Post by: willng3 on December 30, 2011, 06:19:33 am
Notes:
-Black Hole is placed in your hand, it does not activate like Amber Nymph
-Accretion is an active ability, with no cost
-Shard of Focus is considered the "Gravity Shard"
Discuss.
Note: Shards cannot be obtained by the Oracle and thus have no Oracle prediction.
Post by: Kuroaitou on December 30, 2011, 06:21:04 am
Aside from the synergies it could have with Rage Potion (yay for more ATK + more chances to destroy things!), Acceleration (removes the ability, but it's a cheaper 'creature' to bolster), and even Gravity Pull (destroy a permanent -> enemy creatures take more life away -> destroy more permanents -> repeat), I'm starting to realize that Basilisk Blood will become stronger CC against SoF users, while Reverse Time actually becomes worse against Mono-:gravity (since I'm assuming you get the shard back again all fresh and neat).
The fun thing is; you really do you have to 'focus' on trying to keep SoF in play. Spam its ability too much, and you'll find yourself with a potentially less useful weapon (Black Hole). Do it too little, and you might risk the possibility of it being removed or wasted on the field. And of course, how you use it (Catapult fodder? PC spam? Black Hole generator via Fractal and destroying everything on sight?) will make this shard possibility one of the more 'interesting' shards.
Post by: n00b on December 30, 2011, 06:21:11 am
EDIT: Imo, to make it more geared towards :gravity (as producing a BH isn't really a thing you want to happen if playing that card), why not make it something like "And if your mark is :gravity, it turns into a BH at (insert higher number) HP", or even if your mark is :gravity, it gains less HP per turn or something
Post by: Hyroen on December 30, 2011, 06:23:56 am
This card looks like it will be fun. ^_^
EDIT: 5* Simply cuz it's a shard. Love -all- the shards!! (http://memegenerator.net/cache/instances/400x/12/12397/12694821.jpg)
Post by: Bhlewos on December 30, 2011, 06:28:21 am
Can't wait to start testing this out (right after I finish this post). First creature shard! Awesome!
EDIT: Go to Trainer...no SoF...just like finding out Santa isn't real, all over again.
Post by: rowcla on December 30, 2011, 06:32:59 am
Post by: Vineroz on December 30, 2011, 06:39:20 am
I bet it is going to get a major change.
Post by: willng3 on December 30, 2011, 06:41:27 am
The ability really doesn't related much to Gravity. One obvious example: this + Rage pots.Hmm...Black Hole isn't related to Gravity? It even puts the card in the owner's hand.
I bet it is going to get a major change.
Post by: suxerz on December 30, 2011, 06:42:47 am
On a different note, we can finally fractal shards! Also, it's kinda funny to think that the shard will still gain the HP gain even if we cancel the ability. (at least I imagine it will be) ;D
Post by: Naesala on December 30, 2011, 06:55:11 am
The ability really doesn't related much to Gravity. One obvious example: this + Rage pots.Consumption of permanents=consumption of creatures (aka otyugh)? and black hole, etc. It is a bit confusing though since this is the first shard that doesnt flat out say what it is supposed to be aligned with. Personally, I really like it. My only concerns are that it might need a slight cost increase and that it buffs rainbows more than grav. Although seeing now that it gives gravity a slight resistance to reverse time, it is nice. I think this could open up some great fire eater/shard/rage pot/chimera decks. That'd be fun. Alas, it'll be forever before I can grind 6 of these.
I bet it is going to get a major change.
Post by: Jocko on December 30, 2011, 06:58:34 am
Well, at first sight seems kinda op, but i guess we'll have to wait and see.
Post by: Vineroz on December 30, 2011, 07:01:20 am
There are too many ways to avoid that Black Hole while keeping it running :)The ability really doesn't related much to Gravity. One obvious example: this + Rage pots.Hmm...Black Hole isn't related to Gravity? It even puts the card in the owner's hand.
I bet it is going to get a major change.
Making the "+0/+10 per turn, turns into BH when HP>50" into passive might work. Also HP>50 can be max HP>50 to get rid of self sniping.
Post by: RRQJ on December 30, 2011, 07:49:57 am
Post by: EvaRia on December 30, 2011, 08:05:56 am
That fixes a lot of OPness IMO...
Post by: rowcla on December 30, 2011, 08:07:38 am
Make it random!But how would that fit with it being shard of focus
That fixes a lot of OPness IMO...
Post by: Orichalcum on December 30, 2011, 08:17:31 am
Someone in the v1.30 thread suggested HP>50 changed to (max HP)>50.
That would be a step in the right direction to make it 4 perms max.
Post by: mwaetht on December 30, 2011, 09:15:42 am
Post by: Atico on December 30, 2011, 09:29:29 am
This shard solve all my problems with PC in 70% decks, so I will use it, but I think that it is very OP.
As bonus card it will be better to add Unstoppable or maybe random Gravity card.
Post by: The_Mormegil on December 30, 2011, 09:39:15 am
1) Its theme is very disappointing. A shard that's a creature? Really? Although it adds a ton of synergies, I feel like this is a very bad touch for the feel of the game.
2) It's an extremely cheap way out of the PC issue (and one I feared). I believe a more thoughtful approach would have been better.
3) It's poorly balanced as of now, but I believe that will be fixed. As long as the fix isn't Shard of Sacrifice-like... But we'll see.
Also, some quick balancing thoughts for those of you that are testing in the trainer:
- This and Fractal in a mono-aether. This in Fracharge.
- This in Immorush instead of Deflagration.
- This with GPull in a CC-heavy deck.
- This in any deck whose potential has been severly hampered by the lack of PC.
- This with Eternity.
- This with Rage Potion.
Post by: Djhopper :) on December 30, 2011, 10:27:02 am
First thought is: this is a bad card. I will make a more intresting post later on, after some more thinking, but:^This
1) Its theme is very disappointing. A shard that's a creature? Really? Although it adds a ton of synergies, I feel like this is a very bad touch for the feel of the game.
2) It's an extremely cheap way out of the PC issue (and one I feared). I believe a more thoughtful approach would have been better.
3) It's poorly balanced as of now, but I believe that will be fixed. As long as the fix isn't Shard of Sacrifice-like... But we'll see.
Post by: teffy on December 30, 2011, 10:56:38 am
I like the idea of "soft" PC for other elements (although Butterfly was a fantastic idea). Paired with special circumstances,reusable PC is ok, like "atk<3", or "2 elements, weapon".
The card should be countered by CC spells. Means low HP. like: 0/1, gains 0/1 per destroyed perm, BH with 0/3.
With these HPs, all colors except Life have a counterspell.
Also see that the shard is the best target for Butterfly Effect (0/15 is awesome for an "other" creature ), so it needs low HP.
OP in the way it is now.
Post by: Atico on December 30, 2011, 11:23:58 am
Also, some quick balancing thoughts for those of you that are testing in the trainer:So as we can see it is buff for the best cards (Fractal, Immo, RagePotion) and strategies in game. It is wrong decision.
- This and Fractal in a mono-aether. This in Fracharge.
- This in Immorush instead of Deflagration.
- This with GPull in a CC-heavy deck.
- This in any deck whose potential has been severly hampered by the lack of PC.
- This with Eternity.
- This with Rage Potion.
One simple change of this card and this shard will be more balanced. Gravity is an element which has got a lot of HP. So lets make this card like spell which will be like Butterfly Effect but for creatures with HP>5? 8? 10? 15? and for gravity creatures?
It will be synergy with Gravity, it will be buff for Massive Dragon, Guard, Heavy Armor etc. It is probably better idea than buff Fractal, Rage, Eternity etc...
Simple comparing SoF with Butterfly show how much is it OP. SoF is 2in1 card and it is cheaper than Butterfly which need 2 cards to destroy permament (creature+BE). So destroy Permament by BE cost about 8 :entropy (Micro Abo + BE + activate skill). In SoF cost 3 random.
Post by: EmeraldTiger on December 30, 2011, 11:37:35 am
Post by: Acsabi44 on December 30, 2011, 12:34:59 pm
Reusable PC for colorless is way too OP in any form.
The black hole part is pretty.
Post by: Avenger on December 30, 2011, 12:48:39 pm
The ability really doesn't related much to Gravity. One obvious example: this + Rage pots.So what, this + acceleration is working too.
I bet it is going to get a major change.
Post by: plastiqe on December 30, 2011, 02:43:52 pm
Shard of Focus is cheap, reusable PC for all Elements. Compare to Pulverizer, which requires a significant investment in two types of quanta, takes up your Weapon slot and would in turn now be vulnerable to a cheaper, harder to destroy creature shard.
I do not like the creature stats. Adding more ginourmous hit point cards just puts more emphasis on CC that ignores creature defenses.
Adding a Black Hole to your hand is just icing on the cake. Mono decks with no :gravity won't care, the cheap, reusable PC is worth it even if you end up with a dead card in your hand.
Heh, maybe I just got up on the wrong side of the bed for card reviewing this morning. : P I think everyone can agree that more PC is needed, and Gravity is a good place to put it. For starters this I would like this Shard a lot more if it was reworked to require an actual investment in :gravity quanta. I would like it better if all the Shards just became cards of their Element.
Post by: Shantu on December 30, 2011, 02:52:04 pm
I do not like Shards because they are Other cards. The fact that some are loosely tied to using a specific Mark doesn't stop Rainbow decks from taking full advantage of a Shard and still having access to every other card in the game.I wholeheartedly agree with this whole post.
Shard of Focus is cheap, reusable PC for all Elements. Compare to Pulverizer, which requires a significant investment in two types of quanta, takes up your Weapon slot and would in turn now be vulnerable to a cheaper, harder to destroy creature shard.
I do not like the creature stats. Adding more ginourmous hit point cards just puts more emphasis on CC that ignores creature defenses.
Adding a Black Hole to your hand is just icing on the cake. Mono decks with no :gravity won't care, the cheap, reusable PC is worth it even if you end up with a dead card in your hand.
Heh, maybe I just got up on the wrong side of the bed for card reviewing this morning. : P I think everyone can agree that more PC is needed, and Gravity is a good place to put it. For starters this I would like this Shard a lot more if it was reworked to require an actual investment in :gravity quanta. I would like it better if all the Shards just became cards of their Element.
Post by: dragonsdemesne on December 30, 2011, 05:16:07 pm
Having colourless permanent removal isn't necessarily a bad thing. However, it should be weaker than any mono removal, as compensation for ease of use, with the exception of the shard's element. (like how SoG is weaker than Sanctuary or Feral Bond, or how SoD is weaker than heal, unless you are using the shard-specific mark) Going by that criterion, this card should be weaker than butterfly effect in nongravity decks.
What this card is, however, is much, much stronger. It destroys 4 permanents for one thing, and that's assuming you don't abuse it with things like Eternity, Grey Nymph, Gravity Pull, Fractal, Red Nymph, Twin Universe, Fractal, etc. It's dirt cheap for another. It's cheaper than butterfly effect, pulverizer, costs the same as deflagration and one less than steal. It has only two drawbacks, one being that it takes one turn to start working (which is a good thing, and should be kept) and that it is vulnerable to creature removal. However, that last is mostly meaningless; with 15hp, the best you can hope to do is delay it with something like rewind or maybe instakill it with gravity pull if you've got a lot of creatures out. Lobotomy is probably the only really good counter to this. (or permanentless immorush :p Which is a deck I do -not- want to encourage)
Butterfly Effect and Pulverizer are completely outclassed by this. They both have a 1 turn delay as well (unless BE is played on a creature without summoning sickness) and cost way more quanta to use. They are also easier to deal with than SoF. BE you can kill the creature, usually easily, since it has to be small, pulvy you can use removal on, and it's quanta intensive, but SoF has very few answers; as I mentioned, the only really good one I can think of is lobotomy, although basilisk blood would work, too. Even cards like deflagration are outclassed by this; the only advantage deflag has over this is that it's faster. Heck, this card even overshadows Earthquake, and that's an OP card already. You could play this on turn 1 even in unupped play with nova, and smash one pillar every turn. Even if your opponent holds back pillars until this is gone, that's four turns you get where the opponent is playing around one card to their serious detriment.
This card has versatility and power. It's very cheap in quanta, it's very hard to deal with, and any deck can use it. It makes SoSa look downright bad, and that's something in itself, given how I feel about that card.
Think about the following changes to the metagame:
BAD:
-every deck will be able to play this card on turn 1 with nova or towers, and if you do, your opponent is going to either lose their pillars right away, or they have to play around it and probably lose anyway because of the huge disadvantage that causes.
-all other permanent removal except in some cases steal (and that only because of the steal part) will be replaced by this in >90% of decks
-monoearth will have twelve cards to destroy pillars with (and SoF has the flexibility to destroy other cards, too)
-pillarless immorush will gain power as it is a counter to this, and it's already a powerful, albeit unreliable, deck.
GOOD:
-lobotomy and basilisk blood will increase in usage
-all elements have PC (unfortunately, too strong pc)
Next post will have possible edits to the card (this one's too long)
Post by: petersenk on December 30, 2011, 05:16:47 pm
But it is very nice to see Zanz at work again! ;)
^^ Happy new year and stuff ;D
Post by: dragonsdemesne on December 30, 2011, 05:36:06 pm
-have it target random permanents (possibly even your own)
-have it target the highest cost permanent (possibly even your own)
-have it target the lowest cost permanent (possibly even your own)
-disallow targeting pillars/pends/marks to prevent turn 1 abuse and having games decided by coinflip
-reduce the hp (and redo hp gain/death trigger as a consequence) so that it is killable in more ways like shockwave, fire bolt, etc
-have it destroy less than 4 permanents (1 or maybe 2)
-have it cost much more quanta than 3, like 9 // 7, because off-element removal should cost an arm and a leg
The idea of getting a black hole after it works is an interesting take on making it better in gravity. While there is nothing wrong with that, what about either of these suggestions, both of which are assuming some of my reworks would be used: (I really like my first one btw!)
-give a buff to all graviton creatures (gravition mercenary/guard and graviton fire eater/master) like more attack/defense or momentum or something
-if you have gravity mark, lasts 1 more turn
A more balanced version of Shard of Focus might look something like:
Cost = 8 // 6
Attack/Defense = 0/4
Text = Accretion: Destroy the highest cost nonpillar/pend/mark permanent your opponent has in play. After this card has been in play for two turns, destroy it. +1 turns to live if your mark is gravity.
or
Cost = 6 // 5
A/D = 0/4
Text = Accretion: Destroy the highest cost nonpillar/pend/mark permanent in play each turn. All gravitons in play get +1/+1 and momentum.
or
Cost = 8 // 6
A/D = 0/3
Text = Accretion: Destroy a random nongravity permanent each turn. SoF has its maximum hp reduced by 1 each turn, and cannot have its hp increased in any way.
Post by: agentflare on December 30, 2011, 06:15:03 pm
Post by: rickerd on December 30, 2011, 06:58:17 pm
Post by: Hyroen on December 30, 2011, 07:18:43 pm
Post by: Naesala on December 30, 2011, 07:22:54 pm
On another slightly unrelated note, does this card "turn into" Black Hole? And if so, does it count as a death trigger?I think we get a death trigger, but the black hole is added to the hand.
