Meteoroid | Meteorite

[AeonSiege]

Meteoroid | Meteorite
Card Designer Challenge : It All Floods Over

NAME: Meteoroid ELEMENT: Gravity COST: 3 TYPE: Spell TEXT: Target any creature space or player. Deals 5 damage to the target. The target space is altered.	NAME: Meteorite ELEMENT: Gravity COST: 3 TYPE: Spell TEXT: Target any creature space or player. Deals 7 damage to the target. The target space is altered.

ART: IDEA: AeonSiege, inspired by my idea Twister|Tornado NOTES: When this card targets any space that space's height level is lowered. If it targeted a space in the mid row that space would be flooded when Flooding is in play. If it targeted a space in the front or back row or a previously targeted space and Flooding is played then the space would stay flooded even when Flooding is not in play. This card brings a main issue. If the card targets the space where the first creature is always played then the opponent would always need to sacrifice a creature to play another one that could stay alive. This problem is corrected if the target space becomes the last place in the row to play a creature, unless it is a water creatures which would not die. This translates to a second issue that could be dealt with, the coding part, changing the order in which creatures are played when this card is played. Here's an example of a deck: Code: [Select] 7zi zi zi 7zi 7zi 7zi 7gk 7gk 7gk 7gk 7gk 7gk 7gk 7gm 7gm 7gm 7gp 7gp 7gr 7gr 7gr 7gt 7gt 7gt 7h1 7h1 7h1 7i6 7i6 7i6Mark of Gravity 7 Water Tower            3 Water Pendulum 3 Abyss Crawler          3 Arctic Dragon 2 Permafrost Shield     3 Inundation 3 Arctic Octopus         6 Meteorite The same strategy as Twister | Tornado. I was just too lazy to make another strategy. My justification for OldTrees' Challenge 1. Meteoroid | Meteorite has the potential to kill many creatures on its own. 2. Meteoroid | Meteorite improves Flooding's range permanently. SERIES: Card Designer Challenge : It All Floods Over (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,22850.0.html)

[Nepycros]

Since you can have 6 of these in your deck, that means you can flood 6 of the 7 mid-row spaces. That's horrible!

[EmeraldTiger]

How does this work with flooding?

[Nepycros]

How does this work with flooding?

It allows the middle row to be flooded (partially). And it functions alone as your basic Lightning Bolt.

[OldTrees]

This card fails the second part of my challenge.
This card does not help Flooding be optimal without the player needing to use both Flooding and Meteoroid to improve Flooding.

[AeonSiege]

Since you can have 6 of these in your deck, that means you can flood 6 of the 7 mid-row spaces. That's horrible!

By probabilities that won't happen so often unless you are stalling. The expectation is that when you have 15 cards left in the deck you should have drawn 3 Meteoroid more or less.

This card fails the second part of my challenge.
This card does not help Flooding be optimal without the player needing to use both Flooding and Meteoroid to improve Flooding.

Then I seriously can't understand what your challenge is about. Maybe I can't understand because I could have a language limitation since english is not my first language. But how can be Flooding optimal if both cards hasn't being played? What I can imply by this is that you are looking for a card that makes Flooding optimal simply by being in the deck. Please explain your challenge because I really can't understand.

[The_GrimReaper]

^What he means is: None of the cards should rely on the other. You have to be able to use this card without flooding and flooding without this card. The first part works fine. Even without flooding, this can still do decent damage.
But you need this card for flooding to become more powerful. However, you want to make flooding useful as a standalone. This could be achieved for example if flooding works as a counter to this card or decks this card could be used in. I'm afraid I don't have an idea in this case, though.
Nonetheless, I find this card to be very interesting. It enhanches the strengths of flooding and can make it useful even against decks without really excessive creature spam.

[Nepycros]

That's ridiculous. If you want Flooding to be good standalone, then actually rework its mechanic. If the only way this card can be made better otherwise is to actually make a card that is countered by it, then that overcomplicates things. You don't make a card just because it was intended to be beaten.

[AeonSiege]

That's ridiculous. If you want Flooding to be good standalone, then actually rework its mechanic. If the only way this card can be made better otherwise is to actually make a card that is countered by it, then that overcomplicates things. You don't make a card just because it was intended to be beaten.

True.

^What he means is: None of the cards should rely on the other. You have to be able to use this card without flooding and flooding without this card. The first part works fine. Even without flooding, this can still do decent damage.
But you need this card for flooding to become more powerful. However, you want to make flooding useful as a standalone. This could be achieved for example if flooding works as a counter to this card or decks this card could be used in. I'm afraid I don't have an idea in this case, though.
Nonetheless, I find this card to be very interesting. It enhanches the strengths of flooding and can make it useful even against decks without really excessive creature spam.

Flooding's mechanics is to depend on something always. Flooding's effectiveness depends on opponent's swarm, aflatoxin, and effects that delay creatures such as freeze and turtle shield. To include a weakness in a card is not an incentive to put flooding in your deck. If you want to make an incentive out of weaknesses to play Flooding then at least many cards should be reworked to make them vulnerable to Flooding.

[ZephyrPhantom]

That's ridiculous. If you want Flooding to be good standalone, then actually rework its mechanic. If the only way this card can be made better otherwise is to actually make a card that is countered by it, then that overcomplicates things. You don't make a card just because it was intended to be beaten.

@those of you attempting to say that Oldtrees is incorrect:

Wrong. Oldtrees and I had a whole discussion about this, in which I attempted to flesh out the 2nd part of his challenge. I will not name who has discovered the method for the sake of keeping the competition as unbiased as possible, but there IS a way to buff Flooding without touching Flooding itself.

However, that being said, you don't need to fill Oldtrees's requirements to make a good card for this competition. You could make a card that buffs Flooding but is still a high-quality card like Ocean Spectre (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,21743.0.html).

[Nepycros]

Explain then how this game can improve if all we do is add cards that are made to be defeated specifically by weak cards already in the game.

[ZephyrPhantom]

Explain then how this game can improve if all we do is add cards that are made to be defeated specifically by weak cards already in the game.

I don't like to be blunt, but:

1) Do you really think I would add a redundant rule to this competition?  Interpreted at a glance Oldtrees appears to be stating the same statement twice. A closer look may reveal that he's not talking card vs. card anymore.

2) You are misinterpreting me.  Whoever said the card had to be in the deck that was playing against Flooding?

This is the closest I will go to giving the answer on how to fulfill both requirements until the competition ends, because as CDC Challenger I am trying to refrain from giving as much info away as possible. A challenge is not a challenge when the answer is given to you before you try.

Instead of trying to use your mastery of debate skills and waste your time trying to drag the answer out me, I suggest taking a look at the cards Oldtrees has agreed they fulfill his challenge.

Incineration (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,22896.0.html), Psionic Shield (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,22985.0.html), and Onslaught (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,23004.0.html) are the only ones so far to succeed at both buffing Flooding when used with or without the suggested card. These 3 cards have won my vote as promised. Perhaps the other designers can learn from their examples. Buffing an UP card in the game with new cards requires more than just a creative synergy.

However, that being said, you don't need to fill Oldtrees's requirements to make a good card for this competition. You could make a card that buffs Flooding but is still a high-quality card like Ocean Spectre (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,21743.0.html).

I'm sorry if I offended you, but I want to make the competition something fun and challenging. Telling the whole thing straight out would probably ruin it.  If you wish to continue the discussion please PM Oldtrees and me. I will not publicly discuss this further otherwise until the competition ends.