Elements 2.0

[sillyking14]

but did he pick them up off the street? i mean, to assume that he assembled a random group of peopl is preposterous. I am more likely to assume that he has a group of "friends" that all play ccg's. and they enjoy them greatly. then at some point one of them discovered elements, told everybody, and they all began playing it. no need to put up "posters" or anything. also, there could quite possibly be hundreds or thousands of players out there that are as good if not better than those in the t50, without actually being in t50. the fact that t50 is based on score means that you have to have a good win rate in order to progress. if these people spent time experimenting with different decks or playing each other with real life decks, instead of grinding, then they may very well have low scores and are therefore ineligible for t50. or maybe they simply don't like forums. i don't usually. i don't mean to say that i'm a pro or anything, im just saying that there are people that don't like forums. it is very possible to get good at a game without asking for advice from anyone.  please, respond to his post, talk about the cards that he is suggesting. don't just tear into his credibility.

[PuppyChow]

but did he pick them up off the street? i mean, to assume that he assembled a random group of peopl is preposterous. I am more likely to assume that he has a group of "friends" that all play ccg's. and they enjoy them greatly. then at some point one of them discovered elements, told everybody, and they all began playing it. no need to put up "posters" or anything. also, there could quite possibly be hundreds or thousands of players out there that are as good if not better than those in the t50, without actually being in t50. the fact that t50 is based on score means that you have to have a good win rate in order to progress. if these people spent time experimenting with different decks or playing each other with real life decks, instead of grinding, then they may very well have low scores and are therefore ineligible for t50. or maybe they simply don't like forums. i don't usually. i don't mean to say that i'm a pro or anything, im just saying that there are people that don't like forums. it is very possible to get good at a game without asking for advice from anyone.  please, respond to his post, talk about the cards that he is suggesting. don't just tear into his credibility.

I actually like many of the cards he suggests, just not that you have to have that mark and only cards of that type in your deck to use them.

And yes, he did post flyers. He said it himself.

And of course it is possible to get good without asking advice. It just take a whole lot longer, so the "six months" they've been playing really may not have given the players that much growth knowledge-wise.

[RockSoulx]

Sorry work was hell today so let me try and catch up on things.

Jellyfish: I've stated in this thread that my deck is capable of beating the False Gods but if you remember I also stated I do take cards out when playing pvp. I consider it the same rainbow deck because as has been stated I played MtG long before Elements and I call the cards that I sub in and sub out my sideboard. As Sillyking has stated and something I didn't want to state for fear of someone taking my comment personally, top 50 decks have nothing to do with the skill level of a player. I've had many decks that could of landed me a huge win rate percentage but I suffer from boredom. Once I build a deck and tune it until I feel either it can't get any better or the idea is too stale/boring to play now I go build another usually selling all those cards to pay for more because I don't like grinding unfortunately and win loss rate doesn't really matter to me.

The fact of the matter is most of the reasons I don't post what my decks are on this forum is because given the finite number of cards and the fact they are significantly less numerous than MtG cards it is more likely than not my best decks have been seen/used by someone else. I'm not into quibbling who thought up the deck first as that is just semantics and something that no one can really prove. I am confident in my deck building ability and still state you can become an aweome deck builder just as fast by having experience in other TGC's as you can by visiting the forums. What Puppychow doesn't get is people learn different ways. Some people learn faster one way than another. This closeminded idea that just because he had to come to the forums to be a decent/good/great deckbuilder is a way of thinking that I personally disagree with. It would be like a teacher only trying to teach her students one way and then telling them when they don't get it that they HAVE to learn this way because it is faster.

Puppychow: Again I've stated several times my reasons for not posting about what cards are in my rainbow deck. Perhaps when I get tired of it and switch to something else I'll gladly share it.

