Natural Selection | Evolution

[OldTrees]

"We can see from Thorn Carapace that randomness is not monopolized by Entropy but Entropy has more randomness."

as long as this card involves mutants or similar effects to mutants, it should in no way be mono-life, devoid of it's mother element, .  and honestly i cant think of a method to do so if he is dead set on it being a spell and not a creature or permanent with a related skill.  could go into pseudo-quanta, though.

also considering % chance to be randomness is weak- i think that there is a big difference between "one of these many things are equally likely to occur" and "this one thing will occur roughly every 3 out of 4 times".  but that is not the issue here.  i have no problem with %chance of an effect cards in any element.  but this card does not fit that category.

I addressed Mutation and Randomness separately in my previous post. I also addressed the difference between how random Entropy is compared to the diluted randomness found in Thorn Carapace.

The major discussion here is whether Mutation is specific is a core mechanic (aka Entropy should have a monopoly), a major mechanic (Entropy should have the greatest share and a few others get diluted versions), a minor mechanic (Entropy should have more variants but some others get a copy) or a universal mechanic (all elements get a share).
Moomoose believes Mutation is a core mechanic.
OldTrees believes Mutation is a major mechanic. I believe that biased luck is Entropy's core mechanic related to mutation.
We both agree that mass mutation per turn in mono Life would not be giving Entropy its due. I feel a more predictable, slower version (aka dilution) would give Entropy its due despite being mono Life.

[Xenocidius]

I changed the non-upgraded version to more fit the name of 'Natural Selection'. Creatures have a 10% chance to die each turn.



This perfectly illustrates the 'adapt or die' theme, but unfortunately, it does push it closer to Mutation.

It's a tough issue for me, really. While I believe that the card perfectly fits the theme of Life, I admit that it is mechanically closer to Entropy. However, theme > mechanic when choosing element in my opinion. So it shall stay Life for now.

[OldTrees]

It's a tough issue for me, really. While I believe that the card perfectly fits the theme of Life, I admit that it is mechanically closer to Entropy. However, theme > mechanic when choosing element in my opinion. So it shall stay Life for now.

Since theme and mechanic are modules that are put together, one never needs to compromise on one to achieve the other. Theme does not exceed mechanic. Theme + Mechanic => Element.

Since the mechanic is the problem component, it would be wise to tweak the mechanic until both fit Life better than they do now.

[mega plini]

seems a bit to overshadow mutation.

[Scaredgirl]

If we already have an ability "Devour", why would we want an ability called "Devourer" that does something completely different?

I think it's also important to understand that game developers make mistakes all the time. Although in most cases we should use current Elements cards as examples of the right way of doing things, we shouldn't follow it blindly. I personally think that "Devourer" was not the best choice of words because it can be confused with the ability "Devour". It's not the end of the world of course, but choosing a more unique name would have been better. And it most certainly does not mean that because Elements has done something like that once, it suddenly becomes "good game design".

But still I think there is a subtle difference between Evolve/Evolution and Devour/Devourer. If I understand correctly, the word "evolve" points directly to evolution, whereas Devourer can mean pretty much anything. That doesn't make Devour/Devourer a great choice of course, but the fact that it's a bit vague, makes it suck less. If we have a card in the game with an ability called "Evolve" and uses to pay for it, we should seriously considered including that somewhere when evolution theme is used.

I just find it weird that we have card called "Mutation" that is , card with the ability "Evolve" that costs , and now you suggest a card called "Evolution" that is . Isn't that mixing themes, mechanics and quanta a bit too much?

The idea that randomness should be exclusive to Entropy is wrong (see Dusk Mantle and Fog Shield).

Please read my post again and you will see that what I said goes way beyond "Entropy is randomness". It's the mutation part that is the main problem. Here are the cards that use similar mechanics:



How many cards use similar mechanics? Zero.

I think it's pretty clear that the reason Fallen Elf uses to pay for that mutation, is not because mutation fits . If it did, would have Mutation card, not . The reason is because Fallen Elf had to use off-element quanta to pay for its ability so that it wouldn't be too OP. Like I said before, that is there just as "fuel" or "food" to pay for the mutation that comes from .

You suggest that it should entail all parts of Evolution, and yet you are also the one who argued that there is no need for Elements to be that scientifically accurate.

What I actually said was that it doesn't have to have all the parts but it must include the main idea. Lets take Rustler as an example.



Photosynthesis is a more complex process than the version Rustler uses, but the main idea is still there, so it works just fine. I am repeating myself here, but I'll say it again. The card you have now only does mass mutation. There is no real evolution mechanics involved. The main thing of evolution is species adapting to their environment, and you didn't include that part.

How would you make it encompass the other parts of real evolution as well?

I posted one suggestion already. Here:

As for the mechanics.. I think the idea would be much cooler if the creatures would adapt to their situation, because evolution is not really about random things happening, it's about natural selection and survival of the fittest. Here's how I would do it:

EXAMPLE 1:
Your opponent bolts down one creature. All other creatures would gain +1 HP.

EXAMPLE 2:
Your opponent plays a Shield. All your creatures would gain +1 Attack.

EXAMPLE 3:
Your opponent plays Dimensional Shield, all your creatures would gain Momentum.

EXAMPLE 4:
Otyugh eats your creature. All other creatures would become poisonous (cause poisoning in ingested)

Just like Photosynthesis in Elements, this does not describe the evolution process 100% accurately, but it has the main point, which is creatures adapting to their environments. Best part is of course that because mutation is not mentioned at all, and is not part of the mechanics, the card could easily be put in . It's of course not perfect and I'm not saying this is the only way to do it, but I think it fits the theme of evolution much better.

