Guest posts by stinky472

1

Trio & Quartet / Re: Hahaha my opponent is an idio-Oh wait.

« on: January 23, 2012, 01:53:24 pm »

I really love the idea of exploting the AI this way by filling up his usable creature slots. Always was pondering effective use of aflatoxin but nightmare + photon seems like a more timely way to pull it off. I think the hardest thing is making sure we do this soon enough before he one or more dangerous creatures on the field, which is always the hard part. :-(

2

Game Suggestions and Feedback / Re: Mark of Other

« on: January 23, 2012, 01:49:36 pm »

Fair enough! All right, cheers to the quantum pendulums idea. 

3

Game Suggestions and Feedback / Re: Mark of Other

« on: January 18, 2012, 04:23:52 am »

Pillarless decks like certain speedbows tend to favor racking out damage quickly, not continuous control since they tend to rely on novas/supernovas/immolation/cremation: they have no steady source of random quanta so they make up for it by  not needing much and making good and balanced use of all elements.

A rainbow kind of mark could encourage pillarless decks to be designed which can assume a small but steady supply of random quanta. It has a bit more potential I think in opening up doors for new deck designs and that's really the whole point of the idea: to open up ideas for new kinds of decks.

Take your standard pillarless immolation deck. Obviously that's going to be using fire more than anything, but the quanta given by various elements is a bit too small to do anything but have a few one-shot cards (cheap spells/creatures/perms), certainly not cards using other elements that requires a continuous stream of quanta. If we include golems in the equation, we might choose earth. But what if we had a random quanta mark? Suddenly we might have more interesting routes to explore like, say, parasite, which is maybe a bit iffy if we can't steadily stream death quanta as would be the case for a pillarless deck.

Or just put it this way: why do pillarless decks have to generally be designed to be speed decks? What prevents the effectiveness of designs of a pillarless, slow, stalling, control-oriented rainbow that makes continuous but sparse use of various elements? I think at least a big part for this is that they're pillarless and there's no other way to generate random quanta of various elements other than by including pillars or pendulums into the design.

4

Humor / Re: (Entropy) The WTF LOL Card

« on: January 18, 2012, 04:05:11 am »

Upped:

5

Humor / (Entropy) The WTF LOL Card

« on: January 18, 2012, 04:00:43 am »

This is purely for amusement purposes and to counter boredom. I figure if the game has a few funny cards, it might help keep it entertaining.

6

Game Suggestions and Feedback / Re: Mark of Other

« on: January 18, 2012, 03:24:02 am »

A quantum pendulum is a very interesting idea. I'm sorry, I missed that one. I suppose that definitely does go better with the theme of elementals, though 'Other' could be like 'Multi' if the wording better fits the theme. I do like the idea of a quantum pendulum from the standpoint that upgrading it would provide a much more general-purpose card than pendulums of a specific element combined with like a 'Multi' or 'Other' mark and therefore much cheaper overall to get everything upgraded for a particular deck of that type.

As a counterargument though, having a mark which has the same effect as a quantum pillar might also help produce interesting ideas for balanced rainbows: rainbows that really don't favor one specific element over the other. Choosing a mark in those cases often ends up favoring entropy for the supernovas or time for the hourglasses, but a 'rainbow mark' might yield some fresh deck ideas for rainbows that don't need to favor one specific elemental mark over another. I think it's also interesting in the sense that even if all pendulums or pillars/towers are destroyed, then the mark will still have the effect of generating 3 random quanta per turn.

One might even explore pillarless deck ideas based on super cheap elemental cards that don't require any quantum pillars, but need a steady supply of quanta for skills (not enough to work just on novas or supernovas alone). It has some interesting potentials I think that a quantum pendulum might not provide, though I really like both ideas.

7

Game Suggestions and Feedback / Mark of Other

« on: January 17, 2012, 10:10:08 pm »

This is an old idea I had when pendulums were introduced, and since then I haven't played the game so much. I doubt it's a very original idea but I haven't been able to find it in the forums including the thread for new ways to generate quantums in the card ideas section.

Anyway, the idea is very simple: a Mark of Other that generates 3 random quanta per turn (equivalent to a quantum pillar). I think this would synergize very well with pendulums which can then allow for new types of decks based on "lopsided" rainbows; rainbows which are predominantly focused on one particular element, even though both the mark and pendulums (on every other turn) generates some random quanta as well.

For example, one might choose this Mark of Other combined with Light Pendulums to create a deck that's predominantly a light deck but allows crusaders to effectively use weapons abilities and to allow Pegasus to do the occasional dive.

Of course, as with any other change like this, there is a potential for new type of OP decks to be created. Still the idea is very interesting, I think, particular when considering how this would interact with pendulums.

If we look at elements like water, chrysaora needs death for poison, toadfish needs air for inflate, mindflayer needs aether for lobotomize, steam machine needs fire to gain charges, trident needs earth for tsunami.. already a lot of deck ideas making use of various water cards will have no choice but to become duo/trio/rainbow decks... But this Mark of Other, combined with water pendulums, could allow one to make use of a lot of water elements while still predominantly generating water quanta.

