Post by: Glitch on April 20, 2011, 01:16:59 am
Post by: ZephyrPhantom on April 20, 2011, 01:22:15 am
Max HP lowering has been done multiple times. I guess there were better ideas to vote for in both cases, because both cards seem pretty good to me. I'll put some of mine up as well when I find them.
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,18347.0.html - A simple card that would've had very interesting sync with Adrenaline. Well liked, but never got past the Crucible.
Post by: OldTrees on April 20, 2011, 02:20:48 am
Perhaps some more organization to prepare for an overload of ideas to review?
Make a spoiler-ed list of the ideas for review in the OP. Have 1-3 ideas linked above each page (use a poll with no votes) to be discussed.
Have some means to identify when a card is done with the reviewing.
It was/is a good example of two half effects in one card. (Horned Frog + Heal -> Forest Dryad)
The upgraded's Deja Vu ability probably distracted from the core idea of the card.
Also balance was an issue because they were both UP by 1|1.5 IMO.
3 Horned Frogs + 1 Heal = 8 :life +4 cards +20 healing +12 attack >> 4 Forest Dryads = 12 :life +4 cards +20 healing +8 attack
[net difference 1 :life + 1 attack per card which is too high by 1 IMO]
1 Giant Frog + 1 Improved Heal = 4 :life +2 cards +20 healing +5 attack >> 2 Forest Dryads = 8 :life +2 cards +20 healing +4 attack
[net difference 2 :life + .5 attack per card which is too high a difference.]
Also 5 healing is not that valuable compared to 20 healing. I think 10 healing per Dryad would have been a better start point.
I would probably design the next version on the principle that 1 Horned Frog|Giant Frog + 1 Heal > 2 Forest Dryads.
However you were right that it would fit best on a cheap creature around the same cost as Heal.
Cost: 3 :life|3 :life
Attack: 2|4
Effect: You Heal 10hp when it comes into play.
HP: 2|3
Net difference (from the new card's point of view): +.5 :life cost +.5 attack | +2 :life cost +1.5 attack
Post by: Glitch on April 20, 2011, 12:12:29 pm
Good idea for a thread.Euch. Organization? Do not want.
Perhaps some more organization to prepare for an overload of ideas to review?
Make a spoiler-ed list of the ideas for review in the OP. Have 1-3 ideas linked above each page (use a poll with no votes) to be discussed.
Have some means to identify when a card is done with the reviewing.
I'll work on it. I was hoping to run it like the "beat my false god" FG. Come here and rate whatever cards you want, and come back to check on your own ratings. I'll work on formalizing it more.
It was/is a good example of two half effects in one card. (Horned Frog + Heal -> Forest Dryad)Interesting remake. The original was designed for a potential dejavu+adrenaline duo, but your card balances better, /and/ synergizes well with mitosis. Thanks for the input!
The upgraded's Deja Vu ability probably distracted from the core idea of the card.
Also balance was an issue because they were both UP by 1|1.5 IMO.
3 Horned Frogs + 1 Heal = 8 :life +4 cards +20 healing +12 attack >> 4 Forest Dryads = 12 :life +4 cards +20 healing +8 attack
[net difference 1 :life + 1 attack per card which is too high by 1 IMO]
1 Giant Frog + 1 Improved Heal = 4 :life +2 cards +20 healing +5 attack >> 2 Forest Dryads = 8 :life +2 cards +20 healing +4 attack
[net difference 2 :life + .5 attack per card which is too high a difference.]
Also 5 healing is not that valuable compared to 20 healing. I think 10 healing per Dryad would have been a better start point.
I would probably design the next version on the principle that 1 Horned Frog|Giant Frog + 1 Heal > 2 Forest Dryads.
However you were right that it would fit best on a cheap creature around the same cost as Heal.
Cost: 3 :life|3 :life
Attack: 2|4
Effect: You Heal 10hp when it comes into play.
HP: 2|3
Net difference (from the new card's point of view): +.5 :life cost +.5 attack | +2 :life cost +1.5 attack
Post by: TimerClock14 on April 20, 2011, 01:35:27 pm
I'm going to gather some of my old shot-down ideas and stick them in here later.