Post by: Atico on December 30, 2011, 07:23:21 pm
-have it destroy less than 4 permanents (1 or maybe 2)This can be also nerf as buff for SoF. Few SoF on field, clear AI Pillar/Towers and BlackHole in hand after 2 turns (now is after 4). Opponent hasn't got pillars, quantum and You have a lot of BlackHoles in 30 cards deck (24 BH in Arena! = BH every turn?) and max HP (because BlackHole works as heal). Add Discord and Maxwell to kill creatures which AI put on field and we have the best antiFG deck ;) Add Antimatter instead Maxwell and we have antiFG with EM.
Post by: Nepycros on December 30, 2011, 08:06:04 pm
In large numbers, it's like a self-Nightmare that gives you life when you use the multitudes of black holes that are bound to show up in your hand. :P
Suggestion:
Have something that actually focuses, almost like the Chimera's effect of combining all forces into one. When I imagine a large amount of order being applied, focus comes to mind. If SoF remains a creature, it might be handy for it to, idk...
6 :rainbow Fusion: Sacrifice Shard of Focus. If you have three of the same card in your hand, you may discard all of them to play a single copy of the cards for free. Two are needed if your mark is Gravity.
Fractal dragon counter to Shard of Conscience.
Post by: Essence on December 30, 2011, 08:06:47 pm
I am ready to test it.^^ This. Theorizing is nice, but I've been caught off guard multiple times in testing by just how different games worked out vs. theory.
That said, this does look like another example of Zanz' classic "start high, edit downward" style. :)
Post by: Bleys295 on December 30, 2011, 08:37:18 pm
Post by: Rutarete on December 30, 2011, 09:03:36 pm
SoF, though, doesn't seem like a shard - not because it's a creature, but because it has nothing to do with the mark making a difference in its ability. The Mark is a major theme that ties shards to their respective elements. My suggestions areHaving a mark requirement for Hp also adds to the 'focus' theme.
1. Make the 'turning into a black hole' part a passive that can happen only if the mark is :gravity (and at some Hp amount).
2. Have it only gain the 10 Hp if the mark is :gravity.
I like #2 better than 1 because it adds the mark aspect, and also puts a limit on the destruction; also removes overshadowing of Pulverizer.
Post by: Jocko on December 30, 2011, 10:39:22 pm
Post by: furballdn on December 30, 2011, 11:50:46 pm
Post by: UTAlan on December 31, 2011, 12:46:04 am
That fix is flawed. If only :gravity mark gains 10 hp, then any other mark can use it indefinetly.I'd suggest Mark of :gravity gains
Post by: pulli23 on December 31, 2011, 01:39:55 am
Only need overdrive + this card for it to work, stop at 45 hp, and let overdrive do it's work. - What can happen? It reaches way too much damage before it comes close to being cced. And if reverse timed: well you again have amazing perm control back. If the opponent decides to use congeal/bassilisk blood: just use your next shard/overdrive, it's not THAT expensive. And if the opponent decides to rush: well simply let a shard grow to heal up a bit. Maybe add a few gravity pulls/bassilisk bloods for cc.
Seems way over powered in my eyes.
Post by: EmeraldTiger on December 31, 2011, 02:16:16 am
Post by: Nepycros on December 31, 2011, 02:17:41 am
If everyone thinks this is OP provide nerf suggestions and perhaps we need to vote on what is best.I still opt for:
6 :rainbow Fusion: Sacrifice SoF. If you have three similar cards in your hand, discard them, and play a single copy of the cards for free. Two are needed if your mark is Gravity.
Post by: pulli23 on December 31, 2011, 02:26:00 am
If everyone thinks this is OP provide nerf suggestions and perhaps we need to vote on what is best.I honestly can't really think of nerfing it without really changing how it works. Growing hp (and thus having a powerful target for things such as gravity pull/overdrive) & perm control simply should go in 1 card.
This card simply has to many uses: perm control (duh) - potential creature control (gravity pull) - potential damage (overdrive) - healing/quanta control. It simply is TOO versatile.
Maybe change the max hp (& hp gain) - or even remove it and simply give it charges (is that possible?). Or better: let it lower hp on destroying & when death it activates gravity pull (this gives the opponent also a choice: do I wish gravity pull now or later and let a perm be destroyed yet don't waste my spell?)
Let it begin at 24 hp and lower 6 hp each "cast"?
Another option is to reduce the starting hp (while growing) - allowing a quickly timed cc-combo to nullify this. Though I'm not really in favour of such things (as this simply means you have to keep cc on hand if you have any doubt the opponent has this shard), maybe:
start with 8 (10 with gravity mark), gain 4. - gets destroyed when reaches 24 hp or more
Post by: tallguy2241 on December 31, 2011, 03:29:33 am
Based on everything else I've read here, that's not how it works...but maybe it should be.
Post by: Xamuel on December 31, 2011, 05:19:20 am
Post by: Naesala on December 31, 2011, 06:06:50 am
Extremely easy and effective nerf: replace "a permanent" with "one of your own permanents" :PWhich completely destroys this card. that would send it from OP to UP in a heartbeat, no one would use it.
Post by: furballdn on December 31, 2011, 06:22:48 am
Extremely easy and effective nerf: replace "a permanent" with "one of your own permanents" :PThat'd make it one of the worst cards out there. I suppose your idea of nerfing supernova would be to give your opponent 24 quanta and to nerf creatures you'd just invert their attacks.
Post by: mesaprotector on December 31, 2011, 06:29:03 am
Post by: Elite arbiter on December 31, 2011, 07:53:26 am
Post by: EvaRia on December 31, 2011, 08:00:02 am
Post by: Elite arbiter on December 31, 2011, 09:03:41 am
Post by: Atico on December 31, 2011, 09:44:09 am
If everyone thinks this is OP provide nerf suggestions and perhaps we need to vote on what is best.All depends on how much we can change in this card. A lot of Players think that PC skill for everyone is OP, so changing card cost, ability cost, Attack/Hp do nothing for them. I understand Players, because it is too easy destroy permament today and tomorrow it will be easier. We want some kind of soft PC. Destroy isn't soft, it is a hard type of PC.
Personally I think that this Shard should destroy ONLY shield and/or weapon (and maybe it should be random). It will be still very powerful, but cards like Pillars/Towers, FeralBond, SoulCatcher etc. will be still in game. In original conception it is too big nerf for weaker elements like :light (Sanctuary), :life (Feral Bond). What is more - Sanctuary now will be unuseful against BlackHole and Gravity decks. You can have 6 Sanc in deck and all will be easy destroy by SoF. For me it is too much OP things in this card.
Post by: Xenocidius on December 31, 2011, 10:04:06 am
I get the feeling that Mitosis will get a non-shard clause added to accompany its non-weapon clause.Nope. Weapons require Flying Weapon to be used along with them to turn them into creatures, and Fractal is useless with them. Shard of Focus is an ordinary creature, so there is no reason why Mitosis shouldn't work with it (especially considering Fractal does).
Post by: Acsabi44 on December 31, 2011, 12:35:14 pm
"destroy target permanent and cast a nova for the opponent"
this makes the card very tricky to play (a card that rewards good playing skills is a great card, like RT) since it could backfire. But if you manage to pull it off then the BH reward will be great in the end.
Also it limits the amount of decks against the SoF is worth playing.
Post by: Some0ne on December 31, 2011, 02:47:44 pm
-As it's still in development, try not to freak out if you think it's Overpowered.Yeap. As you said it yourself, its pretty god**** OP.
I feel it's too powerful. It's basically 3 :rainbow for 4 deflags in 4 turns. Any deck can use it and it only makes :rainbows even more powerful by giving it this huge PC advantage and free black holes.Precisely.
Post by: ak65ala on December 31, 2011, 04:53:40 pm
Allow it to destroy only non-quanta producing permanents.
You'll be able to have the permanent control you want, but not totally destroy on any pillar using decks if you get it out turn 1. This will make its use strictly worse than butterfly effect and having this limitation seems balanced to its re-usability.
Post by: Naesala on December 31, 2011, 06:05:04 pm
A nice balancing effect would beThis.
"destroy target permanent and cast a nova for the opponent"
this makes the card very tricky to play (a card that rewards good playing skills is a great card, like RT) since it could backfire. But if you manage to pull it off then the BH reward will be great in the end.
Also it limits the amount of decks against the SoF is worth playing.
Post by: plastiqe on December 31, 2011, 07:44:22 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/XYkML.png)
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.
(http://i.imgur.com/fomSo.png)(http://i.imgur.com/fomSo.png)(http://i.imgur.com/fomSo.png)(http://i.imgur.com/fomSo.png)
Post by: ZephyrPhantom on January 01, 2012, 01:38:56 am
Quote
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 :rainbow with an increased activation cost and/or the stat variables should be manipulated.
I would change it to cost 6 :gravity, 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.
Post by: rowcla on January 01, 2012, 02:12:18 am
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?
Post by: ZephyrPhantom on January 01, 2012, 02:13:39 am
Time for my idea on how it should be balanced!Question - How will that fit on the card text?
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?
Post by: rowcla on January 01, 2012, 02:16:09 am
Post by: ZephyrPhantom on January 01, 2012, 02:32:25 am
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. ^^;
Post by: EmeraldTiger on January 01, 2012, 02:46:00 am
Post by: rowcla on January 01, 2012, 03:01:52 am
no that would stay...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. ^^;
Post by: ZephyrPhantom on January 01, 2012, 03:14:31 am
Maybe I'm just not understanding what you're saying, but...no that would stay...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. ^^;
Quote
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 :gravity"
Even compressed, it doesn't fit:
(http://i.imgur.com/8pdVu.png)Could you provide an image of what you're saying? That would make it less confusing.
Post by: rowcla on January 01, 2012, 03:38:04 am
Post by: hendrydext on January 01, 2012, 06:46:20 am
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.
Post by: rowcla on January 01, 2012, 06:54:26 am
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.In that case why dont we make it shard of nieghbourliness, which comes into play gravity pulled and has devour!
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.
FITS EVERYTHING!!!
But no, thats probably a bad idea...
Post by: Avenger on January 01, 2012, 01:02:42 pm
Looks way too OP. Only BB counters this. It cost 3 quanta and has (effectively) reusable PC? It needs to be reworked. Badly.Only BB?
What about Lobo and Mutation? Besides hard cc.
Post by: rowcla on January 01, 2012, 01:04:28 pm
And freeze, and permantless decks, and arctic squid, to be honest theres a fair few...Looks way too OP. Only BB counters this. It cost 3 quanta and has (effectively) reusable PC? It needs to be reworked. Badly.Only BB?
What about Lobo and Mutation? Besides hard cc.
Though obviously this needs a massive nerf
Post by: OldTrees on January 01, 2012, 06:25:59 pm
- Everyone can see it requires a nerf. That is normal for In Development and holds especially true for Shards.
- However I hope everyone sees that despite the current OP state, it is countered by many forms of CC. However this is EtG therefore the card will be balanced further.
- Nerfs are not permitted to alter the core of the card. Doing so would destroy the card. What is permitted is altering the modifying details and mechanics.
- What is the core of the card? Only the Author can answer that, however I think it is evident that Creature, Shard and Devour Permanent are central to the card.
- Creature requires stats and balancing the creature generation of Fractal and Mitosis.
(Mitosis receiving an exception clause is unnecessary because fractal would still require this task.) - Shard requires it be usable by any element but give Gravity an advantage.
- Devour Permanent requires multiple uses of Hard PC (Destroy).
- So what is left to nerf? (These are not mutually exclusive and multiple will be used.)
- We can increase the casting cost and activation cost. This would pay for the advantage given and give higher scaling costs to fractal and mitosis.
- We can adjust the number of uses of PC by adjusting the initial hp, hp increase and hp limit.
- We can modify the limitation on uses of PC to balance the various attempts to bypass the limitation (Reverse Time, Rage Potion and Gravity Pull).
(Higher Casting Cost and Activation Cost. If that is not sufficient the limitation could be converted to max hp at the cost of eliminating the RP and GP synergies.)
This is not a real card. This is only my initial nerf suggestion.
(http://i.imgur.com/TQuzE.png)(http://i.imgur.com/zne6e.png)
Result:
2 PC for 11 :rainbow + 1 card + 2 turns which is theoretically (1.67 :fire) more than 6 :fire + 2 cards (aka 2 Deflagrations)
The delay and uncertainty balances the card advantage Gravity users gain.
Fractal and Mitosis have a higher yet reasonable cost
Attempts to avoid the hp limitation have reduced effect.
Rage Potion will give +1 use of PC.
Gravity Pull requires lots of CC to reduce damage per turn.
Reverse Time is balanced by the higher cost of the PC but remains reasonable for Eternity.
Downside: Acceleration and Catapult would have low synergy with this variation of SoF.
A better solution would retain synergy with Gravity Pull, Acceleration and Catapult.
Post by: Orichalcum on January 01, 2012, 07:28:43 pm
2 PC for 11 :rainbow + 1 card + 2 turns which is theoretically slightly (-0.33 :fire) less than 8 :fire + 2 cards (aka 2 Deflagrations)Good overall break down on what can be done in the list section. But I'm not quite sure how the math for :fire works.
I assumed you were comparing both unupped due to the 11 :rainbow : 5(card cost) + 3(skill cost)*2 turns = 11 :rainbow
But for the two deflags: 3(card cost)*2 = 6 :fire. where do the other 2 :fire come from to get 8?
Post by: OldTrees on January 01, 2012, 07:33:54 pm
I made a typo. It is corrected in my post above.2 PC for 11 :rainbow + 1 card + 2 turns which is theoretically slightly (-0.33 :fire) less than 8 :fire + 2 cards (aka 2 Deflagrations)Good overall break down on what can be done in the list section. But I'm not quite sure how the math for :fire works.
I assumed you were comparing both unupped due to the 11 :rainbow : 5(card cost) + 3(skill cost)*2 turns = 11 :rainbow
But for the two deflags: 3(card cost)*2 = 6 :fire. where do the other 2 :fire come from to get 8?
Thanks for the catch.
Post by: Atico on January 01, 2012, 08:03:18 pm
All nerfs like changing only cost still make this card OP.
Post by: OldTrees on January 01, 2012, 08:19:27 pm
@OldTrees - I don't think that the biggest problem with this card is in cost. Of course in original version it is too cheap and all we know, but some type of PC for everyone didn't look so good. I am afraid also of BlackHole. 6BH + 6SoF = 12 BH in deck. Isn't it too much? BH is very powerful, as we can see in other poll it is in top5 the most OP cards in game in Players opinion. I prefer other type of Gravity advantage here. Maybe it will be better to make this card 0/1 and raise HP to 30 when mark is Gravity? Or raise 5HP for every GravityTower/Pendelum. Then it will be good buff for Catapult, Overdrive etc. Or maybe destroy for destroy, so "destroy Your and opponent non-pillar permament. Destroy only opponent permament when You have Gravity Mark".PC for everyone might (highly likely) be a core part of the card. If it is then changing that would remove the card. Everyone having PC is not a problem just as everyone having healing is not a problem. The problem you are highlighting is everyone having access to Hard PC. I personally do not think all elements should have mono access to Hard PC. However I am not Zanz.
