Priori Quanta (Saynt)

[Saynt]

During the midst of war... and recreational dueling, a secret project was being developed. Elementals throughout the land were battling, honing their skills and gaining more wealth and fame. Despite the recent availability of new creatures, spells, and artifacts, the form of dueling has remained much the same as it has always been. Recently, however, innovators of dueling, great craftsmen, breeders, and sorcerers, have turned their attention to quanta, producing many different methods of obtaining and manipulating quanta. Among these ideas are Pseudoquanta (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,27033.0.html), a designation given to techniques that give the user greater control over their quanta. The time has come for pseudoquanta to be scrutinized by the people, and judged on its worth...

Priori Quanta What is it?
Priori quanta () denotes the last element used, whether it be the cost you payed for the last card you played, use of skills, or generated quanta as specified by the card text (refers to last card cost if condition is unspecified). If the last type of quanta used was random, or not specified, then it is set by default to Mirror (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,28215.0.html) (quanta matching your mark).


Why is this an idea worth considering?
Priori quanta addresses several issues.

Many decks require different sources of quanta because of a specific card. A deck that requires more drawing must have a source of  readily available. Rainbow decks in particular, must generate extra, unneeded quanta of other elements, and production of quanta is slower than a mono or duo deck. The solution to this, it seems, is to use Nova/Supernova, practically making rainbow viable only to rush or stall. With , quanta resources can be used more effectively, and allows for much more variety in rainbow decks.

Furthermore, in many duo/trio decks, there is an imbalance of quanta usage. Either a specific element has too much quanta and not enough cards to use that type of quanta, or their is not enough quanta to be used for that element. This problem is not easily solved, because it often lies in the deck composition. A deck utilizing only a select few cards of an element would need less cards generating quanta of that element. Though, often, there must be more cards generating that type of quanta put into the deck than required, because it must be able to be drawn. An example would be a duo deck requiring Fractal. Although there are only a maximum of 6 cards in this deck that requires  quanta, they each cost 9|10 to use, and drains all remaining  . With the high cost requirement, it's likely that pendulums would be used to power both  and the other element. The problem with this is that the pendulum generates too much  and too little of the other element. Fractal is used only in certain circumstances, and if the hand is too full for it to be used, then the pendulum generates too much  , which would be later wasted due to Fractal's draining effect. Even if there is only 1 Fractal in the deck, in which case there isn't really quanta to be wasted, the deck still requires pendulums, slowing down quanta production of the main element. allows for better management of quanta, and encourages more varied strategies to be used.

Please reply if you have any questions questions regarding the use of the mechanic.


Examples of card ideas using Priori quanta:
Symbiont | Symbiote (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,27927.0.html)

Check back later for more cards.


Other information
Here is the large version of the Priori symbol.

Feel free to use.

[TimerClock14]

Please explain what you mean when you ask "Is this worth considering?" If it can be replaced with "do you like this idea" and have it still make sense, you are fine. If not, then you must change it such that it does.

[OldTrees]

The issues caused by the necessary history added (code remembering the past) to the game has not been addressed satisfactory in my opinion.

[Saynt]

I had to make a new poll to allow change of vote.

[Smurrf]

I voted no...it just doesn't scream wide usage at me.  Maybe a (very) small handful of cards could be created that would use this as a better cost than a fixed quanta cost, but worth the effort to be a widespread mechanic?  Just not convinced.

[TimerClock14]

I noticed the poll does not allow voters to change their vote. Please change.


Why I voted no: The issue of adding a history (code remembering the past) to the game has not been addressed satisfactory in my opinion. (however when addressed I may change my mind and my vote provided the poll is fixed.)

Sorry if I offend, but this is an example of a bad vote.

Voting based off your feelings of anything other than the question asked is generally a bad idea. The question asks: "Do you like this idea."

In short, OldTrees, you are saying that you do not like the idea because you think there is an issue of it being implemented into the game. Again, sorry if I offend, but I find that a rather silly reason to not like the idea.

[Saynt]

I voted no...it just doesn't scream wide usage at me.  Maybe a (very) small handful of cards could be created that would use this as a better cost than a fixed quanta cost, but worth the effort to be a widespread mechanic?  Just not convinced.

Both Quantum Pillar/Tower and Nova/Supernova created many, many new possibilities of deck construction. If so much could come from 2 cards, why does this idea specifically seem limited to you?

[Smurrf]

Not exactly a fair comparison there.  For a game like this, especially the way that quanta is stored, those two cards are a fairly obvious design.  More importantly, neither of those actually uses pseudoquanta.  (Mostly due to M:tG experience, I don't consider Other as a PQ...colorless mana is pretty simple to understand and translates universally.)

To compare apples to apples, let's look at Mirror vs Priori.  For Mirror, there's a lot of 12-card sets out there in the CI&A that the only difference is the element.  Making those be a single card costing Mirror would simplify things, make it much cheaper in Electrum to obtain, and they'd be extremely versatile, usable almost in any deck.  It also allows a design for other cards that don't really fit a single element thematically, either in casting or activation cost, that you wouldn't want to just throw into 'Other.'  It's very static and easy to plan for when creating decks.

For Priori, it tosses in a variable that I personally wouldn't want to have to juggle in deck design.  In many cases, the exact card order played makes all the difference in an awesome combo and an 'aw hell, what did I just do' moment.  Having the added difficulty of making sure I get the cards in the correct order, not just for the mechanics themselves, but also to make sure I can actually afford to cast a certain card, just isn't that appealing, and I am not seeing anything (example card included) that would be ideal enough to have to work through that difficulty.  I would need to see other cards designed, and am open to being convinced otherwise, but the instantly recognizable 'yeah, that's a good idea' just isn't there for me.

[OldTrees]

I noticed the poll does not allow voters to change their vote. Please change.


Why I voted no: The issue of adding a history (code remembering the past) to the game has not been addressed satisfactory in my opinion. (however when addressed I may change my mind and my vote provided the poll is fixed.)

Sorry if I offend, but this is an example of a bad vote.

Voting based off your feelings of anything other than the question asked is generally a bad idea. The question asks: "Do you like this idea."

In short, OldTrees, you are saying that you do not like the idea because you think there is an issue of it being implemented into the game. Again, sorry if I offend, but I find that a rather silly reason to not like the idea.

I seem to have mistyped. Edited in a more clear version.

Clairification: I do not think their is a issue towards its implementation. Instead I recognize there is an increased cost to its implementation and judge it by the total cost/benefit ratio.
My answer was my current position is that I do not like the idea with the baggage it carries. However I am fairly close to being ambivalent on that point. (I had planned on voting no then removing to test the poll's for a remove vote option)

If the mechanic were more useful than it currently is (or if I were enlightened to what I might be missing) that would adjust the cost/benefit ratio relating to the value this idea would add to the game.

That said: I agree with Timer that if someone voted "no" because they thought it couldn't be implemented that would be a bad vote.

Edit: I just recognized that not everyone might know what the consequences of having History code in the game would be.
Currently all card to card interactions take place on the actor card's time in the turn order. How would a card with a Priori activation cost be coded? It would have a trigger to check the quanta used everytime quanta was used to determine if it would permit the ability to be activated or not (along with the blinking signal to the user). The same is true for Priori casting costs. Obviously history tracking code takes a lot more time per turn than present only code. Time per game is an important detail to the game.