Post by: OldTrees on April 20, 2011, 04:10:38 pm
Thanks. I only suggest more organization because I expect it to get swamped with ideas so that each idea only gets 0-2 comments.Good idea for a thread.Euch. Organization? Do not want.
Perhaps some more organization to prepare for an overload of ideas to review?
Make a spoiler-ed list of the ideas for review in the OP. Have 1-3 ideas linked above each page (use a poll with no votes) to be discussed.
Have some means to identify when a card is done with the reviewing.
I'll work on it. I was hoping to run it like the "beat my false god" FG. Come here and rate whatever cards you want, and come back to check on your own ratings. I'll work on formalizing it more.
This suffered from the same symptom as many early ideas. People had little rigorous sense of balance and made mistakes when estimating power.
Fallacy: Not able to heal = OP.
Decks without healing cannot heal so normal creatures are cheaper. Hence: Healing<Wither<Normal<Healing.
Adrenaline + Wither Beast = 12 uncurable damage for 5 :darkness+4|3 :life vs Adrenaline + Horned Frog = 12 damage for 6|5 :life.
Also there were probably some other factors besides the repeated use of the word OP.
It had Art that was grayscale instead of colored. It had other popular competitors. People back then preferred old mechanics rehashed rather than new mechanics most of the time.
Also it had the problem that its ability was only useful when healing was involved which was a lot more situational then than now.
To make full use of its ability it has to be the sole damage source in the deck. This means it has to deal a good chunk of damage either with Swarming the Field, Being Buffed or starting powerful and expensive. I would suggest something that fits on the high end of fractal, useuable with Mitosis without SoR and buffable easily. Each of these synergies allows 1 Wither card in the card pool to be 12+ cards in a deck.
Conclusion (might seem familiar):
Cost 5 :death|5 :death (High end of Fractal, Useable Mitosis)
Ability: Wither beast deals damage by decreasing the target's maximum HP.
Attack: 4|4 (Bless +3, Adrenal +5, or Chaos Power +3)
HP: 5|5
Post by: TuckingFypo on May 29, 2011, 06:22:09 am
Tempest | Tempest (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,23686.0.html) This was submitted about a month ago. Idea that came to mind when I made this was mono-cc.
Post by: OldTrees on May 29, 2011, 06:58:18 am
This thread is stickied...so I can post right? O.oLong story short: It was too complicated and was 2 cards when the crucible only showed 1.
Tempest | Tempest (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,23686.0.html) This was submitted about a month ago. Idea that came to mind when I made this was mono-cc.
Other problems include: Bad name/picture for a weapon, Art, Immaterial for no reason (using immaterial to duck out of balancing a card in the face of adrenaline in not a reason), Water has mono CC.
My suggestion: Use Fractal Squid with Ice Shield.
My fix: Make it into a Shield with DR and an activated ability (really similar to Ice Shield so I would highly recommend against it.)
Post by: Kuroaitou on May 30, 2011, 02:55:02 am
This thread is stickied...so I can post right? O.oI personally think that the problem with Tempest is that there's -way- too much 'freezing' going on in the Water element already. As OldTrees said, Fractal Arctic Squids with an Ice Shield (or even Permafrost) would just be equally likely to freeze all of the creatures on the field compared to this card, and also has a simpler way of doing so (without the excess charges and whatnot). It's also important to note that weapons (regardless of how cool/original they are) have a VERY hard time making it to the higher levels, just because of the fact that if there's no series revolving around them, some newcomers might assume that if implemented, one element might have a choice of multiple weapons (versus shields or other permanents).
Tempest | Tempest (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,23686.0.html) This was submitted about a month ago. Idea that came to mind when I made this was mono-cc.
I say ditch it being a weapon/shield altogether, and try 2 different things:
- Make it a regular permanent.
- Do a COMPLETELY different form of CC in contrast to freezing.
Post by: Bieber4Ever98 on May 30, 2011, 05:17:23 pm
I think this card was unfairly shot down. Add it to the scrap yard. I still think it's a good idea. Is there any way to reinvent this card ?
