Is this based off BP's thread?No. This is a serious thread.
Please keep the questions on topic. You are asking the Idea Guru not a scientist/philosopher/theologian/engineer/comedian ...But your profile says you are a philosopher ...
I have a couple Ideas, like Bio Shift (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,9897.0.html),that I think are very solid, and have had good responses to from the communuty, however, the momentum died down. The idea is solid, and simple, just doesnt have that "awe" factor that say "this has to get into the game" to. What would you suggest doing to reignite interest in the card without fundamentally changing it?People are drawn to and get enthusiastic about the new. This means enthusiasm for a card will decrease with time and the introduction of newer competition. To reinvigorate this enthusiasm you can do a few things.
To what extent should the environment of a card be considered in its balance? Obviously some context is required, that's inherent to the idea of balance. But I noticed that in the Buff/Nerf subforums, moderators have said, multiple times, not to balance a card based on the element its in.Everything that contributes or detracts from a card's power or cost will effect the card's balance. We, as humans, cannot evaluate all the web of interactions.
What's your opinion on this?
Q1: Can other people answer other questions in this thread and comment on or argue against your answers?A1: Yes. If it gets too long then I will provide a link to a separate thread in my answer.
Q2: How much ought balance be considered when voting in the Crucible, Force, and Armory when new additions to the game are always rebalanced? Why? Compared to this ideal value, how much does the general community currently value balance (as reflected in voting)?
Let the questions begin:First one: I would start by comparing "Lightning is to Fire Storm as Freeze|Basilisk Blood is to Gravity Field". Don't forget to compensate for the following details: Lightning deals 5 damage vs Fire Storm deals 3
I have devised two seperate Card ideas meant to build on the :time mechanic of 'Delayed'.
First one: :gravity element spell, Gravity Field. This card is an AOE delay spell that freezes all the opponents' creatures. However, I've had difficulty figuring out how to balance it, in terms of power and cost.
Second one: :time element spell, Timeskip/Timejump. Basically, it 'fast forwards' the creature(s) out of delay, but damages them (think what happens when you fast forward through your own life, that's how I imagine the spell working) In this case, I imagined the 'aging' as doing 1 damage per delay counter, but I'm not sure how much cost such a mechanic would require.
Hrm, I personally had used SunDial as a comparison point for Gravity Field, but thank you for the advice. I just need to figure out some placeholder art and then I will submit these ideas, as well as a third one I designed.Let the questions begin:First one: I would start by comparing "Lightning is to Fire Storm as Freeze|Basilisk Blood is to Gravity Field". Don't forget to compensate for the following details: Lightning deals 5 damage vs Fire Storm deals 3
I have devised two seperate Card ideas meant to build on the :time mechanic of 'Delayed'.
First one: :gravity element spell, Gravity Field. This card is an AOE delay spell that freezes all the opponents' creatures. However, I've had difficulty figuring out how to balance it, in terms of power and cost.
Second one: :time element spell, Timeskip/Timejump. Basically, it 'fast forwards' the creature(s) out of delay, but damages them (think what happens when you fast forward through your own life, that's how I imagine the spell working) In this case, I imagined the 'aging' as doing 1 damage per delay counter, but I'm not sure how much cost such a mechanic would require.
Use the closer analogy to Gravity Field between Freeze and Basilisk Blood
Freeze is 3 turns, removed by quint, and vulnerable to shock vs Basilisk Blood is 6 turns, and increase their hp by 20
Second one: This cold be meant as CC, a means to escape CC or both.
When used as CC it would have to be combined with a source of Delay (Procrastination [mass 1 per turn], Basilisk Blood [target 6], Warden [target 1 per use] or a future card). Consider the total cost of both and the total benefit of both. Since it is damage I would compare it to Lightning. If the effect were repeatable (ability or status condition) its synergy would increase with Procrastination and Warden.
When used as escape from CC it would be used against a Source of Delay (Procrastination, Basilisk Blood, Warden or a future card). It does not seem to work very well as escape from CC against Procrastination as a spell (2 cards, 2 damage -> +1 turn of attack & skill). Against Warden it might be useful.
Should it only turn weapons into weapons, shields into shields, and permanents into permanents, or should any permanent be able to turn into any permanent (potentially allowing for 5 shields out blocking nearly all damage). If it is this way, then the chances would be as follows-Which do you think would be more balanced/enjoyable for game play?
Permanent-80%
Weapon-15%
Shield-5%
Recently, I seem to be hearing a common opinion that involves the Shards making rainbow decks much stronger and neglecting monos despite the intent to favor decks with a certain mark.The easiest and cheapest way to pay a :rainbow cost is with :rainbow. Shards (excluding SoSac) cost :rainbow. As such their costs are inclined towards rainbow decks. Mark based Shards will be inclined towards Mark based rainbows. This seems expected. While rainbow decks are getting new options, that does not necessitate them getting much stronger.
What are your thoughts on this?
Im torn on how to have my Structural shift card (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,30673.0.html) mechanic work.I would recommend the effect destroy the old permanent and create a new permanent. This would cause any come into play effects to occur like tower quanta production and new shields or weapons appearing in the shield or weapon slot. With this change I see both options as enjoyable through they would appeal to slightly shifted groups of people. Polling the readers is a good way to estimate which group is larger.QuoteShould it only turn weapons into weapons, shields into shields, and permanents into permanents, or should any permanent be able to turn into any permanent (potentially allowing for 5 shields out blocking nearly all damage). If it is this way, then the chances would be as follows-Which do you think would be more balanced/enjoyable for game play?
Permanent-80%
Weapon-15%
Shield-5%
What do you think about the serpent (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,32417.msg438649#msg438649)?Most damaging Creature Control takes place instantaneously. (Exception: Infection and rare Gravity Pull cases) This makes Angel's Heal ability not very valuable. Moult has a even more limited version of creature healing but gains +1|+0 per use. The skill probably should add 1 to the casting cost beyond the value of the stats.
Is Spirit Well (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,32712.0.html) Balanced?Spirit Well requires:
Would people still use it if it cost 150% to 200% as much?It depends. They would use it as a combo card (but I can't see that much synergy with Death and Life as it is) but probably not as a standalone answer to CC. Also, another thing to note is that it works on your creatures too. A Giant Frog deck with this to make sure you can spam Frogs 'till the end of tomorrow, maybe even with Bonewalls, would be an amazing anti-CC deck. Overall it is probably a very good addition to Life, less so to Death. Thus, increasing the Death cost makes it less versatile IMO.
^Valuable insight. I had overlooked the passive Anti-CC usage.Would people still use it if it cost 150% to 200% as much?It depends. They would use it as a combo card (but I can't see that much synergy with Death and Life as it is) but probably not as a standalone answer to CC. Also, another thing to note is that it works on your creatures too. A Giant Frog deck with this to make sure you can spam Frogs 'till the end of tomorrow, maybe even with Bonewalls, would be an amazing anti-CC deck. Overall it is probably a very good addition to Life, less so to Death. Thus, increasing the Death cost makes it less versatile IMO.
How well did I capture the essence of :darkness and :light in Shades of Grey (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,32881.0.html)?Disclaimer: 1) Duos have many possible essences. 2) My theory about the essence of the elements can be inaccurate.
What's your opinion on the Shard of Sacrifice?While dislike aspects of the card I find it to be overall a beneficial addition to the game in the moderate to long term.
I was trying to do :light protection of resources and :darkness denial of opponent's resources. I guess I missed the mark on the :light part.The card still allows your quanta to be destroyed/drained. No resources were protected.
Interesting read.You're welcome.
I'm not sure we'll see that much new decks with SoSa in it shifting the metagame perpetually. The death quanta restriction is huge when you try to build a deck with it.
On a side note, I'm concerned about its ability to trivialize a large majority of FG. I know game balancing is done considering PvP mainly. But once you got your SoSa, you have a huge access to "easy" electrums. Much more easier to gather in my experience thzn the RoL/ hope deck, and much more efficient. Not saying that more electrums is a good or a bad thing, but it's a change! :)
Whatever, we'll see. Thanks for your detailed input. :)
So, had the idea for a permanent type card that would allow creatures to benefit from the power of what ever shield you had in play.I agree that Earth has a very strong theme of strength and resilience.
Wanted it to be :earth, for the thematic of toughness, plus combo with PA. However, most shields, with a few exceptions, would not be very effective for this purpose on their own.
(Attack and dodge shields mainly, but very little effect from the damage resistance.) Considering :gravity for interesting mechanic interaction(Gravity pull) Which do you think is more appropriate?
I see. I think I will go with Gravity for this idea, and have the shielding for creatures activated by melee, spells or abilites, as the melee is far to limited, and as is this card begs to be :gravity, as other wise it would force a duo or trio to be brought to it's full potential.So, had the idea for a permanent type card that would allow creatures to benefit from the power of what ever shield you had in play.I agree that Earth has a very strong theme of strength and resilience.
Wanted it to be :earth, for the thematic of toughness, plus combo with PA. However, most shields, with a few exceptions, would not be very effective for this purpose on their own.
(Attack and dodge shields mainly, but very little effect from the damage resistance.) Considering :gravity for interesting mechanic interaction(Gravity pull) Which do you think is more appropriate?
Shields tend to protect, with a few exceptions, from Melee damage. Creatures tend to be controlled, with an exception, with Spells and Abilities. If Shielding for creatures only triggered when the Shield would normally trigger then it would require a forced combo with Gravity Pull, Reflective Shield, or Jade Shield. Alternatively Shielding for creatures could be triggered by the Spells and Abilities.
Examples:
A Dusk protected creature would have a 50% chance to evade Lightning.
A Titanium protected creature would have DR 2 from all incoming damage (infection would bypass).
A Reflective protected creature would Reflect spells (not abilities) that target it.
A Phase protected creature would be immaterial for 3 turns.
A Gravity protected creature would not be targetable by the abilities of creatures with 6+ hp (spells have 0hp).
A Thorn protected creature would have a 75% chance to inflict 1 infection/poison to the creature or player.
