Shard of Focus | Shard of Focus

[plastiqe]

I would change it to cost 6 , then change it to something else insead of being a Shard creature (cause that's a little wierd), then maybe tweak the stats for Hp and max Hp a bit.



or

Leave it as an overpowered Shard and we can just keep banning them from PvP.  You can have 4 of these out first turn with a single Nova.

[ZephyrPhantom]

Leave it as an overpowered Shard and we can just keep banning them from PvP.

Eh, I'm pretty sure this is going to get nerfed hard (it better) before it even hits the trainer. This is pretty much free Pulverizer ATM - toss in some novae, SoG, and SoV, and bravo, you're got a gamebreaking shard deck. (For extra fun, use QTs and SoSe)

Summary: Shard of Focus is OP as of now. It should cost around 6 with an increased activation cost and/or the stat variables should be manipulated.

I would change it to cost 6 , then change it to something else insead of being a Shard creature (cause that's a little wierd), then maybe tweak the stats for Hp and max Hp a bit.

I don't think that a shard creature is too weird - 0 attack creatures could implies inanimate objects, IMHO, and I'm pretty Bloodshadow and some other users have been suggesting creature shards for while now. One could also argue the shard's actually powering some kind of elemental spirit that we don't see on the card or that it shoots magical energy.

I'd prefer if Zanz connected this card to Gravity in some specific way besides the mechanic though like the other Shards.

[rowcla]

Time for my idea on how it should be balanced!

I reckon that it should have lower health required to get the second effect, and also a negative effect for the second effect which is less of a disadvantage is mark of gravity

what do you guys think of this?

[ZephyrPhantom]

Time for my idea on how it should be balanced!

I reckon that it should have lower health required to get the second effect, and also a negative effect for the second effect which is less of a disadvantage is mark of gravity

what do you guys think of this?

Question - How will that fit on the card text?

[rowcla]

What do you mean? This would replace the old one meaning that it would take as much space as the old one probably...

[ZephyrPhantom]

What do you mean? This would replace the old one meaning that it would take as much space as the old one probably...

Oh. You never mentioned that you'd remove the whole "destroy a permanent" thing. ^^;

[EmeraldTiger]

has anyone besides myself and Zblader read this?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_%28astrophysics%29

[rowcla]

What do you mean? This would replace the old one meaning that it would take as much space as the old one probably...

Oh. You never mentioned that you'd remove the whole "destroy a permanent" thing. ^^;

no that would stay...

[ZephyrPhantom]

What do you mean? This would replace the old one meaning that it would take as much space as the old one probably...

Oh. You never mentioned that you'd remove the whole "destroy a permanent" thing. ^^;

no that would stay...

Maybe I'm just not understanding what you're saying, but...

I reckon that it should have lower health required to get the second effect no change to text, for example >20, and also a negative effect for the second effect which is less of a disadvantage is mark of gravity adds a sentence or so...

What I get as a final result:
"Accretion:
Destroy a permanent and gain +0/+10. Turn into a Black Hole if HP>20. *Negative Effect*, *Reduced Negative Effect* if mark is "

Even compressed, it doesn't fit:
Could you provide an image of what you're saying? That would make it less confusing.

[rowcla]

Yeah sorry, i was probably a bit unclear, the negative effect would replace the turning into a black hole

[hendrydext]

About balancing, i think that "make a permanent disappear for 2 turns" instead "destroying permanent" will do, and also will fit better with Gravity theme.

The other effect, i think it is just fine as it is because of definition of accretion from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_%28astrophysics%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_%28astrophysics%29). So, there are things that should NOT be removed form this effect:
1. accretion means "grow". So, its hp should increase when it "eat" something..
2. accretion means "massive". So, its hp should be big (very big).
3. accretion means "black hole" as its center. After it "eat" enough, the one left should be the center that is "black hole".

But there is something missing:
1. accretion means "attract" more matter. But, there is no the thing like that. Hm, except for the permanent that is attracted (destroyed).
2. accretion means "spiral" or "neighbor". But, neighbor seems fine..
3. The name is Shard of Focus, but there is no effect to focus.. 0_o

And, i just think that fractal and mitosis should not be allowed to used with SoF.

[rowcla]

About balancing, i think that "make a permanent disappear for 2 turns" instead "destroying permanent" will do, and also will fit better with Gravity theme.

The other effect, i think it is just fine as it is because of definition of accretion from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_%28astrophysics%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_%28astrophysics%29). So, there are things that should NOT be removed form this effect:
1. accretion means "grow". So, its hp should increase when it "eat" something..
2. accretion means "massive". So, its hp should be big (very big).
3. accretion means "black hole" as its center. After it "eat" enough, the one left should be the center that is "black hole".

But there is something missing:
1. accretion means "attract" more matter. But, there is no the thing like that. Hm, except for the permanent that is attracted (destroyed).
2. accretion means "spiral" or "neighbor". But, neighbor seems fine..
3. The name is Shard of Focus, but there is no effect to focus.. 0_o

And, i just think that fractal and mitosis should not be allowed to used with SoF.

In that case why dont we make it shard of nieghbourliness, which comes into play gravity pulled and has devour!

FITS EVERYTHING!!!

But no, thats probably a bad idea...