Elements the Game Forum - Free Online Fantasy Card Game

Elements the Game => Level 3 - Armory => Card Ideas and Art => Anvil Archive => Topic started by: moomoose on October 27, 2010, 10:39:22 pm

Title: Battlestar | Galactic Battlestar
Post by: moomoose on October 27, 2010, 10:39:22 pm

(http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/8334/battlestar.png)	(http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/2978/battlestaru.png)
NAME: Battlestar ELEMENT: Aether COST: 4 :aether TYPE: Creature ATK|HP: 3|2 TEXT: Generates a spark after each successful attack	NAME: Galactic Battlestar ELEMENT: Aether COST: 6 :aether TYPE: Creature ATK|HP: 6|4 TEXT: Generates a ball lightning after each successful attack

ART: public domain (we should all know that by now after the card competition) IDEA: moomoose NOTES: This card will not produce a spark or ball lightning if the attack is not successful. The spark or ball lightning will attack and die immediately after coming into play. This card is based off my starfish from the 3 epic card competition submission.  Grow was replaced with a minor stat increase (and cost increase) and the element was changed to aether from water. Cost analysis: unupped) 3 attack + 1 skill = 4 upgraded) 6 attack + 1 skill -1 upgraded = 6 So say we all. SERIES:

Title: Re: Battlestar | Galactic Battlestar
Post by: Uppercut on October 27, 2010, 10:56:08 pm

11/4 for 6 that activates all death triggers every turn seems slightly OP.

Title: Re: Battlestar | Galactic Battlestar
Post by: coinich on October 27, 2010, 10:57:27 pm

Love the name, but wouldn't it be closer to: Basestar|Cylon Base Star

Title: Re: Battlestar | Galactic Battlestar
Post by: moomoose on October 27, 2010, 11:00:09 pm

uppercut, it isnt 11 and it isnt every turn.  that would be assuming that the attack is always successful, which is not always the case.

coin, that would be taking it too far and i think a little something would be lost

Title: Re: Battlestar | Galactic Battlestar
Post by: coinich on October 27, 2010, 11:03:54 pm

Ehh, I just see the star shape and think otherwise.

I'm also watching BSG: Razor later tonight so its been on my mind. :D

Title: Re: Battlestar | Galactic Battlestar
Post by: Uppercut on October 27, 2010, 11:07:55 pm

Quote from: moomoose on October 27, 2010, 11:00:09 pm

uppercut, it isnt 11 and it isnt every turn.  that would be assuming that the attack is always successful, which is not always the case.

It is essentially an 11/4 for 6, 6+5 from Ball Lightning. And yes, as far as card design I assume creatures will hit, because thats the purpose of playing them.

Title: Re: Battlestar | Galactic Battlestar
Post by: moomoose on October 27, 2010, 11:14:04 pm

you cant assume that all attacks will be successful, otherwise there would be no "upon successful attack" cards in the game, they would just be "this happens every turn" cards.  and even if it is a successful hit despite a shield reducing the damage, the fact that it is split between a spark and a battlestar would double the damage reduced by the shield, so if it were a -2 shield, the battlestar would do 1 damage and so would the spark.  for the upped, if it was a -3 shield the galactic battlestar would do 3 damage and the ball lightning would do 2 - twice as much damage reduction than would be done if it were simplified to one creature as you want to do.

Title: Re: Battlestar | Galactic Battlestar
Post by: Uppercut on October 27, 2010, 11:20:56 pm

A card having a counter doesn't make it not broken in a vacuum.

Title: Re: Battlestar | Galactic Battlestar
Post by: moomoose on October 27, 2010, 11:31:00 pm

even in the best case scenario, the upped has a worse attack|cost ratio than an upped grabloid, and a very slightly better ratio than phase spider.  but that ratio plummets faster than theirs when shields are involved.

Title: Re: Battlestar | Galactic Battlestar
Post by: Uppercut on October 27, 2010, 11:41:00 pm

It has an attack/cost ratio worse than a card that everyone considers OP and has better attack/cost ratio in a card thats frequently in speed bow decks because of its good attack/cost ratio. Thanks for proving my point.