All nerfs like changing only cost still make this card OP.
12x BH does not seem as big a problem especially since it takes 11 :rainbow and 2 turns in my suggestion for the BH to be available to cast for the additional 4 :gravity. However BH could easily be substituted with another high mass Gravity card and not affect the balance or theme.
Finally your claim that "All nerfs like changing only cost still make this card OP." is clearly false. If it cost 100 :rainbow to cast it would be broken and UP but not OP. Clearly changing the cost can balance at least the cheapest usage of the card. Whether it can balance all usages simultaneously remains to be seen. If you mean something other than Over Powered when you say OP please be more precise and use an accurate term.
Post by: Atico on January 01, 2012, 08:51:00 pm
You are right with this cost ;) My language is not so good, so I didn't know how to tell this. By this claim I would like to say that there isn't huge difference between cost 3 or 5 here (as You propose), so this claim was for Your offer not overall ;) Your offer for SoF is still much better than simple Butterfly Effect. If we want to make this card balanced with BE then skill cost should be much higher than 3, and card should cost around 7-8 :rainbow for upped (BE cost 4, creature 1, co it is 5 :entropy, here we talk about random quantum and SoF is 2in1).@OldTrees - I don't think that the biggest problem with this card is in cost. Of course in original version it is too cheap and all we know, but some type of PC for everyone didn't look so good. I am afraid also of BlackHole. 6BH + 6SoF = 12 BH in deck. Isn't it too much? BH is very powerful, as we can see in other poll it is in top5 the most OP cards in game in Players opinion. I prefer other type of Gravity advantage here. Maybe it will be better to make this card 0/1 and raise HP to 30 when mark is Gravity? Or raise 5HP for every GravityTower/Pendelum. Then it will be good buff for Catapult, Overdrive etc. Or maybe destroy for destroy, so "destroy Your and opponent non-pillar permament. Destroy only opponent permament when You have Gravity Mark".PC for everyone might (highly likely) be a core part of the card. If it is then changing that would remove the card. Everyone having PC is not a problem just as everyone having healing is not a problem. The problem you are highlighting is everyone having access to Hard PC. I personally do not think all elements should have mono access to Hard PC. However I am not Zanz.
All nerfs like changing only cost still make this card OP.
12x BH does not seem as big a problem especially since it takes 11 :rainbow and 2 turns in my suggestion for the BH to be available to cast for the additional 4 :gravity. However BH could easily be substituted with another high mass Gravity card and not affect the balance or theme.
Finally your claim that "All nerfs like changing only cost still make this card OP." is clearly false. If it cost 100 :rainbow to cast it would be broken and UP but not OP. Clearly changing the cost can balance at least the cheapest usage of the card. Whether it can balance all usages simultaneously remains to be seen. If you mean something other than Over Powered when you say OP please be more precise and use an accurate term.
BH is problem, not only against rainbows. For me it isn't fair, that counter card like Sanctuary get now next "counter against counter". It is huge OP especially with Discord. You destroy Sanctuary, You have discord in play and You get BH to hand. In other games it looks easier - put Discord, destroy pillars, gain BH and opponent hasn't got Pillars, You have full HP and easy way to win. Today Discord+BH (or Quicksand+BH) is considered as OP duo. Now it will be stronger ;) Maybe it is good time to nerf Nova and BH in one patch?
Post by: OldTrees on January 01, 2012, 09:39:32 pm
My suggestion was much more detailed than just an increase in the casting cost by 2 :rainbow.You are right with this cost ;) My language is not so good, so I didn't know how to tell this. By this claim I would like to say that there isn't huge difference between cost 3 or 5 here (as You propose), so this claim was for Your offer not overall ;) Your offer for SoF is still much better than simple Butterfly Effect. If we want to make this card balanced with BE then skill cost should be much higher than 3, and card should cost around 7-8 :rainbow for upped (BE cost 4, creature 1, co it is 5 :entropy, here we talk about random quantum and SoF is 2in1).@OldTrees - I don't think that the biggest problem with this card is in cost. Of course in original version it is too cheap and all we know, but some type of PC for everyone didn't look so good. I am afraid also of BlackHole. 6BH + 6SoF = 12 BH in deck. Isn't it too much? BH is very powerful, as we can see in other poll it is in top5 the most OP cards in game in Players opinion. I prefer other type of Gravity advantage here. Maybe it will be better to make this card 0/1 and raise HP to 30 when mark is Gravity? Or raise 5HP for every GravityTower/Pendelum. Then it will be good buff for Catapult, Overdrive etc. Or maybe destroy for destroy, so "destroy Your and opponent non-pillar permament. Destroy only opponent permament when You have Gravity Mark".PC for everyone might (highly likely) be a core part of the card. If it is then changing that would remove the card. Everyone having PC is not a problem just as everyone having healing is not a problem. The problem you are highlighting is everyone having access to Hard PC. I personally do not think all elements should have mono access to Hard PC. However I am not Zanz.
All nerfs like changing only cost still make this card OP.
12x BH does not seem as big a problem especially since it takes 11 :rainbow and 2 turns in my suggestion for the BH to be available to cast for the additional 4 :gravity. However BH could easily be substituted with another high mass Gravity card and not affect the balance or theme.
Finally your claim that "All nerfs like changing only cost still make this card OP." is clearly false. If it cost 100 :rainbow to cast it would be broken and UP but not OP. Clearly changing the cost can balance at least the cheapest usage of the card. Whether it can balance all usages simultaneously remains to be seen. If you mean something other than Over Powered when you say OP please be more precise and use an accurate term.
BH is problem, not only against rainbows. For me it isn't fair, that counter card like Sanctuary get now next "counter against counter". It is huge OP especially with Discord. You destroy Sanctuary, You have discord in play and You get BH to hand. In other games it looks easier - put Discord, destroy pillars, gain BH and opponent hasn't got Pillars, You have full HP and easy way to win. Today Discord+BH (or Quicksand+BH) is considered as OP duo. Now it will be stronger ;) Maybe it is good time to nerf Nova and BH in one patch?
I suggested:
Increase casting cost by 2 :rainbow,
Increase activation cost by 3 :rainbow,
Decrease uses of PC from 4 to 2, and
Decrease hp from 15 to 5
BE gets more than 2 uses and is more secure in getting at least 1 use. Also BE is considered as possible UP unlike Pulvy or 2 Deflagrations. Since my modification was more akin to 2 Deflags than to BE I expect 2 Deflagrations to be a better comparison.
If the Black Hole part of Shard of Focus in unbalanced it is the fault of Black Hole and not of Shard of Focus. If Black Hole (is/were to be) balanced then so would the Black Hole clause of Shard of Focus. Again another card could be substituted without affecting the balance.
Sidenote: Theoretically 5 :rainbow is to 3 :rainbow as 2 :fire is to 1 :fire. It is not much but it can add up with other simultaneous nerfs.
Post by: Atico on January 01, 2012, 10:14:22 pm
My suggestion was much more detailed than just an increase in the casting cost by 2 :rainbow.Increase casting cost by 2 :rainbow, - Still cost less than BE (3 :entropy vs 3 :rainbow)
I suggested:
Increase casting cost by 2 :rainbow,
Increase activation cost by 3 :rainbow,
Decrease uses of PC from 4 to 2, and
Decrease hp from 15 to 5
BE gets more than 2 uses and is more secure in getting at least 1 use. Also BE is considered as possible UP unlike Pulvy or 2 Deflagrations. Since my modification was more akin to 2 Deflags than to BE I expect 2 Deflagrations to be a better comparison.
If the Black Hole part of Shard of Focus in unbalanced it is the fault of Black Hole and not of Shard of Focus. If Black Hole (is/were to be) balanced then so would the Black Hole clause of Shard of Focus. Again another card could be substituted without affecting the balance.
Sidenote: Theoretically 5 :rainbow is to 3 :rainbow as 2 :fire is to 1 :fire. It is not much but it can add up with other simultaneous nerfs.
Increase activation cost by 3 :rainbow, - Still cost less than BE (4 :entropy vs 3 :rainbow)
Decrease uses of PC from 4 to 2, and - here is little advantage of BE
Decrease hp from 15 to 5 - still is better than BE (SoF didn't need second card to use like BE+creature and most of <3 attack creatures has got <5HP).
If You compare it with Explosion it looks sometimes better, but personally I think that better card to compare is BE, because it need creature and 1 turn to activate.
I can agree with BlackHole :) This shard is the best moment to talk about balance some cards like BH or Discord. 12 BlackHoles (as they are now) in hand looks very powerful for me. Most of games are <12 turns, so Black Hole every 1-2 turns isn't good news.
As we can see there are a lot of possibilities to nerf this card and we are waiting for Zanz decision. I belive that he knows and see much more than we and maybe our fear of PC is unnecessary. Today I think that this card shouldn't destroy more than Shields and Weapons, but I am waiting for tests in trainer ;)
Post by: OldTrees on January 01, 2012, 10:38:39 pm
Balanced cards should be used in comparisons. BE is not a great example of balance unlike Pulvy or the recently nerfed Deflagration.My suggestion was much more detailed than just an increase in the casting cost by 2 :rainbow.Increase casting cost by 2 :rainbow, - Still cost less than BE (3 :entropy vs 5 :rainbow)
I suggested:
Increase casting cost by 2 :rainbow,
Increase activation cost by 3 :rainbow,
Decrease uses of PC from 4 to 2, and
Decrease hp from 15 to 5
BE gets more than 2 uses and is more secure in getting at least 1 use. Also BE is considered as possible UP unlike Pulvy or 2 Deflagrations. Since my modification was more akin to 2 Deflags than to BE I expect 2 Deflagrations to be a better comparison.
Increase activation cost by 3 :rainbow, - Still cost less than BE (3 :entropy vs 3 :rainbow)
Decrease uses of PC from 4 to 2, and - here is a great advantage of BE
Decrease hp from 15 to 5 - still is better than BE (SoF didn't need second card to use like BE+creature and most of <3 attack creatures has got <5HP).
If You compare it with Explosion it looks sometimes better, but personally I think that better card to compare is BE, because it need creature and 1 turn to activate.
1) BE is considered by some to be UP compared to other forms of PC including reusable summoning sickness affected skill based PC like Pulvy.
2) Deflagration has recently been nerfed to what I consider balanced.
The number of usages and the existence of limits on usage is a vital variable to equate in comparisons.
1) Butterfly Effect gets 1 use per turn with no maximum.
2) Deflagration is limited to 1 usage.
3) My suggested nerf restrict normal usage of Shard of Focus to 2 usages.
4) Therefore on this topic Shard of Focus is more similar to 2 Deflagrations than it is to Butterfly Effect + 1 creature.
Butterfly effect can be played on the turn the Destroy ability is used. In this manner Pulvy is a better match for the 1 turn delay.
I concede that Butterfly effect does require a creature and is similarly vulnerable to CC. However the number of uses is a much more important variable to equate in this comparison and I believe you underestimated the difference between limited (Spark) and reusable (Horned Frog). Note that the difference in cost between 1 use and reusable for such small effects like 3 damage results in a change of +2 cost. I believe you will find that with larger effects like PC, the cost change between limited and reusable is drastic.
Post by: Bhlewos on January 02, 2012, 03:43:38 am
How about we make it so Shard of Focus does not itself have the ability to destroy permanents? But rather, upon the destruction of any permanent, it gains HP? That way you would need to combo it with PC cards like Steal, Destroy, BE, or Pulverizer (more on that later).
And permanent destruction in this case would also include such things as Sundial, Cloak, or Dimensional Shield expiring, or Bone Shield and Diss Shield being "broken" by creature attacks. Even something like Flooding expiring due to not enough :water upkeep could trigger SoF's ability.
This solves two things I've been worried about the current SoF:
1) No PC for all elements. I know some people have been calling for more PC besides just :fire, :darkness, and :earth/:gravity, but I've seen a lot of complaints (which I agree with) that rainbows would benefit more than mono elements would.
2) This gives Gravity an additional benefit besides the extra Black Hole, namely that Pulverizer, being one of two reusable PC cards in the game, is powered by :gravity. Rainbows would still be able to use it, but Gravity would be better off than Rainbows, unlike the current situation (which I believe SoF would find more uses in rainbows than mono- or duo-Gravity decks).
EDIT: Adding a third thing:
3) SoF would no longer overshadow BE, IMO.
Thanks to Kuro, Oni, and Cheesy for help with the initial brainstorming in chat.
Post by: mwaetht on January 02, 2012, 03:46:11 am
Post by: OldTrees on January 02, 2012, 03:54:39 am
How about we make it so Shard of Focus does not itself have the ability to destroy permanents? But rather, upon the destruction of any permanent, it gains HP? That way you would need to combo it with PC cards like Steal, Destroy, BE, or Pulverizer (more on that later).I see only 1 problem.
And permanent destruction in this case would also include such things as Sundial, Cloak, or Dimensional Shield expiring, or Bone Shield and Diss Shield being "broken" by creature attacks. Even something like Flooding expiring due to not enough :water upkeep could trigger SoF's ability.
This solves two things I've been worried about the current SoF:
1) No PC for all elements. I know some people have been calling for more PC besides just :fire, :darkness, and :earth/:gravity, but I've seen a lot of complaints (which I agree with) that rainbows would benefit more than mono elements would.
2) This gives Gravity an additional benefit besides the extra Black Hole, namely that Pulverizer, being one of two reusable PC cards in the game, is powered by :gravity. Rainbows would still be able to use it, but Gravity would be better off than Rainbows, unlike the current situation (which I believe SoF would find more uses in rainbows than mono- or duo-Gravity decks).
EDIT: Adding a third thing:
3) SoF would no longer overshadow BE, IMO.
Shards are meant to be usable by any element.
If destruction of permanents is required then only a subset of elements would be able to increase its hp.
:aether Phase Shield
:air Wings
:darkness Steal
:death Bone Wall
:earth Earthquake
:entropy Butterfly Effect
:fire Deflagration
:gravity n/a
:life n/a
:light n/a
:time Sundial
:water n/a
So 4 of the 12 elements would be unable to use the Shard without assistance and worse of all, the Shard's allied element Gravity is one of those 4 unlucky elements.
Post by: Bhlewos on January 02, 2012, 03:58:01 am
Unless making the ability a passive would make it OP (I can't think of a reason off the top of my head). IMO it would still be less OP than if it went into the game as is.
EDIT:
I see only 1 problem.What about if flying weapons counted (replacing a weapon with a creature)? Or if replacing a weapon with another (or replacing a shield with another) also qualified? Granted it would be tough to base a strategy off the second option, but if we consider that it would still make the effect more inclusive.
Shards are meant to be usable by any element.
If destruction of permanents is required then only a subset of elements would be able to increase its hp.
:aether Phase Shield
:air Wings
:darkness Steal
:death Bone Wall
:earth Earthquake
:entropy Butterfly Effect
:fire Deflagration
:gravity n/a
:life n/a
:light n/a
:time Sundial
:water n/a
So 4 of the 12 elements would be unable to use the Shard without assistance and worse of all, the Shard's allied element Gravity is one of those 4 unlucky elements.