Post by: Rutarete on May 30, 2011, 05:39:55 pm
Post by: ddevans96 on May 30, 2011, 06:09:54 pm
I made a card called Recomposer | Recomposer. As soon as the search function works again, i'll put the link here; don't really have the time to look page by page through all the ideas.You mean this? http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,20922.msg284877#msg284877
Post by: OldTrees on May 30, 2011, 06:37:35 pm
I made a card called Recomposer | Recomposer. As soon as the search function works again, i'll put the link here; don't really have the time to look page by page through all the ideas.This reminds me of a lesser version of Soul Catcher.
Post by: ZephyrPhantom on May 30, 2011, 06:55:38 pm
I think this card had potential, but I would like to see others' thoughts on it.
Post by: OldTrees on May 30, 2011, 06:57:22 pm
Flame Archer | Flame Sniper (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,20371.0.html)Warden kinda took its thunder.
I think this card had potential, but I would like to see others' thoughts on it.
Post by: Rutarete on May 30, 2011, 07:45:31 pm
Yes. Thank you for finding it.I made a card called Recomposer | Recomposer. As soon as the search function works again, i'll put the link here; don't really have the time to look page by page through all the ideas.You mean this? http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,20922.msg284877#msg284877
This reminds me of a lesser version of Soul Catcher.It reminds you of a lesser version of Soul Catcher or of Soul Catcher itself? If a lesser version, provide link please.
How should it be reworked?
Post by: OldTrees on May 31, 2011, 12:15:20 am
I meant that Soul Catcher appears to be the best reworking of it I could think of.This reminds me of a lesser version of Soul Catcher.It reminds you of a lesser version of Soul Catcher or of Soul Catcher itself? If a lesser version, provide link please.
How should it be reworked?
It was meant as a quanta engine that converted CC into quanta right? Well using death as a engine is Death's game.
Post by: ZephyrPhantom on August 17, 2011, 02:13:55 pm
Oppression | Oppression (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,23902.0.html)
Temporia | Temporia (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,18323.0.html)
Post by: OldTrees on August 17, 2011, 03:45:36 pm
Going to bump this, as I'd like feedback on these two Elemental Weapons:Oppression's -1hp effect has abnormally large synergy with itself. Weapons are better vehicles for this type of effect than creatures. However Crusader has made this type of effect no longer work on Weapons either. (without a hefty cost increase and forcing the user to abuse the synergy to reach par) Non weapon Permanents still work as vehicles for this type of an effect but internally insuring the effect can't stack might be better.
Oppression | Oppression (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,23902.0.html)
Temporia | Temporia (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,18323.0.html)
Temporia's elemental theme is abnormally weak and stretched for a elemental weapon.
It also suffered from being so OP originally that it was written off.
You also assumed the opponent will use DR shields and did not respond (change or explain better) fast enough to the communities attempts at balance.
Finally it had a major metagame change that weakened some major decks. This is a partially irrational reason but still a cause.
Post by: Hyroen on May 07, 2012, 04:52:00 am
I'd like your opinions on why :time Prophecy | Prophecy (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,27070.0.html) had a tough time..
I personally thought it was a brilliant card, and I can't say that about all of my cards.
What would you guys have changed? What would have made it better?
Post by: mildlyfrightenedboy on May 07, 2012, 04:59:10 am
Forgive the pseudo-necro but I really believe this thread deserves more attention.
I'd like your opinions on why :time Prophecy | Prophecy (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,27070.0.html) had a tough time..
I personally thought it was a brilliant card, and I can't say that about all of my cards.
What would you guys have changed? What would have made it better?
It's pretty underwhelming to have your 3 :time and one card be completely wasted simply because a creature wasn't drawn. Even if a creature is drawn, it basically telegraphs to your opponent a card in your hard.
It's a great idea, but that's all that I can see that might turn people off.
Post by: OldTrees on May 07, 2012, 05:22:05 am
Forgive the pseudo-necro but I really believe this thread deserves more attention.
I'd like your opinions on why :time Prophecy | Prophecy (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,27070.0.html) had a tough time..
I personally thought it was a brilliant card, and I can't say that about all of my cards.
What would you guys have changed? What would have made it better?
