Ask the Idea Guru

[OldTrees]

What are your thoughts on Algrator | Logthregor (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,30712.0.html) ?
If it is to be working with active abilities, how do you think the Crusader loop can be balanced?

It appears to be an inverted crusader with barely any modifications. Typically inversion changes the environment in such a manner that drastically changing the ability is possible without obstructing the end goal. A drastically different ability that achieved the same goal would add much more to EtG than a simple inversion.

Algrator (made up word) can, as a weapon, become a creature. Crusader cannot become a weapon.

The Crusader loop is not the problem. The Crusader involvement would be balanced if the Algrator loop were balanced AND if the activation cost was set at the appropriate constant*.
The Algrator loop begins with it able to target itself combined with the lack of support of an X activation cost in the game. Thus for some activation cost per turn a flown Algrator will get a permanent Dive or better. This is the problem of something with endow (or any slight modification) being able to target something else with endow (or any slight modification). The easiest solution is removing the +X. The second easiest solution is only getting the +X. The third easiest solution is changing the card so it will never get the opportunity to target endow (or its ability). This would include targeting passives only (I would recommend against that) but would not include a simple exception of Endow. I am sure there are harder solutions like balancing permanent Chaos Power augmented diving or changing the ability like Reprisal (forge, permanent) did but none spring to mind right now that were not already done.

* (Advice meant to be applicable even if costs and elements change)
Can the Crusader loop be used using only  ? If so set the activation cost equal to  | or 6 |4
Can the Crusader loop be used using only 1 non  quanta type? If so set the activation cost equal to  | or 4 |2
If the loops takes 3 different quanta types then I think you would be wise to modify it.

[TuckingFypo]

What do you think is currently the biggest problem of the Etg metagame (ie. Fire, mid-range attackers, PC, or something), and why?

[OldTrees]

What do you think is currently the biggest problem of the Etg metagame (ie. Fire, mid-range attackers, PC, or something), and why?

Summary:
The insufficient distribution (and therefore quantity) of responses to offensive and defensive actions is a problem. This would be solved by adding responses to the elements that lack responses to particular offensive and defensive actions. To avoid redundancy, dilution and tenuous themes the majority of these additions should probably be indirect responses although soft direct responses are a close second.

Uncompressed version:
I dislike the concept of Unstoppable Offenses and Impregnable Defenses because they restrict the diversity of the metagame. This is why I am glad that EtG has responses (direct or indirect counters) to every offense or defense. However unless you are building a Rainbow, you do not have access to all of these responses during deck building. This means some Offenses and Defenses might require a player to change elements or lose before deckbuilding has finished. For a game based on the Elements this is a result that in the long term should be removed if it can be done so without harming other areas of the game. This also would have a larger impact on Element based PvP formats like WAR.

There are three primary ways to alter the game: Add cards, Change cards, Remove cards. Since the problem is lack of responses in certain elements remove cards is off the table. Change cards would only work if out of element responses were changed to costing  . This would cause problems of elemental identity dilution. This leaves adding cards as the option of choice (as usual). The game has mostly direct hard responses in elements with the appropriate theme for direct hard responses. If more direct hard responses were added it would make the responses across the elements look rather uniform (dilution), have to rationalize themes (tenuous themes) and would be very similar to existing cards (redundant).

I go into this in more depth throughout the Which elements are "Complete"? (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,30640.0.html) thread.

[TuckingFypo]

What do you think is currently the biggest problem of the Etg metagame (ie. Fire, mid-range attackers, PC, or something), and why?

Summary:
The insufficient distribution (and therefore quantity) of responses to offensive and defensive actions is a problem. This would be solved by adding responses to the elements that lack responses to particular offensive and defensive actions. To avoid redundancy, dilution and tenuous themes the majority of these additions should probably be indirect responses although soft direct responses are a close second.