And I personally think this option would benefit Gravity better than the original -- mostly because it would be less available to Rainbow decks. As it is right now, the Black Hole isn't enough of a benefit to the element that I could see people preferring to use the shard in Gravity decks rather than other elements.
Post by: OldTrees on January 02, 2012, 04:30:12 am
Flying Weapon requires Air.I see only 1 problem.What about if flying weapons counted (replacing a weapon with a creature)? Or if replacing a weapon with another (or replacing a shield with another) also qualified? Granted it would be tough to base a strategy off the second option, but if we consider that it would still make the effect more inclusive.
Shards are meant to be usable by any element.
If destruction of permanents is required then only a subset of elements would be able to increase its hp.
:aether Phase Shield
:air Wings
:darkness Steal
:death Bone Wall
:earth Earthquake
:entropy Butterfly Effect
:fire Deflagration
:gravity n/a
:life n/a
:light n/a
:time Sundial
:water n/a
So 4 of the 12 elements would be unable to use the Shard without assistance and worse of all, the Shard's allied element Gravity is one of those 4 unlucky elements.
And I personally think this option would benefit Gravity better than the original -- mostly because it would be less available to Rainbow decks. As it is right now, the Black Hole isn't enough of a benefit to the element that I could see people preferring to use the shard in Gravity decks rather than other elements.
Replacing a weapon or shield would enable the remaining 4 elements to have access but I think that is a bit too suboptimal. Not to mention that Mono Gravity is entitled to a decent synergy with its Shard of Focus. Forcing it to replace Titans or Gravity Shield is not appropriate. The Black Hole version is a better return for Mono Gravity from its Shard.
Post by: Atico on January 02, 2012, 08:44:08 pm
Sorry but WE mixed unupped with upped ;) To sum up:Balanced cards should be used in comparisons. BE is not a great example of balance unlike Pulvy or the recently nerfed Deflagration.My suggestion was much more detailed than just an increase in the casting cost by 2 :rainbow.Increase casting cost by 2 :rainbow, - Still cost less than BE (3 :entropy vs 5 :rainbow)
I suggested:
Increase casting cost by 2 :rainbow,
Increase activation cost by 3 :rainbow,
Decrease uses of PC from 4 to 2, and
Decrease hp from 15 to 5
BE gets more than 2 uses and is more secure in getting at least 1 use. Also BE is considered as possible UP unlike Pulvy or 2 Deflagrations. Since my modification was more akin to 2 Deflags than to BE I expect 2 Deflagrations to be a better comparison.
Increase activation cost by 3 :rainbow, - Still cost less than BE (3 :entropy vs 3 :rainbow)
Decrease uses of PC from 4 to 2, and - here is a great advantage of BE
Decrease hp from 15 to 5 - still is better than BE (SoF didn't need second card to use like BE+creature and most of <3 attack creatures has got <5HP).
If You compare it with Explosion it looks sometimes better, but personally I think that better card to compare is BE, because it need creature and 1 turn to activate.
1) BE is considered by some to be UP compared to other forms of PC including reusable summoning sickness affected skill based PC like Pulvy.
2) Deflagration has recently been nerfed to what I consider balanced.
The number of usages and the existence of limits on usage is a vital variable to equate in comparisons.
1) Butterfly Effect gets 1 use per turn with no maximum.
2) Deflagration is limited to 1 usage.
3) My suggested nerf restrict normal usage of Shard of Focus to 2 usages.
4) Therefore on this topic Shard of Focus is more similar to 2 Deflagrations than it is to Butterfly Effect + 1 creature.
Butterfly effect can be played on the turn the Destroy ability is used. In this manner Pulvy is a better match for the 1 turn delay.
I concede that Butterfly effect does require a creature and is similarly vulnerable to CC. However the number of uses is a much more important variable to equate in this comparison and I believe you underestimated the difference between limited (Spark) and reusable (Horned Frog). Note that the difference in cost between 1 use and reusable for such small effects like 3 damage results in a change of +2 cost. I believe you will find that with larger effects like PC, the cost change between limited and reusable is drastic.
ButterflyEffect card cost is 4 :entropy upped. SoF is 3 :rainbow.
BE skill cost 3 :entropy vs 3 :rainbow
Great advantage for number of uses? Hmm, creatures with BE are easy to kill so they didn't damage more than 2 permaments so often. Of course here is advantage of BE, but no huge and great ;)
But remember that we are talking about Your offer, which didn't exist. Orignal offer is with less card and ability cost, with more destroying permaments and bigger HP. Remember also, that in Your version player get BH (You forgot about it in compare). It is also huge difference in compare with Defla or BE. Sorry, but there are too much advantages for me.
The main question is what Shards should really do. Shards should be:
a) normal cards with new ability?
b) powerful cards?
c) little OP cards when we compare with other cards from Bazaar?
d) OP and very powerful
I prefer answer A or between A and B. Your concept is like C because it is better than normal cards like BE. Original concept is like D. And maybe it should be like C or D, but I prefer A.
We should also remember that this Shard will be only for the best players. Weaker players didn't reach it. So if we really want to give PC for :life :air or :water it will be better to do this by normal card. In poll for the best card idea won fantastic idea (Rejuvenation) and it is PC for Life. Give for :life this card and change this Shard to fine buff for Gravity (other skill) - this is my proposal to solve the problem of PC in few Elements ;)
Post by: mega plini on January 02, 2012, 09:04:25 pm
Post by: OldTrees on January 02, 2012, 09:37:50 pm
I did cover the value of delayed card advantage that SoF's Gravity boon gives. I felt (and you did not appear to disagree) that the delay and vulnerability of the card advantage paid for the card advantage. We did discuss that SoF should only turn into a balanced card. Thus any rebalancing was to be done on the generated card's end.Sorry but WE mixed unupped with upped ;) To sum up:Balanced cards should be used in comparisons. BE is not a great example of balance unlike Pulvy or the recently nerfed Deflagration.My suggestion was much more detailed than just an increase in the casting cost by 2 :rainbow.Increase casting cost by 2 :rainbow, - Still cost less than BE (3 :entropy vs 5 :rainbow)
I suggested:
Increase casting cost by 2 :rainbow,
Increase activation cost by 3 :rainbow,
Decrease uses of PC from 4 to 2, and
Decrease hp from 15 to 5
BE gets more than 2 uses and is more secure in getting at least 1 use. Also BE is considered as possible UP unlike Pulvy or 2 Deflagrations. Since my modification was more akin to 2 Deflags than to BE I expect 2 Deflagrations to be a better comparison.
Increase activation cost by 3 :rainbow, - Still cost less than BE (3 :entropy vs 3 :rainbow)
Decrease uses of PC from 4 to 2, and - here is a great advantage of BE
Decrease hp from 15 to 5 - still is better than BE (SoF didn't need second card to use like BE+creature and most of <3 attack creatures has got <5HP).
If You compare it with Explosion it looks sometimes better, but personally I think that better card to compare is BE, because it need creature and 1 turn to activate.
1) BE is considered by some to be UP compared to other forms of PC including reusable summoning sickness affected skill based PC like Pulvy.
2) Deflagration has recently been nerfed to what I consider balanced.
The number of usages and the existence of limits on usage is a vital variable to equate in comparisons.
1) Butterfly Effect gets 1 use per turn with no maximum.
2) Deflagration is limited to 1 usage.
3) My suggested nerf restrict normal usage of Shard of Focus to 2 usages.
4) Therefore on this topic Shard of Focus is more similar to 2 Deflagrations than it is to Butterfly Effect + 1 creature.
Butterfly effect can be played on the turn the Destroy ability is used. In this manner Pulvy is a better match for the 1 turn delay.
I concede that Butterfly effect does require a creature and is similarly vulnerable to CC. However the number of uses is a much more important variable to equate in this comparison and I believe you underestimated the difference between limited (Spark) and reusable (Horned Frog). Note that the difference in cost between 1 use and reusable for such small effects like 3 damage results in a change of +2 cost. I believe you will find that with larger effects like PC, the cost change between limited and reusable is drastic.
ButterflyEffect card cost is 4 :entropy upped. SoF is 3 :rainbow.
BE skill cost 3 :entropy vs 3 :rainbow
Great advantage for number of uses? Hmm, creatures with BE are easy to kill so they didn't damage more than 2 permaments so often. Of course here is advantage of BE, but no huge and great ;)
But remember that we are talking about Your offer, which didn't exist. Orignal offer is with less card and ability cost, with more destroying permaments and bigger HP. Remember also, that in Your version player get BH (You forgot about it in compare). It is also huge difference in compare with Defla or BE. Sorry, but there are too much advantages for me.
The main question is what Shards should really do. Shards should be:
a) normal cards with new ability?
b) powerful cards?
c) little OP cards when we compare with other cards from Bazaar?
d) OP and very powerful
I prefer answer A or between A and B. Your concept is like C because it is better than normal cards like BE. Original concept is like D. And maybe it should be like C or D, but I prefer A.
We should also remember that this Shard will be only for the best players. Weaker players didn't reach it. So if we really want to give PC for :life :air or :water it will be better to do this by normal card. In poll for the best card idea won fantastic idea (Rejuvenation) and it is PC for Life. Give for :life this card and change this Shard to fine buff for Gravity (other skill) - this is my proposal to solve the problem of PC in few Elements ;)
You still seem skeptical about the value difference between 2 uses and unlimited uses.
BE + Photon is a usually combo that has a resilience of 1hp
Photon has a resilience of 1 hp
Deflagration is a spell-like version of BE's Destroy effect
Spark is a spell-like version of Photon's damage
The 1 use spark has 3x the magnitude of effect to balance it compared with Photon having 1 use per turn for 1hp turns. (3:1 ratio between 1 use and 1hp)
My nerf suggestion of SoF gets 2 uses indicating that BE(if it were balanced, which it is not) should probably cost 150% as much as SoF. Or looking the other way, my nerf suggestion for SoF should cost 67% of a balanced BE.
Reminder: If we balance new cards to cards that currently are UP then the new cards would also be UP. BE is UP compared to the PC standards of Pulvy, Steal and Deflagration.
Yes it is good to remember we are discussing nerf suggestions rather than the original that everyone knows is OP.
I think your options a-d are too limited. Shards are not special nor are UP cards like BE special. All cards should be balanced compared to other balanced cards. The range of balance permits normal and powerful cards while excluding UP and OP cards. This is what Cards should really do.
PS: I agree that fitting PC should be added individually to each element. However I have a self imposed rule of never trying to convince the author to reject the core of their idea. Since I suspect "Devour permanent" to be the core of the idea, I am personally refraining from recommending great alternative forms of PC.
Post by: mega plini on January 02, 2012, 10:00:27 pm
Post by: Atico on January 02, 2012, 10:28:56 pm
In overall I can agree with You less or more, but I saw one important different point. For You in general 1 :rainbow=1 :entropy? Personally I think that we can't say that when Explosion cost 2 :fire then skill from :rainbow should cost also 2. It is difficult to say what ratio we should make, but it musn't be (in my opinion) 1:1. BE cost is 4, skill effect is 3, creature cost is 1 = 8 :entropy. When we make ratio only 1:1,5 then the same card+ability as Shard should cost 12 :rainbow. Why 1,5? I think that it should be more... QT generates 3x more than simple Tower. What is the conclusion - I think that Shards should never be the same (or nearly the same) like normal cards from bazaar. Here we have got fantastic PC, big HP and bonus like BH and all of this is generally cheaper than cards from Bazaar.
Post by: OldTrees on January 02, 2012, 10:49:48 pm
I theorize (based on calculations involving several shields) that:
X* :entropy ~= 1.5* :rainbow + 1.5*X* :rainbow
1 :entropy = 3 :rainbow
3 :entropy = 6 :rainbow
5 :entropy = 9 :rainbow
...
I also find BE to be UP and balancing cards based on BE would necessitate them being UP compared to the standards of PC like Pulvy. (Do you dispute this point?)
Pulverizer costs 4 :earth + duo + weapon + expensive ability cost + 1 card ~= 10q
Pulverizer has 5 attack and the Shatter ability.
I theorize a mono version of Pulverizer would have casting/activation costs of
5 :earth + expensive ability cost + 1 card/ :earth :earth
I theorize that a creature version of Pulverizer would have casting/activation costs of
8 :earth + expensive ability cost + 1 card/ :earth :earth
I theorize that a 0 attack version would have casting/activation costs of
3 :earth + expensive ability cost + 1 card [=5q]/ :earth :earth
I theorize that an Other version would have casting/activation costs of
6 :rainbow + expensive ability cost + 1 card [=5q]/4.5 :rainbow
I theorize a 1 use version would cost 1/3 as much and thus have casting/activation costs of
2.5 :rainbow + 1 card [=1.67q]/1.5 :rainbow
I theorize a 2 use version would cost twice as much as a 1 use version and thus have casting/activation costs of
5 :rainbow + 1 card [=3.33q]/3 :rainbow
Hence my nerf suggestion of a 2 use shatter on a 0 attack other creature was priced at 5 :rainbow casting cost and 3 :rainbow activation cost unupped.
PS: Using unupped cards in balance comparisions eliminates the 1500 :electrum/upgrade variable.
Post by: Atico on January 02, 2012, 11:17:16 pm
Maybe easier compare will be with SoF (PC)+Titan (8/50 + Momentum) and EarthShard(??)+Pulvy(half PC because of duo + 5/12). If Earth Shard give creature like Titan +QuickSand for Earth and it will be cost around Your offer for SoF then I say that it is balanced (but still too powerful ;))
Post by: OldTrees on January 03, 2012, 03:04:21 am
I don't belive that You count this earlier ;) All looks fantastic, but You still forget about BlackHole. You still forget that big HP = damage from Catapult. For me it is hardly to compare SoF with Pulvy, because You can have only 1 Pulvy, SoF 6 and it isn't easy to count this as You do. You can have SoF + Titan. With Pulvy You can't have more... Difficult topic, but maybe someone with better English will talk here about it ;)I made a rough guess at balance earlier. It was luck that it matched the long calculation.
Maybe easier compare will be with SoF (PC)+Titan (8/50 + Momentum) and EarthShard(??)+Pulvy(half PC because of duo + 5/12). If Earth Shard give creature like Titan +QuickSand for Earth and it will be cost around Your offer for SoF then I say that it is balanced (but still too powerful ;))
Your concerns in order:
1) I ignored the card generated because I have already addressed that Black Hole should be balanced. None of the rest of the card would need to change if Black Hole were changed to Armagio or Gravity Pull.
2) The max hp my nerf suggestion could attain would be 13 (normally it would only be 10). It would deal 12(10) damage at a cost of
2 :gravity|1 :gravity and the loss of 1 use of PC. I see that benefit to be equal or less than the opportunity cost.
3) You think it is hard to compare Pulvy to Shard of Focus. I have build a theory based on cost comparisons that makes such a comparison easy.
4) You can only have 1 weapon in the weapon slot. If you notice my math there was a cost named "weapon". This variable was calculated in a comparison using Titan, Vampire Dagger, Lobotomizer, Chargers, Vampires and Mind Flayers. The result was that Weapons and Shield appear to have a -3 elemental quanta cost reduction to account for the cost of occupying the special slot. This was my 2nd Design Theory project and has not been refuted.
