Liquid Guard | Liquid Shield

[Annele]

NAME: Liquid Guard ELEMENT: Water COST: 3 TYPE: Permanent ATK|HP: TEXT: Shield: Reduce damage by 1. : Frost Raise damage reduction by 2 but gain a chance to break.	NAME: Liquid Shield ELEMENT: Water COST: 3 TYPE: Permanent ATK|HP: TEXT: Shield: Reduce damage by 1. : Frost Raise damage reduction by 3 but gain a chance to break.

ART: http://www.sxc.hu/photo/1200277 IDEA: Annele NOTES: Quite similar to an idea I have seen previously, but the aim of each card is extremely different. So unless the maker of the original card wants to sue for copyright issues... The chance to break occurs everytime damage is blocked, so that means a Photon and a Crimson Dragon have an equal chance of breaking it. The chance that is 15% for the unupped, 20% for the upped, as of now, but is subject to change. (Please help balance the chance!) SERIES:

[godofdeath500]

I like it, it gives  a much needed second shield and it could rival Diamond Shield in terms of damage reduction.. Which is why I like the added breaking effect. It looks good.

[Vineroz]

Is it an one-time use ability?

[Absol]

Skill name conflicts with:

[Rutarete]

Skill name conflicts with:

Maybe Harden?

Cool idea. Fist of all, you have a 1DR shield for 3. Not that appealing. But then you see the ability to go above even diamond shield. Since diamond costs 6, and you have this costing 3+ 2, that seems fine only because there's a break chance. There we a few ways to go about this that I see. Either start with lower casting cost and higher breaking chance, or keep it around where it is now and have a smaller break chance. That said, I feel that the potential of the upped deserves a +1 cost. As for breaking chance, I'd go in the range of 10-30 %

[Drake_XIV]

I would like to see this with at least 20% breaking.

[Annele]

Thanks for correcting me about the name, I have no idea why I didn't remember Squid.
I have also raised percentage to 15 / 20 %

[Blaze]

I think the percentage is far too high at 15/20. Keep in mind that each creature that attacks gets a chance to break it. So at 20 if they have five creatures on average they will break it. A 20% chance per attack phase (Not per creature) would be good. And if you want to make it per creature lowering it to 10% or less it would I would do. I hope this helps

[Drake_XIV]

I think the percentage is far too high at 15/20. Keep in mind that each creature that attacks gets a chance to break it. So at 20 if they have five creatures on average they will break it. A 20% chance per attack phase (Not per creature) would be good. And if you want to make it per creature lowering it to 10% or less it would I would do. I hope this helps

That may be, but with the DR you get with it, it is required to an extent.  Especially since not every deck is creature heavy, which is what Permafrost is good for.

If anything, I'd actually increase the initial DR of the upped version.  But that's only a matter of my opinion.

[Tirear]

Since this provides a temporary benefit, it may make more sense to compare this to heal than to other DR shields. If we assume that all affected attacks will have at least 3|4 damage to lose, it is easy to calculate how much damage the shield will block on average.

Spoiler for Math:

Let n = the average damage blocked by the shield, DR = the damage blocked per hit, and P = the probability of the shield breaking (as a decimal). On the first hit, the shield will block DR damage. P/1 of the time, the shield will break, and that is all the shield blocks. The rest of the time, it will block just as much as a new shield on average. Thus:
n = DR + (1-P) * n
P * n = DR
n = DR/P

Probability of breaking	Unupped(DR3)	Upped(DR4)
5%	60	80
7%	43	57
10%	30	40
12%	25	33
15%	20	27
20%	15	20

First, I note that in its current form, it will block the same amount of damage when upgraded for the same cost (+the cost of upgrading, of course). Also remember that the damage blocked decreases anytime it is attacked by creatures with less attack than DR, which is of course more likely with higher DR. So, the upped form is currently weaker.

The shield costs 5 : + 1 card + 1 turn + temporary use of shield slot.
Heal costs 3 : + 1 card
The shield has the added advantage of blocking poison from scorpions for a bit, and the utility of being usable as a Shield (the unupped other card, cost 1 :other: + 1 card) until you need better protection or have a replacement ready. It has the disadvantages of being weak vs low attack creatures, vulnerability to PC, randomness, and the risk of being killed before it can do its job.

My instinct would be to have the probability of breaking in the 7-10% range, with the same value for unupped and upped forms.

[Annele]

Is it an one-time use ability?

Oops, missed this question. Yes, it is.

[jawdirk]

I think it would be better if it blocked all damage while in the frost mode. Since the chance to break is per creature, it is bad against lots of small creatures. But it is also bad against big creatures because they can still punch through it. And of course, it is bad against a few weak creatures because it is rather expensive. It should be good at something while in frost mode.

Another possible change is to make it only have a chance of breaking if some damage gets through. That would make it very good against small creatures. If the chance of breaking is high enough, it would not be so good against big creatures. You could also make it cheaper, but cheap shields are really not so good because they still take your shield slot, which means in a sense, they are expensive even at 0 quanta cost.

If it were me, I would make it good against small creatures before frost mode, and good against big creatures in frost mode. That would make it an interesting card that would add something to the game.