If you decide to keep the card idea as it is and as a mass mutation card, that is of course your privilege. Although I personally think that the interesting theme of evolution would be wasted if you did.


Lets do one final experiment. I will now remake the card idea as an card and we can compare the two.

BEFORE

AFTER

If you look at these two cards, which one makes more sense?

[Manipul8r]

Read this a while back and thought it was a bit awkward.  If it turns everything into mutants, it should probably be .  Scaredgirl's visual really confirmed it for me, but stubborn ones who made up their mind early might not be convinced (which seems prevalent on this thread - and, coincidentally, evolution versus creation debates everywhere ).

While reading the responses, here's something I thought of for a card that I feel could be called "Evolution" - When one of your creatures dies, there is an X% chance that you will generate a copy of one of your other creatures.

[Xenocidius]

@Scaredgirl: I actually like your idea. A lot. Two big problems though:

It's too complex.It's your idea; I can hardly change my card to it, because then it's not my card idea.

BEFORE

AFTER

If you look at these two cards, which one makes more sense?

It's easy to remake a card in a different element.

BEFORE

AFTER

Mass Mutation has no theme. Natural Selection does.

[OldTrees]

While reading the responses, here's something I thought of for a card that I feel could be called "Evolution" - When one of your creatures dies, there is an X% chance that you will generate a copy of one of your other creatures.

Nice mechanic. However it is different enough from the current mechanic that it might be better off as a new thread.

[Scaredgirl]

@Scaredgirl: I actually like your idea. A lot. Two big problems though:

It's too complex.It's your idea; I can hardly change my card to it, because then it's not my card idea.

1. It would probably be complex in terms of coding (something that should be ignored during card idea brainstorming), but in terms of gameplay it's actually very simple to use and understand. It would be no different from a card like Pandemonium that can produce many different effects. Just because a card can produce many different effects, does not mean it is automatically complex.

2. Well, that's kind of what we do here: give ideas and suggestions for improvement Sticking with your original idea even though you like some other idea by someone else better, is kind of against the whole point of these card idea discussions. If we did that, we wouldn't really be asking for ideas for improvement, we would only be asking for people to agree with us. This is of course up to each individual card designer because they make the final call on what changes are made, but ultimately it's the community that votes, and not listening to feedback could lead to a poll defeat.

It's easy to remake a card in a different element.

You are missing the point. It's not just about remaking a card in a different element. The point was that when we already have an card called "Mutation", and when you make a card that does mass mutation, it's pretty logical that this card goes to as well. You are basically forcing the card to go to , although mechanically it's a perfect fit in .

Mass Mutation has no theme. Natural Selection does.

Mass Mutation does have a theme. It's a spell that mutates creatures. It has a theme just like a spell called "Fireball" would have. And for the record, I wasn't suggesting you changed the card to "Mass Mutation" because that would be lame and too close to Pandemonium. I was just trying to show visually how much more sense the current card would make as an card with a different theme.

While reading the responses, here's something I thought of for a card that I feel could be called "Evolution" - When one of your creatures dies, there is an X% chance that you will generate a copy of one of your other creatures.

Nice mechanic. However it is different enough from the current mechanic that it might be better off as a new thread.

Yea, that's a pretty interesting idea. It would be a kind of an alternative version to Bonewall. Not super excited about the percentage thing though, but removing it could make this card really OP if it stacks and is not too expensive. Hmm.. I need to think about this some more..

And yes, it would need a dedicated topic.

[mildlyfrightenedboy]

Mass Mutation has no theme. Natural Selection does.

Mass Mutation has the same theme as Mutation.  The theme is mutation of a creature into a completely new creature through radioactivity and other sciencey stuff, randomizing all of its stats.  If Mass Mutation has no theme, then Mutation must not either.


In that case, Natural Selection and Mass Mutation are two different themes, but which fits this card the best?  Right now, sadly, Mass Mutation is the perfect thematic match for the effect of the card.

Personally, I would like to see this as a single-target Entropy card in which every creature of the same type evolves into the same random mutant.  Evolution is, in a nutshell, caused by a series of dominant-gene mutations that, over the course of time, change an entire race.  Personally, I think it would work best thematically for the current card if it was an Entropy card that actually evolved an entire species into an entire new species, probably a one-time thing as well.

For instance, if I were to have three Elite Cockatrices on the field, and I targeted one of them, the entire race of Elite Cockatrices would evolve into the same creature. 

Side Note: Any creature with the same skill would gain the same skill as the target, and any creature with the same stats would have the same stats as the target.  Any creatures with a different skill would gain a random skill and any creature with different stats would have their stats randomized.  I'm not sure if this part is completely necessary, but it would be interesting to experiment with whether or not to randomize all of your creatures together, or leave a few separate in case the final product is not what you intended.  If a species contained X% outlier creatures with different traits than the rest of the creatures, then one can assume that it is relevant of the species's genetic stability and likeliness to develop certain genetic mutations, and the percentage would remain constant.

EDIT:  Hmm, I guess that this ^^(post above) is what happens when you don't refresh your page for a while...

[Xenocidius]

After some thinking, I decided to remake the card using Manipul8r's suggestion (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,33604.msg461640#msg461640) and my own idea for the upgraded version.

You can see the remade card here (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,34415). Let's move relevant discussion there.

Topic locked.