Elements 1.26

[Essence]

I honestly think that this calls for a -1 cost to Feral Bond.  It was only really popular because of it's ability to ensure an EM against FGs -- and with FFQ already unnecessarily nerfed, Feral Bond's draw rate is going to drop to near-zero levels unless some other new way to get quick creatures out Alpha Wolf pops up in the near future.  Even with a reduced cost, I just don't see Feral Bond getting much play this way.

[jmdt]

I honestly think that this calls for a -1 cost to Feral Bond.  It was only really popular because of it's ability to ensure an EM against FGs -- and with FFQ already unnecessarily nerfed, Feral Bond's draw rate is going to drop to near-zero levels unless some other new way to get quick creatures out Alpha Wolf pops up in the near future.  Even with a reduced cost, I just don't see Feral Bond getting much play this way.

100% in agreement.  Bond could use a -1 or even -2 drop in cost, or more spammable critters for Alpha Wolf

[DrunkDestroyer]

I honestly think that this calls for a -1 cost to Feral Bond.  It was only really popular because of it's ability to ensure an EM against FGs -- and with FFQ already unnecessarily nerfed, Feral Bond's draw rate is going to drop to near-zero levels unless some other new way to get quick creatures out Alpha Wolf pops up in the near future.  Even with a reduced cost, I just don't see Feral Bond getting much play this way.

100% in agreement.  Bond could use a -1 or even -2 drop in cost, or more spammable critters for Alpha Wolf

Also, a very slight buff, make them stack like pillars (yet not targetable by EQ) so they can be protected by one Enchant artifact. Should help lessen the gap between it and SoGs.

[rotface]

loving the new cards 

[plastiqe]

I frown on using this thread to lobby for your card ideas to get added to the game.  If everybody started asking zanz for their cards to get made this thread might implode ! (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,7033.0.html)

So instead I'll lobby for EvaRia's desync fix:

OKAY! I FOLLOWED UP ON THAT^
I THINK I FOUND OUT WHAT'S CAUSING SOME OF THE DESYNCS!

I tested this out by opening up multiple tabs in my browser, opening up elements 4 times, and getting 4 of my accounts to play each other, while doing nothing the entire time. And yes, you can do that.

More or less this is what happens.

Lets say that 2 players play each other.
Player 1 plays some amount of cards and ends their turn. According to player 1's screen, as soon as he clicked the Done button or hit the spacebar, and the attack animation ends, it is now player 2's turn. the timer shows up, and starts running down.
But then this happens- Player 1 and Player 2 are far from each other, so then the information goes through the server and to player 2, and let's say this takes about 15 seconds because of their bad connection. Then player 2 watches a computer recreate player 1's turn exactly, and let's say this takes 5 seconds. At this point the timer on player 1's screen has gone down 20 seconds, and on player 2's screen, it just showed up. I think the game attempts to compensate my matching up the timers (40 seconds). So now lets say player 2, for whatever reason, plays his turn and waits out the entire timer. The information takes another 15 seconds to get back to Player 1. HOWEVER, on player 1's screen, when the timer ran out, he gets the not responding, cpu takeover message when the timer ran out. This lasts 10 seconds. So then, Player 1 plays the CPU, except since player 1 still responds on time, THE CPU DOES NOT TAKE OVER ON PLAYER 2'S SCREEN. As a result, player 1 still sends information about his turns to player 2, but player 2's turn is replaced by a computer. This causes the desync. Now if Player 1 is playing much quicker now that he is against the CPU, more than one turn may show up in information as player 2's opponent while player 2 is taking his own turn. This causes strange things to happen, like negative quanta and playing cards you normally wouldn't be able to, simply because the CPU is processing information from multiple turns and playing it as one turn.

I'm pretty sure you can force these desyncs to happen with a lag switch.

Forget the lag switch, I'm pretty sure you can force desyncs just by waiting out the timer for a few turns.

Here's a desync I got by testing my ideas.

My deck was 60 quantum pillars, nothing else.
I played them as I had them.
I waited all the timers I had to zero and just as I expected, a major desync happened.

The turn before the one I posted, all he had out on the field was like 4 gravity pillars.
Next turn this.
This supports my theory, will post more as I test them out.

Desync test #2, Opened up elements in 2 different windows, pvp dueled each other.
both decks were 60 quantum pillars.
both strats were playing all pillars, then letting the timer run out without clicking done.



window #1



window #2
note that the opponent has not drawn any cards but has pillars on the field, and full hands, in BOTH windows.



the desync message popped up on both screens when the timer length eventually dwindled to 0.
I no longer had enough time to click, and did not gain quanta. However, my opponent did, in both windows.
Note that timers on both windows also disappear.