For reference:
(http://i.imgur.com/TQuzE.png)(http://i.imgur.com/zne6e.png)Pulverizer costs 4 :earth + duo + weapon + expensive ability cost + 1 card ~= 10q
Pulverizer has 5 attack and the Shatter ability.
I theorize a mono version of Pulverizer would have casting/activation costs of
5 :earth + expensive ability cost + 1 card/ :earth :earth
I theorize that a creature version of Pulverizer would have casting/activation costs of
8 :earth + expensive ability cost + 1 card/ :earth :earth
I theorize that a 0 attack version would have casting/activation costs of
3 :earth + expensive ability cost + 1 card [=5q]/ :earth :earth
I theorize that an Other version would have casting/activation costs of
6 :rainbow + expensive ability cost + 1 card [=5q]/4.5 :rainbow
I theorize a 1 use version would cost 1/3 as much and thus have casting/activation costs of
2.5 :rainbow + 1 card [=1.67q]/1.5 :rainbow
I theorize a 2 use version would cost twice as much as a 1 use version and thus have casting/activation costs of
5 :rainbow + 1 card [=3.33q]/3 :rainbow
Hence my nerf suggestion of a 2 use shatter on a 0 attack other creature was priced at 5 :rainbow casting cost and 3 :rainbow activation cost unupped.
Post by: plastiqe on January 03, 2012, 03:17:14 am
(http://i.imgur.com/TQuzE.png)Two of these and two Novas would be the end of pillars and pendulums, with a Black Hole on turn 3 if you're using Mark of Gravity. How on earth is that balanced?
Post by: jmdt on January 03, 2012, 03:26:58 am
Yep nova makes a card like this get scary and black hole is most definitely not the right card to put with something that can early pillars at will.(http://i.imgur.com/TQuzE.png)Two of these and two Novas would be the end of pillars and pendulums, with a Black Hole on turn 3 if you're using Mark of Gravity. How on earth is that balanced?
I don't mind the hp growth mechanic, or the PC mechanic, but both cards together in shard form with a black hole maker is :o
Post by: OldTrees on January 03, 2012, 03:35:20 am
Good point to consider. (the yellow removed the hyperbole)(http://i.imgur.com/TQuzE.png)Two of these and two Novas would be the end of 4 pillars and pendulums, with a Black Hole on turn 3(or as late as 7 depending on your luck with :rainbow) if you're using Mark of Gravity. How on earth is that balanced?
10 :rainbow is likely to remove at least 1 :gravity out of the 2 novas
12 :rainbow of the next 2 turns is likely to remove at least 1 more produced by the mark
So turn 5 black hole would be my estimate
2 Novas + 2 SoFs -> Destroy 4 Pillars and gain 2 cards.
That is a -2:-4 card advantage (if playing Gravity otherwise it is the irrelevant -4:-4).
How would you fix this concern assuming Black Hole were changed to Gravity Pull or another card?
(I must admit pseudoquanta like requiring quanta matching the mark in the casting cost would be nice but lets look elsewhere for now)
Post by: The_Mormegil on January 03, 2012, 01:37:46 pm
But that's not the problem with SoF. The problem is that PC is ALWAYS useful (except vs immolation rushes), and having repeatable, consistent, fast and cheap PC in EVERY DECK is not a good addition to the game.
Post by: Avenger on January 03, 2012, 02:38:57 pm
To get out more than 4 pillars within 5 turns your deck needs to be severely overquantaed. Also, Black Hole coming late is not a problem, if you are going for the denial route you'll have access to discord, quicksand and possibly pests too.We just need more counter PC.
But that's not the problem with SoF. The problem is that PC is ALWAYS useful (except vs immolation rushes), and having repeatable, consistent, fast and cheap PC in EVERY DECK is not a good addition to the game.
What we have so far: cloak and enchant artifact. I think fire could have some explosive runes, for example.
Post by: pie on January 03, 2012, 03:05:23 pm
...Maybe zanz is planning something like...
We just need more counter PC.
...
Shard of *whatever* ; everytime a permenant of yours gets destroyed , deal 5 dmg to opponent , 10 if your mark is *whatever*
EDIT ; I still think shard of focus is OP and it shouldn't become whether you have SoF or its hard counter.
Post by: Atico on January 03, 2012, 04:05:39 pm
Hmm probably You are right but I don't want to have situation when I must use protect FeralBond or SoulCatcher because all Players can destroy it so easily. So permaments have no sense... Most players will decide to put Heal instead FeralBond, or more Towers instead SC etc.
What is more - in my opinion when I have Sanctuary and put it in game it should be ALWAYS unreachable for BH, Discord etc. It is counter and it should protect me always like PA protect permaments, like Deflagration destroy forever permaments... Sanctuary effect should be also always and forever like other counters. Now mono gravity can laugh at Sanctuary... Easy to kill permament, BH in hand and rage quit opponent ;) Huge nerf for Light, especially when Light hasn't got CC. No no no. It is bad idea, very bad. PC for Gravity? Ok, no problem. But not for all and not with BH.
Post by: chuckles4me on January 03, 2012, 06:20:26 pm
Post by: Chapuz on January 04, 2012, 03:54:15 pm
Post by: Pineapple on January 04, 2012, 04:42:43 pm
Perhaps this has been addressed already, and I have not been able to find it, if so forgive me. However the text on the card seems to be vague. Does it in some way infer that you have any control over the destructive ability at all? Does it limit the ability to the opponent, is it randomized, or God forbid only target your permanents? Could you be risking your own permanents as well as the opponents, this to me would seem to make this weapon cut both ways, and would do much for balancing a seemingly OP card mechanic.Through the words of zanz in other threads and chat, we know that its ability is intended to be active (triggered by clicking) and targeting (player's choice)
Post by: Chapuz on January 04, 2012, 05:01:36 pm
Post by: eaglgenes101 on January 07, 2012, 10:29:37 pm
Each turn, destroys a random permanent and gains +0|+10. Turn into a black hole if HP > 25, generate black hole and lose this ability instead if mark is gravity.
Post by: diracdelta on January 09, 2012, 12:43:19 pm
1. When a new sof is played, it absorbs all other (indeed can be only 1) sof already present on your field. The new sof has their combined hp and can turn to blackhole instantly when it exceed to critical value (I suggest reduce it to 40).
2. Using the ability delays it by 1 turn.
These prevent fractal/mitosis.
But I think scaling down the hps (initial/gain per use/maximum) is a bad idea since one can keep it reaching max hp much more easily (eg putting right on amount on poison then quint it).
Post by: agentflare on January 10, 2012, 10:18:46 pm
Post by: Pineapple on January 10, 2012, 10:41:14 pm
I think the general consensus is Way Frickin' OP.Useless post is useless? If it was UP, then there would be something wrong, as new cards always start out OP (it's easier to nerf cards than to buff cards).
Post by: DSSCRA on January 11, 2012, 01:33:18 pm
I suggest adding these conditions:This honestly sounds like a pretty great nerf maybe a bit of an over nerf but the numbers on this nerf are easily tweaked to nerf it more or less.
1. When a new sof is played, it absorbs all other (indeed can be only 1) sof already present on your field. The new sof has their combined hp and can turn to blackhole instantly when it exceed to critical value (I suggest reduce it to 40).
2. Using the ability delays it by 1 turn.
These prevent fractal/mitosis.
But I think scaling down the hps (initial/gain per use/maximum) is a bad idea since one can keep it reaching max hp much more easily (eg putting right on amount on poison then quint it).
Post by: Skyter on January 13, 2012, 06:42:40 pm
good ?
Post by: RRQJ on January 13, 2012, 06:52:06 pm
it seems interesting at first sight, but many people complaining about it be OP? well itg shold start with 10, gain 5 and only give Black hole if having :gravity mark.People are saying it's OP because it destroys permanents at no cost, not because you get a black hole after some point. In fact, getting the black hole is what's keeping it from being even more OP than it is.
good ?
Post by: mesaprotector on January 14, 2012, 06:01:46 am
What if it could only destroy pillars and pendulums?it seems interesting at first sight, but many people complaining about it be OP? well itg shold start with 10, gain 5 and only give Black hole if having :gravity mark.People are saying it's OP because it destroys permanents at no cost, not because you get a black hole after some point. In fact, getting the black hole is what's keeping it from being even more OP than it is.
good ?
Post by: RRQJ on January 14, 2012, 07:33:02 am
Then it'd probably be UP.What if it could only destroy pillars and pendulums?it seems interesting at first sight, but many people complaining about it be OP? well itg shold start with 10, gain 5 and only give Black hole if having :gravity mark.People are saying it's OP because it destroys permanents at no cost, not because you get a black hole after some point. In fact, getting the black hole is what's keeping it from being even more OP than it is.
good ?
Post by: Bonestorm on January 14, 2012, 07:46:50 pm
Another issue that isn't widely argued in this thread is the starting hp, it makes this very rough to counter.
The speed of this card is going to be a serious gamebreaker.
Post by: OdinVanguard on January 15, 2012, 04:52:37 am
Another idea would be to make using accretion pause the shard for a 2 rounds (i.e. it would be like a low level self-basalisk blood).
Post by: iancudorinmarian on January 21, 2012, 11:40:18 am
shard=rare
Post by: Calindu on January 21, 2012, 12:01:46 pm
Post by: Powerfrog on January 21, 2012, 12:58:00 pm
Post by: OldTrees on January 21, 2012, 04:42:01 pm
It's not OP because it's a shardRarity is no reason for imbalance. In fact it is a reason for balance being even more important.
shard=rare
Post by: willng3 on January 21, 2012, 04:49:24 pm
Wait so it destroys a permenant for free?Yes.
Quote
Your own perms or the enemies?I would assume both.
Quote
How many times can you activate a turn?Once.
Quote
Why does it magically spawn a card into your hand instead of just doing the effect at the cost of the card?My guess is to make it more Gravity-related than it would be if it just had the PC effect. Sure, you don't need to use the Black Hole effect, but if you're also using :gravity then it becomes much more powerful. It also might be an attempt to balance it, as placing a Black Hole spell in your hand makes it slightly more difficult to use.
Post by: Braingoo on January 22, 2012, 09:25:29 pm
Post by: 17927.2brainz on January 22, 2012, 10:24:48 pm
Post by: onnig on January 23, 2012, 06:50:44 pm
Post by: OldTrees on January 24, 2012, 08:09:08 am
Does anyone want to try to balance a delay version?
Post by: Braingoo on January 24, 2012, 04:41:35 pm
I would have thought focus would be more like turning all of your quanta into your mark's type + extra quanta for gravity or somebecause as it is I don't see much focusing.I really like this idea and think it has a whole lot of potential. It's a lot more balanced than the current card is, which would significantly unbalance game. Currently it's basically saying you have to protect your permanents or any deck can destroy them. What fun would pvp be when no matter what kind of deck you're playing against they can destroy your permanents a turn or two after you play them? When a lot of people have these shards it would eventually make most PCs next to useless, while a couple of them get an extreme boost, like Emerald Shield and Morning Glory.
If it's changed to brainz' idea it would only benefit certain elements more than others, keeping them in theme with all of the other shards so far. Most importantly it doesn't provide every single element with a distinct ability (PC) that should remain exclusive to the elements as they are now. I personally think there doesn't need to be any more PCs than there already are. Plus it would actually make sense to call it Shard of Focus.
Post by: Atico on January 24, 2012, 04:58:47 pm
It is better idea than PC for everyone. Of course when we nerf Nova.I would have thought focus would be more like turning all of your quanta into your mark's type + extra quanta for gravity or something, because as it is I don't see much focusing.I really like this idea and think it has a whole lot of potential.
Post by: dragonsdemesne on January 24, 2012, 06:32:39 pm
Good idea.Perhaps we could change it so that it delayed cards unless your mark was gravity, in which case it destroyed them instead. That would limit the permanent removal to just gravity (where it already has pulverizer in the duo) and give all elements that extra bit of control.
Does anyone want to try to balance a delay version?
Post by: ZephyrPhantom on January 24, 2012, 06:38:10 pm
I'd rather it just gave a bonus delay if your mark was Gravity, since :gravity :gravity : Destroy is already seen on Pulverizer and I kind of feel it would be interfering with the same niche of repeated PC.Good idea.Perhaps we could change it so that it delayed cards unless your mark was gravity, in which case it destroyed them instead. That would limit the permanent removal to just gravity (where it already has pulverizer in the duo) and give all elements that extra bit of control.
Does anyone want to try to balance a delay version?
My Balance Suggestion:
Shard of Focus:
6 Other
0 | 5
3 Other : Gravitation - Delay a permanent for 2 turns, 3 if your mark is :gravity.
Returns to your hand as a Black Hole if HP>50.
Post by: OldTrees on January 24, 2012, 06:59:33 pm
My Balance Suggestion:Delaying a shield is pretty valuable.
Shard of Focus:
6 Other
0 | 5
3 Other : Gravitation - Delay a permanent for 2 turns, 3 if your mark is :gravity.
Returns to your hand as a Black Hole if HP>50.
Post by: 17927.2brainz on January 24, 2012, 08:52:43 pm
I had actually thought of that, but if you consider cremation + 0 cost creature gives 8 fire + 11 others, nova + SoF would give 12 for your element minus any casting cost of the card to play (probably 3 given the cost of other shards), so it really wouldn't be that powerful. Supernova fueled by a mark would be very powerful for mono entropy, but supernova with any other element requires a duo, so would probably not be so effective for reliable quanta generation. The best thing about this idea is that it really doesn't help rainbows, which is a good thing imo.It is better idea than PC for everyone. Of course when we nerf Nova.I would have thought focus would be more like turning all of your quanta into your mark's type + extra quanta for gravity or something, because as it is I don't see much focusing.I really like this idea and think it has a whole lot of potential.
Post by: Powerfrog on January 24, 2012, 11:24:29 pm
Explosion destroys one forever and costs 2 fire quanta. Pulverizer destroys one a turn for 2 gravity quanta. Steal steals one and costs 3 darkness quanta. If you're implying this would be OP i don't see the reasoning behind it.My Balance Suggestion:Delaying a shield is pretty valuable.
Shard of Focus:
6 Other
0 | 5
3 Other : Gravitation - Delay a permanent for 2 turns, 3 if your mark is :gravity.
Returns to your hand as a Black Hole if HP>50.
Post by: OldTrees on January 25, 2012, 12:14:50 am
I don't Imply. I was prompting consideration.Explosion destroys one forever and costs 2 fire quanta. Pulverizer destroys one a turn for 2 gravity quanta. Steal steals one and costs 3 darkness quanta. If you're implying this would be OP i don't see the reasoning behind it.My Balance Suggestion:Delaying a shield is pretty valuable.
Shard of Focus:
6 Other
0 | 5
3 Other : Gravitation - Delay a permanent for 2 turns, 3 if your mark is :gravity.
Returns to your hand as a Black Hole if HP>50.
The activation costs are balanced. 6 :rainbow ~= 3 :gravity and Pulvy's casting cost is ~+3 :gravity greater than a mono weapon of equal attack.
It might be balanced at the standard 5|3 :rainbow casting cost.