It acts like a second weapon with an attack based on the average attack of creatures in your deck * the frequency of creatures relative to non creatures.
It does not scream Time to me. Effects like this tend to be put in more hasty/rash/impatient elements.
Post by: mildlyfrightenedboy on May 07, 2012, 09:05:27 pm
Forgive the pseudo-necro but I really believe this thread deserves more attention.
I'd like your opinions on why :time Prophecy | Prophecy (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,27070.0.html) had a tough time..
I personally thought it was a brilliant card, and I can't say that about all of my cards.
What would you guys have changed? What would have made it better?
It acts like a second weapon
Except... it only lasts one turn. :/
Post by: OldTrees on May 07, 2012, 09:32:05 pm
Precisely the problem. It gets 1 effective turn of duration per draw you can induce during that 1 turn. However that is all it does.Forgive the pseudo-necro but I really believe this thread deserves more attention.
I'd like your opinions on why :time Prophecy | Prophecy (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,27070.0.html) had a tough time..
I personally thought it was a brilliant card, and I can't say that about all of my cards.
What would you guys have changed? What would have made it better?
It acts like a second weapon
Except... it only lasts one turn. :/
Post by: mildlyfrightenedboy on May 08, 2012, 03:44:53 am
Precisely the problem. It gets 1 effective turn of duration per draw you can induce during that 1 turn. However that is all it does.Forgive the pseudo-necro but I really believe this thread deserves more attention.
I'd like your opinions on why :time Prophecy | Prophecy (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,27070.0.html) had a tough time..
I personally thought it was a brilliant card, and I can't say that about all of my cards.
What would you guys have changed? What would have made it better?
It acts like a second weapon
Except... it only lasts one turn. :/
Maybe, it could occupy the weapon slot, but the damage dealt would be equal to the top creature in your deck.
Post by: eaglgenes101 on December 29, 2013, 08:48:47 am
Post by: Captain Scibra on March 08, 2014, 05:58:29 pm
What caused http://elementscommunity.org/forum/forge-archive/quartet-pillars-quartet-towers/msg421314/#msg421314 to be downed in the forge?
Not a bad idea. Possibly the reason is it is too focused on just those three sets of 4, while making any combination available is just as impractical.
EDIT: You could probably do a similar mechanic, but link it to opposite pairs only, since that has practicality at bringing the 'opposites attract' theme out.
Post by: montrossen on November 26, 2014, 12:04:04 pm
Edit:
When I posted this I somehow did not realize this was for the cruicible. I meant I have lots of cards that faded away in the general CIA board. I have no cards in the cruicble yet.
Post by: Espithel on November 26, 2014, 12:12:38 pm
What counts as shot down? I made a whole lot of card ideas that simply faded away... also how often do cards make it into the cruicible? That I would like to know.
The crucible- also the main voting levels of CIA - is currently going under a reconstruction. They've added a fourth level (The anvil, making the actual forge level 4), and are changing around a few things to do with voting.
You can read up on that here. (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/card-ideas-and-art/new-voting-system-in-development-discuss/)
This started just after I joined the forums, actually, and very little progress has happened since then. You get the odd card moving up every once in a while, but that seems to be about it. The most recent example I can name is Submachine's Dream Catcher.
As for something being shot down, if things don't get moved up whilst in the crucible, they get archived.
I guess this is just a long-winded way of saying CIA is rather dead
Post by: foxrain4 on March 12, 2015, 04:07:38 am
i have been making 15 quantas dragons, but none of them are popular.
I think mono decks can be improved vastly compared to overpowered rainbows decks
if we can introduce more super high quantas cards.
Post by: AD TienzuStorm on March 12, 2015, 04:15:12 am
Why are high quantas cards not popular?
i have been making 15 quantas dragons, but none of them are popular.
I think mono decks can be improved vastly compared to overpowered rainbows decks
if we can introduce more super high quantas cards.
The thing is, your dragons (I believe the only two are the fracture one and the ice one) have either OP abilities or relatively situational abilities, fracture and ice respectively.