Hey OT, I've been gone for a while and I'd like to know about any new insights you've made, and/or a brief summary of any important happenings since I've been off the forum (about 3-4 months I believe). If you don't really feel like it, or just have a couple highlights you'd rather summarize, that's cool too. :)Zanzarino has made a major update to the game. Details in Elements 1.29 (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,31187.0.html)
I'm also curious on how your card cost theory and balancing techniques would apply to the Shard of Sacrifice if it was assumed to be a card currently in development. It seems to me to be an arduous card to balance.Shard of Sacrifice has no direct quanta cost and the hp cost is more accurately examined as part of the effect. This results in Shard of Sacrifice having a cost of 0quanta + 1 card (or 1 cost unit). Holy Light and Heal both have a 5hp/cost unit ratio. Therefore I would expect Shards of Sacrifices should heal on average across the metagame 5hp per SoSac drawn over the course of a game. We will see how much the hp cost needs to be adjusted after the metagame settles down with counters to the SoSac decks.
What are your thoughts on Algrator | Logthregor (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,30712.0.html) ?"Cannot gain Endow."?
If it is to be working with active abilities, how do you think the Crusader loop can be balanced?
What are your thoughts on Algrator | Logthregor (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,30712.0.html) ?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.
If it is to be working with active abilities, how do you think the Crusader loop can be balanced?
What do you think is currently the biggest problem of the Etg metagame (ie. Fire, mid-range attackers, PC, or something), and why?Summary:
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? vWhat 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 :rainbow. 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.
Thanks for prompting clarification.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? vWhat 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 :rainbow. 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.
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.
A question about Series, and the grouping involved...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.
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?
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.What are your thoughts on Algrator | Logthregor (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,30712.0.html) ?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.
If it is to be working with active abilities, how do you think the Crusader loop can be balanced?
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 :light? If so set the activation cost equal to :light :light :light| :light :light or 6 :rainbow|4 :rainbow
Can the Crusader loop be used using only 1 non :light quanta type? If so set the activation cost equal to :underworld :underworld| :underworld or 4 :rainbow|2 :rainbow
If the loops takes 3 different quanta types then I think you would be wise to modify it.
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,33198.0.htmlDoes 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).
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.
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.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.What are your thoughts on Algrator | Logthregor (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,30712.0.html) ?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.
If it is to be working with active abilities, how do you think the Crusader loop can be balanced?
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 :light? If so set the activation cost equal to :light :light :light| :light :light or 6 :rainbow|4 :rainbow
Can the Crusader loop be used using only 1 non :light quanta type? If so set the activation cost equal to :underworld :underworld| :underworld or 4 :rainbow|2 :rainbow
If the loops takes 3 different quanta types then I think you would be wise to modify it.
cost evaluation needed in thread http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,33202.msg448325#msg448325Cursed Mirror / Mirror Demon has two True Casting Costs
what about my 3 card in this topicStill a somewhat vague question. I will try to restrict my answers to fit my guess of what you desire to hear about.
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,32551.msg448352.html#new
are those card interesting enough for competition. and maybe how to improve it. (added from PM)
May i ask you what do you think of Endless Army (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,33241.0.html) cost?The primary use of Endless Army and its predecessors Aspect of infinity and even further back Time Portal | Portal of Eternity was to prevent deckout by recycling dying creatures. The only other card that prevents deckout is Eternity.
I'd also like a general feedback on the mechanic, if you don't mind.
Thanks in advance!
Endless Army can destroy a CC heavy decker alone too, if those even exist anymore...May i ask you what do you think of Endless Army (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,33241.0.html) cost?The primary use of Endless Army and its predecessors Aspect of infinity and even further back Time Portal | Portal of Eternity was to prevent deckout by recycling dying creatures. The only other card that prevents deckout is Eternity.
I'd also like a general feedback on the mechanic, if you don't mind.
Thanks in advance!
Endless Army vs Eternity
Both combos require 2 cards. Both combos are vulnerable to PC and Silence. Both have an ~4 attack between the two cards used in the combo.
Eternity gets to use its attack when played while Endless Army has to wait till near deckout to use its effective attack from Spark|Ball Lightning.
Eternity is a weapon and thus blocks the weapon slot.
Reverse Time is useful for more than just antideckout but not at the same time.
Endless Army has much better synergy with Hourglass
The Eternity costs 6 :time|5 :time + 3 :time per turn + 2 cards
So until your deck runs out Endless Army is almost useless. Once your deck runs out Endless Army is significantly cheaper than the alternative. I do not think it has a theoretical balanced cost in this form.
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,33313.0.html (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,33313.0.html)Adjusted Cost = Total Quanta Cost + Types of Quanta
Could you let me know your thoughts about the quanta cost balance of Starfish | Sea Star. are they priced right?
| Turn | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Number | 1 | 2 | 4 | 8 | 16 | 23 | 23 |
| Total Attack | 2 | 2 | 4 | 8 | 16 | 18+14=32 | 46 |
| Total Damage | 2 | 4 | 8 | 16 | 32 | 64 | 110 |
| Adjusted Cost | 5 | 7 | 9 | 13 | 21 | 28 | 28 |
| Turn | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| Number | 1 | 2 | 4 | 8 | 8 | 8 |
| Total Attack | 4 | 4 | 8 | 16 | 32 | 48 |
| Total Damage | 4 | 8 | 16 | 32 | 64 | 112 |
| Adjusted Cost | 5 | 7 | 9 | 13 | 13 | 13 |
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,33346.0.htmlThe Core of the idea is the effect:
Could you please give feedback on ^? Main things to consider PU, and that all of the powerful combos you can do with it have a lot of separate cards involved.
would a :life perm that cancels death affects and/or generates Rustlers| Leaf Dragons instead be good?1)
How about a perm that generates a copy of a spawn creature when spawn/mitosis skill is used?It could be good. Copying tends to be Aetheric. Generating occurs in :aether, :death, :life and :time.
What I have in mind isn't a concrete card. It's a mechanic for cards. Cards that need some turns to become active. "After two turns...." or maybe "Every 3 turns...." A marker that shows how many turns are still required will be shown on the cards. Mainly for permanents and creatures of course. But even spells could use this mechanic. This would give your opponent the chance to try to evade the effect or even try to use it for themselfe.Like most mechanical ideas, this idea comes with restrictions on what effects would go well with it. Namely the effect must not be better implemented without the wait.
A few examples what could be possible: (no balanced ideas, just to make sure what I mean)
entropy creature with the effect: Every 3 turns this card gains an stat boost (between +0/+0 and +5/+5)
simple spell that deals damage after 2 turns. (Opponent has the chance to heal himself or kill you before the effect hits)
permanent that has other effects depending on after how many turns you use it
Something like this. Could this be worth trying?
this is about Zebra | Zebra (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,33581.0.html)Zebra's ability in an AntiCC ability that usually will give card advantage. Since it is the core idea of the card it should probably be made to be worth the equivalent of ~2 attack.
Could you comment on the summoning cost? Id like to keep the damage above 5 or 6 maybe even at 7 for upped. but there is disagreement on price v attack/health.
1) If we were to take an existing game concept in ETG and propose an additional idea for this concept (such as the new slots/Weapon and Shield or Alternative Costs|PseudoElements/The existing Elements), what in your opinion could we develop that hasn't been considered yet?What could we develop that has not been considered? (Even by me? IDK :) ) Well since I can't tell you about ones I have not considered, I will speak to one I have considered and has been pursued but has not investigated in depth yet.
2) Based on the existing threads started by other members, what element(s) do you feel are the least "Complete" at the moment?Completeness is judged by what can be done with only that type of quanta.
Would a :life and :fire spirit generator be a good idea?Has a Forest Spirit / Fire Spirit generator been attempted?
Has it been attempted?
I personally can think of an idea-maybe some sort of spell that does damage for how many creatures you have/ how much life you have?It would need a theme that made sense of the connection and still fit Life. However Life currently is vulnerable to CC. The first version of that spell would increase the importance of CC against Life.
has anyone done a :time spirit where it gains +1|+1 per card drawn?It has been done similarly here (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=19592.0), so it should be useful for reference and comparison.
Rutarete is correct. It has not been done yet.has anyone done a :time spirit where it gains +1|+1 per card drawn?It has been done similarly here (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=19592.0), so it should be useful for reference and comparison.
I've been thinking lately of doing a series of vanilla creatures. What element/s do you consider they don't need new vanilla creatures?I try to avoid making suggestions to Zanz that he has considered already. Almost all vanilla cards fall into this category. There is the possibility of creatures with minor abilities such that the ability does not justify a cost increase from the cost for the stats. These are semivanilla creatures.
Which element could use a good mid range attacker with a unique but not particularly great or complicated ability?Each element has what I would term a mid ranged attacker except unupped mono :light (Pegasus without dive and Crusader without Endow don't pass my test).
Cost evaluation needed for http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,33754.0/topicseen.htmlThe upped image and text disagree about the stats. I used the table.
Master of Ice can also be used as a faster version of Vulture. (Water freezes much faster than Death kills)A note: doesn't your normal cost theory agree on the fact that Vultures are severely UP? In fact, I don't believe they are ever used competitively... This might be worth mentioning when comparing Master of Ice to Vultures.
I know that Vultures need lots of deck support to be effective. However that was expected of free growth.Master of Ice can also be used as a faster version of Vulture. (Water freezes much faster than Death kills)A note: doesn't your normal cost theory agree on the fact that Vultures are severely UP? In fact, I don't believe they are ever used competitively... This might be worth mentioning when comparing Master of Ice to Vultures.
has anyone attempted to make a creature that fits :time :fire :darkness in quanta cost, effect and theme?Did you mean a trio cost card (cost X :time Y :darkness and Z :fire) split up into casting, activation and absorption costs?
that it cost :time, has :fire effect and is themed a bit to :darknessoops. Mix up the order.
I think he means something like....Why not duo themed instead?
:time Reverse Quanta flow. Spell-(he didn't specify a type, so I'm picking spell for ease of use.)
Destroys target pillar.-central function of card. (Destruction is :fire's theme)
You gain same type of quanta as the pillar generated. (Secondary function-you now get quanta your opponent has, thematic mesh with :darkness)
Your thoughts on Dark | Dark (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,33851.0.html) , please.Added a link
Your thoughts on Dark | Dark (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,33851.0.html) , please.I do not understand the purpose of the Dark | Dark card.
