a 3.0 is, or what a 4.5 is. To know what a number means to a person you'd have to see how the scored every single other card relatively to that card.

So communication is impossible because we have no common standard? Bugger.

Seriously, though, it's better than nothing. It might not be perfect but an easy way to communicate roughly how good you think the card is is great.
Preparing for the M14 Prerelease - New article up! IN THE TANK - my very own blog for rambling about Magic!
While the current system may not be pinned down very well for numerical rating, it does facilitate discussions though, since multiple people may be giving a card a rating at >4.0 or <1.5 it tells you a fair amount about the percieved power by the community.  Though the system overall is imperfect, it's still useful for discussion.

If we wanted to create a more specific and refined system to measure with we'd need a standardized unit of measure.  Something like Grizzly Bear would be a good choice, since it's in pretty much every format doesn't have extra fluff.  It would be a near ideal 'control' unit to measure against, at least for limited.
Tolkein was a jerk. Seriously, what DM sends 9 Wraith Lords at a Lvl 2 party of Halflings. The only 'correct' way to play D&D is by whatever method is making the group you have at that session, have the most fun.
2/10 would no recommend to a friend

captcha: how orolink 
While true, if you set them as the baseline in any format you have a place to start from.
Tolkein was a jerk. Seriously, what DM sends 9 Wraith Lords at a Lvl 2 party of Halflings. The only 'correct' way to play D&D is by whatever method is making the group you have at that session, have the most fun.
Balog, the thing is, grizzly bear differs in values by person and by format.



You specify a format. You set Grizzly Bear as a 2.0. Now if the card being rated seems better than Grizzly Bear was in that format you rate it equal or more highly than Grizzly Bear. Someone's rating says something about both what they think of the card, and what they think of Grizzly Bear in that format. It doesn't just represent a single card, it is a method of comparison.
I don't know if I like the grizzly bear format for anything but discussion. The numerics don't cut it. Like, I would rank a bear as a 2.0, and I would rank a Keening Apparition as a 2.0, but the Apparition is strictly better than the bear in a format with Stab Wound. I don't think that makes the Apparition a 2.5 though.

Personally, I think the numeric ranking system works fine.

I found Carmen Sandiego before you were born unless you're Zlehtnoba.