About Frostfire: I don't feel it is as overpowered as you say. The reason Firelance rush works is because you're only generating one kind of quantums. Let's say first turn you lay out 5 pillars, that is 6 fire quantums, every other turn after that you draw a pillar and lay it down. So that by the second turn you already have a 3+3 firelance if you really wanted it. Even playing creatures etc like upgraded ash eaters you gain more fire quantums, and then you can even conflagrate them. The point is in a monofire deck the reason Firelance works is because you only use and generate one type of quantum. Now let's say you do a water fire deck. You get the same 5 pillars and for arguement sake let us say that 3 are fire 2 are water and your mark is water. You draw pillar every other turn like above. Provided you do not play anything else it will be around your 4th turn before you produce enough mana to even get the secondary damage from one of the spells to make frostfire bolt do more than 5 damage. Also bear in mind yes you do get 5 damage to start with but you're playing two cards to do it and in a dual deck with no card draw I'd say it's a fair trade.

Also you seem to have a vendetta that people could be better at this game than you with much less time playing and without going the forum route. Why is that? Insecurity? I'm not here to belittle people or make them feel inadequate. That's not my style nor is it in the spirit of fun which is what a game is about having. I've gamed with most of these folk for years now in everything from DnD, Mutants and Masterminds, MtG, Pokemon, Cashmoney (Our own TGC we made up in highschool for laughs), etc. I don't know how gaming shops work where you live, but here we have a local shop where you can buy your gaming supplies that has a backroom and a bunch of regulars. It is the place to go in town if you want to play games like MtG or DnD. There's also a bulletin board there that people post stuff about gaming which is where I put up my flyer. It's not like I went out in the middle of downtown and plastered fliers everywhere. Most of the people in the group I've been gaming with for a long time, some of them I knew from seeing them at the store but we never played the same games (I didn't get into Axis And Allies/Warhammer 40k etc) and two of them are stationed at the base out here and came to the shop to check it out. So all together, I'd say our group is a solid group and like always our focus is on having fun. I'm not here to get into a measuring contest or to show off my awesome deck building skills.

What I do find interesting is so far the only valid reasons for someone not liking my cards are:

It makes monodecks far superior to dual/tri/rainbow and takes away some of the creative paths. To which I've responded I had an answer for but having previously not been privy to the coding of elements didn't realize they had no one willing to put a lot of work into something when they could put that same time into something else which is perfectly reasonable and to which I posted a work around. See what I mean? You keep attacking me and my groups credibility because we won't jump through your hoops or spend our time and energy trying to prove something none of us feel we really have to prove. I've been experimenting with the guys about your concerns and several ideas have been floating around. The most beneficial that was suggested to me was by design the cards were created to fit into a monodeck and work off of each other. To remove the restriction and allow anyone to use them in any deck would not be so bad because A: Being designed to work within their color a person playing mono will have the solidarity advantage. and B: A person who takes the time to creatively use the cards in a dual/trio/rainbow deck may not have solidarity but will definitely have versatility which provides for diversity and more enjoyment for all.

In closing I'd just like to state I think I've said all that needs to be said on the subject of my group and myself and my own skills. From now on unless someone posts a question or suggestion or comment pertinent to my cards I'm not going to bother responding. Love them, hate them, like me, dislike me, I'm not going to let this take away from my main reason for playing and designing cards for this game which is to have fun with others who enjoy it as well. So good luck to you on your games and anyone who has a comment/issue/suggestion for these cards feel free to post and I'll respond as best i can.


Edit: Bobcamel - You keep saying the cost of Death Pact is inadequate for what it can do but you haven't given any examples. As I've explained in play testing it is quite balanced. I don't know if you feel it should cost more or cost less but if you'd care to elaborate I'd be more than happy to discuss it with you and if you prove to have a valid reason for your opinion I will be more than happy to tweak it to be more balanced. Given the way I suggested it's implementation to where it damages you first and then your opponent to prevent draws (Although I can see an arguement for having it be the other way around so that your opponent has to remember not to let himself get down to 10 life before you're dead.) I see nothing wrong with the card in this incarnation.

[Daxx]

Your idea about mono-cards is a horrible solution to the perceived "problem" of rainbow decks. If you were actually experienced in CCG design and you'd actually looked at how Elements is set up mechanics-wise, then you'd be aware that restricting players to mono-themed decks is not going to work out particularly well. There have been many better solutions than yours that have been proposed, which retain creativity in deckbuilding and provide more of an impetus to branch out into different areas of the potential metagame (this is to say nothing of the coding difficulties of your proposal, which makes me think you haven't actually thought about the implications of your ideas at all).