It's not about the cost really, it's more of the ability. Ability and stats should determine cost, not the other way around (or no correlation at all, that's bad too)
Post by: Espithel on March 12, 2015, 04:56:08 am
Why are high quantas cards not popular?
i have been making 15 quantas dragons, but none of them are popular.
I think mono decks can be improved vastly compared to overpowered rainbows decks
if we can introduce more super high quantas cards.
The thing is, your dragons (I believe the only two are the fracture one and the ice one) have either OP abilities or relatively situational abilities, fracture and ice respectively.
It's not about the cost really, it's more of the ability. Ability and stats should determine cost, not the other way around (or no correlation at all, that's bad too)
I'm going to post a bit more of a definitive response.
Compare these two card:
If you look at these cards, you'll notice that Abomination is simply half a purple dragon. Or, that purple dragon is double an abomination - two abominations.
Now, it's a somewhat reasonable assumption, that, if abomination is balanced, then doubling (nearly) all of its stats is also balanced - This can be called scaling. When someone asks you to scale the card down, they're simply asking you to make the card smaller overall, but keep the proportions of ATK/HP/Cost roughly the same. This will work for most card games - taking magic, a 2/2 creature for 2 mana is balanced, and so is a 4/4 creature for 4 mana. A 6/6 for 6 mana tends to be somewhat lackluster, but not "bad" - I'd take a 6/6 for 6.
This is not true for elements, or at least much less true. Scaling a card gets out of hand quickly.
Using abomination and purple dragon, what if we made a card that was a scaled purple dragon?
(http://i.imgur.com/4xdaqfH.png)
^^^ I believe this to be too powerful.
Let's examine the quanta system for a minute. You play pillars, and they give you quanta at the end of you turn. You can use quanta to cast spells. This sounds similar enough to magic, as of now, where scaling works - You play lands, and then "tap" those lands to produce mana to cast spells.
Here is the huge difference:
In elements, you can play unlimited pillars a turn.
In magic, you can play only one land a turn.
What does this change? Everything.
There is no way to predict when a card is going to come out: When you see massive giant finisher cards in magic, it's assumed that they will be played late in the game, and they are, unless you try to cheat it out. There is no true "early game card" or "late game card" in elements - a way of stopping the late game cards from trouncing everything doesn't exist in elements. And if it does, it does not do its job well enough.
Because you can store quanta, it is feasible to cast any card that costs over 20 quanta on your fourth turn, unupped, and still have a lot of quanta left over for defence. Unupped.
Upped, It should be doable on your third turn. Elements does not scale correctly; It does not take double the amount of time to cast something that costs double the cost of another card in elements, which makes scaling a card really difficult.
Then we have the problem that most cards in elements are in the most scaled down form they can be in - thier most brute form, if you will. As a result, scaling up cards makes them look and feel incredibly powerful in comparison, which clouds judgement.
All these factors rolled in together makes making high-cost cards actually hard to do - I've only ever designed one card with double-digit numbers off of the top of my head, and have seen very few cards with such high costs that I actually like.
As for cards being broken due to high costs, all you have to do is look at fractal, a card that a good portion of people consider overpowered. And I don't recall light stalls struggling to cast miracles quickly enough too often.
Post by: foxrain4 on March 12, 2015, 05:29:15 am
Quote
Then we have the problem that most cards in elements are in the most scaled down form they can be in - thier most brute form, if you will. As a result, scaling up cards makes them look and feel incredibly powerful in comparison, which clouds judgement.
Frozengaia's reply is really insightful, the higher the quanta, the less increase of attack power and hp.
(http://i.imgur.com/Dvd1Keh.png)
But still interested in making high quanta cards :)
Post by: OldTrees on March 12, 2015, 06:55:45 am
When the average cost of your cards is too low, you cannot help but to produce too much more quanta than you can use.
When the average cost of your cards is too high, you cannot help but produce too little quanta to use them (or include too few in your deck to rely on them).
Post by: serprex on March 12, 2015, 12:29:32 pm
Post by: OldTrees on March 12, 2015, 03:57:09 pm
Also more expensive creatures run into having to not be OP with PU
I would have said "more expensive creatures run into PU having to not be OP with them." The cost of PU should change over time if the demographics of cards change over time. It doesn't really restrict card design.