What are your thoughts on card effects that give creatures to an opponent?This could be implemented either as a cost for an ability or as a means of delivering a package (like an Antimatterd Vampire)
What are your thoughts on an Elements that's much "softer"?Softer games tend to last longer and have greater opportunity for the endless game problem. Harder games tend to be shorter and put too much emphasis on biasing attrition to favor you. I like the hybridization EtG and many other games have settled upon where they try to strike a balance between ensuring recovery potential and inevitable victory in a duel.
Example:
Cards that are played (creature, permanents) only last a maximum of 10 turns before going from the field to the bottom of the deck. Spells automatically go to the bottom of the deck after being played.
Effects ("destroy", "steal", stat buffs, healing from spells, etc.) only last a maximum of 10 turns.
If you have no cards in your deck and attempt to draw, you lose 10 HP instead of decking out.
Players heal 10 HP per turn.
Could you tell me why this (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,26887.0.html) has been on crucible for 5 months, hanging in there around 4th-2nd place, and now it seems like its going to drop out? What do you think of the card, and is the cost balanced? I did it on a rush for a comp, and it seemed right that time around.Element Book: Gain the ability of the target permanent.
your thoughts on the balancing of http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,34047.0.htmlFor 5 :light|4 :light +1card you summon as many creature abilities as you want (hand limited) for a cost of 0 :light+1card each.
Thoughts on Cardinal | Cardinal (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,34224.0.html)Small other creature
Considering the expanding of Cardinality to the other Element 'rings', what are your thoughts on:The spirituality effects are balanced at 1quanta+1card so a skill value of +2 would fit.
Spirituality
:life Heal 10 HP when played.
:light Heal 2 HP and generate :light each turn.
:darkness Comes into play Cloaked.
:death Infects a random enemy creature.
Materialism
:air Starts with :air : Dive (Creature), ability costs 1 less (Permanent)
:fire Deals 2 extra damage per turn.
:earth Gains + 0 | + 5 .
:water Has a 25% to avoid harmful spells.
We were looking to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinality) when we came up with Cardinality.Thoughts on Cardinal | Cardinal (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,34224.0.html)Small other creature
Cardinal Affinity: If Mark is Cardinal gains Immaterial. If Mark is Cardinal gains Momentum. If Mark is a card is drawn. when Cardinal is played, If Mark is Choas Seed or Chaos Power is cast on Cardinal.
4 :Cardinality: Target in hand card's cost is reduced by number of cards in your hand.
Theme:
Pun. The activated ability does not fit all of the cardinal element themes.
Balance:
Cardinal Affinity and the base stats alone deserves a slightly higher cost. ~1.5 :aether, ~.75 :entropy, ~1.5 :gravity, ~1 :time. A casting cost of 3-4|3 :rainbow would more expected for Cardinal Affinity + Stats.
Cardinality is ... potent. As an Aetheric effect it will see usage with Fractal. Since it uses :rainbow quanta it will be used with Quantum Pillars. Estimated conversion would be 4 :rainbow -> -8 :underworld casting cost. A Dragon fractal would cost 4 :rainbow + 2 :fire per Crimson Dragon.
Complexity:
Cardinality and Cardinal Affinity might work better as separate cards. On the other hand they might not.
Other Comments:
Cardinality is ... potent.
I do not know why the Cardinal elements were named Cardinal rather than another name. I sent a PM to Bloodshadow asking for clarification.We were looking to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinality) when we came up with Cardinality.Thoughts on Cardinal | Cardinal (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,34224.0.html)-snip-
Other Comments:
Cardinality is ... potent.
any thoughts on a better mechanic?
The thread for my card idea, Eden | Eden (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,33274), seems to show that "this type" of idea garners positive feedback.I was not able to find the post that refers to "this type of card" rather than "this card".
The question is, what makes Eden one of "this type" of idea? What exactly is "this type" of idea?
"This type" of card was not a reference to Eden, but rather a reference to the category that contains "good" card ideas.Somehow related, I think. (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,25096.0.html)
What does the community want in a card? How can I consistently generate these results (positive feedback) when designing cards?
I cannot speak for the entire community. I can only estimate their opinion based on my time observing and studying them."This type" of card was not a reference to Eden, but rather a reference to the category that contains "good" card ideas.Somehow related, I think. (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,25096.0.html)
What does the community want in a card? How can I consistently generate these results (positive feedback) when designing cards?
Not the exact answer, though, as you are asking for what the community wants rather than what is actually good.
Bloodshadow: "It means "of fundamental importance". Space, time, order, chaos, those aspects are about as "fundamental" as one can get."I do not know why the Cardinal elements were named Cardinal rather than another name. I sent a PM to Bloodshadow asking for clarification.We were looking to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinality) when we came up with Cardinality.Thoughts on Cardinal | Cardinal (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,34224.0.html)-snip-
Other Comments:
Cardinality is ... potent.
any thoughts on a better mechanic?
It might have been referring to a more abstract nature in those elements.
There seems to be a bit of debate on balancing Glowworm | Elite Glowworm (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,34252), notably whether it should generate 1 or 2 quanta when played. Your thoughts on this (and other aspects of the card)?2 quanta.
In a more broad question, what is your opinion on instant quanta generation like this and Nova/Immolation?
What makes up the major theme of the the other 2 element groups?Most elements have a few high level key concepts that act as major themes. Trying to combine them into one effect is difficult and varies based on the key concepts selected.
Had an idea for a card that Froze Permanents based on the amount of stacks, as a :water spell...Does the mechanic fit the theme? Most likely, yes.
Good Mechanic to Thematic match, or should I look elsewhere?
The idea was that this card would 'soft-combo' with Trident, seeing as it's current duo useage is difficult to implement, by stopping pillars and pendulums from producing quanta for a while. I figured either the freeze would last longer the smaller the stack (ice layer is thicker and thus takes longer to remove) Or, as in my modified form, would freeze for every stack of permenants your opponent controls.The yellow segment is a great balancing mechanic. Obviously the same volume of water would create a thinner coat on something with a larger surface area (stack).
The soft-combo being that you use this to stop alot of different sources for a while, giving the Trident time to earthquake the pillars and pendulums, resulting in a quanta lockdown.
I don't like the freeze all permants for every stack of permants, since that would translate to a VERY long freeze, during which you just watch and rage as you are forced to discard several cards, and your opponent beats you down, so that's why I came to you.
I need help to finish Chaotic Sands | Chaotic Sands (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,34465.0.html)What does it need to be finished?
How do you feel about the influx of "Whenever/If X, Y instead" mechanics in the Smithy?Interest in these types of triggers rises and falls in cycles. In general the mechanic is a valuable one. Likewise both negation and reaction effects are useful mechanics. However it is important to remember it is a tool and tools can be used properly or improperly. Automatic triggers have specific timing that can occur. It is important for proper balancing to do some preliminary testing by examining all the different possible chains of events. If one is thinking of using a trigger like these, take some time to honestly weigh the pros and cons between using it and another timing mechanic to deliver the carrier effect[Y].
In particular, what's your opinion on negation effects (negate trigger and do Y) vs. reaction effects (do not negate trigger but still do Y)?
Another idea I had was an :entropy card that would 'lock' a random amount of quanta, not allowing your opponent to use anything of that cost. The quanta 'locked' would be random, and change every turn. Ex. Turn 1, 3 is locked, you cannot play any card that costs 3 quanta to play, or use abilites that cost 3 quanta.I must admit I am not sure how much the game would benefit from Entropy gaining this type of denial. Be careful the disruption is not too strong or too weak.
The ability lock is to help compensate for the lack of cards with a low cost, and to make this thing more viable.
Good idea, or Bad idea?
Could you comment on balance for this card Bulrush | Giant Bulrush (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,34463.0.html). Im interested in the consumption of :water quanta.In mono it costs [4] 2 :life + 1 card + 1 turn to give a +1|+1 to a target creature (with Airborne, Dive, Vampire, Deadly Toxin or Neurotoxin).
Please note that the card does not require :water to stay on the field. the mechanic just forces you to pay for more bulrushes if you have available :water quanta.
Well, when I said that I didn't think that many elements had alot of 1-3-cost creatures...And as for the viability, that's because it's alsways changing the amount sealed. Now, seperate locks WOULD stack...But I guess I didn't think through what that ability would do, game-play wise.Costs of all elemental cards
| :aether 0,2,3,3,3,4,5,6,6,7,8,10,13 0,1,2,3,3,4,4,5,6,7,8,9,14 :air 1,1,2,2,2,3,4,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 0,1 :rainbow,1,1,1,3,3,4,5,5,7,8,8,12 :darkness 1,2,2,2,2,3,3,3,4,4,4,5,6,8,10 1,1,2,2,2,2,3,3,3,4,4,5,5,8,12 :death 0,1,1,1,2,2,3,3,3,3,4,4,7,8,8,10 0,1,2,2,2,2,2,2,3,3,3,5,5,6,8,10 | :earth 1,1,1,2,2,2,2,3,3,4,4,4,8,8,10 0,1,1,1,1,1,2,2,3,4,4,6,8,8,12 :entropy 0,1,1,2,2,3,3,3,4,5,5,5,8,9,10 0,1,1,1,2,3,3,3,4,5,5,5,6,9,11 :fire 0,1,2,3,3,3,3,5,6,7,7,8,10 0,1,1,2,2,3,3,3,4,5,5,8,12 :gravity 2,2,2,4,4,3,3,3,5,5,5,5,7,9,10 1,1,1,2,3,3,3,4,4,5,5,5,6,9,11 | :life 1,2,2,2,3,3,3,4,5,5,5,7,9,10 1,2,2,2,3,3,3,3,4,4,7,7,9,12 :light 0,2 :rainbow,1,1,3,3,3,4,4,5,5,7,9,12,15 0,0,1 :rainbow,2,2,2,3,4,5,5,6,8,9,13,12 :time 1,1,2,2,2,3,3,4,6,6,6,8,8,9,10 0,1,1,1,2,3,3,4,4,5,7,8,8,9,12 :water 1,1,1,2,2,3,3,3,3,4,5,6,7,8,10 1,1,1,1,2,3,3,3,4,5,5,6,7,8,11 |
Has anyone done a mechanic where a player shuffles cards in hand, and then draws that many cards?Has anyone made a card that produces a Mulligan effect? Yes.
Could I get your thoughts on this variant.Play Quantum Lotus. Deny your opponent quanta while you get 1 turn to spend your quanta or donate it to the Quantum Lotuses. Harvest +1|+1s from your unending supply of Quantum Lotuses.
