Feedback | Feedback

[GG]

NAME: Feedback ELEMENT: Gravity COST: 5 TYPE: Spell ATK|HP: ABILITY: Dissipates up to 10 quanta of the target's element and deals damage equal to the number of quanta drained.	NAME: Feedback ELEMENT: Gravity COST: 8 TYPE: Spell ATK|HP: ABILITY: Dissipates up to 20 quanta of the target's element and deals damage equal to the number of quanta drained.

ART: Free public art IDEA: Girlsgeneration NOTES: A card motivated by an ability in Starcraft, where feedback dissipates the target unit's energy and deals damage equal to that amount. Only the cards on the field (permanent or creature) can be targeted. If an 'other' card is chosen, 10 (20 upgraded) random quanta are dissipated instead. The damage dealt is instant damage NOT blockable by reflective shields. SERIES: ***Insert series name and link to series page (if any)***

[Mavyrk]

Do you feel that 8 quanta, for 20 damage, and destroying 20 quanta (whichi is almost as much as supernova produces) is an acceptable cost-effect ratio? Everyone plays 'other' cards, whether it's basic weapons, quantum pillars, or shards.

Yes, I'm aware that this is best case scenario, but when best case scenario happens, this seems a little too strong.

Possible suggestion would be lower un-upgraded to 5 quanta and have it dissipate 5 from both players (doing 10 damage to your opponent, max), then upgraded be 5 quanta and dissipate 10 from your opponent.

[midg3333]

this card belongs to the same element as black hole... mass quanta drain and concentrated quanta drain in the same element seems a bit... well... annoying. Also, this is both a form of quantum denial and creature control at the same time, making it overpowered in my opinion. Not only does it kill the creature, but it makes it much harder for a mono deck to replace it.

[GG]

Do you feel that 8 quanta, for 20 damage, and destroying 20 quanta (whichi is almost as much as supernova produces) is an acceptable cost-effect ratio? Everyone plays 'other' cards, whether it's basic weapons, quantum pillars, or shards.

Yes, I'm aware that this is best case scenario, but when best case scenario happens, this seems a little too strong.

Possible suggestion would be lower un-upgraded to 5 quanta and have it dissipate 5 from both players (doing 10 damage to your opponent, max), then upgraded be 5 quanta and dissipate 10 from your opponent.

current change that i have in mind are the following:

1. has to target a creature. then the only way for this card to absorb random quanta would be by targeting a flying 'other' weapon, which isn't so likely to face in pvp.

2. lower the upgraded version 20 -> 15.

how does that look?

[Mavyrk]

Do you feel that 8 quanta, for 20 damage, and destroying 20 quanta (whichi is almost as much as supernova produces) is an acceptable cost-effect ratio? Everyone plays 'other' cards, whether it's basic weapons, quantum pillars, or shards.

Yes, I'm aware that this is best case scenario, but when best case scenario happens, this seems a little too strong.

Possible suggestion would be lower un-upgraded to 5 quanta and have it dissipate 5 from both players (doing 10 damage to your opponent, max), then upgraded be 5 quanta and dissipate 10 from your opponent.

current change that i have in mind are the following:

1. has to target a creature. then the only way for this card to absorb random quanta would be by targeting a flying 'other' weapon, which isn't so likely to face in pvp.

2. lower the upgraded version 20 -> 15.

how does that look?

Looking a lot more balanced, but then you need to make the upgraded version cost 7 instead of 8 (so that it doesn't have a worse cost-effect ratio than the non-upgraded version). At least imo.

But yeah, lookin good.

[Kael Hate]

Why have the damage Circumvent Reflective Shields?

[GG]

Why have the damage Circumvent Reflective Shields?

actually i was rethinking about it... i intended to make it similar to holy light and black hole, except dealing damage.

and also it's weird to think of feedback spell in sc2 getting reflected and killing the spell user.

[the Sage]

The combination of denial and damage is a bit much for the cost.