[VOTING] Card Design Competition : Deck-In-A-Card

[nensuru]

First of all, thanks for the feedback. I agree with your score on my card and that "The polish seems a bit unrefined" but i am a noob card creator that just wanted to make a card of my favorite deck. I am not using this as a excuse for the poor desing of the card, consider this as me asking for the help of the experient card creators.

I made it 3*3 because of balance: dragon is 1 damage per quanta, while 3*4 adrenafrog would make it 12/8 damage per quanta = 3/2 damage per quanta. This ratio and the anti-cc mechanic would make this card way better then dragon.

The fact that it is a standalone card instead of taking up more card space would probably make this unviable alongside current life rushes.

I desagree with this. Rushes usualy have lots of quanta to play the creatures early (i.e. low QI), 3 or 4 card like this one on 12 pillar adrenafrog could be useful late game, when you have lots of quanta to spare.

and the other side being 5+4+2 (no upgrade bonus?!?)

-1 cost and momentum on first attack.

Spoiler for help me with math:

11/7= 1,6(?) damage per quanta.
5 momentum damage + 6 physical damage/7 -> ~0,7 momentum damage + ~0,9(?) physical damage (per quanta)

taking elite charger in consideration -> 7 momentum damage/5 -> 1,4 momentum damage per quanta
11 - 100
5 -  x
11x = 500 -> ~45% of the card damage is momentum damage
the card cost is 7. -> 45% of 7 = 7 * 9/20 = 63/20 = ~3,4 is what you are paying as momentum damage
5 momentum damage/3,4 = ~1,5 momentum damage per quanta

physical damage per quanta:

i am not too sure which card i could use to compare physical damage per quanta.

I am not sure how dr shields and poison damage could affect the balance of this card.

I also like to say that the Basilisk is my favorite card in this competiton, after mine ofc. :p

[furballdn]

Glad to hear your response. It helps me take a closer second glance at my observations and the cards.

As much as I love your art, it feels just a bit silly

Frog + adren = 6 + 2 cards = 3*4 damage
AdrenaFrog = 8 + 1 card = 3*3 damage + slight anti-cc

1 card = 2 , so an Adrenafrog without your anti-cc should do 12 damage for 8 . I think your anti-cc ranges from within 0-1 .

Consistency would also be nice. Write 3+3+3 if the upped has 5+4+2.

As for card space, it is one reason why deadly poison is better than poison (most of the time). I admit I am not a master of life rushes, but play testing can probably tell if having this would make rushes better or not.

The effects (anti-cc and first attack momentum) feel odd now that I take a closer glance. How does that tie into your life deck rush?

Again, thank you for talking with me, as it helps both of us take a closer look at the card for balance and an overall fairer judgement.

[Rutarete]

Thanks for the feedback Furbs.

I'm kind of surprised you think my art is 'neat.' I agree for the most part with what you said, and that I wasn't clear on the poison. It is blocked by shields. But it seems that your first impression only considered its use in a rush. But is not Adrena-Arsenic/Deathstalker faster than frogs? But that question's beside my point. My point is that it's not a complete rush card. The healing dilutes the rush percentage part of the card, meaning it can be suited for medium and stall-speed type decks as well.

As for why for animating? I did that mainly because there's no real use for in the deck I made this from. Sure there's an air card, but no air quanta. I felt using air would make it less related to the deck.

[furballdn]

Ah, no offense, but I meant the art as neat thing to be more sarcastic. It felt quite...meh.

Your wording of the card is still very ambiguous so I can't really say much about it unless you clarify (clarity in a card is very important)
How much damage does it do? How much poison counters does it add? How much does it heal by? Is eclipse bonus added before or after the doubling? Is only damage doubled? Is healing doubled? Is poison doubled? Those weren't answered very clearly and not really addressed in your notes. Additionally, you might want to say "cloaked" instead of "darkness" since I assumed darkness implied nightfall.

I see how fits in with the deck, but it does not fit in with the card. There's nothing -y about animating a weapon.

[choongmyoung]

About the Rabbit:

I feel that this is a bit OP compared to mitosis+creature and NT/NQ+pillars.

What is "NT/NQ+Pillars" and would you mind explaining it more detailed why is it bit OP?

[Rutarete]

About the Rabbit:

I feel that this is a bit OP compared to mitosis+creature and NT/NQ+pillars.

What is "NT/NQ+Pillars" and would you mind explaining it more detailed why is it bit OP?

Nymph Tears/Nymph Queen

[choongmyoung]

About the Rabbit:

I feel that this is a bit OP compared to mitosis+creature and NT/NQ+pillars.

What is "NT/NQ+Pillars" and would you mind explaining it more detailed why is it bit OP?

Nymph Tears/Nymph Queen

Ah, thx.
/
Isn't -1|-2 adjustment enough to balance?

[ddevans96]

This is just another proof that rules need to be either required or banned, or you get people who completely ignore the point of the competition.

Go find better art for Opscuritas, at least, and then tell us it's not good art.

[ZephyrPhantom]

Art was meant to be more of the 'fun' part of the competition. I didn't expect people to make it the main point of voting. At the same time, appealing art does hint at effort to make a card look good (especially if said art is self-made). Design and balance discussion was also prevalent a for good chunk of the 'objective voting' discussion, so I feel that users will be smart enough to judge the card beyond its art.

Polls up. Vote for the best deck based on the following factors:
1) How well does the card summarize the deck?
2) How faithful does the card stay to the deck's purpose?
3) Is the card balanced if it was to be implemented ingame?
4) How well was the individual card designed? (Mechanics, theme, usability, etc...)

[furballdn]

Go find better art for Opscuritas, at least, and then tell us it's not good art.

That would be hard for me to do especially since I don't even know what it is.

A lot of people seem to be hung on me judging because of art. Did I judge because of art? Yes, but it was very minimal. The majority of my judging was on creativity, thematics & mechanics, balance, and polish. Art only played a small role in determining the overall polish of a card.

Besides, the reason I judged with art is because that this is "deck in a card," not "deck in a mechanic." If we wanted something like that Zblader would have used brawl templates.

[ddevans96]

Opscuritas and Tenebris are both Latin words meaning something close to 'Darkness', according to Google. I could find images for darkness easily...in complete darkness

As for mentioning your art judging, the way you wrote your critiques seemed to weigh quite heavily on art, considering you brought the art up before anything else more often than not, and your ratings scale perfectly with your comments on art.

[furballdn]

Opscuritas and Tenebris are both Latin words meaning something close to 'Darkness', according to Google. I could find images for darkness easily...in complete darkness

As for mentioning your art judging, the way you wrote your critiques seemed to weigh quite heavily on art, considering you brought the art up before anything else more often than not, and your ratings scale perfectly with your comments on art.

Ah, well google didn't reveal that much at a glance (I could've spent 5 minutes figuring it out), but this should really be in the notes.

I mentioned art first because when you look at a card, it is what stands out first. Most of my judgement was on mechanics/thematics/balance and originality, not the art. Art played a very minor role besides bring about a sense of polish.

You are correct that good art tended to have good results, but is this causality or merely correlation? A hastily drawn mspaint art implies that a user made the card in a cursory manner, so naturally it might not be very well polished or balanced. Art gotten from websites imply more effort since a user had to find/manipulate and use the image for their cards. Other original art most likely means the user spent quite a good deal of time working on the card, even creating original art for it. If they spent such a long time working on a work of art just for a competition, it is likely they spent a lot of time on mechanics as well.

Again, from an objective point of view of the "objective" point of view, I would have suspicion as well, but I can guarantee that if these cards are submitted again without art, my judgement of them would be very much the same.