Natural Selection | Evolution

[moomoose]

Ohoho, being sore here aren't you? Ultimately it doesn't matter because you're not the one deciding whether it's Entropy or Life, and noone cares if the card is " ripping so hard on entropy's territory" Because the main thing is about the effect. If people like the effect, they'll vote for it, except for you dearest, who'll probably whine about how a card doesn't fit the element voting it down because of that. Assuming this card is going to make it, it'll be the developers who change the card's stats, not you. So why don't you just stop the arguments?

^one of the new know nothing voters.  people shouldnt vote for something solely because they like the effect- the effect has to be relatively balanced, interesting, novel and fit inside the game.  this card is balanced ok, very mildly interesting, not all that novel (mass mutation cards have been suggested before, this just scales it back a tiny bit) and it does not fit inside the game as a card.

[Pineapple]

But one of the main contributing factors to your sped-up natural selection is death, and no death effects are generated even though creatures represent the lives and deaths of organisms considered to be of that species or of an ancestor specie. Damage reduction does not cause the death of creatures, and successfully attacking the opponent doesn't cause creatures to live longer. Without the previous things dying, you really can't relate a the mechanic you described to a sped-up natural selection without making it a Time card.

[Scaredgirl]

But one of the main contributing factors to your sped-up natural selection is death, and no death effects are generated even though creatures represent the lives and deaths of organisms considered to be of that species or of an ancestor specie. Damage reduction does not cause the death of creatures, and successfully attacking the opponent doesn't cause creatures to live longer. Without the previous things dying, you really can't relate a the mechanic you described to a sped-up natural selection without making it a Time card.

Evolution is a complex process with many factors affecting to it. Elements is a card game. We do not have to add all steps of some scientific theory, or make sure that everything works 100% like it works in real life. That would be too complex. All we need to do is to take a simplified version of the basic idea, which is exactly what I did.

EXAMPLE:


Photosynthesis is more than just -> , but for Elements this kind of simplification works fine. I'm sure there are other examples of abilities that do not make 100% sense scientifically speaking, but are fine as abilities in a card game.

It's the same with evolution. As long as the basic idea is there, the card idea will work. Natural Selection | Evolution in the first post is more like a frequent mass mutation, which in my opinion is missing the basic idea of evolution or natural selection.

And yes, if there was a card called "Evolution", should probably be there somewhere because it's a very important part of the whole thing. I think all make sense in their own way, so picking 1-2 is kind of difficult. I personally would go with combo.

[OldTrees]

But one of the main contributing factors to your sped-up natural selection is death, and no death effects are generated even though creatures represent the lives and deaths of organisms considered to be of that species or of an ancestor specie. Damage reduction does not cause the death of creatures, and successfully attacking the opponent doesn't cause creatures to live longer. Without the previous things dying, you really can't relate a the mechanic you described to a sped-up natural selection without making it a Time card.

Evolution is a complex process with many factors affecting to it. Elements is a card game. We do not have to add all steps of some scientific theory, or make sure that everything works 100% like it works in real life. That would be too complex. All we need to do is to take a simplified version of the basic idea, which is exactly what I did.

Photosynthesis is more than just -> , but for Elements this kind of simplification works fine. I'm sure there are other examples of abilities that do not make 100% sense scientifically speaking, but are fine as abilities in a card game.

It's the same with evolution. As long as the basic idea is there, the card idea will work. Natural Selection | Evolution in the first post is more like a frequent mass mutation, which in my opinion is missing the basic idea of evolution or natural selection.

And yes, if there was a card called "Evolution", should probably be there somewhere because it's a very important part of the whole thing. I think all make sense in their own way, so picking 1-2 is kind of difficult. I personally would go with combo.

Yes a simplified version of the basic idea is ideal. Evolution is caused by genetic variation and natural selection. Since the opponent added the natural selection all we would need is to add the genetic variation that is the source of the relative reproductive success that is Evolution. A very common misconception about Evolution is that creatures adapt in response to their environment. We have no reason to perpetuate this misconception while designing this card. Therefore having the card cause variation independent from the natural selection the opponent later uses would fit Evolution much better. Obviously the current version of the card has too frequent of mutations but it does have the mutation and selection in the correct order.

I would probably include "time" (aka Turns) rather than  or Time.

[moomoose]

in this card as it stands: there is no natural selection occurring, there is no evolution occurring, there are only mass frequent random mutations to the same creatures occurring. 

while there may be room for a mass mutation with a restriction to abilities only and occurring each turn, it is not natural selection/evolution and it is not themed.

[OldTrees]

in this card as it stands: there is no natural selection occurring, there is no evolution occurring, there are only mass frequent random mutations to the same creatures occurring. 

while there may be room for a mass mutation with a restriction to abilities only and occurring each turn, it is not natural selection/evolution and it is not themed.

The random mutations create variation. (2 of 8 creatures gained Immaterial)
Natural Selection would be your opponent's CC. (Ex. Owl's Eye.)
The previous random mutations gives different creatures different chances of surviving. (2 of the 8 creatures are immune to Snipe)
The population frequency tends to shift in favor of the creatures with higher chances of surviving. (A material creature was sniped. Now 2/7 have immaterial.)
If the variation was genetic(heritable) then what just occurred would have been evolution.

