25
Forge Archive / Re: Random Hamster | Random Hamster
« on: November 03, 2010, 09:28:21 am »
It's too cute to be a killer!
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.
26
Buff This Card! / Re: Aflatoxin | Aflatoxin
« on: November 03, 2010, 09:00:29 am »
Wouldn't flooding causing the death of the cells be a decent nerf?
If you have flooding for control in addition to this, that's called over kill. If they have flooding, water creatures are coming, and they can live in the area that the cells would be dieing.
I think its fine. It's expensive, but flood controls many spaces for a cost that just keeps climbing, compared to this, which will leave no spaces on the board (flooding will leave the middle row, not take up every unused space) for a flat cost.
I do believe I heard that this card was nerfed, however, so if people actually do actually think it is UP, I suppose changing it back could be an option.
But I know that when I saw that, in the beginning, this card produced 0/1 cells, I had to laugh a little at how crazy that would be in several situations.
I think its fine, as is.
If you have flooding for control in addition to this, that's called over kill. If they have flooding, water creatures are coming, and they can live in the area that the cells would be dieing.
I think its fine. It's expensive, but flood controls many spaces for a cost that just keeps climbing, compared to this, which will leave no spaces on the board (flooding will leave the middle row, not take up every unused space) for a flat cost.
I do believe I heard that this card was nerfed, however, so if people actually do actually think it is UP, I suppose changing it back could be an option.
But I know that when I saw that, in the beginning, this card produced 0/1 cells, I had to laugh a little at how crazy that would be in several situations.
I think its fine, as is.
27
Card Ideas and Art / Re: Planar Vortex | Planar Shift
« on: November 03, 2010, 08:40:55 am »
I think the upped is a bit too strong. Maybe if it randomly shuffled creatures to your benefit, instead of an outright exchange.
The exchange idea is nice, but, building a deck around this, it would be too easy to abuse.
I think it fits best in aether. It's not like every card that does something randomly is entropy and can be seen nowhere else. I'm not sure where that line of thinking comes from.
But all all out switch, way too easy to flood your field with malignant cells (or just play nothing), then, when the time is right, swap creatures and end up with the field they have been building all game, leaving them either locked with 1/1 creatures, or with just nothing.
Maybe if the first were to randomly swap creature positions, while the upped were to randomly move creatures? The first would then make for a 100% fair exchange, and the second would, in theory, cause a 50/50 spread on the creatures in play, so not allow anything quite as extreme as a flat out exchange.
I don't know how the current mechanics of the game would work in practice with reassigning spots randomly. For the ideal situation, it would have to act as if it picked up all the cards and reassigned them places one by one onto an empty field. Otherwise, a field with lots of creatures could really skew the position assignments, which may actually not be a bad thing, either.
The exchange idea is nice, but, building a deck around this, it would be too easy to abuse.
I think it fits best in aether. It's not like every card that does something randomly is entropy and can be seen nowhere else. I'm not sure where that line of thinking comes from.
But all all out switch, way too easy to flood your field with malignant cells (or just play nothing), then, when the time is right, swap creatures and end up with the field they have been building all game, leaving them either locked with 1/1 creatures, or with just nothing.
Maybe if the first were to randomly swap creature positions, while the upped were to randomly move creatures? The first would then make for a 100% fair exchange, and the second would, in theory, cause a 50/50 spread on the creatures in play, so not allow anything quite as extreme as a flat out exchange.
I don't know how the current mechanics of the game would work in practice with reassigning spots randomly. For the ideal situation, it would have to act as if it picked up all the cards and reassigned them places one by one onto an empty field. Otherwise, a field with lots of creatures could really skew the position assignments, which may actually not be a bad thing, either.
28
Forge Archive / Re: Shield of Relativity | Shield of Relativity
« on: November 03, 2010, 12:24:08 am »
How long until you can know aether is involved or not though?
Every quantum tower is going to produce aether quanta, so you would never know if this was going to come in or not. Any deck that uses elemental towers, even, you would have to wait way too long to take action before you found out if it was just a bad draw or if there really is no aether.
Not that it really matters for any deck that depends on creatures to do the majority of damage. Decks that don't use spells/permanents for damage will be unable to beat it, no matter if they wait or not.
And, again, that makes me want to say that I love the idea, but we might have to wait until the game develops more before we can really say its a good idea. Too few elements can deal with it.