8

Card Ideas and Art / Re: Recurrence | Eternal Recurrence

« on: August 10, 2010, 09:06:45 pm »

I think the card would be very interesting for sure and would change the game dynamic considerably when played. The eternal version worries me a lot more than the non-upped version since it would be easy to design a deck for which one can play a protected eternal recurrence and put the other player at a complete disadvantage for the entire duration of the game. Perhaps it should stick to 3 turns but just be a little cheaper to play when upgraded.

Imagine this with sparks/BoLs and a bone wall for a never ending bone wall that just grows and grows without the possibility of ever decking out. It would make for the most annoying stall deck ever and people without momentum would be completely helpless against it unless they can spam creatures twice as fast as you can play sparks/BoLs and without dying from the considerable damage being dealt from multiple sparks/BoLs every turn in the meantime.

I also don't think the creature should return to the opponent's hand like fractal, but rather work like a rewind (you have to draw it next turn and use hourglass if multiple creatures die to get them back on the following turn or wait multiple turns). This way, it would at least require hourglasses in combination to be really effective and that would guzzle a lot of time normally to prevent it from becoming too OP. Then at least the player can counter a protected recurrence by targeting hourglasses and/or pillars/towers or use denial. I still think it shouldn't last more than 3 turns though, as it would already be quite powerful that way by allowing you to grow a massive bone wall in a few turns, e.g., or grow a massive vulture or generate many skellies (I think death has the best synergy with this card and sparks/BoLs)

9

Gravity / Re: Chimera

« on: August 10, 2010, 01:34:24 pm »

Is the gravity pull on this creature an effect or ability (active skill)? In other words, does it start with gravity pull being applied on it, or does it have that as an ability? I'm hoping it is the former, since it should at least be gravity pulled to allow it to be killed.

Nevertheless, we can change what creature has gravity pull by simply using gravity pull on another creature.

I can think of a rather powerful situation where we can play like some weak creature with over 0 hp and a bunch of BoLs and some cheap, high damage creatures like giant frogs and then consolidate them all into one chimera and play quintessence on it. One could easily have an immortal chimera dealing 30+ unstoppable damage that cannot be killed because we can simply play gravity pull on a ball of lightning to take the gravity pull off the chimera.

It's this quint + switching gravity pull combo that scares me a bit and possibly seems a bit OP. Normally it takes a great deal of time to be able to deal 30+ unstoppable damage from a truly immortal, completely unkillable creature (ex: immortal unstoppable lava golem would take 12 turns of growth to deal that much damage), but with chimera it should be doable in much less time.

In fact, that's the first kind of deck I want to create using chimera: a trio deck (fire + gravity + aether for quint) but only with gravity pillars (fire from cremations and high damage creatures and we only need one quintessence for the chimera). Maybe SoGs + a little CC/shield to stall things a bit for the super unstoppable, undestroyable chimera to come out. Either that or maybe a speedbow using low-cost, high damage creatures and some stalling to buy us time for the chimera + gravity pull + quint combo - speedbow seems a bit faster actually.

10

Time / Re: Dune Scorpion | Dune Scorpion

« on: August 10, 2010, 01:27:27 pm »

Oh my bad, I never ran purify in my deck (just seemed a bit too lacking for general purpose use to slow down my decks by including it, but seems more essential now with these scorpions), and I stopped playing for a while. Before, if I recall correctly, purify did not heal at all, it just fixed poison (before these new cards like fractal and aflatoxin were introduced). Currently it costs water quanta though, so perhaps it should go back to being generic but still keep the 2+ healing.

11

Time / Re: Dune Scorpion | Dune Scorpion

« on: August 09, 2010, 01:57:25 pm »

The new version is very cool. I was pretty worried about the old version because it would demolish all my control decks, all of which have a few essential cards: a couple of creatures, shields, and/or weapons which, when lost, would really destroy me.

However, I think it makes purify so much more important. I almost think upgraded purify needs to be colorless now to balance things out a bit and maybe do like +2 healing instead of +1 so that it's not completely useless against non-poison decks.

12

Rainbow Decks / Re: (1.24) CC? Why bother?

« on: August 03, 2010, 09:32:24 am »

I've been contemplating twin universe as a replacement for fractal. The idea is to try to make the easy gods easier. For example, Ellidnis is on the easier side with this deck, but with his growing forest spirits and ultrachids, it can get difficult sometimes.. I've saved my butt a few times by desperately fractalling his ultrachids, but really I only need one with quintessence, and annoying thing about fractal is that it leaves you with no aether. Graviton might also be a little easier if we could clone his otyughs. Fractalling otyughs works, but again, I only need one and a the TU could leave me with enough aether to fractal him on the same turn. On the other hand, I'm thinking heavily with emergency CC in mind. It might be better just to sneak a CC card like an elite otyugh in this deck for such emergencies.

On the other hand, octane would be harder without fractal. He's easy enough to killl (we don't need fractal for damage), but the fractal really does help if we use it on his eagle eyes to keep him from exploding our good stuff like shards and shield long enough for us to get out a pulv.