Guest Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by a guest. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Kumlekar (81)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7
1
WoE Archive / Re: What is World of Elements?
« on: July 08, 2010, 05:47:52 am »
World of Elements (WoE) is a large-scale community-driven forum event built around Elements the game. Any community member can join WoE at any time. All you need is Elements game account, a forum account, and a thirst for power and glory.
Is it okay if I'm missing the thirst for power and glory?  :D
no, that is unforgivable, if you join without that, your teammates might castrate you.

2
Forum Archive / Re: How to make the best possible rare farm deck
« on: July 08, 2010, 12:21:24 am »
I'm curious about nymphs, do they all count against the same 6 card limit or against separate ones?  If its seperate, a deck of 24 nymphs ( 4 types) and 6 relics  or 30 nymphs (5 types) would be a very good money farm.  (60 for master + 3 relics which sell for 65 each = 255 gold assured, which is equivalent to a FG with a 100% win rate - upgraded cards)

3
Darkness / Re: The Gargoyles and Devourers
« on: July 07, 2010, 09:02:54 pm »
20 quanta producing cards and no drain lifes?

4
WoE Archive / Re: Exploration: Fast Travel
« on: July 07, 2010, 05:22:05 am »
I think  :entropy should be Entropic Tunnel, and that it should teleport them not exactly where the fast travel takes them, but around that hexagon. (through something that is randomly generated using some sort of website, idk)
thats funny, because thats exactly what I was thinking, but a random teleport could be crippling in this setup. I recommend having a variable price instead. So if a normal fast travel from another element might cost 10 electrum, entrophy might cost 13, but  a random amount of the cost is returned to the player (between 0 and 7 coins). 

A different option would be to have different elements take different numbers of turns on fast travel, at a price based on the speed of the travel. 

5
WoE Archive / Re: Looking for WoE Organizers
« on: July 06, 2010, 10:57:53 pm »
Not offering to be an organizer, but I thought i'd let you know that I'm going to use this project for some programming practice, so I may possibly at some undetermined point in the future have a program running that would keep track of the game state for organizational purposes. 

Currently i'm just implementing a graph data type to represent the map, and adding a way to store player/deck/card  data.  I'm not well versed in how the rules work right now, so this probably won't be self-updating for a long time, but hopefully I can setup movement between tiles at least.

6
WoE Archive / Re: WoE beta testing - MAP INCLUDED
« on: July 06, 2010, 10:42:26 pm »
I agree with dragoon, there should be some kind of fog of war involved, meaning you only know what your team has explored yet. Otherwise it will be to easy to find shortcuts and the shortest way around obstacles.
Actually, I wasn't referring to Fog of War, just layers that we could turn on and off to better see the information we're looking for.  Fog of War would be pretty cool though, but I think it'd be way too much work to implement.  But hey, if there's an epic coder that can do map layers, maybe he can do Fog of War too.

EDIT:  Unless you meant the original Dragoon, not the 1140th.
What!?!  Someone else with my unoriginal name?  Where?  I'll pull out my dragoon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragoon) and fill their chest with holes.

On a serious note, to avoid confusion, I suppose people can refer to me as Drag since I have the shorter name.  That's what people called me in the old Elements chat room anyways.  :P
just curious, what program is being used for this? Is it just being stored in text on the forum, or are you guys writing a program to represent the current state of the game? I need some coding practice if this is being done in a language I know.

7
Deck Help / Re: Help on my rainbow flying weapon deck
« on: July 04, 2010, 08:46:16 pm »
but t50 doesn't work for me. I just have to get lucky in PVP1.
a lot of the time you WILL lose some battles. no one ever expects a perfect match up against the top 50 players in element, but you have to try. Go on the chat and politely ask for a farm, or check the forum post about the farms that are on. That way, you know which decks to either go for or skip whilst you are farming them.
I think he means that it won't match him with an opponent as it was doing to me yesterday night.

8
Deck Help / Re: Drain Life / Fire Bolt / Ice Bolt
« on: July 04, 2010, 03:19:26 am »
im no expert on dark decks (infact i havent even made ONE) but i like to think of myself as a pretty good deck-maker, here is my opinion

add a dusk mantle, always good to get one out early in the game. if you get a vampire silleto ADD IT. 6 devourers is a but much, maybe 5? when you get alot of money, UPGRADE THE VAMPS. why need so much quanta? the drain lifes? you want to focus on DRAINING YOUR OPPONENTS LIFE, not quanta generation.

thats all i can help, all sites are down, and i dont know the bazaar by heart, so...
As I said in my post, this is more of a fun design than an effective one, none of the changes you suggested pertain to the orginal problem.
use a fractal devourers deck they get huge amounts of gaunta stopping ur opponents
Thanks, fractal didn't exist last time I played, so I'll have to try it out.