Aether can't deal damage around it or destroy it. Air can't either. Earth can't do anything about it alone, only with gravity. Light can't get over it. Time can do nothing.
Darkness has steal or life drain. Entropy has BE, or could make mutants with destroy. Fire can blow it up, fire lance, or grow over it (but could be subject to a scary TU after the creatures start getting big, without need for a second element). Gravity has lots of momentum that could be used, and can destroy it with earth. Life can grow, but, again, TU could be a scary thought. Water can use ice lance to damage though it.
Death has poison, which could be deadly or could be nearly ignorable, depending on the exact decks.
7 elements can go though or around it, one is more or less, though, and another 100% requires a second element. Two of them will be using growing creatures (both likely with a second element), which is very vulnerable to a mono aether with this and TU. One of them will require either luck (entropy mutant with steal/destroy) or a 2 card combo.
That leaves 5 elements that can do nothing to it, other than not play creatures, and those can't do anything without the creatures. That's not strategy, at least not with the current card pool.
Every quantum tower is going to produce aether quanta, so you would never know if this was going to come in or not. Any deck that uses elemental towers, even, you would have to wait way too long to take action before you found out if it was just a bad draw or if there really is no aether.
Not that it really matters for any deck that depends on creatures to do the majority of damage. Decks that don't use spells/permanents for damage will be unable to beat it, no matter if they wait or not.
And, again, that makes me want to say that I love the idea, but we might have to wait until the game develops more before we can really say its a good idea. Too few elements can deal with it.
Aether can't deal damage around it or destroy it. Air can't either. Earth can't do anything about it alone, only with gravity. Light can't get over it. Time can do nothing.
Darkness has steal or life drain. Entropy has BE, or could make mutants with destroy. Fire can blow it up, fire lance, or grow over it (but could be subject to a scary TU after the creatures start getting big, without need for a second element). Gravity has lots of momentum that could be used, and can destroy it with earth. Life can grow, but, again, TU could be a scary thought. Water can use ice lance to damage though it.
Death has poison, which could be deadly or could be nearly ignorable, depending on the exact decks.
7 elements can go though or around it, one is more or less, though, and another 100% requires a second element. Two of them will be using growing creatures (both likely with a second element), which is very vulnerable to a mono aether with this and TU. One of them will require either luck (entropy mutant with steal/destroy) or a 2 card combo.
That leaves 5 elements that can do nothing to it, other than not play creatures, and those can't do anything without the creatures. That's not strategy, at least not with the current card pool.
29
Forge Archive / Re: Shield of Relativity | Shield of Relativity
« on: November 02, 2010, 11:58:19 pm »the player playing relativity has no control over how many creatures the other player plays (ignoring current ai) and if the other person only plays 2 attacking creatures, its a way expensive, way ineffective shield.He cannot have alfatoxin in the same deck?
Even nightmare would give some control over that, flooding the hand and all.
What's more is that the person on the other end can only stop playing more creatures to stop its growth after its already in play, barring every deck only playing strong/growth creatures until it has become obvious that this card would not come out.
30
Sports / Re: what do you think of the new Miami Heat?
« on: November 02, 2010, 10:32:59 pm »
Remember last time a team of "all the best" were thrown together and won in any sport?
Me neither.
The MJ Bulls were in the same basic situation, except they weren't simply thrown together, they developed a lot of chemistry though years of working together.
Players win games.
Teams win championships.
I have every belief in the world that the Heat can win several games, but what happens the second they hit a TEAM of nobodies in the playoffs? How much of the amazing 2007 series between the juggernaut Dallas and lowly Warriors did you watch? #1 Dallas was expected to take it all, but #8 Golden State took them out.
Dallas that year was a team of big names (and big names that had time to work together, at that!) but Golden State, as a team (and the team worked hard to get everything right, even if Baron Davis was the man), managed to beat them.
Lots of games, maybe even a historic season, yes.
But don't expect them to win it all.
Me neither.
The MJ Bulls were in the same basic situation, except they weren't simply thrown together, they developed a lot of chemistry though years of working together.
Players win games.
Teams win championships.
I have every belief in the world that the Heat can win several games, but what happens the second they hit a TEAM of nobodies in the playoffs? How much of the amazing 2007 series between the juggernaut Dallas and lowly Warriors did you watch? #1 Dallas was expected to take it all, but #8 Golden State took them out.