Title: Re: Battlestar | Galactic Battlestar
Post by: Seiya on October 27, 2010, 11:51:28 pm

Quote from: Uppercut on October 27, 2010, 11:20:56 pm

A card having a counter doesn't make it not broken in a vacuum.

This should be one of the things in the sticky about designing cards.

That being said, I don't believe this is unfixable.  Simply increasing the cost should suffice.  By a successful attack do you mean that the attack cannot be impeded in any way?  (Example: Fire Shield allows the damage to go through, but at a cost to hp.  Does that mean that the attack was successful?) 

Title: Re: Battlestar | Galactic Battlestar
Post by: AnonymousRevival on October 28, 2010, 12:06:42 am

Don't you think it is OP? You can fractal the sparks, I suggest to lower the stats or increase the cost.

Title: Re: Battlestar | Galactic Battlestar
Post by: moomoose on October 28, 2010, 12:15:16 am

no, you cannot fractal the sparks.  "The spark or ball lightning will attack and die in the same turn in which it was produced."

seiya, a successful attack is when damage is done, much like when applying poison.  and more to that point, a forest scorpion could be more powerful in a vacuum than this card, as the poison will continuously get bigger, while the sparks stay the same size.

i wouldnt have an issue lowering the atk of the upped version, but the cost would go down too.

Title: Re: Battlestar | Galactic Battlestar
Post by: AnonymousRevival on October 28, 2010, 07:38:13 am

Well, I guess it is a balanced card then, the only problem is that if the opponent has boneyard, but if you have shield, no worries.

Title: Re: Battlestar | Galactic Battlestar
Post by: MrMojo on October 28, 2010, 07:59:52 am

What happens if you strap on an adrenaline to that...

Title: Re: Battlestar | Galactic Battlestar
Post by: jmizzle7 on October 28, 2010, 09:17:48 am

Actually, you can generate a Spark in an earlier creature slot with this card easily. Assuming an empty creature field, you can summon a Spark into creature slot #1, then a Battlestar into slot #2. The Spark will attack and die, then the Battlestar will attack and generate a Spark in slot #1. Then you can Fractal the Spark on the following turn. Of course, this is a very intense card with Adrenaline as well, as a Spark would be generated for every successful attack. Battlestar would gain three attacks for a total of four (each dealing 3 damage), and then there would be another 12 damage dealt from the Sparks generated. I'd say that's pretty fast.

Title: Re: Battlestar | Galactic Battlestar
Post by: moomoose on October 28, 2010, 10:07:27 pm

there would be the limitation rule that are on most effects associated with successful attacks, limit of 2 per turn.  and im sure theres a coding solution around the previous slot effect that could cause them to stay alive for a turn- i dont want them to be in a fractal sparks deck.  cross that bridge when we get there.

Title: Re: Battlestar | Galactic Battlestar
Post by: AnonymousRevival on October 29, 2010, 12:50:34 pm

Good idea.

Title: Re: Battlestar | Galactic Battlestar
Post by: coinich on October 29, 2010, 02:14:01 pm

Immaterial Sparks?  Buffing and Fractaling solved.

Title: Re: Battlestar | Galactic Battlestar
Post by: AnonymousRevival on October 30, 2010, 08:55:53 am

Even if it isn't immaterial, it doesn't matter. It is because a spark is generated right after the battlestar attacks and it attacks as well.

Title: Re: Battlestar | Galactic Battlestar
Post by: coinich on October 31, 2010, 02:44:29 pm

Doesn't that depend on what slot it goes to however?

Title: Re: Battlestar | Galactic Battlestar
Post by: Higurashi on October 31, 2010, 02:49:01 pm

Adrenaline the unupped version and use Bone Walls. :D
This could be really powerful, but it takes a bit of setting up. I like.

Title: Re: Battlestar | Galactic Battlestar
Post by: moomoose on November 15, 2011, 09:44:44 pm

wow, the competition idea from forever ago finally got to level 2 ha

Title: Re: Battlestar | Galactic Battlestar
Post by: Isei on November 20, 2011, 03:10:09 pm

As stated before in this topic, the main problem is adrenaline.

Unupped: 3 (base) + 3 (Spark) + 9 (Adrenaline) + 9 (Extra sparks) = 24 damage/turn in 8 total quanta from 2 elements.
Upped: 6 (base) + 5 (Blight) + 6 (Adrenaline) + 10 (Blight) = 27 damage/turn in 9 total quanta from 2 elements.

