(http://i.imgur.com/lsgJy.png) | (http://i.imgur.com/UzQRd.png) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
:o Really rapid evolution, this is. Turn by turn change is too fast to be completely thematic imo. But still, I'd have a whole lot of fun with this. My Mutation deck would love it!New idea for the Evolution card: All your creatures become mutants and gain a new skill every ten million years.
I like the idea of it and i believe something like this has been brought up before. i just guess it hasn't materialized into a card yet. I do believe that this will completely overshadow the normal mutation card though.Does Pandemonium overshadow Chaos Seed?
Does Pandemonium overshadow Chaos Seed?Speaking of which, the moment I saw this card, I thought it should work like Pandemonium: That is, all creatures for unupped, and all of YOUR creatures for the upped version.
so basically is a :life card that steals an :entropy spell and then makes it better than the :entropy spell by a lot? no me gusta, at all.It doesn't mutate the creature into a buffed up +4/+4 version at all...
I do believe that these are different cases. Pandemonium affects both sides of the field. The only reason chaos seed is used is because of quanta limitations or having to keep in the unupped realmI like the idea of it and i believe something like this has been brought up before. i just guess it hasn't materialized into a card yet. I do believe that this will completely overshadow the normal mutation card though.Does Pandemonium overshadow Chaos Seed?
Would this work better as a permanent (Environment) with slower ability turnover (Gradual Evolution)?Maybe, but I tend to dislike field permanents that are only useful with one in play (like Nightfall and Flooding). Plus, this could lead to destroy-the-permanent-when-you-get-a-mutant-with-steal-or-destroy exploits.
I feel the current mechanic is too entropic. A slower less dramatic yet sustained effect might fit Evolution and Life better.The mechanic is certainly entropic, but from an evolutionary perspective the mutation idea makes sense (obviously apart from the speed). The theme is completely Life.
I also dislike permanents that are not useful in multiples. Thus my suggestion was broad enough to cover permanents that do and don't stack.Would this work better as a permanent (Environment) with slower ability turnover (Gradual Evolution)?Maybe, but I tend to dislike field permanents that are only useful with one in play (like Nightfall and Flooding). Plus, this could lead to destroy-the-permanent-when-you-get-a-mutant-with-steal-or-destroy exploits.I feel the current mechanic is too entropic. A slower less dramatic yet sustained effect might fit Evolution and Life better.The mechanic is certainly entropic, but from an evolutionary perspective the mutation idea makes sense (obviously apart from the speed). The theme is completely Life.
The mechanic is certainly entropic, but from an evolutionary perspective the mutation idea makes sense (obviously apart from the speed). The theme is completely Life.some things, even if they make sense thematically, should not be taken from certain elements. other elements may come up with themes which necessitate on dead effects, but that's :death's thing. mutant's are :entropy's. if :entropy quanta is not included in the application card, it is ripping so hard on entropy's territory. but i guess people don't have a problem with that these days with so many people lacking necessary critical thinking skills of their own, so i'm sure this card will do well in the polls with this current generation of voters.
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?The mechanic is certainly entropic, but from an evolutionary perspective the mutation idea makes sense (obviously apart from the speed). The theme is completely Life.some things, even if they make sense thematically, should not be taken from certain elements. other elements may come up with themes which necessitate on dead effects, but that's :death's thing. mutant's are :entropy's. if :entropy quanta is not included in the application card, it is ripping so hard on entropy's territory. but i guess people don't have a problem with that these days with so many people lacking necessary critical thinking skills of their own, so i'm sure this card will do well in the polls with this current generation of voters.
I agree. The mechanics of this card are just screaming for :entropy. I mean if you said the mechanics only to someone and ask them to guess the element, is there a single person on earth who would say something other than :entropy? Like moomoose said, if you really want, you can make any card fit to any element, but there is often one element where it makes most sense, and in this case it's clearly :entropy.The mechanic is certainly entropic, but from an evolutionary perspective the mutation idea makes sense (obviously apart from the speed). The theme is completely Life.some things, even if they make sense thematically, should not be taken from certain elements. other elements may come up with themes which necessitate on dead effects, but that's :death's thing. mutant's are :entropy's. if :entropy quanta is not included in the application card, it is ripping so hard on entropy's territory. but i guess people don't have a problem with that these days with so many people lacking necessary critical thinking skills of their own, so i'm sure this card will do well in the polls with this current generation of voters.