Quantum Lotus | Quantum Lotus (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,34542.0.html)
are you saying the card is unfixable? or that the card is too powerful in its current form?It can be fixed by having the user pay for the benefit or by reducing the benefit until it is paid for by the current cost.
Quantum Lotus (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,34542.0.html)(http://i.imgur.com/NB3FA.png)(http://elementscommunity.org/images/Cards/Devourer.png)
Still too powerful?
I removed the doubling in favor of health growth, and gave the skill a poison cost.
Out of curiousity:Vanilla creatures serve 3 roles in EtG that I can see.
What are you thoughts on the role of Vanilla Creatures in ETG?
Also, do you believe True Vanilla Creatures (AKA creatures with NO special abilities except for certain 'natural' passives such as Airborne) have an important role in ETG?
Oh great and enlightened Idea Guru! Bestow upon me thy vast wisdom, for I am but an unworthy fledgling designee. Here I recount the 7 noble truths of Elements I have discovered through years of meditation. Are these assumptions valid?No, but they betray(reveal) thought and study.
Having a lot of quanta stored up should be good for every Element.Not necessarily. To gain an advantage one must have opportunity and be able to pay the cost. Having a store of quanta enables the cost to be paid but their would need to be an outlet for that to be worthwhile. In the absence of expensive outlets players use more cheaper outlets and less quanta production. Excessive quanta production is just as problematic as deficient quanta production. The broader the band between deficient and excessive the more variety there is in gameplay. From a design point of view this implies that adding expensive and cheap outlets helps diversify the game if it can be done with no side effects. One of Fractal's main additions to the game is in this area.
Rainbow quanta production is OP.QT: Probably not. A standard has to be made between rainbow and mono decks. A theoretical ideal standard would be 2.5 :rainbow per turn. Unfortunately 1/2 quanta is a contradiction in terms. The 3 :rainbow per turn based standard has made a respectable metagame.
CC that ignores creature defenses is OP.Not unless your definition of creature defenses includes: HP, Immateriality, 0 attack/momentum, first 5 slots/water. Flooding is not OP.
Granting immortality + activated ability is OP.No. There is a cost involved to balance the increased resilience of the creature.
No creature left behind, each one should have an ability.No. Abilities have value. All value should be paid for in the cost. Sometimes you want the creature with the best stats for its cost. A creature without an ability should have better stats for its cost.
The most expensive cards should be the best cards.No. The most expensive cards should be the cards with the most powerful effects. However size is not the only important factor when identifying the important cards. Sometimes how soon a card can be played is important. Cards that appear innocent will survive longer.
Instead of always being "better", Upgrades should mean "more".Upgraded cards get a free 1-2 quanta cost reduction or the equivalent. When the unupped and upgraded cards are comparable the upgraded should be better in the general case. +1 attack +1 cost would qualify as more but would not qualify as an upgrade. -1 attack -2 cost would not qualify as more but would qualify as an upgrade.
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,34667.0.htmlToo much to answer in those links.
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,30797.msg462651#msg462651
balance check please. Sinkhole | Sinkhole (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,34716.0.html)Cost: 4 :earth|3 :earth +1card
What do you think of Restore (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,34736.new.html#new)?Is it useful?
Is it useful? Is it balanced? I just put it up quickly.
I have a pseudo formed idea in my head of a :light skill. My problem is that it would probably best be implemented in a non :light creature. What elements do you think are in need of increased synergy with :light?Unless the skill is extremely generic, that question is misleading. Consider how the skill interacts with other possible hosting elements. Consider the pros and cons both of the synergy and of permitting the synergy.
Please, may I have a feedback for Royal Guard | Royal Guard (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,34759.new.html#new) ?What is the goal of the suggestion? [Important question]
Except for Bone Wall, the only difference between this and Healing 10|20 hp is that creature hp buffs (Basilisk Blood) would translate 1:1 into healing.You can target opponent shield as well, and you can use it to affect opponent's creatures (ice shield, spin carpace, fire buckler) and you have a little protection if your shield is destroyed from a PC
Noted.Except for Bone Wall, the only difference between this and Healing 10|20 hp is that creature hp buffs (Basilisk Blood) would translate 1:1 into healing.You can target opponent shield as well, and you can use it to affect opponent's creatures (ice shield, spin carpace, fire buckler) and you have a little protection if your shield is destroyed from a PC
You did not answer the important question: What is the goal of the suggestion?I really not understood the meaning of the question :)
When you make a suggestion (a card suggestion thread) you believe that the suggestion would improve the game. Crusader was intended to enable more uses of the abilities weapons possess. What improvement are you suggesting?You did not answer the important question: What is the goal of the suggestion?I really not understood the meaning of the question :)
As I said in chat, about Yuki-Onna:When you make a suggestion (a card suggestion thread) you believe that the suggestion would improve the game. Crusader was intended to enable more uses of the abilities weapons possess. What improvement are you suggesting?You did not answer the important question: What is the goal of the suggestion?I really not understood the meaning of the question :)
The same question applies to Yuki-Onna
Can I have an opinion (and suggestion) to Yuki-Onna | Yuki-Onna (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,34760.0.html) too, please?It certainly does have a :gravity :water synergy and allows :gravity :water to have antiShield PC.
As I said in chat, about Yuki-Onna:
Create a synergy :gravity :water and allow to :water to have a little PC, like ice bolt with opponent weapon.
Why anti-targeting? It can be affected to an opponent ability.Can I have an opinion (and suggestion) to Yuki-Onna | Yuki-Onna (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,34760.0.html) too, please?It certainly does have a :gravity :water synergy and allows :gravity :water to have antiShield PC.
As I said in chat, about Yuki-Onna:
Create a synergy :gravity :water and allow to :water to have a little PC, like ice bolt with opponent weapon.
The stats are worth about 7 :water|5 :water. The anti targeting ability is probably worth between +1 :water and +2 :water.
7 :water|7 :water +1card total.
Since it is so resilient it might be wise to reduce the stats to cheapen the cost.
Note: Creatures do not target to attack.
Anti-targeting: An effect that prevents or discourages targeting.Why anti-targeting? It can be affected to an opponent ability.Can I have an opinion (and suggestion) to Yuki-Onna | Yuki-Onna (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,34760.0.html) too, please?It certainly does have a :gravity :water synergy and allows :gravity :water to have antiShield PC.
As I said in chat, about Yuki-Onna:
Create a synergy :gravity :water and allow to :water to have a little PC, like ice bolt with opponent weapon.
The stats are worth about 7 :water|5 :water. The anti targeting ability is probably worth between +1 :water and +2 :water.
7 :water|7 :water +1card total.
Since it is so resilient it might be wise to reduce the stats to cheapen the cost.
Note: Creatures do not target to attack.
What about 4/6 and 2/10 cost 5:water both? Compared to abyssal crawler and toadfish/puffer fish seems balanced
What would I look at to determine for myself if Inertia | Inertia (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,34769.0.html) is balanced?Find a standard: Solar Shield has DR 1 and converts DR 1 worth of blocked damage into :light.
is hybrid worth +1 or +2?X cost is about equivalent to
is all my assumptions correct?1 DR appears to cost 2 on average.What would I look at to determine for myself if Inertia | Inertia (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,34769.0.html) is balanced?Find a standard: Solar Shield has DR 1 and converts DR 1 worth of blocked damage into :light. which cost 3 | 2 :light
Note differences: The quanta generated is :rainbow in your case.
Note differences: DR increases when upgraded in your case.
Find more standards: Titanium Shield | Diamond Shield and Shield | Tower Shield are good examples of DR increasing when upgraded. which cost 4 | 6 :earth
Note more differences: The quanta gained will also increase in your case. 1 quanta appears to be free, 2 seems to cost 1.
Note more differences: Hybrid quanta falls between Elemental and Random quanta in terms of cost. is this a +1 or +2
Assemble the pieces.
UN(So 1 DR = +2 + 1 quanta gain = +0 +Hybrid =+1 or +2)= 3-4
U(And 2 DR = +4 + 2 quanta gain = +1 +Hybrid =+1 or +2)+upped = -1= 5-6
When Titanium's DR 2 is increased by 1 by being upgraded, the casting cost increases by 2 despite the upgrade cost reduction.is all my assumptions correct?1 DR appears to cost 2 on average.What would I look at to determine for myself if Inertia | Inertia (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,34769.0.html) is balanced?Find a standard: Solar Shield has DR 1 and converts DR 1 worth of blocked damage into :light. which cost 3 | 2 :light
Note differences: The quanta generated is :rainbow in your case.
Note differences: DR increases when upgraded in your case.
Find more standards: Titanium Shield | Diamond Shield and Shield | Tower Shield are good examples of DR increasing when upgraded. which cost 4 | 6 :earth
Note more differences: The quanta gained will also increase in your case. 1 quanta appears to be free, 2 seems to cost 1.
Note more differences: Hybrid quanta falls between Elemental and Random quanta in terms of cost. is this a +1 or +2
Assemble the pieces.
UN(So 1 DR = +2 + 1 quanta gain = +0 +Hybrid =+1 or +2)= 3-4
U(And 2 DR = +4 + 2 quanta gain = +1 +Hybrid =+1 or +2)+upped = -1= 5-6
Do you have it written down anywhere, the common reusable mechanics and the values?1 cost = 1 quanta cost or 1 card cost
1DR = 2 cost being an example.
What about Atlantis's Protection (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,31232.0.html)?Hard to tell. The card negates half of the opponent's PC. I would suggest a cost increase (7 :water|5 :water) and a poll asking the community's opinion.
Cost is balanced?
its about Angler (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,34903.0.html).Cloaked while on dry land but flooding is in play is counter intuitive. How does flooding cloak a creature on dry land? Your current requirement of it being underwater makes more sense.
What do you think is the best combination of:
When it gains cloaked. aka: flooding in effect or whenever it is underwater.
When it gains Lure skill. aka: always has lure, lure when flooding is in effect, or lure only when underwater.
and does the price look right?
Added some notes and a poll, could you vote it? :DWhat about Atlantis's Protection (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,31232.0.html)?Hard to tell. The card negates half of the opponent's PC. I would suggest a cost increase (7 :water|5 :water) and a poll asking the community's opinion.
Cost is balanced?