It's much more powerful with the unupped, and I feel that it needs to be rebalanced somewhat.  Just adding +1 to each cost and attack of the unupped version changes it to:

Unupped: 4 (base) + 3 (Spark) + 5 (Adrenaline) + 6 (Extra Sparks) = 18 damage/turn in 9 total quanta from 2 elements.

Seems much more reasonable to me.

Title: Re: Battlestar | Galactic Battlestar
Post by: furballdn on November 20, 2011, 07:17:37 pm

I feel the price should be higher a bit. Right now it's 4 :aether for effectively 6 damage per turn or 6 :aether for 11 damage per turn with death effects happening as well. The high 3 attack means the only shields that can block it are dimensional shield or titanium shield or bone wall.

Title: Re: Battlestar | Galactic Battlestar
Post by: moomoose on November 21, 2011, 01:35:23 am

too simple a way of looking at it.  even if a shield doesnt block all of the damage and a spark is made, it will block some of the damage of the battlestar and some of the damage of the spark- twice as much as a creature with the combined attack values of battlestar/spark.  the bonus: extra damage on successful attacks; the drawback: shields are at least 2x more effective against this creature than any other creature.

Title: Re: Battlestar | Galactic Battlestar
Post by: zerokooelr91 on November 21, 2011, 09:15:40 pm

Nice card :) I really like it! Good Work. With adreanaline is massive damage, but I think that any shield would remove the problem :)

Title: Re: Battlestar | Galactic Battlestar
Post by: salox on November 29, 2011, 05:34:00 am

about the situation of having an empty creature slot with a lower indexation, , you could force the sparks to generate on higher index creature slots
and I also think it's OP, specially the upped version
loved the idea though

Title: Re: Battlestar | Galactic Battlestar
Post by: moomoose on November 29, 2011, 11:02:41 pm

the index issue has been brought up before, but it can be adjusted for to have the spark immediately attack after generation- even if it's slot is out of turn.

Title: Re: Battlestar | Galactic Battlestar
Post by: Dengeki on November 30, 2011, 11:57:08 pm

well i can see, from reading these posts. that you feal the fact that its, technecally a 6atk, and then a 11atk. is too simplified. but its not. you have to take full best case when evaluating the effects. doesnt matter that shield is going to effect its variables twice or not. and if this card is a shield based survival card as it seems from the previous arguments, then why isnt the defence of the upd version 6, so that all the shields has a chance to effect it. it is however an optional control for the boneshield, which i think there should be more options to battle it. also just want to clarrify i love this creature, but am slightly against its stats, atm. but the ability is good and thematic. and also i am curious as to how adrenaline is going to effect it. i really see no reason why "succesfull attack" is nessesary, if phase shield stops it so doesnt the spark get stopped. and bone shield technecally stops it, then the extra spark also wont pop and isnt as usefull for that. i would seriously reverse both versions powers, and defence. then it becomes a generally 5damage/9damage. twice effected. and really its not even twice effected since shields will only hit ea. one once.  if i didnt make these opionions very clear sorry, tried too, and i hope they make sence. 
 :darkness

Title: Re: Battlestar | Galactic Battlestar
Post by: moomoose on December 02, 2011, 01:29:19 am

it is too simplified to only consider the best case scenario, extreme example- creature has 10|10 stats but dies when targeted, you cant assume it will never be targeted, the targeted aspect is a balancing mechanism.  just as "successful attack" and splitting the damage between two creatures are balancing mechanisms with this card.  things arent black and white, best case scenario this card will do full damage, worst case it will do 0 and not spawn a spark (makes it less useful against bone walls, another balancing mechanism), middle ground scenarios the spark and the battlestar *each* will do reduced damage (if the shield is -3 damage, both will be reduced by 3, to a total of 6, rather than if it were a single creature with their combined attack values, which would only be reduced by 3).

Title: Re: Battlestar | Galactic Battlestar
Post by: Arum on July 27, 2012, 08:17:00 pm

SoW attacks?

