Post by: AnnaMall on June 26, 2012, 06:28:53 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/9euPd.png) | (http://i.imgur.com/ScItg.png) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Post by: Rutarete on June 26, 2012, 06:52:32 pm
Post by: harry88 on June 26, 2012, 06:54:51 pm
Post by: AnnaMall on June 26, 2012, 07:08:32 pm
The way I imagine this: 23 card stack for a 30 card deck. Majority of games end by turn 15 or so. 2-3 turns to put it on board. It starts to make a difference around round 12-13. Does this sound a bit on the OP side?
Post by: n00b on June 26, 2012, 07:13:03 pm
On the other hand, an interesting form of denial plus the first weapon not able to be flown, good job
Post by: RRQJ on June 26, 2012, 07:25:09 pm
Post by: AnnaMall on June 26, 2012, 07:39:18 pm
why immaterial?
I think of it as a card that needs a deck to be built around it in order to work, so a PC would totally destroy that deck. Secondly needs to be in field for multiple turns in order to make a difference. So it seemed reasonable to make it untargetable.
Post by: Drake_XIV on June 26, 2012, 07:43:45 pm
Immaterial prevents Endow.
Post by: AnnaMall on June 26, 2012, 07:54:12 pm
Maybe make it destroy card in-deck for every 10 damage it does?
Immaterial prevents Endow.
Then dmg need to be upped. Destroy a card every 3 turns for unupped not including damage reduction seems UP.
Another thought was using the life quanta pool, eg destroy ala fahrenheit but that can spiral out of control easier.
Post by: esran on June 26, 2012, 09:07:18 pm
Post by: OldTrees on June 26, 2012, 09:17:23 pm
why immaterial?
I think of it as a card that needs a deck to be built around it in order to work, so a PC would totally destroy that deck. Secondly needs to be in field for multiple turns in order to make a difference. So it seemed reasonable to make it untargetable.
PC would slow but not stop such a deck. Immaterial is unnecessary. (It is good to see decent reasons for the oft overused immaterial though. Well thought out.)
I also find it strange that a Life weapon would not be able to be animated. I do see balance issues arising if animated though. Is there another mechanic that can be used to solve those issues instead?
Otherwise it looks fairly balanced.
Post by: esran on June 26, 2012, 09:19:07 pm
Post by: OldTrees on June 26, 2012, 09:20:16 pm
well i actually like immaterial to prevent crusader abuse.Crusader abuse would be expensive enough not to be a problem.
Post by: manaboy100 on June 27, 2012, 04:27:10 pm
Post by: Drake_XIV on June 27, 2012, 04:37:52 pm
Immaterial to prevent ADRENALINE abuse :\
Well, the flying prevention effectively stops that before immaterial...
Post by: AnnaMall on June 28, 2012, 04:52:42 am
Turn 3 wand, turn 3 crusader, turn 4 endow. So in 12 turns assuming no CC and PC (endowed crusader is prety CC resistant at 5/6), wand and crusader would have destroyed 17 opponents cards and another 12 normally drawn. A win in round 12-13 by deckout depending on coin toss.
A more PC proof play style: turn 7 2x crusaders, turn 8 wand and endow both . So in 13 turns assuming no CC and PC (endowed crusader is prety CC resistant 5/6), wand and crusader would have destroyed 18 opponents cards and another 12 normally drawn. A win in round 13-14 by deckout depending on coin toss.
If my calculations are correct this looks a bit on the OP zone. IMO imaterial has to stay for the above reasons. Even vs PC a deckout is possible in 15-ish rounds.
What do you think?
Post by: OldTrees on June 28, 2012, 05:31:08 am
quick calculations: lose immaterial, light life duo, unupped, 30 vs 30 cards decks.How fast does Crusader + a damage focused 3 cost weapon win?
If my calculations are correct this looks a bit on the OP zone. What do you think?
Post by: eaglgenes101 on June 28, 2012, 06:02:11 am
Post by: esran on June 28, 2012, 06:32:52 am
Post by: AnnaMall on June 28, 2012, 05:18:08 pm
What about having 0 (or negative) flying HP? That would force another card into an adrenamoth combo, weakening it enough to make it balanced without the current restrictions.