You should clarify whether 2 deflagrations on separate turns would destroy a permanent. This would not affect the balance but having such an event destroy the target would be preferred.
In addiction, could you see Crocodile | Alligator (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,34881.12.html). There's an interesting idea for the skill from Snoweb, I like to know your opinion about that.Snoweb is suggesting a skill that reduces the current delay of the same creature.
Well I suppose the whole idea is to make a good use of both sundial an SoP. It is indeed a good idea and as time|water are unexplored it gives plenty of room for a nice card.Problem: Delay prevents activated skill use.
The card has two skills a passive (giving +2|+2 when delayed) and an active (delaying itself). As they are external ways to delay a creature (or forbid it to attack): turtle shield, sundial, SoP, freeze, BB etc... The active skill becomes useless or almost useless. I would invert it's use:
Patience (passive): Crocodile|Alligator gain +2|+2 when it does not attack.
:time Surprise attack (active): Crocodile|Alligator is delayed 1 less turn but all bonus gain with patience are reset to +0|+0.
This way Crocodile|Alligator can either gain in stats when delayed or ignore but loose the bonus. Obviously it would only reduce the delay by one turn for each activation (for example with freeze or BB). It would also be the only skill than one could activate only when delay (as opposed to all other skills than one can activate only when not delayed).
Due to lack of feedback from the general community, I have turned to you.
Can you please comment on the theme of Animi (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,34982.msg471127#msg471127) and the mechanic for Darkness Animus (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,35009)?
Responding in this thread is fine.
Animi cards will all be Other creatures with the same cost, same base stats (before elemental bonuses), and an effect that supports the inclusion of creatures of that element that is triggered by the same condition of "1 turn after you summon or generate this Animus"So the mechanical theme is:
What are your thoughts on the following?Higurashi
Higurashi | Higurashi (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,35053.0.html)
Black Sunadokei | Kuro Hourglass (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,35055.0.html)
To explain myself, when I say "should" I don't mean to say that is how it is, I think changing it that way would make for a better game. As for the 3 items I claim as OP, maybe lets just agree to disagree. : )Oh great and enlightened Idea Guru! Bestow upon me thy vast wisdom, for I am but an unworthy fledgling designee. Here I recount the 7 noble truths of Elements I have discovered through years of meditation. Are these assumptions valid?No, but they betray(reveal) thought and study.QuoteHaving a lot of quanta stored up should be good for every Element.Not necessarily. To gain an advantage one must have opportunity and be able to pay the cost. Having a store of quanta enables the cost to be paid but their would need to be an outlet for that to be worthwhile. In the absence of expensive outlets players use more cheaper outlets and less quanta production. Excessive quanta production is just as problematic as deficient quanta production. The broader the band between deficient and excessive the more variety there is in gameplay. From a design point of view this implies that adding expensive and cheap outlets helps diversify the game if it can be done with no side effects. One of Fractal's main additions to the game is in this area.QuoteRainbow quanta production is OP.QT: Probably not. A standard has to be made between rainbow and mono decks. A theoretical ideal standard would be 2.5 :rainbow per turn. Unfortunately 1/2 quanta is a contradiction in terms. The 3 :rainbow per turn based standard has made a respectable metagame.
Nova/Supernova/Immolation: Perhaps. It too sets a standard between long term and short term quanta producers. Standard producer the backbone of metagame structure and thus do not become OP as easily. A different standard might have a larger metagame. That would be reason to change Supernova but would not imply Supernova is OP.
To reiterate: Standards can be suboptimally designed but cannot be OP/UP.QuoteCC that ignores creature defenses is OP.Not unless your definition of creature defenses includes: HP, Immateriality, 0 attack/momentum, first 5 slots/water. Flooding is not OP.QuoteGranting immortality + activated ability is OP.No. There is a cost involved to balance the increased resilience of the creature.QuoteNo creature left behind, each one should have an ability.No. Abilities have value. All value should be paid for in the cost. Sometimes you want the creature with the best stats for its cost. A creature without an ability should have better stats for its cost.
Also: Vanilla creatures are useful for expanding the audience to include vanilla only players.QuoteThe most expensive cards should be the best cards.No. The most expensive cards should be the cards with the most powerful effects. However size is not the only important factor when identifying the important cards. Sometimes how soon a card can be played is important. Cards that appear innocent will survive longer.QuoteInstead of always being "better", Upgrades should mean "more".Upgraded cards get a free 1-2 quanta cost reduction or the equivalent. When the unupped and upgraded cards are comparable the upgraded should be better in the general case. +1 attack +1 cost would qualify as more but would not qualify as an upgrade. -1 attack -2 cost would not qualify as more but would qualify as an upgrade.Quotehttp://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,34667.0.htmlToo much to answer in those links.
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,30797.msg462651#msg462651
Your directional balance estimations (OP or UP) appear to be fairly accurate though you are less accurate the closer the card is to balanced. You tend to try to complicate things as your solution. You are unaware of some important coding details (cards cannot cost X :entropy, cannot manually target twice during the same effect) which can be fixed by asking Xenocidius in his Coding Q&A thread.
1) I understood what you meant by should and responded both about the present and about the futureTo explain myself, when I say "should" I don't mean to say that is how it is, I think changing it that way would make for a better game. As for the 3 items I claim as OP, maybe lets just agree to disagree. : )Oh great and enlightened Idea Guru! Bestow upon me thy vast wisdom, for I am but an unworthy fledgling designee. Here I recount the 7 noble truths of Elements I have discovered through years of meditation. Are these assumptions valid?No, but they betray(reveal) thought and study.QuoteHaving a lot of quanta stored up should be good for every Element.Not necessarily. To gain an advantage one must have opportunity and be able to pay the cost. Having a store of quanta enables the cost to be paid but their would need to be an outlet for that to be worthwhile. In the absence of expensive outlets players use more cheaper outlets and less quanta production. Excessive quanta production is just as problematic as deficient quanta production. The broader the band between deficient and excessive the more variety there is in gameplay. From a design point of view this implies that adding expensive and cheap outlets helps diversify the game if it can be done with no side effects. One of Fractal's main additions to the game is in this area.QuoteNo creature left behind, each one should have an ability.No. Abilities have value. All value should be paid for in the cost. Sometimes you want the creature with the best stats for its cost. A creature without an ability should have better stats for its cost.
Also: Vanilla creatures are useful for expanding the audience to include vanilla only players.QuoteThe most expensive cards should be the best cards.No. The most expensive cards should be the cards with the most powerful effects. However size is not the only important factor when identifying the important cards. Sometimes how soon a card can be played is important. Cards that appear innocent will survive longer.QuoteInstead of always being "better", Upgrades should mean "more".Upgraded cards get a free 1-2 quanta cost reduction or the equivalent. When the unupped and upgraded cards are comparable the upgraded should be better in the general case. +1 attack +1 cost would qualify as more but would not qualify as an upgrade. -1 attack -2 cost would not qualify as more but would qualify as an upgrade.
And I did ask Xeno (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,32442.msg467805#msg467805), and he said a cost of X is fine so n'yah. : P
I would like to know your thoughts on my latest hybrid ideas.I am on vacation right now so my thoughts will be short.
Insight on Shard of Focus? :)Shard of Focus
The difference between Mono and Duo attack might make it balanced.Could you clarify this a little? (Just to make sure I've understood this correctly)
Back when I asked for a review of Higurashi (card idea) (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,32272.msg472030#msg472030), you mentioned the following:The difference between Mono and Duo attack might make it balanced.Could you clarify this a little? (Just to make sure I've understood this correctly)
1|1 attack twice for 3 |3 +1card with low 1|3hp.I may be underestimating the anti CC value of the skill.
Mono it is UP by 1|2 casting cost (8 atk for 9 cost units)
-> Duo with attack buff (Blessing|Chaos Power) it is OP by 1|1 casting cost (8|7 atk [5.5hp upped] for 7|5 cost units)
-snip-
The difference between Mono and Duo attack might make it balanced.
How much this card would cost? http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,35303.new.html#new (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,35303.new.html#new)Well it copies a creature so I would start with Parallel Universe as a basis.
Feedback for http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,35322.0.htmlWipe requires more explanation in the OP describing:
and http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,35325.0.html please, thank you.
We were thinking that the stealing part is :darkness but doing it only while airborne balances it to some degree.Feedback for http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,35322.0.htmlWipe requires more explanation in the OP describing:
and http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,35325.0.html please, thank you.
1) Why flip instead of delay? (Adrenaline does give extra turns) it is different
2) Why does Aether revert the creature to just played status? I did have trouble choosing element. but it is a form of phasing
3) Why would it possibly switch sides? as a downside.
4) What does Wipe have to do with parts 1-3? Idk it was the first thing that came to mind
H... & M...
1) Hasten from Hourglass gives 1 unit of card advantage per :time :time| :time. Why would H&M give 6|8 units for a mere 1 :air?
2) Why is it a :air/ :darkness hybrid card if it has a :air activated ability? Would it work better as a mono or a duo card?
3) Why 1 activation per 3|4 turns?
1) It is airborne every turn after the first. That is insufficient to balance the card.We were thinking that the stealing part is :darkness but doing it only while airborne balances it to some degree.Feedback for http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,35325.0.html please, thank you.H... & M...
1) Hasten from Hourglass gives 1 unit of card advantage per :time :time| :time. Why would H&M give 6|8 units for a mere 1 :air?
2) Why is it a :air/ :darkness hybrid card if it has a :air activated ability? Would it work better as a mono or a duo card?
3) Why 1 activation per 3|4 turns?
I was thinking... what do you think of actual game wording?I feel in general the wording is sufficiently precise/concise for the mechanics. There is sufficient standardization in cases where standardization is important ("Target").
I feel that there is a general lack of standardization and we could have more clearness by redefining some texts on cards (leaving mechanics untouched).
Do you know if someone already start a similar project?
Do you think it could be a useful thing to do?
Hello Guru! :PMagpie:
Please could you help us to build mechanics in:
Magpie (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,35365.0.html)
Atlas (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,35223.0.html)
Specific question about Royal Guard | Royal Guard (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,34759.0.html):
Should I increase atk to 1 to make it affectable by opponent shields?
Which is a better name for its ability?