Uncompressed version:
I dislike the concept of Unstoppable Offenses and Impregnable Defenses because they restrict the diversity of the metagame. This is why I am glad that EtG has responses (direct or indirect counters) to every offense or defense. However unless you are building a Rainbow, you do not have access to all of these responses during deck building. This means some Offenses and Defenses might require a player to change elements or lose before deckbuilding has finished. For a game based on the Elements this is a result that in the long term should be removed if it can be done so without harming other areas of the game. This also would have a larger impact on Element based PvP formats like WAR.

There are three primary ways to alter the game: Add cards, Change cards, Remove cards. Since the problem is lack of responses in certain elements remove cards is off the table. Change cards would only work if out of element responses were changed to costing  . This would cause problems of elemental identity dilution. This leaves adding cards as the option of choice (as usual). The game has mostly direct hard responses in elements with the appropriate theme for direct hard responses. If more direct hard responses were added it would make the responses across the elements look rather uniform (dilution), have to rationalize themes (tenuous themes) and would be very similar to existing cards (redundant).

I go into this in more depth throughout the Which elements are "Complete"? (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,30640.0.html) thread.

Hmm...I was going to see what cards I could make based off of your answer but I actually disagree instead.  ???  Can you elaborate on this? v

More important than an Element having counters for most offenses/defenses, practical deck types/archetypes need counters for offenses/defenses.  There are can only be 30-60 cards in a deck.  Even if we create multiple cards in a single element that creatively and successfully counter a form of solid defense/offense and still fulfill another useful role (ie Mid-range attacker, quanta generation), will the player include all of those cards in his/her deck?  Won't playing Mono's just be like playing Rainbows?  If he includes all those cards, his deck would be pretty unstable.  If he doesn't, he'll still be hard countered by some deck archetypes.

[OldTrees]

What do you think is currently the biggest problem of the Etg metagame (ie. Fire, mid-range attackers, PC, or something), and why?

Summary:
The insufficient distribution (and therefore quantity) of responses to offensive and defensive actions is a problem. This would be solved by adding responses to the elements that lack responses to particular offensive and defensive actions. To avoid redundancy, dilution and tenuous themes the majority of these additions should probably be indirect responses although soft direct responses are a close second.

Uncompressed version:
I dislike the concept of Unstoppable Offenses and Impregnable Defenses because they restrict the diversity of the metagame. This is why I am glad that EtG has responses (direct or indirect counters) to every offense or defense. However unless you are building a Rainbow, you do not have access to all of these responses during deck building. This means some Offenses and Defenses might require a player to change elements or lose before deckbuilding has finished. For a game based on the Elements this is a result that in the long term should be removed if it can be done so without harming other areas of the game. This also would have a larger impact on Element based PvP formats like WAR.

There are three primary ways to alter the game: Add cards, Change cards, Remove cards. Since the problem is lack of responses in certain elements remove cards is off the table. Change cards would only work if out of element responses were changed to costing  . This would cause problems of elemental identity dilution. This leaves adding cards as the option of choice (as usual). The game has mostly direct hard responses in elements with the appropriate theme for direct hard responses. If more direct hard responses were added it would make the responses across the elements look rather uniform (dilution), have to rationalize themes (tenuous themes) and would be very similar to existing cards (redundant).

I go into this in more depth throughout the Which elements are "Complete"? (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,30640.0.html) thread.

Hmm...I was going to see what cards I could make based off of your answer but I actually disagree instead.  ???  Can you elaborate on this? v

More important than an Element having counters for most offenses/defenses, practical deck types/archetypes need counters for offenses/defenses.  There are can only be 30-60 cards in a deck.  Even if we create multiple cards in a single element that creatively and successfully counter a form of solid defense/offense and still fulfill another useful role (ie Mid-range attacker, quanta generation), will the player include all of those cards in his/her deck?  Won't playing Mono's just be like playing Rainbows?  If he includes all those cards, his deck would be pretty unstable.  If he doesn't, he'll still be hard countered by some deck archetypes.

Thanks for prompting clarification.

In the long run providing each archetype with access to responses to offense/defense is a worthwhile goal. However that goal is not within reach yet because certain deck types would require each Element having access to responses as a necessary condition of them having access to responses.