Hmm good and simple idea for going around "can not be animated".
Post by: OldTrees on June 28, 2012, 07:41:54 pm
Quick calculations: lose immaterial, light life duo, light mark, unupped, 30 vs 30 cards decks, with 2 pend start
Turn 3 wand, turn 3 crusader, turn 4 endow. So in 12 turns assuming no CC and PC (endowed crusader is prety CC resistant at 5/6), wand and crusader would have destroyed 17 opponents cards and another 12 normally drawn. A win in round 12-13 by deckout depending on coin toss.
A more PC proof play style: turn 7 2x crusaders, turn 8 wand and endow both . So in 13 turns assuming no CC and PC (endowed crusader is prety CC resistant 5/6), wand and crusader would have destroyed 18 opponents cards and another 12 normally drawn. A win in round 13-14 by deckout depending on coin toss.
If my calculations are correct this looks a bit on the OP zone. IMO imaterial has to stay for the above reasons. Even vs PC a deckout is possible in 15-ish rounds.
What do you think?
Let's compare to a 3 cost Arsenic (aka +1 cost +1 attack)
Turn 3 Arsenic+, turn 3 Crusader, turn 4 endow
By turn 12/13 Arsenic will have dealt 30/33 damage + 45/55 damage from poison. Crusader will have dealt 47/52 damage + 36/45 from poison. Total: 158/185 damage
Turn 7 2 Crusaders, Turn 8 Arsenic+ and endow both
By turn 13/14 each Crusader will have dealt 32/37 damage + 15/21 damage from poison. Arsenic+ will have dealt 18/21 damage +15/21 from poison. Total: 127/158 damage
Post by: esran on June 28, 2012, 07:48:06 pm
Post by: OldTrees on June 28, 2012, 08:00:03 pm
given oldtrees calculations and me actually stopping to think about it, i see no reason why this should be immaterial, or why it shouldnt be flyable.I am still worried about adrenaline. (Even with the assumption that it would be like Venom)
Post by: esran on June 28, 2012, 08:01:09 pm
Post by: eaglgenes101 on June 28, 2012, 09:50:05 pm
What about having 0 (or negative) flying HP? That would force another card into an adrenamoth combo, weakening it enough to make it balanced without the current restrictions.Thematics: you need to hold the insect on the wand for it to work. You release it, the insect crawls away.
Post by: AnnaMall on June 29, 2012, 03:32:18 pm
Lose immaterial, make flown HP 0. Crusader combo is viable but PC prone, adrenawand needs a 3 card combo, just animate weapon becomes pointless to try.
Can the wand+blessing/momentum/chaos seed+adreanline be so OP in order to bring back the "can not be animated"?
Post by: OldTrees on June 29, 2012, 04:51:33 pm
= 3 quanta + mono + weapon slot + 1 card
1 per turn
Wand + Crusader = 3 :life + 8|7 :light + 2 card
= 11|10 quanta + duo + weapon slot + 2 cards
2 per turn
2x Wand + Flying Weapon + Plate Armor|Momentum = 6 :life + 1 :air|1 :rainbow + 1 :earth|1 :gravity + 4 cards
= 8 quanta + trio|duo + 4 cards.
2 per turn
Wand + Flying Weapon + Plate Armor|Momentum + Adrenaline = 3 :life + 1 :air|1 :rainbow + 1 :earth|1 :gravity + 4 :life|3 :life + 4 cards
= 9|8 quanta + trio|duo + 4 cards.
2 per turn
2x Wand + Flying Weapon + Plate Armor|Momentum + Adrenaline = 6 :life + 1 :air|1 :rainbow + 1 :earth|1 :gravity + 4 :life|3 :life + 5 cards
= 12|11 quanta + trio|duo + weapon slot + 5 cards.
3 per turn
Wand + 2x Crusader = 3 :life + 16|14 :light + 3 card
= 19|17 quanta + duo + weapon slot + 3 cards
3 per turn
Thoughts?