9
Deck Help / Drain Life / Fire Bolt / Ice Bolt
« on: July 03, 2010, 08:42:40 pm »
I've loved these cards since I started the game, and want to construct a deck based on building up the quanta to get a 1 turn kill using 4 copies of these.  Currently I'm running mono-dark and 6 copies of drain life, but I can't help but feel  that the quanta productions could be better.  The reason for my preference of drain life over the other two is the tendency for it to result in a mastery, but I've considered going dark/fire for more damage output. 

Currently I'm running
10 X Dark Pillars
6 X Devourers
1 X Dusk Mantle
1 X Nightfall
6 X Drain life
6 X Minor Vampires

(nothing is upgraded because I'm not willing to spend money on upgrades for a deck that I won't be using for god killing)

Basicly my question is, what would be the best way to achieve maximum quanta generation to hit 100 dark quanta in the minimum time period while still having a high survival rate?  I'm open to additional colors for enemy creature control.

10
In-game Troubleshooting / Re: Cannot Create Elements Account
« on: July 03, 2010, 07:47:33 pm »
Looks like I choose a bad time to get my friends into the game. URGH!

11
Religion / Does God Exist?
« on: December 15, 2009, 10:10:30 pm »

Sorry for double posting, guys, but we're already onto multiple topics.

Argument 1

   1. Something cannot come from nothing.
   2. The cause of an idea must have at least as much formal reality as the idea has objective reality.
   3. I have in me an idea of God. This idea has infinite objective reality.
   4. I cannot be the cause of this idea, since I am not an infinite and perfect being. I don't have enough formal reality. Only an infinite and perfect being could cause such an idea.
   5. So God — a being with infinite formal reality — must exist (and be the source of my idea of God).
   6. An absolutely perfect being is a good, benevolent being.
   7. So God is benevolent...
   8. So God would not deceive me and would not permit me to error without giving me a way to correct my errors.
As far as I can tell this is a variant on the ontological argument. It falls down because it commits the fallacy of bare assertion. The reasoning behind point 5 relies entirely on the assertions inherent in points 1, 2, 3, and 4, which are entirely unsupported postulates. Given this, I'd ask you to answer the following questions:

1. Why can't something proceed from nothing?
2. Does something necessarily have to proceed from anything?
3. Why must "The cause of an idea [...] have at least as much formal reality as the idea has objective reality."? Please do us a favour and don't just copy/paste Descartes, explain in your own words.
4. Are you defining God as being that concept which has unlimited objective reality? If so, how does that match up with a concept that actually contains qualia such as "benevolence" which by necessity are limiting?
5. Why cannot we hypothesise ideas that have greater formal or objective reality than we have ourselves? Feel free to roll this one into Question 3, since I think your answer is likely to be the same thing.

Argument 2

   1. I exist.
   2. My existence must have a cause.
   3. The cause must be either:

        a) myself
        b) my always having existed
        c) my parents
        d) something less perfect than God
        e) God

    4. Not a. If I had created myself, I would have made myself perfect.
    5. Not b. This does not solve the problem. If I am a dependent being, I need to be continually sustained by another.
    6. Not c. This leads to an infinite regress.
    7. Not d. The idea of perfection that exists in me cannot have originated from a non-perfect being.
    8. Therefore, e. God exists.
So, okay, you're clearly looking at the prime mover problem (though I dispute point 7), but how do you justify calling a God into existence in order to solve your problem for you, given that exactly the same argument applies to him?
To begin, please realize that things I post in discussion topics aren't always my own views. I have discussed pretty much everything under the sun; now I prefer to see what other people think. For this reason, I try to keep my own arguments at a minimum, and post only what I want people to discuss. It is somewhat difficult at times to do so, but just realize I am here for "educational" purposes rather than to debate.

