1)
Is this based off BP's thread?
2) What are the top five nonshard cards you think should be buffed/reworked in this game, and how would you rework them?
3) Why do you feel the 1.31 Shards were so badly accepted by the ETG community?
Heh, that question... On a more serious note, this is more heavily focused on card design than general game mechanics.
The five cards that I would say are, and this is just considering the unupgraded formes and without seriously affecting their stats and costs...
- Antlion - In light of Graboid, Antlion is definitely overshadowed. It got some help from Shard of Patience, but that isn't exactly as effective or fast. But rather than buffing Antlion itself, I'd like to see some modification to its Burrow ability. Perhaps shield bypassing and the like would be appropriate.
- Cockatrice - Compared to Frog and the combos that it can do, Cockatrice is underpowered despite having superior stats. Looking at its buff thread, there are several suggestions for abilities I wouldn't mind seeing on Cockatrice without seriously affecting the stats and costs of the present card.
- Flooding - This card has so much potential, especially in locking down the field. And while this is possible, I find it isn't often successful. I am at a loss as to how it should be redone, but feels as if it could be redone better.
- Aflatoxin - Another card that I feel could do so much better but is overlooked due to its price and is otherwise used for fun decks. This can be solved with simply dropping the costs, but I wonder how it would play out if it was changed to a mass poison effect, afflicting both sides with weaker Aflatoxin.
- Deathstalker - Compared to Dune Scorp, I can't help but feel Deathstalker is underpowered. Perhaps modifying the range of its poison, like inflicting 2 poison with every death effect or something similar. Or, and this applies to all scorpions, poisoning creatures when they attack them [Gravity Pull].
To be honest, I don't feel too many issues with Non-Shards. However underused most may be, they are balanced in their own respects.
For the Shards, I feel they were addressed the way they were because they felt... rushed. This was exactly the same kind if feel when someone takes what had seemed like a great Series idea and just pumped out ideas just to complete. I know, I've done it before.
Aside from that, there is the effects that it gave. Shard of Bravery gave all elements access to quicker drawing, which I felt should have been left to
. And most infamous would be Shard of Focus, which allowed for relatively cheap, reusable PC to
decks, and still providing all other elements lacking in PC access to it. And I shouldn't have to go into detail, we've seen the threads.
On the opposite of the spectrum, some Shards just didn't feel worth it. Most notable, in my opinion, is Shard of Void. With the current gameplay, there is no reason to use this outside of a couple of viable decks. There is also
1)
Is this based off BP's thread?
Funny seeing that quote here.
How much do you think the three types of damage in elements should be balanced in amount compared to each other? Do you think we absolutely need more non-creature damage?
Three types? I assume that's referring to Physical [Creature and Weapon], Spell [Spell and Aether], and Poison damages.
I'll refrain from discussing balance until I get a better definition of what you mean by balance. Do you mean that they should maintain an equal ratio [Same amount of sources of Physical as Spell damage] or that they should hold true to a set ratio [For every 3 Physical sources, there should at least be 1 Spell].
As for non-creature damage, I don't think it will be so much an issue in adding more of it as long as counters are added sufficiently to the game. So if we were to expand the range of Spell dealing cards or Poison, it should be accompanied by another reflective shield or poison removal card.
All in all, I don't think it's NEEDED when strictly considering the current balance. But when looking for something new to add to the mix, it wouldn't hurt.