And a general opinion about Enchanted Sea | Enchanted Ocean (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,35338.0.html)
Hey, i'm trying to empower a bit water, conisdering ita has a lot of half sinergies, i tried with this card.The core of the card is "creatures get free skill uses per successful attacks".
(http://i.imgur.com/bn314.png)intending that you receive the same type and value of quanta that creature need to activate its ability.
Is a bad concept, or it is worth a try?
For Stopwatch (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,27379.0.html), I've received many different cost suggestions - including ones above the current cost - some from the thread and some from chat boards. What do you think is a fitting cost for it?Since it counts the beginning and end but not the duration of the delay or freeze or silence, it prefers short delay durations.
Adding onto the previous discussion on a "softer" Elements, how do you feel about all the situational yet devastating effects in elements, e.g. Purify, reflective shields, and Sanctuary?Situational yet devastating effects are ridiculously hard to balance. In addition, as exceptions, they are usually clunky patches rather than elegant balance solutions.
did u do a cost/balance for http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,35324.0.html ?No.
General analyse for Confusion (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,35472.0.html) please.It fits entropy well and requires focused deckbuilding to mitigate side effects.
What should I consider before posting a card that can use multiple kinds of quanta?1) You should consider what type of "multiple kinds of quanta" you are referring to. (Though I have a guess)
Would you use this card (Shadow Stalker) (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,35509.0.html)? Why?No I would not use it.
Is cost the only factor in the above decision?Would you use this card (Shadow Stalker) (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,35509.0.html)? Why?No I would not use it.
It is more expensive all things considered than Twin Universe, Sky Blitz for Chimera or even Adrenaline in most cases.
The best case scenario is 9 attack dealing +27 damage over 3 turns.
A 9 attack creature with no death timer is theoretically worth 8|6.5 :darkness + 1 card.
In summary:
I would use Twin Universe, Skyblitz, Adrenaline or Black Dragon over Shadow Stalker.
I have fairly broad tastes as far as gameplay is concerned. At a balanced cost I would find some use for it in its niche (size and shape of niche depend on balancing method).Is cost the only factor in the above decision?Would you use this card (Shadow Stalker) (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,35509.0.html)? Why?No I would not use it.
It is more expensive all things considered than Twin Universe, Sky Blitz for Chimera or even Adrenaline in most cases.
The best case scenario is 9 attack dealing +27 damage over 3 turns.
A 9 attack creature with no death timer is theoretically worth 8|6.5 :darkness + 1 card.
In summary:
I would use Twin Universe, Skyblitz, Adrenaline or Black Dragon over Shadow Stalker.
What in standard would be used to determine balance here? http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,35654.0.htmlAny Kael Card. :P
I kinda dislike how little the opponent is involved considering it is a Darkness card. This could be improved by having it balanced such that it could target any creature.It already can. Or did you mean something else?
Oh! It can already target the opponent's 15|11 Lava Golem? In that case, ignore that comment of mine and, finish balancing it against Twin Universe and Antimatter.I kinda dislike how little the opponent is involved considering it is a Darkness card. This could be improved by having it balanced such that it could target any creature.It already can. Or did you mean something else?
your thoughts on http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,35691.0.htmlForever is a weapon which can be returned to the deck to damage a target creature.
*talks about the card Forever* see the pun I made there?The problem with this analysis is that:
What are your thoughts on Mythic Blade (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,35642.0.html)?Sidenotes:
The magnitude of the ability as it stands is too powerful to balance in EtG. It needs to be reduced in scale either in type of ability negated, valid targets for negation and/or in duration.Would reducing the affected field to either creatures or Permanents be an appropriate nerf?
For a low attack, high cost weapon: PossiblyQuoteThe magnitude of the ability as it stands is too powerful to balance in EtG. It needs to be reduced in scale either in type of ability negated, valid targets for negation and/or in duration.Would reducing the affected field to either creatures or Permanents be an appropriate nerf?
Can you analyze Sponge | Sponge and Coral| Coral ? (Too lazy to link them when the linking fell off.)http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,35652.msg479880#msg479880
How do you incorporate the "flexibility" variable into cost mechanics?With difficulty and guess work related to risky cards.
Hello Guru! :PMagpie:
Please could you help us to build mechanics in:
Magpie (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,35365.0.html)
Both the stealing effects (from deck or from hand) would add something to the game.
Stealing from the hand is twice the net card advantage (2x the value of Hasten)
Stealing from the deck is a Milling win condition
What abou Magpie (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,35704.msg480200#msg480200) ?Magpie steals a card from the opponent's deck. This gives you 1 card and reduces your opponent's deck size by 1.
Well, these are things that we already know :DHello Guru! :PMagpie:
Please could you help us to build mechanics in:
Magpie (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,35365.0.html)
Both the stealing effects (from deck or from hand) would add something to the game.
Stealing from the hand is twice the net card advantage (2x the value of Hasten)
Stealing from the deck is a Milling win conditionWhat abou Magpie (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,35704.msg480200#msg480200) ?Magpie steals a card from the opponent's deck. This gives you 1 card and reduces your opponent's deck size by 1.
You have 2 versions:
Duo activated ability
The card can be used the same turn
1 card per turn per magpie
Duo venom ability that requires an attack buff
The card must wait a turn
Can prevent you from drawing next turn (widens the deckout gap between the two decks)
Can be used up to twice per turn per magpie
2 card combo
The venom ability exaggerates the deckout option (something less abundant in the metagame) but at the cost of restricting the decks to (/ :entropy :gravity :light) duos. So it would be a smaller increase in the metagame but would increase an underused area more than the activated ability version.Well, these are things that we already know :DHello Guru! :PMagpie:
Please could you help us to build mechanics in:
Magpie (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,35365.0.html)
Both the stealing effects (from deck or from hand) would add something to the game.
Stealing from the hand is twice the net card advantage (2x the value of Hasten)
Stealing from the deck is a Milling win conditionWhat abou Magpie (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,35704.msg480200#msg480200) ?Magpie steals a card from the opponent's deck. This gives you 1 card and reduces your opponent's deck size by 1.
You have 2 versions:
Duo activated ability
The card can be used the same turn
1 card per turn per magpie
Duo venom ability that requires an attack buff
The card must wait a turn
Can prevent you from drawing next turn (widens the deckout gap between the two decks)
Can be used up to twice per turn per magpie
2 card combo
Any opinion? Suggestion? Which one would be better for the metagame?
Any opinion or suggestion about Avalanche (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,30778.0.html) ?Flooding synergy, Anti Fractal, Expensive standalone instant kill that ignores hp.
should it cost less? http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,35838.0.htmlArmagio 6|6 :gravity + X :darkness + 1 turn + 2 card for 25|30 voodoo and 1|2 attack
If non- :darkness gained the +5hp|+7hp, how much would :darkness creatures be allowed to gain?should it cost less? http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,35838.0.htmlArmagio 6|6 :gravity + X :darkness + 1 turn + 2 card for 25|30 voodoo and 1|2 attack
Default: 2 :darkness + 2|1 :gravity + 2 cards for 16|20 voodoo
Chimera + Pin + Creatures vs Voodoo + Gravity Pull + Basilisk Bloods
I am not sure it is ever superior to Voodoo Doll and I am not sure if it can cost low enough.
Well, why would Darkness creatures be able to gain more?If non- :darkness gained the +5hp|+7hp, how much would :darkness creatures be allowed to gain?should it cost less? http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,35838.0.htmlArmagio 6|6 :gravity + X :darkness + 1 turn + 2 card for 25|30 voodoo and 1|2 attack
Default: 2 :darkness + 2|1 :gravity + 2 cards for 16|20 voodoo
Chimera + Pin + Creatures vs Voodoo + Gravity Pull + Basilisk Bloods
I am not sure it is ever superior to Voodoo Doll and I am not sure if it can cost low enough.
Would you recommend a Higher Hp buff?My primary concern is that is might not be able to be balanced against both Heavy Armor and Voodoo Doll at the same time.
My original thought was a spell that gave a creature damage reflection towards opponent.But what niche? If the niche is too similar to Voodoo Doll then only 1 will remain and the other will become UP. If the niche is too small then it is too restrictive.
Mmmh, this card is a very old concept of mine, now I understand better which modify I should do.Any opinion or suggestion about Avalanche (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,30778.0.html) ?Flooding synergy, Anti Fractal, Expensive standalone instant kill that ignores hp.
Excluding Water creature prevents beneficial Flooding synergy. (also Pufferfish cannot swim up avalanches :) ) You might have meant only the damage clause excluded water creatures. In that case you ran out of room to communicate that on the card. (ice still hurts fish)
I would definitely agree with Jocko's suggestion where one version is enemy only and one version in universal.
Dealing 2 damage on both versions might help reduce the variance between best and worst results.
I think the random nature fits the disaster quite well thematically.
PS: compare to thunderstorm and fire storm not to fire bolt.
2 damage at the current cost would be OP. However 2 damage at a higher cost is better design that the current version.Mmmh, this card is a very old concept of mine, now I understand better which modify I should do.Any opinion or suggestion about Avalanche (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,30778.0.html) ?Flooding synergy, Anti Fractal, Expensive standalone instant kill that ignores hp.
Excluding Water creature prevents beneficial Flooding synergy. (also Pufferfish cannot swim up avalanches :) ) You might have meant only the damage clause excluded water creatures. In that case you ran out of room to communicate that on the card. (ice still hurts fish)
I would definitely agree with Jocko's suggestion where one version is enemy only and one version in universal.
Dealing 2 damage on both versions might help reduce the variance between best and worst results.
I think the random nature fits the disaster quite well thematically.
PS: compare to thunderstorm and fire storm not to fire bolt.
Original idea was: Deal damage and shift row to both field, but :water creature don't take damages. So it allow a beneficial Flooding synergy, but maybe it has no much meaning this point.
I agree to make one version to only one field, but which one? I was thinking to the upgraded.
With 2 damage it isn't OP? with 3 of those you can kill almost everthing and it's really hard to take an advantage to put your creatures underwater.
May you join threads and give me an opinion about general card balancing? (cost etc...)In general you make comparisons.
Pryntil | Pryntil (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,33425.0.html)
Puppeteer | Master Puppeteer (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,35909.0.html)This has more variables that cannot be removed or discounted.
Well... this is not a card but a project thread which may interest you (and your experience would be useful)Aquatic as a characteristic does not provide a benefit until a source of water is provided.