Now let's see if I can answer your questions. Before I do, I should mention that I am not well versed in philosophy. The arguments I pulled from the Meditations are ones we recently "covered" in class (we seem to have skipped discussion of the meditations following the second, even though it was assigned reading). For these reasons, I think it's safe to say that my own opinions and explanations aren't the best; however, I will certainly attempt to answer your questions to the best of my ability. Don't be surprised if in answering your questions I don't support the arguments.

A1:
-Q1: Either something can come from nothing or something can come from something. I think we can both agree that it is necessary that one must be true. If something were to come from nothing, what could have caused it to come into being? If there is nothing, then there can be no cause for something to come into being. If this sentence is still here, then I couldn't remember what my next point was. If there is something, then it is possible that said something caused things to come into being. As far as I can tell, the logical conclusion is that all things come from at least one other thing.
-Q2: I think I have "answered" this in question one. Like I said though, I'm no philosopher, so I could easily be wrong (and I suspect that I am).
-Q3: Honestly this part stumps me. Try as I might I can't seem to wrap my mind around formal and objective reality.
-Q4: Not necessarily God, but any entity. The only thing I can think of for the latter question is that our idea of benevolence is not God's idea of benevolence, and therefore the qualia that are necessarily limited to us are not so for God. I'm 98% sure I'm wrong. :-p
-Q5: Since I couldn't answer question three, not so sure I can answer this one either.

A2:
-Q: I'm assuming you mean that the conclusion is made by merely eliminating the other answers. If so, I see the logic behind doing so but don't see how it is justified.

I think it's pretty obvious I don't know much on the subject. Which brings me to my original intent. Mind explaining it to me? Originally I was going to go about it one thing at a time so each point could be discussed separately but also in reference to previous points of the arguments already discussed. Then I just got lazy, partly because I doubt I'll be sticking around here very long, so I just decided to lump it all together, even though it's a lot to cover at once.

By the way, it took me 1.5-2 hours to write all this, so don't think I just winged it. I was actually doing some reading so I could answer your questions more effectively (not that it helped :-p ).
A1: Q1:  This is a fair assertion assuming that you have a response to Daxx's second question
    Q2:  There is a minute difference between these two questions, and this is really the more important one.  The issue here revolves around the definition of "something" and "nothing".  Is "nothing" a lack of matter?  A lack of energy?  A lack of thought?  These points can be contested philosophically, but I'm really not interested in them, as I feel they are not important to the topic at hand.  I'll accept your current assertion.
    Q3:I'm not versed on this specific topic, but a quick google search says that formal reality is, "What X actually is." and objective reality is, "How X appears to us." (incendentially an extremely confusing definition due to the multiple meanings of the word "objective".)  it seems to me that Decartes is making the claim that humans can only ever observe part of a whole (The claim that it must have at least as much formal reality as objective reality), and that because humans see god as infinite, ("infintie objective reality"), god must exist (points 3 and 4).  I have a serious issue with points number two and four.  If I imagine an infinitely delicious and large food, does this mean the food exists? Point four seems incompatible with the idea of free will, a serious component of any extension of an argument for the existence of a christian god, and the test stated previously seems to show this to be false. 
   Q4: I'm going to skip this, its pretty unnecessary until you have a solid answer for Q3.
   Q5: Again, my point about free will, because it is a very similar subject (thoguh obviously not the same). 

12
Card Ideas and Art / Cards that will make some Mono decks work well
« on: December 15, 2009, 10:10:12 pm »

I've got a little bit of a problem with the necromancer and the blessing creature. (+3+3 on target creature every turn? thats a tad powerful, though I guess its nothing an eternity can't handle.  Still, alot of mon-decks are dependent on damage for creature control, they're pretty vulnerable to that effect)  The necromancer may or may not be overpowered.  The reality is that bonewalls are overpowered currently, that this is just making bonewalls even more powerful.  I'd have less of a problem with the necromancer if bonewalls only generated one taken per death instead of two.

I love the idea for the earth creature.

For air, theres been alot of similar cards suggested.  I personally feel that a new type of ability needs to be given to air other than dive or owls eye.

Flood I'd like to seen changed to being a shield.  One of those is pretty cool.  Multiples would be hellishly powerful.

Ocean rift I like, but I have an issue with the randomness.  Perhaps if the player pays a large mana cost the blue crawler is replaced with the dragon?

The time cards are excellent

The tree of life->seed->tree sprite thing is kinda cool, as long as you can't insert seeds into your deck.

Where's the love for dark man?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7
anything
blarg: