Elements 2.0

[Uncle Jellyfish]

To be honest, I haven't read over the card ideas. I read everything but them, in fact, because I have no interest.

The reason people aren't cooperating is because you're a new member to the forums and have yet to "prove your worth" for lack of a better term. Chris is right, though. If you were to perhaps post a deck or two, or play some people in the chat, or participate in more of the community than just this thread and your own study group, many more members would be more open to these ideas, as you would've gained more respect. Yes, I'm aware that you probably "don't care for respect" but the simple fact is, if you don't have it, people won't listen to you.

[RockSoulx]

The funny part is the people whose opinion I actually care about are like Sillyking. This isn't highschool. I don't have to prove myself to anyone. I'm actually relishing the fact that you and Puppychow can't find anything wrong with my cards. Especially since you seem to think you're part of some elite crowd. It amuses me and helps take away the boredom of grinding so for that I guess I should thank you. To get respect you have to give it and I've been more than respectful. You haven't given any so you don't deserve to get any. I find it nice that there are those here who don't care about cliques and can actually see a good idea when it comes by.

[bobcamel]

The problem is, they'll be getting over me by then. And, it's costly. And highly situational, having its usefulness limited to be just a clifffaller.

[Uncle Jellyfish]

I didn't say anything about cliques, but as for the respect thing, there are two ways that it works: Either you give respect to get respect, or you have to earn it. The reason we haven't really been all that respectul is probably because you come in here as a nobody with an idea and expect that we'll listen. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to prove that you deserve it. Yes, this isn't high school, but if you want any intelligible feedback, you're going to need to show us that you know what you're talking about. Many people on this forum have shown their contributions a number of times over. We occasionally get new members that post once or twice, asking a question or proposing a small change that has already been suggested a number of times (card trading, mulligan, auction, etc.), but when some random person comes in with a big idea, there are going to be skeptics and nay-sayers.

With your ideas, you mentioned you had a group of testers. Post some data, then. Label the players, or give them fake names, or use their real ones. Show what their deck builds were, who they faced, and what the winning play was (I believe you mentioned that they were all taking notes on the end-game deciding factor). Show some statistics on how each of these original cards worked in their respective decks, how many games, the win/loss ratios, and how helpful the cards were in each game. Did they make a difference? Why or why not? Did you try testing a standard mono-element version agains the modified version with the new cards? Did you compare your data to the data that already exists for quite a few of the decks posted here already (there is a section for each element, related to mono-element decks). Hard facts are what we need, not ideas and claims.

As for the card ideas themselves, the reason I haven't commented on them is because, frankly, I haven't read them, I don't plan to read them, and I don't care to read them. Card ideas, to me, though fanciful, really aren't worth the time, as they are never likely to come to fruition. I can't speak for PuppyChow, though.

[jmizzle7]

Stop with the flames.

RockSoulx, I really like the card ideas. They fit the flavor of each element very well. I think if you were to take the restriction off like PuppyChow suggested, these cards would see much more play. But, this is all hypothetical, as these cards don't really exist.

As far as the play test group and your rainbow deck: I think what many people have been trying to say is that while your deck seems to be much better than the decks used by your play test buddies, it's pretty much impossible to pass judgment on how good it is against the Elements metagame, as you apparently haven't played against many of the regular PvP-ers (PvP Duel, not Random PvP). After reading your posts, I can tell that you were a competitive MtG player (I was too) and you understand the importance of the metagame. Of course, there is always at least some difference between the local metagame and the macro metagame. Your gauntlet of play test decks is probably smaller than the vast number of decks I and many others have played against. There is nothing wrong with this; it just means that it is impossible to pass judgment on a deck that does well in a specific environment, especially when no deck list is mentioned.

[Uncle Jellyfish]

Stop with the flames.

RockSoulx, I really like the card ideas. They fit the flavor of each element very well. I think if you were to take the restriction off like PuppyChow suggested, these cards would see much more play. But, this is all hypothetical, as these cards don't really exist.

As far as the play test group and your rainbow deck: I think what many people have been trying to say is that while your deck seems to be much better than the decks used by your play test buddies, it's pretty much impossible to pass judgment on how good it is against the Elements metagame, as you apparently haven't played against many of the regular PvP-ers (PvP Duel, not Random PvP). After reading your posts, I can tell that you were a competitive MtG player (I was too) and you understand the importance of the metagame. Of course, there is always at least some difference between the local metagame and the macro metagame. Your gauntlet of play test decks is probably smaller than the vast number of decks I and many others have played against. There is nothing wrong with this; it just means that it is impossible to pass judgment on a deck that does well in a specific environment, especially when no deck list is mentioned.

Ditto this. Jmizzle is much more articulate than I am. ._."

[RockSoulx]

Again Jellyfish, I have nothing to prove. Anyone worth his salt can look at the cards and tell I know what I'm talking about and doing. And this 'we' is pretty much just a handful of people. Others have stated either in the thread or via PM that they like the ideas and not to get discouraged which is something that I appreciate. Basically your whole, prove yourself or get out attitude is one only a few elitist people seem to share. So with that, and with your admission you have no intention of looking at the cards proposed, please don't bother posting in my thread any more. After all, if card submissions aren't something you're into, it seems a little odd you'd bother reading the forums unless of course you're just a troll. This will be my last post to you on this subject.