Acquatic/Amphibian Passive Skill (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,35904.0.html)
What are the known card ideas 'taboos' (ideas that are frowned upon, such as controlling an enemy creature) and why are they labeled as so?Everyone should know this: Card Idea Taboos are merely guidelines with a bite. Only break a taboo if you have a good reason. If you have a good reason then break a taboo. Humans are fallible and the taboos originate from humans.
Just made a few cards about Time, wanna get some commentsSuspension Clock / Suspension Shield
Suspension Clock / Suspension Shield : A new shield for time elements, able to delay and suspend damage
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,36028.0.html
Time Slip / Time Displacement : A new spell that can speed up something, dim. shield bewares !
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,36026.0.html
Temporal Loop / Eternal Loop : New form of time creature, with true immortality and good synergy with death element
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,36029.0.html
Book of Prophecy / Code of Genesis : Manipulate the future !
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,36030.0.html
Distant Future / End of Time : Synergy with air element, permanent control for time
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,36057.0.html
I'm stuck with how I should pursue this card idea:Curators do not veto card ideas. They merely require consistent formatting. Just make sure when you correct "ariborne" to "airborne" you do it in both the card image and the card text.
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,36012.0.html
Ultimately, which of the two is better and would fare better under the curators' scrutiny in considerations for the Crucible?
Suspension Clock / Suspension ShieldSo this card does not need any modification ?
Around the power of a 40%|60% miss chance shield. Compare with Dusk Shield.
SC = 5 + 1 card + 3 (shield slot) = 9 -> ~40%
SS = 6 + 1 card + 3 (shield slot) +1.5 (upgrade) = 11.5 -> ~60%
DS = 6 + 1 card + 3 (shield slot) = 10 -> 50%
Time Slip / Time DisplacementThe upped version of the card will not have the second effect (it will be removed soon)
Limited reliable usages:
1) Infection
2) Acceleration
3) ? (usually 3 strategies is a minimum)
Temporal Loop / Eternal LoopThe creature will not increase in number. One dies and another one will take its place, which means I need to lower its cost or increase its attack
4,3,2,1,8,6,4,2,16,12,8,4,32,24,16,8 ... attack
Fulfills you design goal perfectly but balance is an interesting question.
4,4,3,3,4,4,4,4,5,6,6,6,8,9,9,9 ... average damage per turn (rounded to whole number)
I expect it is balanced as is but I am not sure.
Book of Prophecy / Code of GenesisThis card serves like PU and fractal but with different limitations and advantages. Any deck that can utilize fractal and PU may also find this card suitable. It can also help you get rid of useless cards (destroy the Book of Prophecy yourself) and use Genesis to replace useless cards in hand.
Both give card filtering. Scarabs is the only potential abuse I can think of and I do not expect that to be unbalanced.
This card might be as revolutionary as Crusader or it might not be. Having that potential is one of the signs that the card might be a great design instead of merely a good or poor design.
QuoteSuspension Clock / Suspension ShieldSo this card does not need any modification ?
Around the power of a 40%|60% miss chance shield. Compare with Dusk Shield.
SC = 5 + 1 card + 3 (shield slot) = 9 -> ~40%
SS = 6 + 1 card + 3 (shield slot) +1.5 (upgrade) = 11.5 -> ~60%
DS = 6 + 1 card + 3 (shield slot) = 10 -> 50%
It may, it may not. If 50% cost 2 per 10% then 40% would cost 8 (4 :time). However it is merely around the power of a 40% miss chance shield. Somewhere in the 7-9 cost (3-5 :time) range is the ideally balanced cost.QuoteTime Slip / Time DisplacementThe upped version of the card will not have the second effect (it will be removed soon)
Limited reliable usages:
1) Infection
2) Acceleration
3) ? (usually 3 strategies is a minimum)
The third usage is to destroy a dimensional shield instantly :D
You cannot rely on all your opponents using Dimensional Shield, Sundial or Wings.
Trying to make series called Vortex for at least 6 elements, wanna get some comments before start making the cardsThere are a few types of series. There are Set series that act as a suggestion to add that set of cards. (Set series have problems fitting into the polls) There are Mechanical series where each card is a different take on a new mechanic. Finally there are Theme series where each card fits within a theme. You are obviously going for a Theme series.
Main idea for Vortexes :
Spatial Vortex / Dimensional Vortex, creature (0|3)
Move on opponent field randomly. Kill any creature on its path
Temporal Vortex / Eternal Vortex, permanent
Reshuffle cards in hand and deck.
:time reverse time
Last one turn only
Energy Vortex / Power Vortex, permanent
Alternately absorb 5 random quanta from opponent and return 5 random quanta to you
Gravity Vortex / Cosmic Vortex, permanent
Creature loses 2 hp each turn until it dies, one by one. Start with the lightest one
Soul Vortex / Death Vortex, creature ( 0|1)
Death of any creature adds 4 counter. Deals damage(=counter) when it dies
Spirit Vortex / Life Vortex, creature ( 0|1)
Casting any creature adds 4 counter. Heals you(amount =counter) when it dies
A vortex (plural: vortices) is a spinning, often turbulent, flow ofSo each card should have a connection between name, art and mechanic that centers around what is flowing.
Sorry if I bother you. Since I am new to card creation, I do need a lot of information and commentsSpatial Rift / Dimensional Rift
What do you think about these ?
Dimensional Rift / Dimensional Vortex
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,36092.0.html
Time River / Eternal Waves
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,36080.0.html
The Forgotten / The Non-existed
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,36081.0.html
Probably my two last cards. (won't have the time to make cards soon)Echo of Time / Echoes of Time
What do you think ?
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,36111.0.html
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,36134.0.html
My last card, trulyTypically authors only work on a few ideas at a time so they can polish each idea beyond "good" to reach perfection.
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,36139.0.html
thoughts? http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,36175.0.html:time/ :entropy Duo permanent that generates a random card in your hand.
Reference: http://thesaurus.com/browse/serendipity?__utma=1.441075848.1324007426.1324007426.1327956713.2&__utmb=1.2.9.1327956713&__utmc=1&__utmx=-&__utmz=1.1327956713.2.2.utmcsr=google
better or worse http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,36170.msg486094#msg486094Worse: If you were referring to the blank card or to Poker Alho's suggestion
Would a non-targeting effect like http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,36381.0.html be aloud to affect immaterial?Do Nightfall, Flooding and Fire Shield all affect Quinted Vampires?
Can you analyze water sprayer ¦ water jets?http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,35908.msg482735#msg482735
Snatch (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,34894.msg478427#msg478427)The major problem is the rarity of the event (discarding) which is needed to trigger the effect.
I got so much positive feedback on the original idea, but it's just too limited in it's uses with the current game.
How would you suggest I go about making it work for the best?
I made a suggestion in one of my posts in teh thread, does that seem like a good route?
Does this fit a time mechanic? http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,36538.msg490214#msg490214
As a first thought I would never associate candles with time, they're typically ritualistic in nature.The candle is an object that intersects Fire, Light and Time. Many references of various sorts will tie candles to the passage of time including the use of candles as clocks in ancient times.
However, upon thinking over it I can see the approach, a candle burns as time passes.
It's unusual and certainly a different approach, but I'm all for doing the unexpected.
The ideas currently present in that topic are rather... off. You might be able to pull it off, but def needs some work.
What do you think of Giant Ant (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,36251.0.html)?Giant Ant is a spell that summons 3 creatures in 3 continuous slots if and only if there is such a trio of slots.
Can I have some feedback on Ocula (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,36635.0.html)?1|5 stats (1|6 upgraded)
In before any suggestions, I was thinking of:
Dropping health
Making ability one-time use only
2 questions about Distort | Sequester (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,36684.0.html):1)
1) Should the cost be lowered, especially when compared to other PC cards such as Steal and Deflagration?
2) Any suggestions on how to handle stackable permanents (pillars, SoG, etc)?
Thanks!
Would it be possible to cause two creatures on opposite sides to attack only each other?Yes. A creature could have the activated ability to challenge a creature on the opposite side. It would involve some additional combat code if it were to prevent the creatures from attacking normally or the combat could be in addition to normal combat. Damage could also be done simultaneously or sequentially.
The mechanic seems best that one's attack is removed from the others hp, and vice versa, at the time of the effect. Any survivors are delayed. Ideally, it is a berfed Warden.Would it be possible to cause two creatures on opposite sides to attack only each other?Yes. A creature could have the activated ability to challenge a creature on the opposite side. It would involve some additional combat code if it were to prevent the creatures from attacking normally or the combat could be in addition to normal combat. Damage could also be done simultaneously or sequentially.
Alternatively a spell could teach the Challenge activated ability to a creature.
Topaz Nymph | Acid Nymph (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,24781.0.html)Yes, it is lower than your norm.
(Disregarding the whole FG suggestion that was implemented in that thread as this is not the main focus of the card.)
Unlike it's counterpart, Garnet Nymph | Energy Nymph (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,24783.0.html), I feel that this card I made is not managing to hit the standard of quality I usually set but the theme of the card is interesting enough for me expand on.
Am I correct in that this card could be be designed with better quality, and what are your suggestions on improving it?
Remember Nymphs use Alchemy. This is why the effect does not change significantly between unupped and upgraded. Does Topaz reflect this?I'm not sure where to draw the line on this - Void Nymph (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,21512.0.html) also had a significant change in it's ability, which you noted was "worth the upgrade". Here, you seem to imply that the shift in stats and lethality takes away from the card instead. Is Void's theme generally an exception in most (if not all) cases within ETG?
In the case of Void, the effect increased in magnitude (destroy quanta to absorb quanta) but did not change direction. Acid Nymph's effect changes direction (-atk to -hp).QuoteRemember Nymphs use Alchemy. This is why the effect does not change significantly between unupped and upgraded. Does Topaz reflect this?I'm not sure where to draw the line on this - Void Nymph (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,21512.0.html) also had a significant change in it's ability, which you noted was "worth the upgrade". Here, you seem to imply that the shift in stats and lethality takes away from the card instead. Is Void's theme generally an exception in most (if not all) cases within ETG?
:life Elephant | Bull Elephant (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,36771.0.html) :life balance check. pleaseDoes it take any damage if it would kill its target?