@SGI disagree.
Reactive change like you are describing is a much less fitting mechanic for Evolution. A giraffe does not grow a longer neck in response to a shortage of food. Rather the giraffes that already had longer necks due to genetic variation would produce more offspring. Variation then Selection not vice versa.
No, evolution is not about adapting to the environment but about those who can't adapt dying and the offspring of those who can adapt taking up the space that would've been taken up by those who couldn't adapt. That's why this card isn't called Adaptation | Evolution but Natural Selection | Evolution.Unless I'm mistaken, you two seem to look this thing as that same creature suddenly gaining new special powers, like a hungry Giraffe whose neck suddenly grows longer so that he can eat more. Everyone knows that is not evolution. Thematically, the idea behind my suggestion was that current creatures are basically replaced by ones who are better suited for that environment. That is how evolution works over a long period of time.
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 :life card.
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.
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.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 :light -> :life :life , 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", :time should probably be there somewhere because it's a very important part of the whole thing. I think :life :entropy :time all make sense in their own way, so picking 1-2 is kind of difficult. I personally would go with :time :entropy combo.
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.The random mutations create variation. (2 of 8 creatures gained Immaterial)
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 :life themed.
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.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.The random mutations create variation. (2 of 8 creatures gained Immaterial)
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 :life themed.
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.
"Natural Selection would be your opponent's CC. (Ex. Owl's Eye.)"That.
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.
"Natural Selection would be your opponent's CC. (Ex. Owl's Eye.)"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.
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.
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.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.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.The random mutations create variation. (2 of 8 creatures gained Immaterial)
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 :life themed.
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.
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.
"That is why I used Immaterial as an example."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.
even if they are "beneficial traits" accumulated, you were only talking about survivability as a means of fitness, of which there are very, very few abilities/skills that increase survivability. most "beneficial traits" would be CC magnets. also, if all of your creatures are affected by this, the relative fitness increase is a wash, aside from the very, very few % that gain +hp or immaterial status.Agreed, too many (1/3) of the mutant skills are not fitness related.
also, sidetracking here, but if evolution gives mutant status- all creatures should be have the passive of 'mutant' because they all evolved.
okay, so the problems with this card have been fleshed out by now. the fix must include using :entropy quanta in some way or remove mutants/random abilities from the mechanic.
my suggestion- make a permanent or creature that has a single target ability to allow creatures to 'evolve' in a continuously additional way (statuses and passives predominantly) -costs :life/ :entropy
Evolution as a permanent or creature makes absolutely no sense.Increased mutation rate (from the normal evolutionary pace) has to be caused by something. A change in the environment could be likened to flooding and thus a permanent.
makes sense..Evolution as a permanent or creature makes absolutely no sense.Increased mutation rate (from the normal evolutionary pace) has to be caused by something. A change in the environment could be likened to flooding and thus a permanent.
Are you trying to tell me Mummies evolved from Cockatrices? Madness. All creatures were created by one supreme being...belief/religion/faith is pretty subjective..
It's been picked up on already, but I'd like to remind everyone that evolution is caused by mutationYou seem to suggest that since mutation is part of evolution, we can assume that mutation = evolution. Wrong. Mutation is only the first step of the process. Without other parts, it's just mutation, not evolution. You and OldTrees are looking it as evolution because players are doing a kind of "natural selection", but like I said, if the card is called "Evolution", it should do exactly that, not just be the first step of the process.
Evolution as a permanent or creature makes absolutely no sense.As a permanent, I agree. But as a creature, it does make sense when you do it like this:
What I learned in my college Evolution class as part of my Genetic major:It's been picked up on already, but I'd like to remind everyone that evolution is caused by mutationYou seem to suggest that since mutation is part of evolution, we can assume that mutation = evolution. Wrong. Mutation is only the first step of the process. Without other parts, it's just mutation, not evolution.
