Apocalypse | Apocalypse

[Nepycros]

Rain of Fire and Earthquake. Sure, they have their advantage, and you have to prepare for it, but nothing prepares for this. Either you give up your chance of setting yourself up, or you lose everything in a blaze of fire. You can't counter this with normal means, because while you sit there waiting for this card to be played, the enemy will have already been ready to do something about it. You can't fight without resources. And no matter how you look at it, in the end, this card will be more of a card denial than silence.

[Uppercut]

If you face an earth deck do you slowroll your pillars just in case the opponent has quicksands?  When facing a fire deck are you careful about how large a rush you put out at once?

We have a winner. A play mistake is never the fault of the cards in the opposing deck.

This card is broken because quanta is too fast and easy to recover. With a deck built around this it'd be easy to nuke the board and drop fat in one turn.

[BluePriest]

Rain of Fire and Earthquake. Sure, they have their advantage, and you have to prepare for it, but nothing prepares for this. Either you give up your chance of setting yourself up, or you lose everything in a blaze of fire. You can't counter this with normal means, because while you sit there waiting for this card to be played, the enemy will have already been ready to do something about it. You can't fight without resources. And no matter how you look at it, in the end, this card will be more of a card denial than silence.

I wont lie, I dont do pvp often at all, however, I do know strategy. The most important part when preparing for this card is looking at your opponent. is he laying down a lot? Seems like he probably wont be depending on this card. Is he hardly playing anything while he gets a lot of quanta? Well, I would take a guess that he is working on playing this card. As Ive said, I agree that this card is OP however, its hardly hard to predict.

[OldTrees]

Here is a better reason why it is OP:
It costs half what it should.

Current Standard for Instant Kill
Freeze (unupped) + Shockwave (either)
Total converted cost for single target instant kill: 2|1 +1 +2cards = 5|4 elemental quanta +1 card

Current Standard for Single target CC -> Mass CC
(3/5) Lightning|Thunderbolt -> Rain of Fire|Firestorm
1.2|.6  -> 7|5 (about x6 before cost reduction from upgrade)

Combined Instand Kill -> Mass instant kill
Total recommended cost (with decreasing accuracy and precision): 30|28

[Nepycros]

Also, it contradicts PA. If something specifically says it can't be destroyed, I doubt this card will let it be destroyed. You can't set up such large rules and allow contradictions to trickle past.

[Uppercut]

Here is a better reason why it is OP:

Your equasion is impractical because you're basically throwing together bits and pieces of other parts of the game, assuming all Elements work at an equal cost/similar effect ratio (hint: they don't, look at Dusk Mantle and Fog Shield), and theorycrafting based on loose ends.

[Nepycros]

Uppercut, there are patterns. Trying to ignore them is ridiculous. You can't design a card based on such vagueness as disalignments between specific cards. Following the pattern is the safest way to determine absolute value.

[Uppercut]

I didn't say patterns don't exist.

[OldTrees]

Here is a better reason why it is OP:

Your equasion is impractical because you're basically throwing together bits and pieces of other parts of the game, assuming all Elements work at an equal cost/similar effect ratio (hint: they don't, look at Dusk Mantle and Fog Shield), and theorycrafting based on loose ends.

Look at Dusk Mantle 6|4 for 50% shield
Look at Fog Shield 2|1 for 40% shield

Hmm. 2 points. I think a line is possible. Your counterexample is silly.

I would be interested if you could prove a significant mathematical difference between the elements beyond what sets of values are appropriate. If all the variables can be equated then the elements can use the same standard without sacrificing flavor.

Unlike MTG, Elements seems to be balanced based on a standard and the options limited for each element.

Yes my theorycrafting here is weaker then normal. However math is much better than intuition.

[Nepycros]

But you are saying OldTrees uses bits and pieces of Elements to justify himself, when in fact those bits and pieces are the practical portions of it. I'm surprised I've finally met someone as stubborn as I am.

[Uppercut]

@OldTrees, there is definitely some cost correlation but I haven't seen anything that hints that the cards are balanced specifically to cause that correlation. It may be the other way around, it could be that there is a correlation by accident because that just happens to be the way the game is balanced. The former would mean that the correlation is the cause for the balance, the latter would assume that there are some numerical ranges that causes a balance that can be graphed in a way that is vaguely correlated. What neither of them do is show that deviance would necessarily cause an unbalance. Furthermore it is fallacious to assume that correlation and causation are the same.

But you are saying OldTrees uses bits and pieces of Elements to justify himself, when in fact those bits and pieces are the practical portions of it. I'm surprised I've finally met someone as stubborn as I am.

Not really. He is using a 2 card combo to come up with a 1 card effect. Two cards in entirely different elements which might undercost or overcost the effect. Even then one of those cards isn't even being used for what it does the majority of the time.

The current design of the card isn't really anything likewhat the game currently has.

[OldTrees]

@Uppercut
Let me put it this way. Mathematical analysis is less fallacious than my intuition. Therefore mathematical analysis should be used instead of intuition. Better models should be devised and used instead of my current model. I hope it takes less time for someone to one up me than it took me to improve on PhantomFox's work. This is one of the reasons I keep pushing you to try and hopefully out do me at my own game.

Ps: 1 used the first 2 card combo to determine the cost of the combined effect. I used the second combination to find the assumed average number of creatures affected by a mass CC.

PPS: Protip: Ratios are not always the best statistic to look at.