Tick | Tock

[Dragoon1140]

Show that it can be implemented in the game without variables or coding issues.

Actually, Zanz said himself in chat that anything is possible in the game, it is just a matter of how long it takes to program.

[Kael Hate]

Show that it can be implemented in the game without variables or coding issues.

Actually, Zanz said himself in chat that anything is possible in the game, it is just a matter of how long it takes to program.

Maybe I should change that to "Show that it can be implemented in the game Plausibly without variables or coding issues."

If the effort costs more than the worth both in development and testing, why would Zanz want to do it?
The Idea is to make the idea Attractive to Zanz so he wants to put it in the game.

[Dragoon1140]

Maybe I should change that to "Show that it can be implemented in the game Plausibly without variables or coding issues."

Okay, I gotcha now.

Regardless, this idea is still one of the best from the community.

[Kael Hate]

Maybe I should change that to "Show that it can be implemented in the game Plausibly without variables or coding issues."

Okay, I gotcha now.

Regardless, this idea is still one of the best from the community.

Hell Yeah, thats why its in the Armory.
Still Zanz took Phoenix and the idea  of Voodoo Doll but no Armory idea yet.
There is no guarantee that he ever will, but I have great feeling if he did.

[Kuroaitou]

Ok, we have awesome art by VRT assumingly offered to Zanz for free use.
We have a great idea accepted by the community enough to make the armoury.
How do we turn this into a perfect idea Zanz will want to port into the game?

Objectives -
Reduce the card text
Prove Maths wise that is fair
Show that it can be implemented in the game without variables or coding issues.

Game play testing will easily solve the latter two problems/objectives, but I think we're going to have an issue in trying to simplify the card text. There are at least 6 lines on the card (which is difficult as is) in a different font/size, which means that if you have to reduce the card text to around the 4-5 line limit, a lot of the words need to be cut out somehow.

My suggestion- From:

" :Maintenance
Tick gains +0/+1
Tick enters the game poisoned.
When Tick dies it deals damage
to opponent equal to twice the
number of turns it was in play."

...try this perhaps?:

" : Maintenance
Tick gains +0/+1.
Tick is poisoned & deals 2*N
damage to opponent when killed.
N = turns in play."

Of course, that's still five lines, but I can't figure out how to shorten it any further than this... (P.S. - I love Time ideas. )

[kev]

First off I just realized I haven't thanked vrt in this thread.  I thanked him in chat for what is obviously a tremendous improvement in the art.  The original art is a clock in my stairwell taken with a camera phone while I shook my hand.  An artist I am not. 

Ok, we have awesome art by VRT assumingly offered to Zanz for free use.
We have a great idea accepted by the community enough to make the armoury.
How do we turn this into a perfect idea Zanz will want to port into the game?

Objectives -
Reduce the card text
Proove Maths wise that is fair
Show that it can be implemented in the game without variables or coding issues.

It's a noble goal.  I'll do my part but it'll need help.

Regardless, this idea is still one of the best from the community.

Thanks!  Given the amount of really good and interesting ideas pouring into the Crucible daily, your words are very kind.

Still Zanz took Phoenix and the idea  of Voodoo Doll but no Armory idea yet.
There is no guarantee that he ever will, but I have great feeling if he did.

If zanz were to regularly check the Armory and at least once adopt a card from here... well it'd at least partly validate the work done by all here and the process of moving community approved cards to another tier.

" : Maintenance
Tick gains +0/+1.
Tick is poisoned & deals 2*N
damage to opponent when killed.
N = turns in play."

I'm afraid that sounds like the Maintenance ability poisons Tick.  I'm obviously partial to the original text, but I just saw that there are currently no cards with over four lines of text.  So how about this instead:

  : Maintenance (+0/+1)
Tick enters poisoned.  Damages
opponent for twice the number
of turns in play when killed.

[Kuroaitou]

" : Maintenance
Tick gains +0/+1.
Tick is poisoned & deals 2*N
damage to opponent when killed.
N = turns in play."

I'm afraid that sounds like the Maintenance ability poisons Tick.  I'm obviously partial to the original text, but I just saw that there are currently no cards with over four lines of text.  So how about this instead:

  : Maintenance (+0/+1)
Tick enters poisoned.  Damages
opponent for twice the number
of turns in play when killed.

Even BETTER! (Although I've never seen the ability 'function' on the same line as the name itself, or " : Maintenance (+0/+1)", I say that this text is probably the most concise it could get (unless we find synonyms with the words opponent, damages, and other words to shorten it even further. ))

[Mavyrk]

Why call it "Maintenance"?

Why not take this opportunity to provide the game with a reverse mechanic to ablaze?

New ability - Fortify: Creature gains +0/+1

Tick/Tock could have the ability Fortify, and you could implement Fortify on other creatures, as well as spells that grant creatures fortify, and all other kinds of things.

[Kuroaitou]

Why call it "Maintenance"?

Why not take this opportunity to provide the game with a reverse mechanic to ablaze?

New ability - Fortify: Creature gains +0/+1

Tick/Tock could have the ability Fortify, and you could implement Fortify on other creatures, as well as spells that grant creatures fortify, and all other kinds of things.

Because it sounds less cool?

In all seriousness though, the name of the ability shouldn't matter TOO much, but having a clock 'fortify' itself seems to be a very confusing concept, whereas maintenance actually makes sense (you maintain a clock to keep it running longer, while fortifying directly implies improving the defense of a creature or living being in my opinion). Fortify would be an interesting complimentary ability to Ablaze, nonetheless...

[Mavyrk]

Why call it "Maintenance"?

Why not take this opportunity to provide the game with a reverse mechanic to ablaze?

New ability - Fortify: Creature gains +0/+1

Tick/Tock could have the ability Fortify, and you could implement Fortify on other creatures, as well as spells that grant creatures fortify, and all other kinds of things.

Because it sounds less cool?

In all seriousness though, the name of the ability shouldn't matter TOO much, but having a clock 'fortify' itself seems to be a very confusing concept, whereas maintenance actually makes sense (you maintain a clock to keep it running longer, while fortifying directly implies improving the defense of a creature or living being in my opinion). Fortify would be an interesting complimentary ability to Ablaze, nonetheless...

This issue could be ameliorated by clever use of thesauri.

Maintenance and Fortify both share synonyms: support, sustain.

Sustain sounds like it could fit both this mechanic flavorwise, and a general +0/+1 mechanic. Support is more iffy however.

[SunnyGreens]

Why not just use "wind"? You have to keep winding the clock to keep it ticking, and when it runs out...kaboom.

[kev]

Even BETTER!  (Although I've never seen the ability 'function' on the same line as the name itself

Yeah, I had to cheat a bit.

Why not just use "wind"?

I considered it.  I think I was worried it might be read wind the noun meaning "movement of air" rather than wind the verb meaning "what one does to a watch."  Meh.  I like them both and it probably doesn't matter a ton.

Objectives -
Reduce the card text
Proove Maths wise that is fair
Show that it can be implemented in the game without variables or coding issues.

One down?  I spoke to the Maths earlier in the thread (here  (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,6640.msg79701#msg79701) and here (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,6640.msg92633#msg92633)), and without actually testing the card I can't make a better case.  If someone with more Maths skillz wants to take a shot, be my guest.

As far as the coding goes, I really can't speak to it.  The best I can offer is that the suggestion was made to add a counter or bauble, and I think the card COULD be done without the extra coding required to accomplish this.  It'd certainly change things if both players are unsure exactly how long a Tick has been in play...