I do not want players to have access to responses to all offenses and defenses when in a dual. I want them to have access during deckbuilding. I want people to be able to choose how vulnerable and where they will be vulnerable without changing elements. Deceased vulnerability comes at the cost of decreased power. Yes this means some duels will be decided before the match starts but after deckbuilding ends. This is an improvement from those duels being decided before deckbuilding ends. This improvement is also sufficient for the metagame. Metagame [tier 1] duels begin during deck building unlike non metagame [tier 0] duels which begin at the coin toss.

Would it be like playing Rainbows? No. All the responses would have the same feel and mechanical consequences as the hosting Element. Fire does not feel like Rainbow does it? In my opinion they feel distinctly different despite fire having responses to almost all the offenses/defenses that Rainbow has responses to. Additionally Rainbow will always remain distinct in that it can choose which Element's mechanical consequences it wants attached to each of its responses. (Lightning or Basilisk Blood?)

Did that cover where you wanted elaboration?

[Zaealix]

A question about Series, and the grouping involved...
Right now I have several Card Ideas that I plan on turning into actual cards. Right now the grouping is 'Thematic Expansion' the idea being the increasing of tricks in some of the 'incomplete' element's arsenal, allowing for, if not soft counters to powerful cards, interesting new control options...The thing is, they have wildly differing abilites. Some of the ideas are.
AOE ability seal.
Locking enemy quanta use.
Freezing quanta production.
Could, say, those and a few other ideas be used in a series? Or should I just release each Card as a stand-alone?

[OldTrees]

A question about Series, and the grouping involved...
Right now I have several Card Ideas that I plan on turning into actual cards. Right now the grouping is 'Thematic Expansion' the idea being the increasing of tricks in some of the 'incomplete' element's arsenal, allowing for, if not soft counters to powerful cards, interesting new control options...The thing is, they have wildly differing abilites. Some of the ideas are.
AOE ability seal.
Locking enemy quanta use.
Freezing quanta production.
Could, say, those and a few other ideas be used in a series? Or should I just release each Card as a stand-alone?

While you could make it a series, I do not see an advantage in doing so. The comments on one card, even on thematic issues, does not seem very applicable to fine tuning the other cards. I would release them as stand-alone unless they all have a very concrete overarching theme beyond the general theme of new control options.

[Zaealix]

Alright then. I'm going to release that Shield Card I mentioned, and one of these, just have to pick which one...

[darkrobe]

http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,33198.0.html

Do you think Holtzman shield adds anything to elements as it is now (lets assume it doesnt block momentum creatures)? or as it is in any of the suggested changes in the poll?

Im afraid that in balancing the card it will become very much like other cards in existence and thus not really add to the elements universe.

[Jocko]

What are your thoughts on Algrator | Logthregor (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,30712.0.html) ?
If it is to be working with active abilities, how do you think the Crusader loop can be balanced?

It appears to be an inverted crusader with barely any modifications. Typically inversion changes the environment in such a manner that drastically changing the ability is possible without obstructing the end goal. A drastically different ability that achieved the same goal would add much more to EtG than a simple inversion.

Algrator (made up word) can, as a weapon, become a creature. Crusader cannot become a weapon.

The Crusader loop is not the problem. The Crusader involvement would be balanced if the Algrator loop were balanced AND if the activation cost was set at the appropriate constant*.
The Algrator loop begins with it able to target itself combined with the lack of support of an X activation cost in the game. Thus for some activation cost per turn a flown Algrator will get a permanent Dive or better. This is the problem of something with endow (or any slight modification) being able to target something else with endow (or any slight modification). The easiest solution is removing the +X. The second easiest solution is only getting the +X. The third easiest solution is changing the card so it will never get the opportunity to target endow (or its ability). This would include targeting passives only (I would recommend against that) but would not include a simple exception of Endow. I am sure there are harder solutions like balancing permanent Chaos Power augmented diving or changing the ability like Reprisal (forge, permanent) did but none spring to mind right now that were not already done.