If we already have an ability "Devour", why would we want an ability called "Devourer" that does something completely different?Evolution as a permanent or creature makes absolutely no sense.As a permanent, I agree. But as a creature, it does make sense when you do it like this:
(http://elementscommunity.org/images/Cards/Graboid.png)
Which brings me to another point. If we already have an ability "Evolve", why would we want a card called "Evolution" that does something completely different?
ok, jesus, how a card curator could not understand this is repugnant- it's not about 'randomness', it's about taking a mechanic that is firmly established as belonging to one element and giving a supped up version of that mechanic to another element. see the mass immaterial creature example above, or if you were to make :gravity a "mass steal" card where it takes many of the opponents permanents, or give :earth a "from the ground up" card where it removes all creatures back onto the top of the decks. do the themes match up? well enough. do the mechanics belong to other elements? doy. should these cards be made? hell no.I agree with most of your criticisms of this card. However not all mechanics are monopolized. The number of elements that a mechanic fits can range from 1 (Momentum) to 12 (Shield). We can see from Fallen Elf, Mutation, Chaos Seed and Pandemonium that Mutation is primarily Entropic but Life has a small claim. Obviously if a mono Life mutation effect existed it should not have a greater impact than Fallen Elf and not approach the impact of Pandamonium. We can see from Thorn Carapace that randomness is not monopolized by Entropy but Entropy has more randomness. Thus a mono Life mutation can have some randomness but not as much as cards like Pandamonium. So Mutation can be used in mono Life but it is severely restricted in usage.
Very similar to my Sand Man card. For that reason, I think it would better serve as an :entropy card - it maintains the characteristics of entropy (mutation and randomness).I might be a little late, but I have a question:
Read the 2nd part.Very similar to my Sand Man card. For that reason, I think it would better serve as an :entropy card - it maintains the characteristics of entropy (mutation and randomness).I might be a little late, but I have a question:
You think that it belongs in :entropy because it is similar to an unrelated card that you already made?
it maintains the characteristics of entropy
ok, jesus, how a card curator could not understand this is repugnantCard Curators are not hired for being amazing card designers (all of us except for johann and including TimerClock have quite low rankings :)).
"We can see from Thorn Carapace that randomness is not monopolized by Entropy but Entropy has more randomness."I addressed Mutation and Randomness separately in my previous post. I also addressed the difference between how random Entropy is compared to the diluted randomness found in Thorn Carapace.
as long as this card involves mutants or similar effects to mutants, it should in no way be mono-life, devoid of it's mother element, :entropy. and honestly i cant think of a method to do so if he is dead set on it being a spell and not a creature or permanent with a related skill. could go into pseudo-quanta, though.
also considering % chance to be randomness is weak- i think that there is a big difference between "one of these many things are equally likely to occur" and "this one thing will occur roughly every 3 out of 4 times". but that is not the issue here. i have no problem with %chance of an effect cards in any element. but this card does not fit that category.
It's a tough issue for me, really. While I believe that the card perfectly fits the theme of Life, I admit that it is mechanically closer to Entropy. However, theme > mechanic when choosing element in my opinion. So it shall stay Life for now.Since theme and mechanic are modules that are put together, one never needs to compromise on one to achieve the other. Theme does not exceed mechanic. Theme + Mechanic => Element.
If we already have an ability "Devour", why would we want an ability called "Devourer" that does something completely different?I think it's also important to understand that game developers make mistakes all the time. Although in most cases we should use current Elements cards as examples of the right way of doing things, we shouldn't follow it blindly. I personally think that "Devourer" was not the best choice of words because it can be confused with the ability "Devour". It's not the end of the world of course, but choosing a more unique name would have been better. And it most certainly does not mean that because Elements has done something like that once, it suddenly becomes "good game design".