[Scaredgirl]

in this card as it stands: there is no natural selection occurring, there is no evolution occurring, there are only mass frequent random mutations to the same creatures occurring. 

while there may be room for a mass mutation with a restriction to abilities only and occurring each turn, it is not natural selection/evolution and it is not themed.

The random mutations create variation. (2 of 8 creatures gained Immaterial)
Natural Selection would be your opponent's CC. (Ex. Owl's Eye.)
The previous random mutations gives different creatures different chances of surviving. (2 of the 8 creatures are immune to Snipe)
The population frequency tends to shift in favor of the creatures with higher chances of surviving. (A material creature was sniped. Now 2/7 have immaterial.)
If the variation was genetic(heritable) then what just occurred would have been evolution.

Your argument fails big time because you have the players do the natural selection, not the card. If the card is called "Natural Selection" or "Evolution", then that's what it should do. Using your logic, we could take any card and call it "Evolution" because it will lead to "natural selection", like CC by your opponent.

The facts are that mechanically, the card is currently just mass mutation. The concept of natural selection or evolution is not included in the card in any way.

[moomoose]

"Natural Selection would be your opponent's CC. (Ex. Owl's Eye.)"

except this is the opposite of natural selection, here the best creatures will be targeted (unless you consider that immaterial creatures are better than any other creature? or that immaterial is the only good mutation to have?).  not to mention "natural selection" would keep the best traits, not just randomly switch to the next trait immediately after the previous trait was adapted.

[Scaredgirl]

"Natural Selection would be your opponent's CC. (Ex. Owl's Eye.)"

except this is the opposite of natural selection, here the best creatures will be targeted (unless you consider that immaterial creatures are better than any other creature? or that immaterial is the only good mutation to have?).  not to mention "natural selection" would keep the best traits, not just randomly switch to the next trait immediately after the previous trait was adapted.

That.

The "best" creature is determined by the environment. If the environment is your opponent sniping creatures with an Owl's Eye, then being immaterial is one option of where the creatures could evolve. Being a 100|3 creature is not that awesome when you get one-shotted before you have a chance to actually do anything. In a situation like that, an immaterial 1|1 creature is better.

[OldTrees]

"Natural Selection would be your opponent's CC. (Ex. Owl's Eye.)"

except this is the opposite of natural selection, here the best creatures will be targeted (unless you consider that immaterial creatures are better than any other creature? or that immaterial is the only good mutation to have?).  not to mention "natural selection" would keep the best traits, not just randomly switch to the next trait immediately after the previous trait was adapted.

More valuable and more resilient are not the same thing. Crimson Dragon is less fit than Cockatrice in part because it is more powerful. Fitness is merely a quantitative measurement of the reproductive success.

Random mutations (the source of the genetic variance) can add and remove traits. That said, a trait that could accumulate would fit evolution even better than active skills. That is why I used Immaterial as an example.

in this card as it stands: there is no natural selection occurring, there is no evolution occurring, there are only mass frequent random mutations to the same creatures occurring. 

while there may be room for a mass mutation with a restriction to abilities only and occurring each turn, it is not natural selection/evolution and it is not themed.

The random mutations create variation. (2 of 8 creatures gained Immaterial)
Natural Selection would be your opponent's CC. (Ex. Owl's Eye.)
The previous random mutations gives different creatures different chances of surviving. (2 of the 8 creatures are immune to Snipe)
The population frequency tends to shift in favor of the creatures with higher chances of surviving. (A material creature was sniped. Now 2/7 have immaterial.)
If the variation was genetic(heritable) then what just occurred would have been evolution.

Your argument fails big time because you have the players do the natural selection, not the card. If the card is called "Natural Selection" or "Evolution", then that's what it should do. Using your logic, we could take any card and call it "Evolution" because it will lead to "natural selection", like CC by your opponent.

The facts are that mechanically, the card is currently just mass mutation. The concept of natural selection or evolution is not included in the card in any way.

My argument is that variation and selection should occur and that variation should happen before selection not after. If both your and Xenocidius's models, natural selection comes from the opponent's usage of CC (predation). However only Xenocidius's model has variation and has that variation influence relative fitness.

My logic excludes any card that does not create variation and does not have the prior variation cause the relative fitness.

Additional note: Evolution can occur in the absence of natural selection. The four evolutionary forces are Genetic Drift, Gene Flow, Natural Selection and Mutation. The card does contain Evolution but requires the environment to add the natural selection. Hence I would agree that the unupped card is misnamed.

[moomoose]

"That is why I used Immaterial as an example."

unfortunately for your argument, immaterial is one of the few exceptions in this mechanic and as such has no baring on the overall nature of this card.

[OldTrees]

"That is why I used Immaterial as an example."

unfortunately for your argument, immaterial is one of the few exceptions in this mechanic and as such has no baring on the overall nature of this card.

That is why I used Immaterial as an example.

My argument so far is that the card has an effect on fitness that originates from the prior creation of variation.