This is both a request for contributions on a specific topic, and an invitation to discussion on the more general question of how we invite contributions :)

My Code Geass set is in need of mechanics, and I've not come up with anything I'm hugely impressed by so far. So I'd love it if anyone here had suggestions. I'm particularly looking for a keyword mechanic (suitable for common cards) for the Britannian Faction, and another keyword mechanic suitable for commons for the Black Knights Faction. You don't need to know anything about those factions to contribute, except what's in the highlighted yellow comment on each faction's card!

I suspect that many users won't bother to read latest updates on that set, because it's tied to the flavour of a particular fictional setting which many of you here haven't seen (though you should ;) ). So the more general question is: Is there a need for some centralised place where we can invite people to come and look at particular requests we have? Highlighted comments work once people are looking at the cardset, but not if people aren't going to look into the set. Rachael suggested I could hold a Design Challenge on the topic, but that seems a bit self-indulgent and not really within the spirit of the design challenges.

Isn't that what toothychat is for? :)

@Vitenka: It might be. But I don't really frequent toothychat (or have ever posted there.) There certainly isn't a link to toothychat from multiverse, so I don't know how many MV regulars spend anytime at TC...

I've also thought about sending stuff I've been working on over to Design Challenge, but felt that wasn't a good idea. Specifically, I wanted to send Community Set problems over there. But if people aren't willing/don't have the time/aren't interested in solving the problem at Community Set, then it wouldn't make much sense forcing it upon them at Design Challenge. Maybe this sort of thing is different? Don't know.

I will say that Conversation seems like a good centralized place where we can invite people to come look at requests. I kind of doubt opening another set for 'requests' is wise. One, because people might abuse it, which would lead to people ignoring it. But two: If it isn't abused, then the set would end up getting buried. Maybe I'm wrong. But so far, there's only been two requests for help on conversation (that I can think of.) I'd wait to see if more popped up before separating the pages.

I will say, however, that it would be nice if the Recent Updates page had some sort of color coding, highlighting different events in different colors so problems like this could just pop out. Perhaps a red highlight for when someone is asking for design help. I would think that pick up a lot of attention.

I don't even know what toothychat is, honestly.
I think a place to put requests would be useful, but I don't know who all would use it. I know I would, since I'm struggling with Anydria and I like the idea of just brainstorming for somebody else's set.

Link: Oh, cool! I didn't realise you were soliciting ideas for Anhydria. Point me at something explaining the broad category you're after and I'll see what I can come up with :)

Re ToothyChat: You're all making the mistake of taking Vitenka seriously again... ToothyChat is a browser-based chatroom, like an IRC channel (remember those?). The #elliott channel is on the topic of "games" (board games, video games, and quite a lot of Magic: the Gathering chat). Anyone's welcome, but it's probably not a very conducive venue for making design requests, and certainly not for reaching the majority of Multiverse users, who as demonstrated don't go there much!

On the topic of design challenges: I don't know how many of you follow the Goblin Artisans blog, but they have weekly design challenges and are apparently exploring possibilities for getting more involved in helping each other with our custom designs.

I even used a smiley and everything....

Anyway. Yeah; in the "Here are some random sets" it might be nice to also have "And here are some requests (random yellow-flagged comments) set designers have made"

Though, if it's not in recent changes, I'll not see it.

I don't think I've actively solicited, but I should be. I can't decide if the mechanics I've come up with are exciting or not.

When ever I need advice/ help on on issue with a card or set of cards I'm working on I tend to go to the MTGSalvation card creation forums. I don't know have many members here also post there so I don't know how much help it would be. I found out about this site somewhere on that one.

Come to think of it, it might be very nice to have a central set for open requests, either its own set, or maybe a separate details page in design challenge linking to request cards in that set or in other sets. Then partly, people can throw up requests without needing the formality of a design challenge, and partly, if we want to stretch our creative muscles, we can go there and browse requests we might have something to submit for.

Sup, I have a question and this felt like the best place to ask:

What's the smallest set I can make that's still draftable?

It's obviously doable with 249 cards (101/80/53/15), older sets had only 20 fewer uncommons so that might work too. Conspiracy had 210 (89/68/43/10+65) but it's not a regular draft environment, I don't know if it works as a regular draft.

Can you do it with the equivalent of a small set? Smaller? Larger?

I have made up many cards. Often what I find is not making up the name of cards, maybe someone else has ideas about it. (Cost, subtypes, flavor text, and other changes, can also be considered.)

I also have ideas about possible challenges, some of which I had not made up any cards by myself.

What I think would be helpful is a NNTP server to discuss custom Magic: the Gathering cards. (I set up some newsgroups on my own NNTP server, which may be used, I suppose.)

Huh. I'd guess that if you're only ever going to draft it once, then a set could actually be very small. After all, you only have 3 boosters per player; so you certainly don't need there to be many rares or any mythics in the set. (But you do want to avoid duplicates cropping up - so can't settle on just three rares each). Uncommons are indeed the sticking point; since you need each player to see a guiding one in their starting pack - and ideally a different one. And then you want a decent chance at seeing a duplicate among the three packs but it to not be too likely. You have, what, nine uncommon per player in the draft, so you probably need about 20 uncommons in the set, to meet those criteria.
Then fill it out with however many commons you need to fit out the deck archetypes you have made. Given the absolute need for basic functions (every set needs a bit of direct damage, creature removal, counterspell, combat tricks, etc.) it's actually going to be harder to crop down the commons to a sensible level. Still; you could probably get away with maybe 100 of them. (20 in each colour means you're going to see a lot of duplicates; but that's probably ok).

But if you want it to be draftable more than once, and not just be the same set of cards each time, then requirements are going to go up. Still; I reckon you could get away with sub-200 reasonably enough. 150 seems like a plausible lower limit, if my reasoning is valid.

Of course the smarmy answer would be that the absolute limit is three cards - a rare, an uncommon and a common. But it would be a very boring draft.

For what it's worth? My two small sets work ok-ish for a draft, at about 100 cards each. But a second draft of either of them gets very samey.