* (Advice meant to be applicable even if costs and elements change)
Can the Crusader loop be used using only  ? If so set the activation cost equal to  | or 6 |4
Can the Crusader loop be used using only 1 non  quanta type? If so set the activation cost equal to  | or 4 |2
If the loops takes 3 different quanta types then I think you would be wise to modify it.

Why wouldn't you advice adding endow and itself as an exception? Don't get me wrong, i like the card now, without the +X, but there are some cards exceptions in the game.

[OldTrees]

http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,33198.0.html

Do you think Holtzman shield adds anything to elements as it is now (lets assume it doesnt block momentum creatures)? or as it is in any of the suggested changes in the poll?

Im afraid that in balancing the card it will become very much like other cards in existence and thus not really add to the elements universe.

Does it add to the game? Yes. It would not reduce the metagame and it does have some differences from Dimensional Shield and Wings (aka its in Gravity).
How much does it add to the game? Not much. It will create Gravity versions of many Dimension Shield decks and create a Gravity/Aether "can't touch this" stall. Beyond that it does not add much to the game. It is not expected to open a new frontier. This is a side effect of your choice of what slow would mean. You choose something that was uncommon similar to how airborne is and then you blocked all other cards. Hence its most common usage would be a short lived perfect blocker like the two shields before it.

What are your thoughts on Algrator | Logthregor (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,30712.0.html) ?
If it is to be working with active abilities, how do you think the Crusader loop can be balanced?

It appears to be an inverted crusader with barely any modifications. Typically inversion changes the environment in such a manner that drastically changing the ability is possible without obstructing the end goal. A drastically different ability that achieved the same goal would add much more to EtG than a simple inversion.

Algrator (made up word) can, as a weapon, become a creature. Crusader cannot become a weapon.

The Crusader loop is not the problem. The Crusader involvement would be balanced if the Algrator loop were balanced AND if the activation cost was set at the appropriate constant*.
The Algrator loop begins with it able to target itself combined with the lack of support of an X activation cost in the game. Thus for some activation cost per turn a flown Algrator will get a permanent Dive or better. This is the problem of something with endow (or any slight modification) being able to target something else with endow (or any slight modification). The easiest solution is removing the +X. The second easiest solution is only getting the +X. The third easiest solution is changing the card so it will never get the opportunity to target endow (or its ability). This would include targeting passives only (I would recommend against that) but would not include a simple exception of Endow. I am sure there are harder solutions like balancing permanent Chaos Power augmented diving or changing the ability like Reprisal (forge, permanent) did but none spring to mind right now that were not already done.

* (Advice meant to be applicable even if costs and elements change)
Can the Crusader loop be used using only  ? If so set the activation cost equal to  | or 6 |4
Can the Crusader loop be used using only 1 non  quanta type? If so set the activation cost equal to  | or 4 |2
If the loops takes 3 different quanta types then I think you would be wise to modify it.

Why wouldn't you advice adding endow and itself as an exception? Don't get me wrong, i like the card now, without the +X, but there are some cards exceptions in the game.

I recognize that there are players who will never look at either forum or the wiki. The first reason I dislike exceptions is because they punish these players for not reading the forum or wiki. The game is at its best when it can appeal to the greatest audience for the longest time. That includes those of use who want to learn everything about the game (me) and those that want to play it without any research.

The second reason I dislike exceptions is that they do not feel like elegant design. It feels more like a forced fix than a fitting solution to a problem.

Beyond these reasons to dislike exceptions there was yet another reason for avoiding exceptions in this case. The card was intended to let a permanent pretend to be a creature. Excluding Crusader would prevent it from pretending to be a Crusader. Any solution that was better able to include the Crusader would fulfill the goal better (by 1 creature) than the exception. Removing the +X had the side effect of excluding Attune through pointlessness instead of through a hidden restriction.

Short answer: Because there were better options available. I feel it can be improved further if altered to a less direct inversion which would add a new dimension to the game rather than extend the dimension Crusader added.

[EmeraldTiger]

cost evaluation needed in thread http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,33202.msg448325#msg448325