Post by: Shylderidh on February 04, 2012, 01:49:14 pm
Or if accretion is to be kept a free and hard permanent remover make it destroy a random permanent (including yours) when used, then it's not totally op and a more situationnal card (still very good for pilarless rushes, decks protecting their own permanents, and gravity decks as even if you destroy your own permanents half the time, ending with a 45hp creature for overdrive or a black hole is good enough).
Post by: corky on February 10, 2012, 05:29:15 pm
Its abilities should be complementary to existing cards and not an alternative. I would like to see adjustments made.
The delay permanent idea someone made above has merit and should be considered.
Post by: TheonlyrealBeef on February 27, 2012, 08:51:36 am
Post by: zhangvict on February 27, 2012, 02:57:56 pm
AND on top of that, it gives an unupped black hole in to your opoment's hand when it's done.
Post by: moomoose on February 27, 2012, 05:11:50 pm
Post by: YoungSot on February 27, 2012, 05:19:42 pm
does mitosis work on these, i wonder?It does.
Post by: moomoose on February 27, 2012, 05:32:09 pm
Post by: zhangvict on February 27, 2012, 05:54:00 pm
Post by: moomoose on February 27, 2012, 05:57:36 pm
Post by: 10 men on February 27, 2012, 06:30:50 pm
Post by: ZephyrPhantom on February 27, 2012, 09:24:47 pm
Can't we just ditch this whole Shard idea? They're uninspired, unflavourful, boring, look ugly and in at least two cases irrepairably op. (Except for SoSe.) Can't we just have a bunch of normal cards as rares, if we need them? The new Seraph looks nice, I'd like to see more cards like him.Shards do have their good points (such as being the 'mutable' archetype of other, expanding other's depth and theme, and representing the ability for Elementals to use generic items but responding more accurately to ones attuned to them.)
IMHO, Zanz was trying to finish the 12 Shards as soon as possible. This could've been potentially executed better had he considered some of the factors of the cards ingame (Such as this vs. Pulverizer) before releasing some of the shards. Some are actually decent besides SoSe (SoV seems okay, and SoP isn't far behind if it was made less situational or given a decent buff), while others appear somewhat rushed and possibly indicate bad design (SoSa, SoF, and SoC come to mind.)
I disagree with the implication that SoSe is the only inspired, flavorful, and enjoyable shard of the current ones. Granted, it is fun to use, but based on the above point it has a theme as 'bland' as any other card (Given that they're all SoX) and its art seems to just be a quick recolor of SoG. No other shard is probably rated as 'fun' as it is, but certainly are a few that form decent strategies without being blatantly OP in every single deck (such as SoD, SoV and SoR) (Please don't take any personal offense to this - I just disagree with your point that some shards are more 'well themed' than others.)
Overall, shard design seems to have suffered badly from the same reason you can't simply create a 12-card idea series without taking your time or being dedicated to the mechanics - some ideas in the series are inevitably lower quality than the best ideas in the series, and as a result drag the group down as a whole since people generally seem to judge the quality of such cards based on how well the series as a whole does or just ignore the series expecting 12 carbon copies of the same thing. (Both views are generally inaccurate and more common than some may think. It seems Zanz tried to avoid the second problem but forgot to avoid the first one. From what I've seen in card design, it usually a lot better to release series cards gradually so each develop their own mechanic and 'taste' of sorts, so to speak.)
Just my :electrum , as always.
Post by: OldTrees on February 27, 2012, 09:55:35 pm
However we should consider and discuss how low of quality a Shard can be before we need to start requesting a new ability. I think that line falls above Shard of Focus and perhaps below Shard of Sacrifice. In other words: I think Shard of Focus needs to be redone from scratch.
Post by: ralouf on February 27, 2012, 10:05:23 pm
SoG after beeing nerfed is good.
SoR after beeing buffed is very good and allow fun news decks.
SoD stayed pretty good.
SoV is a pretty good idea but is UP I think, or need some other cards to works with at least.
SoP is just totally meh.
SoSe is a total success for me, fun and balanced that's the best shard we have IMO.
SoSac is just awfull, both unfun and completely OP (specially the upped one, the unupped is pretty ok, but still not fun)
SoF seems completely OP, I'm okay with adding more PC to the game but this one is.. meh.
SoC seems just boring, It don't give anything better to the game and just make denial more effective..
And Yes they're ugly (the unupped are for sure) but that's not the main issue in my point of vue
Post by: dragonsdemesne on February 27, 2012, 10:35:12 pm
Post by: dragonsdemesne on March 04, 2012, 03:18:32 am
Something like this:
Starting stats 0/4
Accretion: Destroy a permanent and gain +0/+4. Turn into a black hole if it reaches 15 or more hps.
This would allow things like shockwave, otyugh, fire bolt, or even less obvious countering methods like blessing or chaos power to work. The flipside of this is you could do things like use eagle's eye on it to damage it so you could keep using it indefinitely. This would be fixed by the following change:
Starting stats 0/4
Accretion: Destroy a permanent and gain +0/+4. Turn into a black hole if it reaches 15 or more -maximum- hps.
I think that this prevents any abuse by things like eagle's eye, red nymph, aflatoxin, etc, to 'refresh' the number of permanents you can destroy, and gives ways for several elements to actually counter the card. It does take away the catapult synergy, but gravity already has loads of synergy with catapult anyway. It also leaves the possibility of fractal, mitosis and rewind/eternity, but it does get rid of some of the other problems, and even in the case of something like mitosis, at least the creature is actually killable with my suggestion, rather than being uncounterable by anything short of rewind or a fire lance backed by 50+ quanta. A card like fractal is also still soft-counterable by something like nightmare or discord, and rewinds run out and eternities are destroyable, so I think this would help quite a bit in balancing the card.
One more possibility would be to leave the card exactly as zanz wrote it, but add the following line:
If shard of focus is the target of any spell or effect, destroy it. (owner still gets the black hole in hand)
This would give any element the possibility of countering it, it would prevent fractal/mitosis/eternity abuse, it would leave the catapult synergy, and it would actually be somewhat thematic. (the spell/effect representing some kind of break in focus) It would allow any element to have permanent control, but it would be unreliable at best with such a clause; you could kill it dead with antimatter, lobotomy, or blessing, to name a few, while the elements with natural permanent control (explosion, steal, butterfly effect, pulverizer) would not have their PC be overshadowed by shard of focus.
Post by: furballdn on March 04, 2012, 03:20:59 am
Post by: zhangvict on March 04, 2012, 05:35:53 am
Post by: kimham8a on March 04, 2012, 08:44:20 am
Post by: Marvaddin on March 06, 2012, 05:47:15 am
Can't we just ditch this whole Shard idea? They're uninspired, unflavourful, boring, look ugly and in at least two cases irrepairably op. (Except for SoSe.) Can't we just have a bunch of normal cards as rares, if we need them? The new Seraph looks nice, I'd like to see more cards like him.Agreed.
Well, I have just tested this a little. Not a card I would like to see every element using. I would even prefer something to protect permanents. But once it is Gravity... looks like that it works great with gravity pull. At same time it protect you, if gets damage and recharges the destruction skill. Also used it for fun in a deck with Fractal Ball Lightnings and Chimera :D Talking about Fractal... fractaling this to create a massive Chimera and throw it with Trebuchet, hmmmmm, lol. Something more to test.
But seriously, too powerful and cannot be killed by normal CC. Even worse with gravity pull.
Post by: corky on March 07, 2012, 05:29:41 pm
Accretion:
Turn permanent into a 0/1 creature for 1 turn and gain +0/+15.
Turn into a black hole if HP>50.
This will allow permanents to be vulnerable to creature removal from all elements and will have a great dynamic with Otyugh.
This also works well with the gravity theme as you are 'pulling' a permanent down to the creature field. :) We can even enhance the wording of 0/1 creature to "singularity" providing that singularity card does not make it out of development.
Post by: zhangvict on March 07, 2012, 05:45:09 pm
How about this..That would actually ruin the whole gravity theme IMO. The whole point of having an accretion ability is to reference the gravitational effect of a large mass sucking in matter. Hence SoF is the large mass, and it sucks in permanents to gain mass until hp>50 and becomes dense enough to become a black hole. The ability will have to renamed, and the shard would also have to be renamed and the whole mechanic changed.
Accretion:
Turn permanent into a 0/1 creature for 1 turn and gain +0/+15.
Turn into a black hole if HP>50.
This will allow permanents to be vulnerable to creature removal from all elements and will have a great dynamic with Otyugh.
This also works well with the gravity theme as you are 'pulling' a permanent down to the creature field. :) We can even enhance the wording of 0/1 creature to "singularity" providing that singularity card does not make it out of development.
Side note: thinking of large masses, many EtG things seem to be astrophysics themes. Photon, Nova, SN, Singularity, Black Hole, Phase/dimensional shield, twin universe, etc.
Post by: corky on March 07, 2012, 07:19:34 pm
Accretion:
Turn permanent into a Photon 1 turn and gain +0/+15.
Turn into a black hole if HP>50.
From Wiki: photon spheres can only exist in the space surrounding an extremely compact object, such as a black hole or a neutron star.
That seems to fit in perfectly with the gravity theme.
Post by: eaglgenes101 on March 10, 2012, 01:44:09 am
Can someone try that please?
Post by: kimham8a on March 10, 2012, 06:35:04 am
Post by: furballdn on March 10, 2012, 06:36:10 am
why use quantum towers?One quantum tower can almost power one SoF since SoF use random quanta.
That actually gets me thinking. Mitosis+SoF+catapult.
Post by: eaglgenes101 on March 10, 2012, 06:17:50 pm
why use quantum towers?SoF gives a bit of stalling power, so quantum towers give more quanta over the long run.
Post by: Nepycros on March 11, 2012, 03:35:19 am
Post by: furballdn on March 11, 2012, 03:58:45 am
I just realized how great Gravity Pull is on these guys. o.o For 3 :rainbow and 1 :gravity, you've got a creature with basically 0: Heal x3 + 0: Destroy. o.oinorite? (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,37057.0.html)
Post by: Picheleiro on March 20, 2012, 10:57:50 am
Every page, almost.
Also, wikipedia, larousse, oxford...
Post by: The Chosen One on March 21, 2012, 07:59:29 pm
Post by: ddevans96 on March 21, 2012, 11:40:49 pm
Encyclopedia britannica will print that image besides overpowered, overwhelming, annoying, oath, unkind, perfidius, bitch ...Awesome, we need the publicity :D
Post by: Gunthar on March 23, 2012, 09:16:30 am
The original version of the card is like a three to four time useable pulverizer but the issue is that first the power is useable for free and second it buffs the shard.
Second is that gravity would not get an additional benefit as like in the other shards.
And I'm thinking about a different version of this card:
Version 1
Shard of Gravity (creaturelike style)
It starts as a 2/10 card
The power accretion works now this way: Sacrifice a permanent and gain +2/+10. It will becomes a Black Hole if HP>40 (50 if your mark is :gravity )
Now you need to use your own permanents to fuel this shard and gravity get an additional bonus. Overbuffing it (ex: using a Blessing on it while being at 8/40 (10/50 with :gravity mark) will turn it into the BH.
Version 2
Shard of Gravity (permanent style)
It starts as a permanent with no counters
Power accretion works here this way: Destroy a target permanent and put a counter on the Shard of Gravity.
If the number of of counters is equal or more than 2 (3 if the mark is :gravity ) it will turns into the BH and the owner of the shard will receive 5 damage per counter from the implosion.
Post by: burne on March 23, 2012, 12:12:52 pm
This way, you'll draw a dead card next if your not playing any gravity quantum.
Post by: kimham8a on March 24, 2012, 05:36:24 am
Post by: Nepycros on March 27, 2012, 05:26:51 pm
I feel, that the name Shard of Focus does not fit to the card. Focus sounds more offensive but the power looks like a gravity effect. Therefore Shard of Gravity would fit better to this card.So you pay life in order to get a card that's only good in Gravity? And what if you do use it once (twice in Gravity)? It's a dead card right after that, unless you know you'll get alot of life from Black Hole.
No. "Shard of Gravity" isn't anything like the shard theme. Put some actual effort into the naming if you don't like Focus.
The original version of the card is like a three to four time useable pulverizer but the issue is that first the power is useable for free and second it buffs the shard. We know.
Second is that gravity would not get an additional benefit as like in the other shards. Except for the free Black Hole in hand and the incredible Catapult, Overdrive, and Gravity Pull synergy.
And I'm thinking about a different version of this card:
Version 1
Shard of Gravity (creaturelike style)
It starts as a 2/10 card
The power accretion works now this way: Sacrifice a permanent and gain +2/+10. It will becomes a Black Hole if HP>40 (50 if your mark is :gravity ) How would that be beneficial to you at all? You essentially just have a grow creature that happens to have additional health. After you've sacrificed two permanents, you have a creature STILL less powerful than Massive Dragon, so it's still not a good tradeoff. It's WORSE as Gravity Pull and Catapult fodder, and Overdrive on it is still as useful as on the other, but that limited freedom of synergy makes up for none of the fact that it would be ultimately WORSE as an overall "Gravity" card, and as a rainbow card.
Now you need to use your own permanents to fuel this shard and gravity get an additional bonus. Overbuffing it (ex: using a Blessing on it while being at 8/40 (10/50 with :gravity mark) will turn it into the BH.
Version 2
Shard of Gravity (permanent style)
It starts as a permanent with no counters
Power accretion works here this way: Destroy a target permanent and put a counter on the Shard of Gravity.
If the number of of counters is equal or more than 2 (3 if the mark is :gravity ) it will turns into the BH and the owner of the shard will receive 5 damage per counter from the implosion.
Post by: corky on March 28, 2012, 06:21:17 pm
As is, this card is a game changer. It will appear in every deck imaginable
Post by: furballdn on March 28, 2012, 11:49:29 pm
Post by: eaglgenes101 on March 29, 2012, 02:25:00 am
Post by: corky on March 29, 2012, 06:37:51 pm
Post by: EvilDeathX on March 30, 2012, 07:00:33 pm
-As it's still in development, try not to freak out if you think it's Overpowered.Not trying to freak out but this thing would be nearly impossible to kill. Not to mention this would just be more fuel for the annoying people who go straight for the pillars. (I am sorry but stealing my quanta is one thing, but do you really have to take out the source?)
Post by: OldTrees on March 30, 2012, 09:02:05 pm
Shard of Focus: Destroy 3 permanents for 7|5 :rainbow + 1 card + 3 turns (3 PC per 7.67 cost units = 1 PC per 2.56 cost units)
Shard of Focus + Gravity Pull: Destroy X permanents for 7|5 :rainbow + 2 :gravity + 2 cards + X turns (X PC per 7.67+X cost units = 1 PC per 2.92 or less cost units)
I think it can be balanced if given an activation cost of say 2-3 :rainbow.