Eventually, the game decided to give an instant win to one of the windows.



The other game simply froze, and nothing else happened. This screenshot was taken a few minutes after the last one.


Hope this can help Zanz solve some Desync issues^^.

OK, SORRY FOR MULTIPOSTING, but I have arrived at a simple way to fix most of these minor desyncs.

Just a few simple and small changes to the timer/timing out system should do wonders.

Let's draw another scenario-
It is Player 1's turn, Player 2 is waiting.

-Lock player 1's timer so that it always starts at 60, and don't make it shrink.
-Because of connection/animations, Player 2's timer indicating how much time player 1 has left will run out first. (This just happens, not much to do about it).
-When this timer runs out, instead of giving an "Opponent not responding, CPU will take over in __ seconds" message, just make a message show up that says "Waiting for your Opponent", maybe with an hourglass next to it.
-on Player 1's side, when his timer runs out, run a message that says, in the caps, "END YOUR TURN IN __ SECONDS OR YOU WILL LOSE THE MATCH."
-The first time this happens, make it 9 seconds. The second time, 6 seconds. The third time, 3 seconds. and the fourth time is an instant kick. (Remember, this is only on Player 1's side, Player 2 will just have the waiting for your opponent message.)
-If this times out, Player 1 will get sent to the you have lost screen. (Who needs a whole minute to take a turn anyways?)
-AFTER Player 1 has been kicked, Player 2 will get the message "Your opponent has LEFT the game, The CPU will take over in __ seconds."

THIS SHOULD SOLVE MOST OF THE MINOR DESYNC PROBLEMS.

[Memorystick]

About feral bond- while I haven't tested this yet, I've theorized that creatures that die during your turn (i.e. due to infection) will no longer count to feral bond, similarly to how hope currently works. The cards that can cause infection are: virus|retrovirus, plague|improved plague, aflatoxin, grey nymph|death nymph (although afla and the nymph replace it with a malignant cell), chaos seed, pandemonium, parasite|bloodsucker, liquid shadow, black nymph|dark nymph, thorn carapace|spine carapace, and / toadfish (that's 6 elements with access to mass/reusable infection, and others can splash). If I'm right, that's a massive nerf to feral bond, which, frankly, it doesn't need.

As I said, I haven't tested this yet, so I would like someone to check it out (my fail of a desktop isn't really up to the task right now :[) Also, shouldn't feral bond be in the "card changes" board? Or is it there, but my desktop not showing it (which has happened to me before >_>')

[Amilir]

You know "don't use FGs to determine balance"?  Let me add a corollary:  "Don't use EMs to determine balance."  It's idiotic.  Now, feral bond should really have its nerf undone anyway, NOT because of this change, but because it's UP.  FB was only used so much because it was the only decent form of healing widely available.  Miracle is a rare, so it wasn't used in beginner's FG decks, and it doesn't let you EM, so people didn't want to use it solely.  With the FFQ nerf its only other use was nipped in the bid anyway.

Similarly, FFQ didn't really need the nerf.  It was and is used so much because it was the only way to make lots of creatures.  Even now, what else are you going to use?  Pharaoh?  Even more expensive, less damaging, and of a worse element.  Aflatoxin?  Requires two cards and more time to set up.  Also doesn't do much damage.  Low substitutability makes for high usage.

[kobisjeruk]

Bond does NOT need a nerf right now.
Does it cause desync or performance issue before? How critical is this change?
This is a major nerf in my opinion.

[twinsbuster]

Bond does NOT need a nerf right now.
Does it cause desync or performance issue before? How critical is this change?
This is a major nerf in my opinion.

In fact, bond causes bug with the existing coding.
Something like vampire and adrenaline cause extra healing with bond.
Thus, the recode is just a perfect solution,
and causing you harder to EM isn't actually a nerf.

[Drobbit]

New cards:
- More to come

This card is awesome 

Nice! Thanks Zanz

[Daxx]

and causing you harder to EM isn't actually a nerf.

But creatures which die during combat due to poison or a fire shield now do not heal you. That's a nerf.

[catalyzeme]

. The cards that can cause infection are: virus|retrovirus, plague|improved plague, aflatoxin, grey nymph|death nymph (although afla and the nymph replace it with a malignant cell), chaos seed, pandemonium, parasite|bloodsucker, liquid shadow, black nymph|dark nymph, and thorn carapace|spine carapace (that's 4 elements with access to mass/reusable infection, and others can splash).

I think you missed Toadfish. But also, Aflatoxin/Death Nymph wouldn't affect Feral Bond, since you would be replacing the creature 1:1 anyway. The rest are valid, though, and I agree that maybe a 1 decrease in cost could be warranted.