[RockSoulx]

Your idea about mono-cards is a horrible solution to the perceived "problem" of rainbow decks. If you were actually experienced in CCG design and you'd actually looked at how Elements is set up mechanics-wise, then you'd be aware that restricting players to mono-themed decks is not going to work out particularly well. There have been many better solutions than yours that have been proposed, which retain creativity in deckbuilding and provide more of an impetus to branch out into different areas of the potential metagame (this is to say nothing of the coding difficulties of your proposal, which makes me think you haven't actually thought about the implications of your ideas at all).

Another statement without any examples given but let me respond as best I'm able given your vague attempt to discredit this idea. First off never once did I propose restricting players to a mono-themed deck. I merely posed an idea that would give additional cards to players who chose to use monothemed decks that allowed diversity and variation that mono-decks currently lack. Also if you had bothered to read the thread I even stated that these cards probably wouldn't lose their intended purpose if the restriction on JUST these cards was lifted. So again, not able to get where you're coming from and you seem to be one of the few people who feel this way.

Finally, as to my experience as a game designer/coder I have shown in posts in this thread that I am fully capable of implementing these myself as are the people who have seen the source code for the game without any problems other than the time it would take to create multi-colored cards. In which case I provided a valid workaround that takes significantly less coding and allows for more creativity in deck building and strategy. As for me not being experienced in TGC design and not looking at the mechanics of Elements can you give examples where I showed a neglect for understanding how the game works? I believe if you take each of the cards I suggested for any particular element you can see how I took what that monoelement already could do and built off it to add variety for each deck that is not currently present thus making many more combinations for monodecks rather than the couple successful monodecks for each color. I also stated that upon further review allowing these cards to be used by any deck further increases the diversity and complexity allowed by decks while forcing them to sacrifice just slightly in that these cards are built to be used in the monocolor and therefore have much more regular chemistry with cards in their element than when mixed.

I don't mind critique but posts like yours are just condescending with no facts or basis for such assumptions which makes it very difficult to address any valid concerns or points you may have which at this point I'm beginning to doubt you have any.

[Uncle Jellyfish]

Bare in mind that I never once mentioned that the top 50 determined the skill level of the player. I simply mentioned that they were well known because their names were in the top 50, and thus other players were more aware of them. The reason those named people are so good is because they've spent countless hours on the game and forum reading, listening, building, playing, contributing, and growing as individuals.

I really don't care who came up with a deck idea first. You're right, it's irrelevant. What I do want to know is what your rainbow deck is like. I highly doubt it's as high and mighty as you claim simply because rainbow just doesn't work that way. Even 30 card Speed Rainbow has a lot of trouble keeping up with Poison, and can only handle Lance Rush by getting a Pulvy out early and hoping it isn't destroyed. If you don't want to post the deck, it's fine, we understand. Alaska had the same mindset. However, I still am curious as to the build of the deck and would love to play against it.

[RockSoulx]

I'[m curious as to how you think lance rush can only be beaten by pulvy. Perhaps another look at the cards could bring about a rather obvious way of handling firelances. Also I have yet to claim my rainbow deck is high and mighty as you put it. I merely stated it suited me fine and for the two of the three decks he posted mine would win more often than it would lose. I even openly admitted I'd have problems with the earth deck he posted and stated once again, I'm fine with that. All decks have a weakness, no deck is perfect. If it ever seemed as though I was stating my rainbow deck was the best there is the best there was the best there ever will be I apologize for that is not what I meant. I merely pointed out that his assumption my deck was slow and clunky had no basis which it doesn't.

[chriskang]

RockSoulx, again I do NOT deny that you're a skillful deck designer and an experienced player.
But you're quite new to this forum so let me give you an advice: people here are stubborn.
If you keep making those claims without proof, they'll come over and over again to harass you and this thread will turn into a flame war.
No one wants that to happen.
You can try to argue for days but you'll never be able to convince everyone because, well, it's just not possible. They'll always be someone to come and say "no I don't believe you".
So, instead of spending hours here defending your point of view, there's an easy way to shut everyone's mouth: give your IGN and let us play a few games against you and your friends.
This would give a definitive answer and no one would bother you after that.