Jmizzle: I'm fine with removing the restriction of only allowing them in monocolor. It seems to still provide more variety in the monodeck line and allows more diversity in duo/trio as well which is what they're intended for. I'm glad there are people actually looking at the cards, they've provided more than a few hours of fun for my friends and I. And I agree and even stated in an earlier post that our test group isn't an expansive one. Testing in the small scale is usually best before going large scale which is why I posted them here. The second half are almost finished as well. If someone thinks they can come up with a deck for these cards that we haven't thought of I'd be glad to test it out. I'll have to get the binder of all the notes back from my friend but I'll post some of the decks that were used after the second half of the cards go up.

[jmizzle7]

Did you at least understand my explanation for what others are trying to say? I would like to know exactly what it is that you do know about the popular decks and PvP archetypes, and what kind of build your rainbow deck is. I can assure you that it's probably nothing anybody hasn't seen before given the current card selection. It's really hard to comment on anything other than the card specifics of your proposed cards/mechanics without knowing the context of your personal Elements experience.

Jellyfish is a Global Moderator, not a troll. Read the forum rules before writing accusatory posts.

[RockSoulx]

So what you're saying Jmizzle is that Jellyfish being a global moderator is allowed to go into topics about something derail the topic by attacking the person who posted said topic while openly admitting he has no plans to actually read the opening post and address anything in it? Sounds less like a moderator and more like a troll to me. There is nothing in the forum rules that states any of the following:

A person can only post in any particular thread if he is a well known elements player.

A person is allowed to ignore the OP of threads and attack the person who posted without posting anything relevant to the thread.

As for commenting on the card specifics, isn't that what this is for? Discussion of new card ideas? My personal Rainbow deckbuild has nothing to do with new cards.

[PuppyChow]

So what you're saying Jmizzle is that Jellyfish being a global moderator is allowed to go into topics about something derail the topic by attacking the person who posted said topic while openly admitting he has no plans to actually read the opening post and address anything in it? Sounds less like a moderator and more like a troll to me. There is nothing in the forum rules that states any of the following:

A person can only post in any particular thread if he is a well known elements player.

A person is allowed to ignore the OP of threads and attack the person who posted without posting anything relevant to the thread.

As for commenting on the card specifics, isn't that what this is for? Discussion of new card ideas? My personal Rainbow deckbuild has nothing to do with new cards.

The fact that it has nothing to do with the topic is irrelevant. We still want to know it, if it's so good. It's what we do here. Share. 

Anyway, the reason I wasn't talking about the card specifics is that I actually liked them. I just didn't like that only mono decks could use them. Since you're saying you would be fine if all decks could use them, then I have no qualms with this topic. Other than your arrogance  .

But I can't speak for Jelly, so...

[jmizzle7]

Rock, you put words in my mouth; don't do that. I honestly don't know why a bunch of people are attacking you, but you haven't done much to help the situation with your choice of words. Use tact or expect rage posts. Of course, that's what the mods and Evil Hamster are here for, to calm the waters.

Honestly, I don't care what the forum rules do not say. What Jellyfish was saying wasn't trolling, but it was pretty heated. I don't dish out preferential treatment to anybody on this forum, and I don't approve of flaming or flame baiting.

While the original post speaks of new card ideas, the discussion progressed into debate on rainbow decks because the idea for these cards was conceived by your own perception of rainbow dominance. Threads develop like this sometimes, and it's not that big a deal. If it gets off-topic, one of the moderators will split the off-topic discussion into its own thread.

Please note that most everybody agrees that these cards are good and would be a fine addition to the game as is with no restrictions. PuppyChow asked a perfectly legitimate question about your play test group: how many people, who are they, what kind of decks, upped or non, etc.? While this is extra information apart from the card content, it is relevant as it informs the readers of this thread how you came to this decision in the first place. Specific builds are important as minor tweaks to an archetype will affect certain matchups (I know you know this, as most good MtG players do). All of this information is helpful and relevant, and it's because of this that so many people are requesting that you provide it.

[Scaredgirl]

Lol, lot of deep seeded nerd rage and ego battles on this thread.

The reason people aren't cooperating is because you're a new member to the forums and have yet to "prove your worth" for lack of a better term. Chris is right, though. If you were to perhaps post a deck or two, or play some people in the chat, or participate in more of the community than just this thread and your own study group, many more members would be more open to these ideas, as you would've gained more respect.

Jellyfish. New posters don't need to "prove their worth" to anybody. That is a very elitist attitude to have. And like I've said before, because you have that Global Mod title, you just can't blurt out dumb s*** like that. It makes the whole community look like a bunch of immature kids.

Good ideas are good ideas, whether they come from a person with 1 post or 2000 posts. And you should have the courtesy of reading the post (that the person spent a long time writing) even though you haven't seen him on chat.

Problem with OP is that he took this "I'm better than you" attitude which is a really bad idea on internet gaming forums. I've experienced it personally what happens when a new player comes and does something that veteran players didn't figure out. The Ultimate False God deck was my first post (before anyone even knew I existed) and I made tons of enemies in posting it.

You need to take a humble approach when you join a community. Otherwise elitist veterans will attack you with their "You are a noob and I know better because I've played since beta!" type of attitude. This is of course really pathetic but that's how it is on every single gaming community.

As for this "secret rainbow deck".. all I can say about that is LOL. I've heard about secret rainbow decks many times before. You know why they are a secret? Because they suck, and letting everyone know you made it would be too embarrassing.