2 :rainbow
Shard of Focus: Destroy 3 permanents for 7|5 :rainbow +6 :rainbow + 1 card + 3 turns (3 PC per 11.67 cost units = 1 PC per 3.89 cost units)
Shard of Focus + Gravity Pull: Destroy X permanents for 7|5 :rainbow + 2X :rainbow + 2 :gravity + 2 cards + X turns (X PC per 7.67+2.33X cost units = 1 PC per 4.25 or less cost units)
3 :rainbow
Shard of Focus: Destroy 3 permanents for 7|5 :rainbow +9 :rainbow + 1 card + 3 turns (3 PC per 13.67 cost units = 1 PC per 4.56 cost units)
Shard of Focus + Gravity Pull: Destroy X permanents for 7|5 :rainbow + 3X :rainbow + 2 :gravity + 2 cards + X turns (X PC per 7.67+3X cost units = 1 PC per 4.92 or less cost units)
Post by: waterzx on March 31, 2012, 02:15:04 am
Then we can lower the initial cost a bit.
Post by: furballdn on March 31, 2012, 02:40:39 am
Maybe make it drain your quanta like a black hole every time you activate the shard ?So I lose up to 36 quanta that my opponent gets back at health for destroying one of their permanents in addition to spending 7 quanta on a shard?
Then we can lower the initial cost a bit.
(http://memeorama.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Are-You-Fucking-Kidding-Me-Rage-Face-Meme-Template-Blank-300x295.png)
Post by: Silver on March 31, 2012, 03:23:10 am
Post by: Nepycros on March 31, 2012, 04:21:35 am
I like that idea. It's only 36 quanta if you're runnig a rainbow. If you're being a mono that's only 3. 3 Quanta activation cost for versatile reusable PC? Sounds good to me.Ha, no. It needs to be PLAYABLE outside of mono, derpface.
Post by: waterzx on March 31, 2012, 05:10:53 am
So I lose up to 36 quanta that my opponent gets back at health for destroying one of their permanents in addition to spending 7 quanta on a shard?It doesn't need to resemble the black hole. Maybe a minor black hole which drains only 1 quanta in each element. And the initial cost can be changed to 3 or 4
Anyway, I really like this picture :P
(http://memeorama.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Are-You-Fucking-Kidding-Me-Rage-Face-Meme-Template-Blank-300x295.png)
Post by: furballdn on March 31, 2012, 05:46:19 am
(http://alltheragefaces.com/img/faces/large/misc-jackie-chan-l.png)
Post by: Naesala on March 31, 2012, 05:52:57 am
/oversized rageface of some type/
Post by: waterzx on March 31, 2012, 06:54:54 am
Yes, make a card that is other but force it to be in a mono deck. Would any sane person pay twelve quanta and heal the opponent just for a cost decrease in playing down a card as well as a single permanent destruction? Only 36 quanta in rainbow? ONLY 36? Yes, because getting 36 quanta is so easy and you're never going to use those quantums later at all. you should really hear some of your arguments.Okay, then let's reduce it to "Drain up to 2 quanta from up to 5 quanta pools"
I think this picture is better :P
(http://memeorama.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Are-You-Fucking-Kidding-Me-Rage-Face-Meme-Template-Blank-300x295.png)
Post by: OldTrees on March 31, 2012, 07:07:01 am
Post by: Poker Alho on March 31, 2012, 11:21:39 am
Post by: moomoose on March 31, 2012, 05:15:44 pm
Post by: Eleahen on March 31, 2012, 06:47:05 pm
Maybe make it drain your quanta like a black hole every time you activate the shard ?maybe drain 12 quanta if your mark is :gravity
Then we can lower the initial cost a bit.
Post by: OldTrees on March 31, 2012, 10:39:51 pm
Post by: Poker Alho on March 31, 2012, 11:27:46 pm
reducing the usages is my prefered nerf. However a balanced activation cost is my 2nd choice.maybe a mix of both nerfs could work as well
Post by: corky on April 05, 2012, 01:31:41 pm
I would like to see black hole card get drawn instead of dumped in your deck if your mark is not gravity. May even be able to lower the cost with this.
Post by: Wolfunit on April 25, 2012, 01:57:44 am
Post by: EvilDeathX on April 25, 2012, 07:16:59 am
Earlier today, I was playing in the arena. I play a control deck, but this time, I found MYSELF being controlled. My opponent, was playing Shard of Focus, which by itself would have been fine. But they played three of them almost immediately. In addition to that, they played Earthquakes, and Devourers. They played no permanents other than Quantum Pillars. I found myself facing down three Black Dragons, with no field, no quanta, and a hand full of cards that I couldn't play. This was literally THE most infuriating game I have played thus far. Even more aggrivating than the time, there was a desync error, and my opponent fully healed every turn. (Which I still won.)
Post by: vorpulence on April 25, 2012, 02:01:42 pm
Post by: EvilDeathX on April 25, 2012, 10:40:28 pm
I am thinking about trying this in mono-aether. I just lost to osiris, who I usually squash, because he got this out early and I had to sacrifice a shield to lobotomize it. I think I can modify my mono aether to accomodate this, but it really is needed. as a nonspecific quanta method of permanent control.I will admit, it is a good card to run if you don't want to splash in some :fire.
Post by: Xenocidius on May 09, 2012, 07:32:50 am
(http://i.imgur.com/kyCaA.png)HP reduced to 1. Turns into a black hole when HP>45. Discuss.
Post by: ralouf on May 09, 2012, 07:34:23 am
Post by: SnoWeb on May 09, 2012, 08:30:02 am
Post by: memimemi on May 09, 2012, 10:39:50 am
Post by: mega plini on May 09, 2012, 11:04:46 am
Also, judging by the pic, the upped cost has gone up by 1 :rainbow . If that`s so, it might be a little too much of a nerfing.It stil can be played turn one with only two Quantum towers.
But I feel like the difference between the upped one and the unupped one is rather small (as in allmost inexistent)
Post by: Erlemar on May 09, 2012, 11:09:24 am
It's good - a little buff to compensate the nerf.
Post by: TheManuz on May 09, 2012, 11:28:13 am
Nice!
Post by: PlayerOa on May 09, 2012, 11:29:44 am
Post by: Mithcairion on May 09, 2012, 12:29:46 pm
Post by: Absol on May 09, 2012, 02:16:32 pm
This card should still not even be in the game. While a round of vulnerability helps, something like this should always be the result of something in-element.Then again, so are most (read: all) shards (about being in-element).
Post by: Mithcairion on May 09, 2012, 02:51:02 pm
Then again, so are most (read: all) shards (about being in-element).
Yes, but this thread is about SoFo, so that's why I referenced that card. Many of the shards are at least workable to be used by any element, but SoFo is horrific.
Post by: furballdn on May 10, 2012, 01:56:48 am
Post by: dragonsdemesne on May 10, 2012, 02:00:55 am
Post by: CasualFriday on May 13, 2012, 07:56:43 am
I would rather play against false gods than plats because most plats use this strat.
Post by: atom9 on May 15, 2012, 07:26:26 pm
Post by: Naesala on May 15, 2012, 07:32:01 pm
I'm with the guy above me. I post rarely because it takes a good deal to get under my skin, but this shard, along with most of the other 'new' ones, is too imbalanced to make playing against it fun. I've 'donated' what I feel is more than a fair amount of $$$ but I can't help feeling like the introduction of these cards is a ploy to make more, since you can't be competitive without them, especially this one in particular.I do not think zanz is that greedy. Zanz recently nerfed this shard quite a bit, and all shards are available by grinding. Also, most if not all organized pvp on the forums have shards banned at the moment.
Post by: atom9 on May 15, 2012, 07:46:46 pm
I do not think zanz is that greedy. Zanz recently nerfed this shard quite a bit, and all shards are available by grinding. Also, most if not all organized pvp on the forums have shards banned at the moment.
Meh, even nerfed once, it's still pretty devastating at any point in the match. Perhaps another nerf is coming, which I hope. It's still way too powerful with very little to counteract it unless you're counting on facing it heavily, which usually backfires for me. Maybe others have more success against it...
I'm not saying dude is greedy, I'm saying he wants to make money, which he should for the amount of work this game likely takes to keep going. I'm just saying that the new shards are a bit over the top and you pretty much have to buy them or grind to get them, the latter removing the fun from the game. I like to have fun, which is the main reason I play this game, but it's not fun to HAVE to win 300 times to get one card or lose repeatedly when said card is played against you.
As to organized PVP... I confess my ignorance... It's been fun enough playing the 'regular' game the last couple years that I haven't gotten terribly involved with the forums or any of the 'league' stuff I see here.
Post by: OldTrees on May 15, 2012, 10:23:58 pm
You are under the understandable delusion that shards are often obtained through donation. This is not the case. More often rare cards are obtained through grinding or events (depending on the rarity). Please do not cast doubt on Zanz's character as a result of this delusion.
Post by: atom9 on May 16, 2012, 02:55:22 am
@atom9
You are under the understandable delusion that shards are often obtained through donation.
Again, I'm not casting any aspersions on his character. This game is his creation, yes? Not the rules of play, but this unique iteration. Within this particular game there is a sort of fixed set of resources (cards) and then supply and demand are manipulated through the creation, alteration, and removal of the resources. You are seriously implying, that within a week of introduction of new resources, people are grinding and winning various events fast enough to have multiples? I don't have any stats at my disposal, but I'd be willing to hazard a guess that a fair number are bought through donation. And that's not a bad thing. I'm sure the hosting and whatever else goes into making this game work takes some dough, and if there's enough dough left over after the game's bills are paid for him to pay some other bills, great. I hope he's paying all the bills with some left over for a healthy pot and junk food habit, but that doesn't change the fact that the newer shards imbalance the game enough to where you either have them or lose a whole lot more than before they were part of the game, so you get them by the most efficient means possible, which for a lot of the players here, I imagine, is $5 each. If anything, I applaud his methods. There's nothing wrong with money. Overall, there's an impressive amount of market management and balance in this game. The new shards irritate me is all.
Post by: atom9 on May 16, 2012, 02:56:46 am
Post by: justaburd on May 16, 2012, 02:59:26 am
Post by: OldTrees on May 16, 2012, 03:31:15 am
I am implying that the majority of shards are obtained through grinding. The first people to obtain shards are the dedicated grinders (Some people spend hours per day playing EtG). This spreads over time. (1 week is unreasonable assumption. Fewer shards were gained in the first week of a new shard's release than you suspect.)@atom9
You are under the understandable delusion that shards are often obtained through donation.
Again, I'm not casting any aspersions on his character. This game is his creation, yes? Not the rules of play, but this unique iteration. Within this particular game there is a sort of fixed set of resources (cards) and then supply and demand are manipulated through the creation, alteration, and removal of the resources. You are seriously implying, that within a week of introduction of new resources, people are grinding and winning various events fast enough to have multiples?
Most players gain shards by grinding over a much longer period of time.
You might have noticed the player demographics for this game is dominated by grinders.
Post by: Jenkar on May 16, 2012, 11:27:52 am
Post by: whatifidogetcaught? on May 16, 2012, 01:59:34 pm
It is just too abusive, despite its nerf.
Post by: Poker Alho on May 16, 2012, 05:22:49 pm
While i think this card is not op anymore, i still believe it has 0 place in the game. *sadpandafayce*
you dont agree with having an "other" card that allows PC to every element? is it because the card itself is not balanced or is it because you think a form of PC should be given to other specific elements? just curious thats all :)
Post by: Jenkar on May 16, 2012, 05:33:07 pm
Post by: OldTrees on May 16, 2012, 05:36:42 pm
While i think this card is not op anymore, i still believe it has 0 place in the game. *sadpandafayce*
you dont agree with having an "other" card that allows PC to every element? is it because the card itself is not balanced or is it because you think a form of PC should be given to other specific elements? just curious thats all :)
I am interested in Jenkar's reason too.
However since I agree with the statement, I too will answer the question.
I feel that there is a place for an Other card that has a form of PC. However I would have preferred it to be a cheaper weaker version of elemental PC. Unfortunately this is a stronger (though hopefully eventually more expensive) version.
Post by: Poker Alho on May 16, 2012, 06:11:12 pm
I am interested in Jenkar's reason too.
However since I agree with the statement, I too will answer the question.
I feel that there is a place for an Other card that has a form of PC. However I would have preferred it to be a cheaper weaker version of elemental PC. Unfortunately this is a stronger (though hopefully eventually more expensive) version.
so you think SoF should exist and have a place in the game if its ability wasnt what many people call, hard PC? would it be better for the game if it had something more like delaying or neutralizing permanents for a limited amount of time or something else?
Post by: Jenkar on May 16, 2012, 06:21:52 pm
Personnally, i do.I am interested in Jenkar's reason too.
However since I agree with the statement, I too will answer the question.
I feel that there is a place for an Other card that has a form of PC. However I would have preferred it to be a cheaper weaker version of elemental PC. Unfortunately this is a stronger (though hopefully eventually more expensive) version.
so you think SoF should exist and have a place in the game if its ability wasnt what many people call, hard PC? would it be better for the game if it had something more like delaying or neutralizing permanents for a limited amount of time or something else?
My main problem with SoFo is that it adds nothing to the game, but also retracts some bits of it. BE is now completely and utterly useless. (before it was only extremely useless). Pulvy fares barely better.
Post by: OldTrees on May 16, 2012, 07:14:23 pm
Unfortunately a change from hard (devour) to soft PC would require too much of a change to the core idea for me to suggest it.I am interested in Jenkar's reason too.
However since I agree with the statement, I too will answer the question.
I feel that there is a place for an Other card that has a form of PC. However I would have preferred it to be a cheaper weaker version of elemental PC. Unfortunately this is a stronger (though hopefully eventually more expensive) version.
so you think SoF should exist and have a place in the game if its ability wasnt what many people call, hard PC? would it be better for the game if it had something more like delaying or neutralizing permanents for a limited amount of time or something else?
Post by: Poker Alho on May 16, 2012, 07:54:40 pm
SoF is still very powerfull as it gives hard PC, possibly renewable, for a quite cheap price, even cheaper to rainbows
suggesting a change on the card mechanics, basically changing its hard PC to soft PC or at the very least, stop it from being renewable imo, could work but it wouldnt be easy to do
from what i understood, some kind of berf or even a complete change to the card should be done to re-balance the game and give back some utility to cards like pulverizer and BE... so any good ideas on that?
Post by: Chapuz on May 29, 2012, 01:42:02 am
Post by: Xamuel on May 29, 2012, 02:15:52 am
Make it so that the SoF can be targeted both by CC and also by PC. It would be a lot less OP if a Deflag could instakill it or, even better, a Steal could steal it.
This would partially alleviate the problem with the shard being practically immune to damage-based CC once it's eaten its first two victims...
Post by: furballdn on May 29, 2012, 02:19:32 am
Post by: Naesala on May 29, 2012, 07:00:35 am
An idea occurred to me of a fun and thematic way to nerf SoF...Pretty neat idea, i think.
Make it so that the SoF can be targeted both by CC and also by PC. It would be a lot less OP if a Deflag could instakill it or, even better, a Steal could steal it.
This would partially alleviate the problem with the shard being practically immune to damage-based CC once it's eaten its first two victims...
Post by: Xenocidius on May 29, 2012, 08:54:35 am
Excellent. Now games are won by whoever gets the first SoFo out!An idea occurred to me of a fun and thematic way to nerf SoF...Pretty neat idea, i think.