Title: Re: Battlestar | Galactic Battlestar
Post by: teffy on August 02, 2012, 09:24:23 pm

I would suggest to reduce the attack to 1 or 2, this way it can be blocked by some underused shields (like Jade Shield, Tower Shield, Solar Shield and so on). It would still be a valuable card in combination with death - maybe too powerful compared to Schrödinger´s cat. Also this + mutation can be a useful combination.

Title: Re: Battlestar | Galactic Battlestar
Post by: Trollinator on August 02, 2012, 10:06:28 pm

Duo  :death :aether
Mark:   :aether
5 soul catchers
5 bonewalls
10  :aether pillars
6 'stars
3 Fractal
1 Lobotomizer

WIN

Title: Re: Battlestar | Galactic Battlestar
Post by: Higurashi on August 02, 2012, 10:11:16 pm

Ain't gonna get a single Wall up before you die. Soul Catchers, son.

Yeah, I still like this card. I've always liked death effects and slowly building up in card games.

Title: Re: Battlestar | Galactic Battlestar
Post by: Trollinator on August 02, 2012, 10:14:21 pm

Ya, Higs, I thought of that right after I hit "post."  Post has been changed.  Battlestar will definitely change the metagame...

Title: Re: Battlestar | Galactic Battlestar
Post by: UndeadSpider1990 on August 06, 2012, 02:22:17 am

Quote from: coinich on October 27, 2010, 10:57:27 pm

Love the name, but wouldn't it be closer to: Basestar|Cylon Base Star

That's funny, coz I was just about to say "I like the idea, but not so sure about the upped name!"

Title: Re: Battlestar | Galactic Battlestar
Post by: reshiucS on March 03, 2013, 05:46:39 pm

For previous mentioned reasons i'd reduce the attack of the battlestars but remove the condition of a succesful attack to spawn a spark. That way its use (to activate death trigger in a fun way) is more reliable and its attack is not overwhelming in some cases and useless in others. I prefer cards to serve their purpose and not gamble between two and none.

Title: Re: Battlestar | Galactic Battlestar
Post by: skyironsword on March 20, 2013, 09:42:35 pm

I love the card! Assuming that shield effects activate twice is a practical -1 to attack, then we have a 4 :aether for *5 attack and 6 :aether for *10 attack. Finding equivalent cards, one second...

*5/2 vs. Sapphire Charger: 5/4; the first cost 4 while the second cost 5. One quanta is not worth two health, however it is worth two health and momentum. Unupped is fine.

*10/4 vs. unupped Amethyst Dragon: 10/5; the first cost 6 while the second cost 10. One health is not worth four quanta. I don't care how many counters there are to this, one health is not worth four quanta. This is including the fact that shields activate twice.

I like the card, but you should increase the cost of the upped to 8. The only reason it isn't 9 or 10 is because it's upgraded. 8 should do fine.

Title: Re: Battlestar | Galactic Battlestar
Post by: oblivion1212 on March 20, 2013, 11:55:51 pm

dat delicious synergy with :life adrenalin/epinephrine  :P  :o

Title: Re: Battlestar | Galactic Battlestar
Post by: has99 on March 23, 2013, 09:11:06 am

Good card,, i love the upgraded one more  ;D

Title: Re: Battlestar | Galactic Battlestar
Post by: Hazardus10 on March 23, 2013, 10:30:03 am

This is a great idea, although I think due to it passive skill being so powerful, maybe up the cost by 1 quanta. Since adrenaline can be applied, this card is quite strong.

Title: Re: Battlestar | Galactic Battlestar
Post by: skyironsword on March 23, 2013, 09:35:09 pm

Adrenaline would probably only take effect on every other hit, just like Scorpion.

Title: Re: Battlestar | Galactic Battlestar
Post by: legion_bre on April 25, 2013, 04:43:17 pm

Quote from: coinich on October 27, 2010, 10:57:27 pm

Love the name, but wouldn't it be closer to: Basestar|Cylon Base Star

Certainly if we consider this a creature - Cylon baseships are actually alive and so are "creatures" too. Looks like a good idea that is reasonably balanced and have to love the reference to BSG.

Title: Re: Battlestar | Galactic Battlestar
Post by: Chapuz on June 07, 2013, 04:00:57 pm

I see both images broken