Dallas that year was a team of big names (and big names that had time to work together, at that!) but Golden State, as a team (and the team worked hard to get everything right, even if Baron Davis was the man), managed to beat them.
Lots of games, maybe even a historic season, yes.
But don't expect them to win it all.
31
Tournament Archive / Re: Western Tournament - Nov 6th - Lazy Man's Game - unupgraded
« on: November 02, 2010, 10:21:56 pm »
Forgive me for perhaps not understanding my native language that well.
That would explain my struggles with Portuguese I suppose.
Perhaps you assumed something by my current residence, but I spent the first 22 of my 24 years of life in America, am a native speaker, and only moved to Brazil to be with my wife. I do hope that I have, at least, a "basic grasp of English," or English as a whole may have changed beyond recognition in the past 10-15 years.
Instead of insulting you as you have to me (and you thought the suggestions last week were belittling the TO's?) I will simply show you why you are wrong.
If I start the tourney, match 1, duel 1, I am in a duel, and I will not be able to change my deck between any two duels according to the rule, as written.
So:
Match 1, duel 1 to match 1, duel 2. I cannot change because I am between duels.
Match 1, duel 2 to match 2, duel 2. I cannot change because I am between duels.
Match 1, duel 2 to match 1, duel 3. I cannot change because I am between duels.
Match 1, duel 3 to match 2, duel 1. I say I cannot change because I am between duels. You claim that in this situation, I am NOT between the two duels, when clearly, I am between two duels, but these duels are just in different matches.
Now I just have to question why you would be insulting on the subject, or attempt to be. Even if I were not an American, and even if I were Brazilian, I can't imagine a jab at someone's English was in order in the slightest, particularly when it is painfully obvious that a tourney is a series of duels ("A match consists of up to 3 individual duels. The player who first wins 2 duels, is the winner. Winner goes on to the next round and the loser is eliminated from the tournament"), and as such, there is never a moment in the tourney that you are NOT between duels (and can access the deck management area to change a deck).
Forgive me if this was just a bit too long, but I don't take well to being insulted, and I DO feel quite insulted when someone tells me that I do not have a basic grasp of my native language.
Change it or don't; I have no motivation to participate in a tourney run by someone attempting to be offensive and inflammatory, anyway.
That would explain my struggles with Portuguese I suppose.
Perhaps you assumed something by my current residence, but I spent the first 22 of my 24 years of life in America, am a native speaker, and only moved to Brazil to be with my wife. I do hope that I have, at least, a "basic grasp of English," or English as a whole may have changed beyond recognition in the past 10-15 years.
Instead of insulting you as you have to me (and you thought the suggestions last week were belittling the TO's?) I will simply show you why you are wrong.
If I start the tourney, match 1, duel 1, I am in a duel, and I will not be able to change my deck between any two duels according to the rule, as written.
So:
Match 1, duel 1 to match 1, duel 2. I cannot change because I am between duels.
Match 1, duel 2 to match 2, duel 2. I cannot change because I am between duels.
Match 1, duel 2 to match 1, duel 3. I cannot change because I am between duels.
Match 1, duel 3 to match 2, duel 1. I say I cannot change because I am between duels. You claim that in this situation, I am NOT between the two duels, when clearly, I am between two duels, but these duels are just in different matches.
Now I just have to question why you would be insulting on the subject, or attempt to be. Even if I were not an American, and even if I were Brazilian, I can't imagine a jab at someone's English was in order in the slightest, particularly when it is painfully obvious that a tourney is a series of duels ("A match consists of up to 3 individual duels. The player who first wins 2 duels, is the winner. Winner goes on to the next round and the loser is eliminated from the tournament"), and as such, there is never a moment in the tourney that you are NOT between duels (and can access the deck management area to change a deck).
Forgive me if this was just a bit too long, but I don't take well to being insulted, and I DO feel quite insulted when someone tells me that I do not have a basic grasp of my native language.
Change it or don't; I have no motivation to participate in a tourney run by someone attempting to be offensive and inflammatory, anyway.
32
Tournament Archive / Re: Western Tournament - Nov 6th - Lazy Man's Game
« on: November 02, 2010, 09:43:23 pm »Any reason not to make it no deck changing throughout the entire tourney? That would be the TRUE Lazy Mans Tourney
Every match is made of 2 or 3 duels (depending on if its a sweep or not).
These rules don't make a mention of ever being able to change between duels, regardless of circumstances.
