Two small changes

[doublecross]

1)
I think that if improved mutation is applied to a flying weapon, it should have a 50% chance of mutating it into another flying weapon, and a 50% chance of performing the usual effect.

2)
I think that the endow ability should, when used, in addition to what it currently does, change the creature to the colour of the weapon.
This second change would mostly be cosmetic, but would be relevant in relation to
a) holy flash
b) eclipse/nightfall
c) flooding/inundation
d) possibly other effects that have yet to be added

This would only effect crusader and certain mutants at the moment, would not screw with balancing, and I think would add both extra strategic richness and a nice cosmetic touch.


Thoughs? Comments?  Balancing advice?

[russianspy1234]

1)
I think that if improved mutation is applied to a flying weapon, it should have a 50% chance of mutating it into another flying weapon, and a 50% chance of performing the usual effect.

2)
I think that the endow ability should, when used, in addition to what it currently does, change the creature to the colour of the weapon.
This second change would mostly be cosmetic, but would be relevant in relation to
a) holy flash
b) eclipse/nightfall
c) flooding/inundation
d) possibly other effects that have yet to be added

This would only effect crusader and certain mutants at the moment, would not screw with balancing, and I think would add both extra strategic richness and a nice cosmetic touch.


Thoughs? Comments?  Balancing advice?

1 doesnt really make sense as mutation turns into a random mutant, though it would be pretty cool if there was a subset of weapon only mutations.

2 is kind of bleh, as using fractal on a crusader just gives you a blank unendowed crusader whereas with your change, that would be harder to justify since you would just get the white card again.

[doublecross]

1)
I think that if improved mutation is applied to a flying weapon, it should have a 50% chance of mutating it into another flying weapon, and a 50% chance of performing the usual effect.

2)
I think that the endow ability should, when used, in addition to what it currently does, change the creature to the colour of the weapon.
This second change would mostly be cosmetic, but would be relevant in relation to
a) holy flash
b) eclipse/nightfall
c) flooding/inundation
d) possibly other effects that have yet to be added

This would only effect crusader and certain mutants at the moment, would not screw with balancing, and I think would add both extra strategic richness and a nice cosmetic touch.


Thoughs? Comments?  Balancing advice?

1 doesnt really make sense as mutation turns into a random mutant, though it would be pretty cool if there was a subset of weapon only mutations.

2 is kind of bleh, as using fractal on a crusader just gives you a blank unendowed crusader whereas with your change, that would be harder to justify since you would just get the white card again.

Well, for 1, I think it does make sense, because currently mutation turns a weapon into a creature, but never can turn a creature into a weapon.   I am not proposing that we add weapons into the set of creatures something can turn into, but I think weapons having a chance of turning into other weapons makes sense both in terms of game-play as well as thematically.

As for 2, I am not entirely sure that I understood what you meant by your criticism. When you use fractal on any modified creature, you always get the base form. Fractal ignores stat modifications, modified abilities, gained attributes, just giving the default card. I see no reason why this should be any different.   

In case it wasn't clear before, 2 was not meant to be a change to Crusader, but rather to the endow ability, so this would also affect mutants who have gained endow as their ability.


However, if your criticism still applies, I would love to hear it.  I am not trying to dismiss your criticism out of hand.

[russianspy1234]

1.  weapons arent creatures really, it would actually make sense if flying weapons couldnt be mutated at all, mutation turning weapons into weapons that actually exist wouldnt make sense.  mutation turning weapons into "mutant" weapons with wrong abilities would, and would be pretty cool.

2.  i suppose thats true about fractal, but still dont really like the change.  the endow ability is about the creature channeling the power of the weapon, the creature itself doesnt really change.  also, from what i can tell of the code, it would require a whole lot of work to accomplish, drawing each possible color of each possible creature (because of mutants)

[RootRanger]

There are about 50 card changes more important than these two, which only sort of make sense.

[doublecross]

@ Rootranger
What changes did you have in mind? If you'll pardon my saying so, that comment didn't strike me as being productive.
Many changes to the game have been small tweaks that improve the game, but might go mostly un-noticed if not for patch notes.

Something I have noticed about the vast majority of card ideas and supposed tweaks, is that everyone wants their idea to be
game changing. Almost every card I see proposed would be in the top 25% strongest cards. I believe this is because
most people suggest cards that they would love to have in their deck. People think "Oh man, what would make my deck
even more epic?"   

I am a strong believer in the soft changes to the game. I love the cards that when they are added, not everyone goes "that is
the greatest thing ever! Now I will always win!"  Instead, I like the cards that allow more strategic possibilities and richness,
but don't require everyone to adapt to them in order to keep up.

I am also a fan of the small tweak.   I loved when he added quanta generation to gnome rider, and damsel-fly.
I loved the added passive to the skeleton. I like how he keeps modifying the mechanics of mutation, making a few creatures not
appear on the list of possible creatures.  I love how parallel universe was tweaked such that if used on mutants, it doesn't produce
an exact clone.

I think that no player who thinks about it seriously would think that these changes were not worth his time. Also, most of the complaints
that I see is when a major change makes some people unhappy.  Remember the rioting about Fractal? We are still dealing with that
over a year later, and it has severely limited what new cards can be added.

Now, I am not saying that major changes are unimportant, or that they are dangerous, and should be avoided, but I consider rejecting less
game-changing ideas as unimportant is frankly philistine.   

So, yes. There are *bigger* changes that could be made to the game, but I would argue the certainty with which you say "more important"


And, you claim to have 50 more important changes? I would love to hear some of them.   Would you oblige me, and list at least 10?

[artimies7]

This is about fifteen and a half  (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,28533.0.html)that people have randomly spit out on one thread, not to mention all the little ones on the card threads themselves.

[RootRanger]

Necessary nerfs and buffs are far more important than minor tweaks with insignificant changes to balance. Nerfs and buffs allow more cards and strategies to be viable, which makes Elements more fun because there is more room for creativity instead of being forced to use something standard. Some of the cards that could use a nerf include Phoenix, Fire Bolt, Graboid, Nova, and Deflag. As for buffs, Thunderstorm, boneyard, antlion, graviton merc, and blue crawler come to mind. But there are a lot more.

[doublecross]

I won't say that I disagree, because those do require more urgent attention.

That being said, rejecting an idea on the grounds of "I can think of more important things", still isn't really a constructive point.

I would love to hear your feedback on the idea itself. Whether or not it seems balanced, do you think it would add anything, would
it make sense thematically, etc.

I guess I am asking your opinions about this idea at an arbitrary time in the future, not about "should it be Zanz's focus this second"

[RootRanger]

Well neither really make sense. Flying weapon turns your weapon into a creature, so it should be treated as a creature if it is targeted with mutation. Crusader is a Light creature no matter what weapon it is holding.

[doublecross]

Well, first of all, it is not just Crusaders.

Secondly, if you are endowing the essence of a weapon, shouldn't that align you to it?


Also, flying weapons are not entirely treated as creatures, otherwise mitosis would work on them, and other creatures would mutate into them.

I think it would make sense for weapons to have a chance to retain their "weapon-ness", when mutated.

[RootRanger]

Unfortunately you've only really given your opinions, and the game doesn't need to revolve around you.

And mitosis does not work on weapons to keep the game balanced. Hopefully no one actually thinks their personal thematic preference cones before game balance.