Make it so that the SoF can be targeted both by CC and also by PC. It would be a lot less OP if a Deflag could instakill it or, even better, a Steal could steal it.
This would partially alleviate the problem with the shard being practically immune to damage-based CC once it's eaten its first two victims...
Just make it so that it doesn't gain hp, but counters. If it stays at 1hp, then it's a pretty good nerf.Not a bad idea, though it would require introducing a new mechanism to the game. And, of course, it defeats most of the point of having it be the Gravity shard - Gravity is supposed to benefit from it having high HP through Gravity Pull, Catapult, etc.
Post by: rosutosefi on May 29, 2012, 12:26:02 pm
TL;DR: We cannot make a powerful shard with a high cost. SoFo completely disobeys this.
Post by: AP579 on May 30, 2012, 01:27:49 am
Post by: umgrego2 on July 10, 2012, 05:28:15 pm
What this card lacks is the duality that all of the other shards have with respect to the element that it represents. Here's my suggestion:
Starts with stats 0/3. Stats change 0/-1 or 0/+15 if mark of gravity. Turns into a BH if HP>45.
That way, in a deck with a mark other than gravity, the shard remains vulnerable to CC.
Post by: Calindu on July 10, 2012, 05:34:25 pm
With the nerf, it's still OP.
What this card lacks is the duality that all of the other shards have with respect to the element that it represents. Here's my suggestion:
Starts with stats 0/3. Stats change 0/-1 or 0/+15 if mark of gravity. Turns into a BH if HP>45.
That way, in a deck with a mark other than gravity, the shard remains vulnerable to CC.
Best idea I've seen till now, finally a way to make this actually help gravity more than it helps a rainbow.
Post by: hell7fire1 on July 10, 2012, 05:47:48 pm
Post by: Calindu on July 10, 2012, 05:51:01 pm
i think its fine,its starts with 1hp so basically any damage doing spell/effect could kill it
Too bad that after 1 use this simply becomes too big to be stopped. Also, you often see a first turn SoFo unupped, but you rarely see a first turn CC unupped.
Post by: rosutosefi on July 10, 2012, 10:08:52 pm
With the nerf, it's still OP.
What this card lacks is the duality that all of the other shards have with respect to the element that it represents. Here's my suggestion:
Starts with stats 0/3. Stats change 0/-1 or 0/+15 if mark of gravity. Turns into a BH if HP>45.
That way, in a deck with a mark other than gravity, the shard remains vulnerable to CC.
I'll still run gravity mark novabows with it. First turn SoFo will still exist.
Post by: umgrego2 on July 11, 2012, 02:06:52 pm
With the nerf, it's still OP.
What this card lacks is the duality that all of the other shards have with respect to the element that it represents. Here's my suggestion:
Starts with stats 0/3. Stats change 0/-1 or 0/+15 if mark of gravity. Turns into a BH if HP>45.
That way, in a deck with a mark other than gravity, the shard remains vulnerable to CC.
I'll still run gravity mark novabows with it. First turn SoFo will still exist.
That's fine. When SoG was altered, you started to see mark of life rainbows, too. But if a deck-builder wants to take full advantage of the SoFo in a rainbow, they shouldn't also be able to take advantage of a traditional mark like Entropy or Time.
Post by: rosutosefi on July 11, 2012, 02:21:50 pm
That's fine. When SoG was altered, you started to see mark of life rainbows, too. But if a deck-builder wants to take full advantage of the SoFo in a rainbow, they shouldn't also be able to take advantage of a traditional mark like Entropy or Time.With the nerf, it's still OP.I'll still run gravity mark novabows with it. First turn SoFo will still exist.
What this card lacks is the duality that all of the other shards have with respect to the element that it represents. Here's my suggestion:
Starts with stats 0/3. Stats change 0/-1 or 0/+15 if mark of gravity. Turns into a BH if HP>45.
That way, in a deck with a mark other than gravity, the shard remains vulnerable to CC.
The problem is that it's still better when run with rainbows instead of mono gravity. That's a bad mechanic. Very bad. I have explained everything in my previous post that this problem is due to its large random cost. It's a bad mechanic because it's only balanced with elemental pillars and pendulums but OP with rainbow or quantum pillars.
And regarding the mark, it's a novabow. You just adjust the quanta balance. First turn SoFo is still there, will always be there and will be peeking at your window preparing to emotionally harass you every time you play a PVP game. Yes, look at your window.
Post by: OdinVanguard on July 11, 2012, 04:07:12 pm
If the amount drained was also based on current hp, that would definitely enforce use of a gravity mark.
E.g. if using accretion drained 1 of each non- :gravity quanta for every 10 hp when mark is not :gravity, rainbow decks would be very wary of using it without the right mark, while mono and duos would take a somewhat smaller hit.
Post by: OldTrees on July 11, 2012, 05:10:10 pm
What if its activation cost also drained some of each non- :gravity quanta if mark is not :gravity?So only the :gravity mark rainbows would be ridiculously OP? I think you missed the point. We want to make it so it is not OP in any deck.
If the amount drained was also based on current hp, that would definitely enforce use of a gravity mark.
E.g. if using accretion drained 1 of each non- :gravity quanta for every 10 hp when mark is not :gravity, rainbow decks would be very wary of using it without the right mark, while mono and duos would take a somewhat smaller hit.
Post by: OdinVanguard on July 11, 2012, 06:20:22 pm
Hmm... what if it just drains 1 (or maybe more) of each non :gravity quanta per 10 hp regardless of mark.What if its activation cost also drained some of each non- :gravity quanta if mark is not :gravity?So only the :gravity mark rainbows would be ridiculously OP? I think you missed the point. We want to make it so it is not OP in any deck.
If the amount drained was also based on current hp, that would definitely enforce use of a gravity mark.
E.g. if using accretion drained 1 of each non- :gravity quanta for every 10 hp when mark is not :gravity, rainbow decks would be very wary of using it without the right mark, while mono and duos would take a somewhat smaller hit.
That should make rainbow decks think twice before spamming them as they will lose 11 or more quanta for each use. Decks with fewer quanta types will not be hit as hard, but they will also have less to spend on casting it in the first place.
It also reinforces the benefit to using it in a :gravity based deck since that will be the only quanta type not affected, but mono :gravity will still have to contend with the high cost to pull it out to begin with.
Post by: OldTrees on July 11, 2012, 07:26:38 pm
The most problematic combo only needs the :rainbow prior to the Accreation. After Shard of Focus is played the focus is on :gravity. Aka you are still not nerfing the problem.Hmm... what if it just drains 1 (or maybe more) of each non :gravity quanta per 10 hp regardless of mark.What if its activation cost also drained some of each non- :gravity quanta if mark is not :gravity?So only the :gravity mark rainbows would be ridiculously OP? I think you missed the point. We want to make it so it is not OP in any deck.
If the amount drained was also based on current hp, that would definitely enforce use of a gravity mark.
E.g. if using accretion drained 1 of each non- :gravity quanta for every 10 hp when mark is not :gravity, rainbow decks would be very wary of using it without the right mark, while mono and duos would take a somewhat smaller hit.
That should make rainbow decks think twice before spamming them as they will lose 11 or more quanta for each use. Decks with fewer quanta types will not be hit as hard, but they will also have less to spend on casting it in the first place.
It also reinforces the benefit to using it in a :gravity based deck since that will be the only quanta type not affected, but mono :gravity will still have to contend with the high cost to pull it out to begin with.
Post by: OdinVanguard on July 11, 2012, 07:43:50 pm
I see... So the nerf needs to be applied at or prior to casting as well, correct?The most problematic combo only needs the :rainbow prior to the Accreation. After Shard of Focus is played the focus is on :gravity. Aka you are still not nerfing the problem.Hmm... what if it just drains 1 (or maybe more) of each non :gravity quanta per 10 hp regardless of mark.What if its activation cost also drained some of each non- :gravity quanta if mark is not :gravity?So only the :gravity mark rainbows would be ridiculously OP? I think you missed the point. We want to make it so it is not OP in any deck.
If the amount drained was also based on current hp, that would definitely enforce use of a gravity mark.
E.g. if using accretion drained 1 of each non- :gravity quanta for every 10 hp when mark is not :gravity, rainbow decks would be very wary of using it without the right mark, while mono and duos would take a somewhat smaller hit.
That should make rainbow decks think twice before spamming them as they will lose 11 or more quanta for each use. Decks with fewer quanta types will not be hit as hard, but they will also have less to spend on casting it in the first place.
It also reinforces the benefit to using it in a :gravity based deck since that will be the only quanta type not affected, but mono :gravity will still have to contend with the high cost to pull it out to begin with.
Would having the drain trigger on both casting and activation along with adding a small activation cost help? E.g.:
1) Casting and activation drain 1 of each non- :gravity quanta.
2) Give accretion a moderate activation cost (maybe 3 :rainbow )
So, rainbow deck use would be heavily nerfed since it will effectively use roughly 17 quanta to cast a single shard and another 14 to use its ability. Decks with fewer quanta types will have a lower effective casting and activation cost since there would be fewer types to drain.
Another way to look at it: making full use of the shard in a rainbow deck would be almost like casting 1.33 blackholes on yourself (lose 4 of every type of quanta except :gravity )
Post by: OldTrees on July 11, 2012, 08:07:03 pm
The activation cost goes a long way towards slowing down the combo and requiring a fair cost.The most problematic combo only needs the :rainbow prior to the Accreation. After Shard of Focus is played the focus is on :gravity. Aka you are still not nerfing the problem.I see... So the nerf needs to be applied at or prior to casting as well, correct?
Would having the drain trigger on both casting and activation along with adding a small activation cost help? E.g.:
1) Casting and activation drain 1 of each non- :gravity quanta.
2) Give accretion a moderate activation cost (maybe 3 :rainbow )
So, rainbow deck use would be heavily nerfed since it will effectively use roughly 17 quanta to cast a single shard and another 14 to use its ability. Decks with fewer quanta types will have a lower effective casting and activation cost since there would be fewer types to drain.
Another way to look at it: making full use of the shard in a rainbow deck would be almost like casting 1.33 blackholes on yourself (lose 4 of every type of quanta except :gravity )
The drain combined with an activation cost promotes quantum pillars over nova. This slows the combo down further.
Post by: UndeadSpider1990 on July 23, 2012, 12:59:46 am
Hmm... what if it just drains 1 (or maybe more) of each non :gravity quanta per 10 hp regardless of mark.
So the ability is like a mini-black hole on yourself but the HP goes to the shard? I like that idea! It has a nice inverse-nova / black hole ring to it, though I dunno how practical that is as a fix.
Post by: sieglsiegl on August 04, 2012, 08:07:36 pm
Post by: Vangelios on August 04, 2012, 08:13:33 pm
Can you destroy a permanent to gain the +0/+15 multiple times?
not only to 45 hp
Post by: ash le sombre on August 14, 2012, 01:23:36 pm
it's becomes unplayable (focus + devourer + black hole)
it becomes painful to see always the same decks !
Post by: honewell on August 30, 2012, 12:18:48 am
when playing against AI the SoF is targeted by shockwaves, snipers, drain lifes etc... , which allows the shard to destroy more permanents. It doesn't make any sense for the AI to target SoF with damage unless it only has 1 HP. otherwise the card only gets stronger.
although i do love it when this happens to me... ;D
If this has already been discussed my apologies, this thread is hella long.
Post by: kimham8a on August 30, 2012, 11:39:55 am
The AI targeting needs to be changed for SoF
when playing against AI the SoF is targeted by shockwaves, snipers, drain lifes etc... , which allows the shard to destroy more permanents. It doesn't make any sense for the AI to target SoF with damage unless it only has 1 HP. otherwise the card only gets stronger.
although i do love it when this happens to me... ;D
If this has already been discussed my apologies, this thread is hella long.
Really? I find the AI targets this card last, to the point of making itself lose the game by not using its CC on my SoFo. It seems to hit it only if its the only card on your field, and somewhat reluctantly at that.
Post by: xshadowcastx on November 20, 2012, 08:07:30 am
Post by: nilsieboy on December 20, 2012, 08:34:27 am
Shard of Focus now costs gravity quanta, discuss.
Post by: Vangelios on December 20, 2012, 08:38:43 am
Post by: plastiqe on December 20, 2012, 09:04:46 am
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Thefalloftheberlinwall1989.JPG)
I still don't like this as a creature shard as I think Shard Golem should be the only one.
I still think it's too inexpensive and easy to use for all in one reusable PC.
At least it won't be playable on the first turn in every friggin rainbow deck.
Post by: Cunning_Wish on December 20, 2012, 02:11:43 pm
4 :gravity to destory 3 permanment and get a blackhole, it is still power when it on your battlefiled. but it is slow because of 4 :gravity so I think it is fine now.
and it is weak in first turn. If it is 0/15, you can SoF+ gravity force. it is still powerful.
:gravity have charge,unstopable, not really need PC to destory shield.
To do summary, I think sof is just Ok now.
Post by: Pineapple on December 20, 2012, 04:57:11 pm
Post by: Rutarete on December 20, 2012, 05:14:44 pm
Post by: Avenger on December 21, 2012, 10:36:10 pm
Post by: Asterix3 on December 31, 2012, 09:11:44 pm
I think I agree with Avenger though:
It would have been better to change the ability to gravity than the costMaybe leave the cost as it was and make the ability 1 :gravity. This still gives it a prominent role in gravity and rainbow/speedbow decks (which I think is fair) but removes it from most other decks (also fair).
I never really liked this card. My favourite decks are pretty permanent heavy (time being my favourite element, 6 hourglasses being my first upgraded cards). Finding these in practically EVERY gold/platinum arena deck was very frustrating.
Post by: Dad on January 07, 2013, 04:53:15 am
Clearly a sign that they were too good; if not too good to be true, then a least too good to last.
Post by: Fippe94 on January 07, 2013, 09:56:29 am
Post by: Zarathustra1883 on January 07, 2013, 01:14:22 pm
Post by: RavingRabbid on January 07, 2013, 04:08:23 pm
I hate them so much I would even love them to be nerfed even more and have the ability changed even more to 1 or 2 :gravity. I have 4 upped by now but I don´t think I will use them for a long time since I don´t want to make others feel annoyed like I feel facing those decks. Just my 2 cents. ;DAlso Sprach Zarathustra.
Post by: OdinVanguard on February 12, 2013, 06:18:13 pm
Zanz hit it with the nerf bat good and hard.
I can't honestly say it upsets me even in the slightest. This card won the award for biggest need for nerfing from the moment it first hit the game.
I am a little sad that some of the other shards had to suffer the same kind of nerfing. But it was worth it to have this one nerfed.
Now, at last, we aren't playing "Shards The Game" anymore.
This shard is still potent in mono grav decks. The gp combo is still deadly. But it won't get abused and spammed into every deck in the metagame anymore.
I actually like it now. Its not horridly OP and now seems to fit its purpose well. A solid PC for gravity with early vulnerablity but long term anti-CC potential.
Post by: zombie0 on February 13, 2013, 05:54:17 pm
i feel that previously players gained just as much advantage from it on the highest end (possibly more than the AI), but perhaps everyone else had a different experience
Post by: Ningo67 on February 14, 2013, 07:55:06 am