Ask the Idea Guru

[furballdn]

Permanent is worth something? I mean, it probably is worth something, but I've always assumed that it is so close to 0 it is negligible.

[OldTrees]

Permanent is worth something? I mean, it probably is worth something, but I've always assumed that it is so close to 0 it is negligible.

PC costs more than CC. There is a reason. Think of permanent like an hp tier. It is better than 0-5hp but how much better?

[EmeraldTiger]

full analyse please. http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,43247.0.html

[OldTrees]

full analyse please. http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,43247.0.html

Imagerie
A permanent that generates a random creature.
The creature may or may not be a mutant. Chance?
The creature may or may not be an illusion. (Real but fragile. Disappears without death when targeted) Chance?

Value = Permanent generating random creatures * Possibly mutant * Possibly Illusion
Possibly mutant = (Random creature value * Random creature chance + Mutant Value * Mutant Chance) / Random Creature Value
Possibly mutant = (Random creature value * Random creature chance + Illusion Value * Illusion Chance) / Random Creature Value
Since Fate Egg is UP, a random creature is worth 4 or less.
The Firefly ability of FFQ costs +3 + duo + expensive and generates a 3 creature.
An expensive creature skill ( ) generating random creatures would be worth +5
An expensive permanent skill ( ) generating random creatures would be worth +5
That would be 4 casting cost and  activation cost maximum prior to factoring in the deviations.
Changing from unupped to upgraded creatures would be covered by the upgrade of this card but mutants are not upgraded creatures

Lots of possible outcomes -> form of entropy -> fits Entropy.
Do Illusions fit Entropy?

I see no problem for cards that target Illusions to take effect with the exception of Devour, Immolation and Catapult. Fractal and Nightmare could create normal cards in the hand.

[furballdn]

Hey OldTrees. Haven't popped in here for a while.

Which would be a better card design (Assume X is some innovative and good idea. Y is a card already in the game. Z is another innovative and good idea)? "Do X" or "Do X, when used in conjunction with Y, Z happens"

Seeing Thalas's makes me think about time value cards. Do they have potential? Like "This card can only be played after X turns" or "The card's cost is decreased by 1 each turn" or "This card's cost is decreased by 1 for every card you draw" How would they be balanced?

How would I go about balancing this?

[OldTrees]

Hey OldTrees. Haven't popped in here for a while.

Which would be a better card design (Assume X is some innovative and good idea. Y is a card already in the game. Z is another innovative and good idea)? "Do X" or "Do X, when used in conjunction with Y, Z happens"

This is not a black and white issue.
The first is simpler. The second, if the costs are correctly distributed, is more versatile. Simplicity is the easiest way to achieve clarity. Versatility is the easiest way to achieve diversity. It would depend on whether simplicity or versatility is the greater virtue. One should also consider how the effect "Z" is shaped by the trigger "X & Y". Some effects are better when triggered than when on their own. Some triggers do not fit some effects. In cases like this you want to consider the shape the effect wants its impact to be. (Yes, I said mechanics have wants.)

Seeing Thalas's makes me think about time value cards. Do they have potential? Like "This card can only be played after X turns" or "The card's cost is decreased by 1 each turn" or "This card's cost is decreased by 1 for every card you draw" How would they be balanced?

Hard limits (can't be played before/after/on turn X) reduce the versatility of the card. However in rare cases the versatility that is removed was limiting the amount of cases/uses that could be simultaneously balanced. I would consider it a last resort measure to optimize a card design. It should never be used to balance a card if it does not increase the number of balanced cases.

Soft limits (everything else quoted) are price discrimination based on time. This can balance an effect that is affected by time in the same manner. I find complex balancing feels more elegant if hidden. It is not hidden. There may be a better balance tweak that would fill the same role. However it does its job well mechanically.

How would I go about balancing this?

[using upgraded cards in calculations]
Crusader + Gavel = 9+7X attack for 2 + 7X
(actually 2 but acts like duo  in this context due to the off mark and high usage)
Crusader + Gavel = 9+7X attack for 3 + 7X
Crusader + Abandoned Excalibur = 2+7X attack for [Casting cost of excalibur] + 8X
Casting Cost < 4-5 |3
Simple text: Mono Endowed Excalibur is similar to Endowed Gavels but needs to be slightly cheaper because the weapon is lost.

Now all you have left is to make the ability worth using.
For the cost of Activation cost + Casting cost you get 14 more damage. At minimum it should return to the hand because the ability is not worth the draw cost.

[ZephyrPhantom]

Grateful Oak
Wise Ascendant
Focused Tinkerer
^Do you feel the above three cards need a quantum cost to 'draw' their card type, compared to Hourglass?

A full analysis of the three would also be greatly appreciated (they are mostly similar except for the card type they interact with.)

[Zaealix]

Hrrrm...I feel something that should be considered , is that depending on the conditions of 'revealed' these cards might actually aid a 'control' based deck the opponent is running by giving him a 'heads-up' on what's coming, should both players be able to see it.
Not to mention that while at first glance it looks like an extra draw mill, it's dependant on what you've got left in your deck. If the cards you need to draw past match the type that the card draws, then it's pretty good. Otherwise...
I slightly feel there should be different stats for each, but that's just me.

[OldTrees]

Grateful Oak
Wise Ascendant
Focused Tinkerer
^Do you feel the above three cards need a quantum cost to 'draw' their card type, compared to Hourglass?

A full analysis of the three would also be greatly appreciated (they are mostly similar except for the card type they interact with.)

Grateful Oak draws Grateful Oaks
Creatures are more common than spells or permanents
Spells might be more common than permanents

It definitely needs to cost more to balance out the Hourglass effect. I would have an activation cost of  to draw a creature. (deck revealed regardless)
Adjust stats and casting cost to equalize balance between them.

There isn't a great comparison so I am not sure the exact casting cost.

[eaglgenes101]

http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,43486.new.html#new

Analysis please?

[OldTrees]

http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,43486.new.html#new

Analysis please?

This cuts pillar production in half|thirds among other effects (momentum every other turn).

The first thing to note is 6 +1card|7 +1card is not a 33% increase despite the effect receiving a 33% increase.
The next thing to note is cutting pillars in half is usually stronger than Earthquake.
This is increased because it has multiplicative synergy with denial.
And it bypasses protection.
Next we should estimate the value of mass momentum every other turn.

I would hazard a guess of 7 -11 unupped. The upgraded cards would cost slightly less than 33% more

[Drake_XIV]

It's been a while since I stepped in here...

Could I get your thoughts on:
Glass Figurine | Glass Miniature
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,43176.0.html

Stem Celluloid | Stem Celluloid
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,43171.0.html