[bobcamel]

Resons:

1. Death Pact costs 5 for 10 damage. That's 2 damage per quantum.
2. This way, it is comparible to Lighting with a 5/3 ratio.
3. However, it also damages you. This makes it worse than a Lighting.
4. Afterwards, you can also notice that Lighting can be upgraded to give 5/1 ratio and used to attack creatures, not players only.
5. Actually, I've just noticed that it's 6 quanta for the unupgraded version.
6. I'm not even starting on those cards that build up damage. For 1 Fire quantum while having 11 in my possession, I can deal 6 damage to a player or a creature without backdraws.
7. So, I'd suggest buffing the damage to 20 and self-damage to... 7-10 or making the card cost 1 Death. The life cost balances it out enough.
8. Especially that it's a card I cannot use along any healing card to make up for the lifeloss.

[RockSoulx]

Replies

1. True
2. False, you can't really compare it to lightning as it does twice as much damage and costs you life.
3. Depends on how you look at it. Just because it damages you doesn't mean it is worse than lightning it fits the theme set by the other cards.
4. Which is another difference between Lightning and Death Pact. Two different cards. Not sure what the problem here is.
5. Ok
6. True.
7. Negative if you look at how the deck plays which I will explain below you can see that in a monodeath deck it works out fine.
8. Death has no cards that heal you. Or are you complaining that the card works well monocolor but not well in rainbow? Which is by design.

Each card that is proposed to be added to death gives death more control and utility at the cost of something. Death has Deadly Poisons as well as the new card that converts healing to poison. It also gains from the new card a way to destroy permanents and creatures at the expense of it's own creatures (Which end up becoming skeles and feeding bonewalls) and a little death mana. This already makes for a powerful deck capable of overruning an opponent with creatures. However there are counters to this... what happens when late game the person is almost dead and they put up a shield that prevents 2 damage from each creature. Since you're using skeles and don't have access to dark mana for eclipse you can finish them off by sacrificing a bit of your health and some mana. The 5 mana cost could be a problem for a rainbow deck to use, but these cards aren't designed to be for rainbows. See what I mean about allowing anyone to use the cards without restriction won't mess anything up? A mono/dual deck would have no problem using them perhaps even a trio deck. But a rainbow deck would rather take lightning as you mentioned.

If the card did 20 damage, and 10 self damage that would be a bit overpowered. These cards aren't designed to be cheap so they can be used in rainbow. They are designed to work in mono decks but seem to be feasible in duo/trio decks as well. If you wouldn't use the card, that's a player choice.

In summary Bobcamel: A card is not balanced because it fits into every deck scheme possible. If you're running a death fire deck and you choose to take fire lance instead of Death Pact, I'm not going to lose sleep over it. It doesn't make the card bad.

Chriskang: It's not possible to convince everyone of anything so I don't both trying. My point is this: This forum section is involved with card ideas. I posted well thoughtout and tested ideas for new cards. People chose to attack me rather than discuss said cards because I'm not 'forum-popular'/well known. Yet there hasn't been a single legitimate reason why these aren't good cards and shouldn't be viable to implement. Perhaps the forum moderators should take control and state that if they want to question my ability to do it in PM's or make a new thread for it and keep comments in this thread about the cards.

Edit: For Bobcamel: Can you explain why you would take an elite shrieker in a multicolor deck which costs 8 earth mana rather than just taking an elite graboid and evolving it? But in monoearth decks, elite shriekers aren't bad ideas to take at all.

[bobcamel]

Can you explain why would I take a card that damages me, costs a lot and does just some measly 10 damage?

[RockSoulx]

I thought I already explained why allow me to reinterate:

If you are playing monodeath and want to have a backup finisher in your hand you could easily take 2 Death Pacts. With the extensive creature control and multiplicative potential with having multiple graveyards and forcing your opponent and you to sacrifice creatures (Even with just 2 out, each time a creature dies that isn't a skele you get 2 skeles.) In other words you gain speed and control at the start and if they manage to pull out a stall like a sundial or phase shield you can get around it. Since you're playing mono death you can't take a lightning etc etc etc.