Post by: AnnaMall on June 29, 2012, 05:36:31 pm
Wand = 3 :life + 1 card
= 3 quanta + mono + weapon slot + 1 card
1 per turn
Wand + Crusader = 3 :life + 8|7 :light + 2 card
= 11|10 quanta + duo + weapon slot + 2 cards
2 per turn
2x Wand + Flying Weapon + Plate Armor|Momentum = 6 :life + 1 :air|1 :rainbow + 1 :earth|1 :gravity + 4 cards
= 8 quanta + trio|duo + 4 cards.
2 per turn
Wand + Flying Weapon + Plate Armor|Momentum + Adrenaline = 3 :life + 1 :air|1 :rainbow + 1 :earth|1 :gravity + 4 :life|3 :life + 4 cards
= 9|8 quanta + trio|duo + 4 cards.
2 per turn
2x Wand + Flying Weapon + Plate Armor|Momentum + Adrenaline = 6 :life + 1 :air|1 :rainbow + 1 :earth|1 :gravity + 4 :life|3 :life + 5 cards
= 12|11 quanta + trio|duo + weapon slot + 5 cards.
3 per turn
Wand + 2x Crusader = 3 :life + 16|14 :light + 3 card
= 19|17 quanta + duo + weapon slot + 3 cards
3 per turn
Thoughts?
Adrena senarios seem too clumpsy to be reliable/worth building. The crusader senarios proove the light-life duo to be the strongest but not OP.
I will give it a days thought before changing Wand to material, flyable
Post by: AnnaMall on July 02, 2012, 05:22:34 pm
Post by: Drake_XIV on July 06, 2012, 04:57:50 am
Post by: Hyroen on July 10, 2012, 07:23:56 pm
This card will not be permitted into the Crucible due to one or more of the following errors:
- Table filled out incorrectly.
Correct these errors as soon as possible and feel free to submit again when ready.
Thank you. ^_^
Whether a Weapon or a Shield, the type of a card is only one of 3 (Creature, Permanent, or Spell), always. The card image should inform us if it's a Weapon or a Shield, as the in-game cards do.
Post by: eaglgenes101 on July 11, 2012, 05:08:11 am
Hm, 0 HP when flown. Interesting...It's to prevent adrenamoth from being OP. Compare to dune scorpion needing an attack buff card to apply neurotoxin.
Simple rushy adrenamoth (replace marks with moth wands):
Post by: AnnaMall on July 11, 2012, 08:51:39 pm
Post by: Annele on July 19, 2012, 11:20:20 pm
This card will not be permitted into the Crucible due to one or more of the following errors:
- Table filled out incorrectly.
Correct these errors as soon as possible and feel free to submit again when ready.
Thank you. ^_^
Make sure the attack in the table matches the card image. Also, if there is no series, the "SERIES" section should be left blank. Thanks.
Post by: odideph on July 20, 2012, 11:58:19 am
Let's take a step back here. I mean you have to build your deck with serious restrictions already:
-30->60 cards, no less no more.
-max 6 copies of a card.
-a certain amount of quanta-generating cards, Or free cards (generally weaker).
-little control over what you'll get in the first hand.
This Wand can majorly screw up every deck for the following reasons:
-destroys immaterial cards such as Emerald Shield or Phase Dragon
-destroys pillars, if you had a bad hand, it makes it just worse
-increases your deck-out speed by a factor of 100% for every instance of the Wand.
-incredibly brutal combo with a flown Eternity or Crusaders
-may just destroy all (up to 6) copies of a type of card (or multiple types) you desperately needed but didn't get in first hand.
Someone had to point that out... now that it's done are you sure you still find it that balanced?
I'm not against the concept itself, i'm against this installment as it is right now. Proposed fixes:
-Damage lowered to 2, so that many types of shield can entirely block it.
-Effect happening on hit instead of every turn, so that blocking the hit cancels the destruction.
-0 HP when flown was a smart idea, now make it immaterial Aswell, so that Crusaders can't merrily annihilate 1/3 of someone's deck every turn.
Post by: OldTrees on July 20, 2012, 12:09:05 pm
Yes.
Here is something you should understand about milling:
With the exception of the Rewind synergy, destroying the top card of a deck is the same as destroying the bottom card of a deck.
Destroying the bottom card of a deck does not weaken the deck at all unless the game is long enough to deck them out.