Between the duel 3 of your first match and duel 1 of your second match would still be between duels.
Rules say you can't do it between duels, so it does end up being the whole tourney.
Might as well just say that though, since the only times NOT between duels is before the tourney starts and after its over.
It is a little silly written as is, if it is intended that you can change between matches. The rules say no changing between duels, but between matches is also between duels, just between duels with a different player.
33
Crucible Archive / Re: Kakerlake | Cockroach
« on: November 02, 2010, 09:38:46 pm »
It shouldn't be hard to go around any code that would make the mutant immortal.
There should be nothing preventing the removal of immortal status, if it were to be required/desired, so even if it were to carry over, as fate egg does, it could easily be removed upon using the ability if added to the game.
Also, for what its worth, I think the cost is a little high, actually.
These guys are actually going to provide (minor) healing to the opponent until you have the number you want to mutate, and it would take long enough to get several that the healing from them, and the space used on this when it could have been a mutation card to get an instant mutant/damage, would add up.
A faster way to get less damage or worse abilities for a 3 quanta and/or a card space would probably generally be better, so I had to vote that the cost seemed high.
There should be nothing preventing the removal of immortal status, if it were to be required/desired, so even if it were to carry over, as fate egg does, it could easily be removed upon using the ability if added to the game.
Also, for what its worth, I think the cost is a little high, actually.
These guys are actually going to provide (minor) healing to the opponent until you have the number you want to mutate, and it would take long enough to get several that the healing from them, and the space used on this when it could have been a mutation card to get an instant mutant/damage, would add up.
A faster way to get less damage or worse abilities for a 3 quanta and/or a card space would probably generally be better, so I had to vote that the cost seemed high.
34
Forge Archive / Re: Shield of Relativity | Shield of Relativity
« on: November 02, 2010, 09:23:53 pm »
I would have to say that it seems quite...powerful, if it counts attempted attacks. Counting only successful attacks may be much better, with the current card pool.
If PC were more common, or more elements/decks had creatures that could break though this, maybe.
I shudder to think of what death/aether could do with this, though. That combo could force a full field of malignant cells against any deck not carrying CC that could be used on its own creatures (and even then forcing them to use a card to kill what came from the creature you killed).
I like the idea, but it seems flat out OP with the current cards in the game.
If PC were more common, or more elements/decks had creatures that could break though this, maybe.
I shudder to think of what death/aether could do with this, though. That combo could force a full field of malignant cells against any deck not carrying CC that could be used on its own creatures (and even then forcing them to use a card to kill what came from the creature you killed).
I like the idea, but it seems flat out OP with the current cards in the game.
35
Crucible Archive / Re: The Moirae | The Graeae
« on: November 01, 2010, 01:35:52 am »
I thought I replied to this, but I evidently did something wrong, so, abridged version...
No one has said they don't like this idea. People are eager to speak up for the community and say others won't like it, as if others have no voice.
If people don't like it, let them speak for themselves, don't speak for them and say they won't like it.
No one has said they don't like this idea. People are eager to speak up for the community and say others won't like it, as if others have no voice.
If people don't like it, let them speak for themselves, don't speak for them and say they won't like it.
36
Game Suggestions and Feedback / Re: Antimatter state rebalance/realism?
« on: October 30, 2010, 08:40:34 pm »
I think it would be hard to code, Hotshot, because of exactly what you said.
Say I have a permafrost shield out. I AM a 5/5 creature on your side of the field.
After a change that makes your -5/5 creature act like normal, I imagine this happens:
Creature attacks.
Shield check: effect, -2 damage, chance to freeze
Damage reduction: -5-2=-7
Freeze: yes/no
Attack ends.
Reducing a negative number is actually a larger negative number, or more healing. An extra check might be easy to add (no idea about programming), but I would question what sort of priority something like this would get, with easier solutions to be had if it is OP, and there is no need to change it if not.
Say I have a permafrost shield out. I AM a 5/5 creature on your side of the field.
After a change that makes your -5/5 creature act like normal, I imagine this happens:
Creature attacks.
Shield check: effect, -2 damage, chance to freeze
Damage reduction: -5-2=-7
Freeze: yes/no
Attack ends.
Reducing a negative number is actually a larger negative number, or more healing. An extra check might be easy to add (no idea about programming), but I would question what sort of priority something like this would get, with easier solutions to be had if it is OP, and there is no need to change it if not.