Hey @cardeegel this isn't annoying. I would say that you underestimate the complexity of the situaion, and its complicated because it needed to be complicated to solve the issues tackled and still pass. It didn't start out this way, it ended up this way through compromises. So moving pieces around will just lose votes.
You are welcome to put up a different proposal, and I'm sure if you get a reasonable amount of people that would pre-agree to your proposal (without large objections), then we can find a way to fund that proposal for you. I think you will find when you shop it around though, that you will lose votes very fast if it differs materially from what is presented here. But you can try.
To answer your questions, yes we do need CP and the conflict score to be different things. First this is an attempt at solving a problem with the conflicts, not anything else. There are people that don't want the Black Foils nerfed at all, so this is a compromise they accepted. You can try to nerf them further by reducing their CP, but I'm positive it will lose a lot of votes and won't pass.
There's many spots where CP is used, including the biggest one - burn value. On top of that like you said tournament calcs, plus the conflict score only applies to a temporary set of conflicts, it doesn't apply permanently like CP. We have never altered CP and therefore its the one that players rely on to give an underlying value to the card.
In my opinion, you and others that say this is complicated simply don't understand that the alternatives are:
- vote for this proposal
- find a better solution that will pass
- do not have conflicts for the Mini-set
In my opinion, a vote against this proposal is likely going to lead to not having conflicts, which is fine if that's what the players want. Its possible that someone can come up with a better solution, but doing so will mean speaking to many players and finding out where they stand on the deal.
I have worked on this with Clay and we've been through the process, I'm confident that you will find that changing things will lose votes really quickly. That's my assessment, you can do your own of course.
I don't try to approach it from a position of trying to do a different proposal. I already voted for this, because it is better than not having it. I just try to mitigate (completely subjective) issues with small changes.
Our proposal system is not great for community input because as soon as the wider community knows about it, it is basically a vote. That is why I mostly suggest changes that (again completely subjective) could be done in the scope of the original proposal without changing the spirit of the proposal.
My understanding is:
there's several things happening in the proposal, not just the conflict score.
The proposal was needed because of the change to the pack types, everything else probably could've be done by the team. But why not include the full picture so that everyone can see how its all connected, that way they don't object to the changes after they are released?
Keep in mind that there were many people on both sides of these Conflicts issues, and some were vehemently upset with some parts of it. To be fair to everyone, and to get a good gauge of sentiment, its better to include all the changes for that full picture.