Crusader and the Animate + Buff tactics were shown to have a reasonable cost if the first Wand has a reasonable cost.
I agree that changing it to on a successful attack would be a good idea. (I had assumed that was the case so I did not check.)
Post by: odideph on July 20, 2012, 02:16:06 pm
I wouldn't want my 3 (or more) Miracles/Dim Shields/Nymphs/Dials/Hourglasses/Sosacs/Moth Wands to just never get to my hand even when i'm about to deck out just because they were basically removed of future existence.
Post by: thispersonisagenius on July 20, 2012, 02:19:21 pm
Post by: odideph on July 20, 2012, 02:55:05 pm
Post by: OldTrees on July 20, 2012, 03:35:27 pm
Well i can't help being worried with the fact that this gives creates a whole new field for the RNG to screw games up:You can say the same for decks that lose to rush decks. Milling does not do anything to remove key cards that normal shuffling doesn't unless the opponent is decked out.
I wouldn't want my 3 (or more) Miracles/Dim Shields/Nymphs/Dials/Hourglasses/Sosacs/Moth Wands to just never get to my hand even when i'm about to deck out just because they were basically removed of future existence.
Post by: AnnaMall on July 20, 2012, 10:12:27 pm
Is it just me, or do the upped and unupped versions have everything on the card (except for shiny art and name) in common? Shouldn't the upgrade get something better? Or maybe I'm just missing something.
Upped image need fixing, table is correct, need to make some time for fixing it
Quote from: odideph
Am i the only one worried about the fact that this Wand coming straight from the unholy forges of Hell actually destroys the opponent's cards?!
Let's take a step back here. I mean you have to build your deck with serious restrictions already:
-30->60 cards, no less no more.
-max 6 copies of a card.
-a certain amount of quanta-generating cards, Or free cards (generally weaker).
-little control over what you'll get in the first hand.
This Wand can majorly screw up every deck for the following reasons:
-destroys immaterial cards such as Emerald Shield or Phase Dragon
-destroys pillars, if you had a bad hand, it makes it just worse
-increases your deck-out speed by a factor of 100% for every instance of the Wand.
-incredibly brutal combo with a flown Eternity or Crusaders
-may just destroy all (up to 6) copies of a type of card (or multiple types) you desperately needed but didn't get in first hand.
Someone had to point that out... now that it's done are you sure you still find it that balanced?
I'm not against the concept itself, i'm against this installment as it is right now. Proposed fixes:
-Damage lowered to 2, so that many types of shield can entirely block it.
-Effect happening on hit instead of every turn, so that blocking the hit cancels the destruction.
-0 HP when flown was a smart idea, now make it immaterial Aswell, so that Crusaders can't merrily annihilate 1/3 of someone's deck every turn.
Some quick hypothetical calculations time. A deck with 4 wands/4 PA/6 sosac/6 dials/4 life pend/6 novae or any other stall mechanism you seem fit. It is clearly a deck that has only deckout as win condition. Opponent has a 30 card deck
Turn 1 PA/wand out (best case senario using upped life pend/nova split), from this point on you have 12 turns to deal with sosac/dials. Seems something upped decks will achieve easily, unnuped decks will be around there more or less.
More realistically using the same deck: turn 2-3 PA/wand (2 novae or pend and mark) from this point on you will have 11-12 turns to deal with sosac/dials, which is about the same as above if not a turn or 2 slower.
List of counters: basicaly whatever counters the stall mechanism (PC, purify, SoP for the above example), the wand itself PC protected is unstoppable
Take out wand and put arsenic in its place: you need 11 rounds to go through 100 HP.
List of counter: heal, stall mechanism counters (PC,purify, SoP), dim shield, diss shield, wing, tit shield (unnuped wand)
In that comparison it seems to me that wand is borderline powerful/OP in the unnuped setting, while powerfull in the upped. Some balancing issues come to mind though.
1.the wand cannot be used in a deck that is not designed to work around it, how that is weighted in balancing?
2.the bypass dmg is what makes it usefull, so an "on hit" clause seems too crippling, maybe a % chance as Rutarete suggested?
3.a point that odideph brought up, how does the destroyed cards weight in the balancing? In the example above maybe the opponent has 2 purifies not drawn, what if first 2 hits both are gone? How do you take that into the balancing account?