The idea that randomness should be exclusive to Entropy is wrong (see Dusk Mantle and Fog Shield).Please read my post again and you will see that what I said goes way beyond "Entropy is randomness". It's the mutation part that is the main problem. Here are the :entropy cards that use similar mechanics:
You suggest that it should entail all parts of Evolution, and yet you are also the one who argued that there is no need for Elements to be that scientifically accurate.What I actually said was that it doesn't have to have all the parts but it must include the main idea. Lets take Rustler as an example.
How would you make it encompass the other parts of real evolution as well?I posted one suggestion already. Here:
As for the mechanics.. I think the idea would be much cooler if the creatures would adapt to their situation, because evolution is not really about random things happening, it's about natural selection and survival of the fittest. Here's how I would do it:Just like Photosynthesis in Elements, this does not describe the evolution process 100% accurately, but it has the main point, which is creatures adapting to their environments. Best part is of course that because mutation is not mentioned at all, and is not part of the mechanics, the card could easily be put in :life. It's of course not perfect and I'm not saying this is the only way to do it, but I think it fits the theme of evolution much better.
EXAMPLE 1:
Your opponent bolts down one creature. All other creatures would gain +1 HP.
EXAMPLE 2:
Your opponent plays a Shield. All your creatures would gain +1 Attack.
EXAMPLE 3:
Your opponent plays Dimensional Shield, all your creatures would gain Momentum.
EXAMPLE 4:
Otyugh eats your creature. All other creatures would become poisonous (cause poisoning in ingested)
| BEFORE (http://i.imgur.com/lsgJy.png) | AFTER (http://i.imgur.com/FwAqN.png) |
It's easy to remake a card in a different element.If you look at these two cards, which one makes more sense?
BEFORE
(http://i.imgur.com/lsgJy.png)AFTER
(http://i.imgur.com/FwAqN.png)
| BEFORE (http://i.imgur.com/iygoS.png) | AFTER (http://i.imgur.com/r1ShJ.png) |
While reading the responses, here's something I thought of for a card that I feel could be called "Evolution" - When one of your creatures dies, there is an X% chance that you will generate a copy of one of your other creatures.Nice mechanic. However it is different enough from the current mechanic that it might be better off as a new thread.
@Scaredgirl: I actually like your idea. A lot. Two big problems though:1. It would probably be complex in terms of coding (something that should be ignored during card idea brainstorming), but in terms of gameplay it's actually very simple to use and understand. It would be no different from a card like Pandemonium that can produce many different effects. Just because a card can produce many different effects, does not mean it is automatically complex.It's too complex.It's your idea; I can hardly change my card to it, because then it's not my card idea.
It's easy to remake a card in a different element.You are missing the point. It's not just about remaking a card in a different element. The point was that when we already have an :entropy card called "Mutation", and when you make a card that does mass mutation, it's pretty logical that this card goes to :entropy as well. You are basically forcing the card to go to :life , although mechanically it's a perfect fit in :entropy .
Mass Mutation has no theme. Natural Selection does.Mass Mutation does have a theme. It's a spell that mutates creatures. It has a theme just like a spell called "Fireball" would have. And for the record, I wasn't suggesting you changed the card to "Mass Mutation" because that would be lame and too close to Pandemonium. I was just trying to show visually how much more sense the current card would make as an :entropy card with a different theme.
Yea, that's a pretty interesting idea. It would be a kind of an alternative version to Bonewall. Not super excited about the percentage thing though, but removing it could make this card really OP if it stacks and is not too expensive. Hmm.. I need to think about this some more..While reading the responses, here's something I thought of for a card that I feel could be called "Evolution" - When one of your creatures dies, there is an X% chance that you will generate a copy of one of your other creatures.Nice mechanic. However it is different enough from the current mechanic that it might be better off as a new thread.
Mass Mutation has no theme. Natural Selection does.Mass Mutation has the same theme as Mutation. The theme is mutation of a creature into a completely new creature through radioactivity and other sciencey stuff, randomizing all of its stats. If Mass Mutation has no theme, then Mutation must not either.