Post by: OldTrees on July 20, 2012, 11:02:41 pm
In that comparison it seems to me that wand is borderline powerful/OP in the unnuped setting, while powerfull in the upped. Some balancing issues come to mind though.1. It limits the synergies. This has no impact on balancing unless all available synergies are subpar.
1.the wand cannot be used in a deck that is not designed to work around it, how that is weighted in balancing?
2.the bypass dmg is what makes it usefull, so an "on hit" clause seems too crippling, maybe a % chance as Rutarete suggested?
3.a point that odideph brought up, how does the destroyed cards weight in the balancing? In the example above maybe the opponent has 2 purifies not drawn, what if first 2 hits both are gone? How do you take that into the balancing account?
2. I think it would be fine with an "on hit" clause.
3. Milling (destroying from the deck) 2 purifies is the same as if the shuffling RNG put the 2 purifies at the bottom of the deck. Aka no effect on balance except when exploited with Reverse Time or Mindgate.
Post by: Joseph7 on July 21, 2012, 06:29:48 pm
Post by: AnnaMall on July 23, 2012, 03:46:34 pm
Post by: odideph on July 24, 2012, 12:43:57 am
I like this card and the idea of effecting the opponent's deck cards. I don't think immaterial is necessary nor fits this card- in fact, caterpillars are very easy to kill normally. I like that you can't animate this card- it prevents too large of damage to the opponent's deck.Note that you can animate it with a buff card that gives health (like :earth's Heavy Armor, or :light's Blessing), after which i imagine you could Adrenaline it probably. And then Parallel Universe the result. Oh god.
Post by: Anarook on July 24, 2012, 03:45:48 am
At the very least a substantial cost increase.
Post by: furballdn on July 24, 2012, 04:17:37 am
After my recent submission of Sabotage, I really can't find myself liking this, we need to discuss what the skill is worth because imho this card either doesn't work or needs a serious limiter.Both these ideas remind me of this (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,35704.0.html) :U
At the very least a substantial cost increase.
and this (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,40573.msg502507.html#msg502507)
Post by: AnnaMall on July 31, 2012, 07:25:32 pm
After my recent submission of Sabotage, I really can't find myself liking this, we need to discuss what the skill is worth because imho this card either doesn't work or needs a serious limiter.
At the very least a substantial cost increase.
Do you have a reasoning for the cost increase? More than happy to elaborate over it as I still ain't sure for its balance.
Post by: OdinVanguard on July 31, 2012, 07:55:00 pm
I see the similarity, but there is an important difference. Those two you mentioned actually give you a new card whereas this one just destroys cards. Its like the difference between deflagrate and steal.After my recent submission of Sabotage, I really can't find myself liking this, we need to discuss what the skill is worth because imho this card either doesn't work or needs a serious limiter.Both these ideas remind me of this (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,35704.0.html) :U
At the very least a substantial cost increase.
and this (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,40573.msg502507.html#msg502507)
Post by: OldTrees on July 31, 2012, 08:15:43 pm
That is not the relevant difference. This wand is meant as a win condition. Those cards are meant as card advantage. Additionally neither can fill the role of the other.I see the similarity, but there is an important difference. Those two you mentioned actually give you a new card whereas this one just destroys cards. Its like the difference between deflagrate and steal.After my recent submission of Sabotage, I really can't find myself liking this, we need to discuss what the skill is worth because imho this card either doesn't work or needs a serious limiter.Both these ideas remind me of this (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,35704.0.html) :U
At the very least a substantial cost increase.
and this (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,40573.msg502507.html#msg502507)
Post by: AnnaMall on August 16, 2012, 07:21:56 pm
Post by: Annele on August 18, 2012, 12:16:30 am
This card will not be permitted into the Crucible due to one or more of the following errors:
- Table filled out incorrectly.
Correct these errors as soon as possible and feel free to submit again when ready.
Thank you. ^_^
If a card is in a series, it requires a hyperlink to the series topic. If there is no series topic thread, or it is not in a series, it must be left blank. Also, a link to the art source, unless you made it yourself.
Post by: Annele on September 01, 2012, 12:15:01 am