It's been a long time, eh? :DChains of Atlas reply
Could you join Chain of Atlas (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,35839.0.html), Bonefish (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,36760.0.html) and Storm Wand (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,36761.0.html) threads and discuss about balance and usefulness of these cards?
Just considering attack and Hp, how much looseness can you allow before drawing the line that signifies the end of a niche?There are 4 stages
I'm not sure if you've noticed the change in ability considering the last post on it, but can I get a balance check on:I had not noticed the change in Levii.
:water Levii | Levii (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,36738.0.html)
Also, is this card intruding on Wyrm's attack niche? Or does the difference in abilities make that void?
:air Altiuiri | Altiuiri (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,36789.0.html)
Regarding Altiuiri | Altiuiri (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,36789.0.html), would a +1 to ability cost be enough to balance it, or should the cost to play also be raised by +1?I am not sure but I think both of those are underestimates. Compare it to other mass CC.
Hm, but in that case, isn't it UP with any raised cost, better as it is? And, as you've suggested, I've looked at other mass CC.I would include details like Tempest being repeatable and currently only being priced at 1 :air + 3 :air per activation.
Rain of Fire costs 7 :fire / 5 :fire , but deals a set amount of damage only to the opponent's side.
Unupgraded Pandemonium costs 3 :entropy and has a random chance to inflict a negative effect on both sides of the field while upgraded costs 5 :entropy and only targets the opponent's side.
Thunderstorm costs 2 :air , but only deals one damage and only targets the opponent's side.
The closest that comes is unupgraded Pandemonium as Tempest targets both sides of the fields and their is a random aspect in the chance to reverse. Besides affecting your own side, it does not guarantee affecting any creatures besides Spark and Ball Lightning, setting the minimal chance at 50% for 1 hp creatures.
Would you say there is any flaw with my comparisons?
I would include details like Tempest being repeatable and currently only being priced at 4 :air + 3 :air per activation.And seeing that one Tempest is only 50% max to return, Mass Rewind = 2 Tempest. Unless I'm wrong, is it not balanced as is?
Altiuiri costs 4 :air to play Tempest costs 3 :air to use.
[...]
Eternity's Rewind costs roughly 6 :time + 1 card + 3 :time per target.
Eternity costs 6 :time both unupgraded and upgraded. If it's upgraded, then it's 2 :time
Mass Rewind = Eternity's Rewind at 2 targets
Mass Rewind costs 12 (unupgraded) :time + 1 card
If using Upgraded Eternity, then the cost is 10 :time
For 10 :air + 1 card, Tempest achieves 2 activations.
Just a few fallacies with your comparison.You missed the step where I separated the skill from the body. The 4|4 body is worth 3 :air + 1 card hence the ability costs 1 :air + 3 :air per use. I had double checked the numbers.I would include details like Tempest being repeatable and currently only being priced at 4 :air + 3 :air per activation.And seeing that one Tempest is only 50% max to return, Mass Rewind = 2 Tempest. Unless I'm wrong, is it not balanced as is?
Altiuiri costs 4 :air to play Tempest costs 3 :air to use.
[...]
Eternity's Rewind costs roughly 6 :time + 1 card + 3 :time per target.
Eternity costs 6 :time both unupgraded and upgraded. If it's upgraded, then it's 2 :time
Mass Rewind = Eternity's Rewind at 2 targets
Mass Rewind costs 12 (unupgraded) :time + 1 card
If using Upgraded Eternity, then the cost is 10 :time
For 10 :air + 1 card, Tempest achieves 2 activations.
I apologize for making this complicated. I just want to flush out any possible problems.
Do you agree this should become a :life card? http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,36805.0.htmlThe card sends some portion of a creature's attack at the opponent in the form of spell damage.
Deal 8 damage.When opponent deck size decreases by 4, reduce damage by 1I am not sure whether I should stick to the concept that power of Stay depends on opponent's deck or something else
Damage = current number of creatures on field. But -1 damage when new creature is playedI've already put up a poll to gather opinions but I think I need more analysis before I can make the final decision
I really need your professional comments on these cardsThere have been Life weapons before that counted the number of creatures. Having Stay tied to the deck size of the opponent seems to fit Time better. (Time manipulates cards more than it manipulates creatures.)
Stay | Progress
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,37065.0.html
The mechanic of Stay hasn't settled yet.
Possible new mechanic :QuoteDeal 8 damage.When opponent deck size decreases by 4, reduce damage by 1I am not sure whether I should stick to the concept that power of Stay depends on opponent's deck or something else
Another possible mechanic :QuoteDamage = current number of creatures on field. But -1 damage when new creature is playedI've already put up a poll to gather opinions but I think I need more analysis before I can make the final decision
So far the focus is on Stay but I also want to know if Progress itself is polished enough
Progress works like a Free Ablaze (1 normal draw, 1 hourglass draw). This is comparable with Arsenic's venom however it is easier to use PC than to remove poison.I'm sorry, I'm not sure the meaning of this
Arsenic: 2 + (X-1) = X+1
Progress: 0 + (2X-1) = 2X-1
1) 5 + X/4 attack [X=opponent deck size]Let alone the numbers (which will soon be adjusted), which version would be a better card to fit into an average Time deck ?
2) 8 - D/4 attack [D=the number of times the opponent drew reducing their deck size]
Arsenic deals X+1 damage on turn X. (Turn 1 it does 2 damage. Turn 2 it does 2 damage and the poison does 1 more for a total of 3)Progress works like a Free Ablaze (1 normal draw, 1 hourglass draw). This is comparable with Arsenic's venom however it is easier to use PC than to remove poison.I'm sorry, I'm not sure the meaning of this
Arsenic: 2 + (X-1) = X+1
Progress: 0 + (2X-1) = 2X-1
Besides, comparing the two versions of Stay :Do you want it better against Rush decks[version 2] or better against Stall decks[version 1]?Quote1) 5 + X/4 attack [X=opponent deck size]Let alone the numbers (which will soon be adjusted), which version would be a better card to fit into an average Time deck ?
2) 8 - D/4 attack [D=the number of times the opponent drew reducing their deck size]
And how should I consider the effect of Reverse Time | Rewind ? Since they stop the constant drop of "Stay" power
Reverse Time can be ignored. It would take 4 uses of Eternity to give Stay a single +1 attack.Well I think I' gonna use version 2, better against rushes
For each Reverse Time you gain +0.25 attack. 1 attack is worth 1 :time.Reverse Time can be ignored. It would take 4 uses of Eternity to give Stay a single +1 attack.Well I think I' gonna use version 2, better against rushes
but for version 2, isn't the effect of Reverse Time more important (not just Eternity) ?
You prevent opponent from reducing deck size, and you can gain one extra turn of higher damage, and if you constantly do so, you can keep the attack at the highest value for 6 more turns in the ideal case
Howabout the card effect: Kamikaze. This card dies, and inflicts damage equal to it's health. Or, howabout revenge. If a card with revenge dies, your opponent takes a certain amount of damage.Kamikaze acts similar to the Catapult effect. You could also think of it as a creature version of Unstable Gas. It would be used as evasive damage (damage that can bypass normal defenses like Shields and Creature Control). This probably would work best as an activated ability. Either like how Catapult sacrifices other cards or as part of a more complicated ability " :fire __ takes 2 damage: Deal 3 damage to target" (borrowed from a recent card)
You could also kill your own creature, thus dealing damage. And it's stats wouldn't be worthwhile. I.E. A "bomb" card, with 1/1, and inflicts 5 lifepoints if it dies.Howabout the card effect: Kamikaze. This card dies, and inflicts damage equal to it's health. Or, howabout revenge. If a card with revenge dies, your opponent takes a certain amount of damage.Kamikaze acts similar to the Catapult effect. You could also think of it as a creature version of Unstable Gas. It would be used as evasive damage (damage that can bypass normal defenses like Shields and Creature Control). This probably would work best as an activated ability. Either like how Catapult sacrifices other cards or as part of a more complicated ability " :fire __ takes 2 damage: Deal 3 damage to target" (borrowed from a recent card)
Revenge would work as antiCC (the opponent is less eager to use Creature Control on that creature). All antiCC needs to be supported by having the creature normally be worth using CC on. If it can be deigned such that the opponent is ambivalent about using or not using CC then the player can slightly adjust the situation to prompt the desired response from the opponent.
What would be the best application of a Passive Skill Nocturnal?Nocturnal is like Amphibious. There first need to be several ways to trigger the Nocturnal clause before it becomes viable as a passive ability.
Nocturnal: a given Skill is triggered when it is in the dark, other wise it is a vanilla creature.
I am thinking of giving the skill to Torcherous.
In some cases the Nocturnal skill may turn a creature to :darkness
May I know what's your thought about this card ?It reminds me of the Armory level card Oceanus (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,32071).
Spear of Innocence | Spear of Purity
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,37167.0.html
Out of curiosity:its not in trainer yet, so even the idea guru, with his infinite knowledge, can only speculate at this point.
In your opinion, how effectively does Singularity nerf Nova?
Its effects are known to players due to being in the trainer as a bazaar card and we know that playing more than 1 nova each turn results in one of them spawning for each consecutive Nova. With the exception of the actual percentages of the effects you could still theorize the potential effects on the metagame and how strong an effect this has on all Nova-related decks.Out of curiosity:its not in trainer yet, so even the idea guru, with his infinite knowledge, can only speculate at this point.
In your opinion, how effectively does Singularity nerf Nova?
Indeed I can speculate. My speculation is most accurate about the form and not the magnitude of the nerf in question.Out of curiosity:its not in trainer yet, so even the idea guru, with his infinite knowledge, can only speculate at this point.
In your opinion, how effectively does Singularity nerf Nova?
Dear Idea GuruI tested a FG with Entropy Mark and 120 Supernovas.
Its in the trainer now. Whats your thoughts on it?
I have a card idea, not sure if this is a good one. Probably just for funThe first idea reminds me of http://gatherer.wizards.com/pages/card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=50400
Echo of Time : 1 :time
Your last card in hand sent to bottom of deck. Draw a card. This spell returns to top of deck.
Pros : you can draw a card while you are sending a card back to deck, prevent clogging your hand. You can also send a useless card away.
Cons : You will draw Echo of Time again. Either use it again to send another card back to deck, or accept the fact that you miss a useful draw
And, would you like to look at my latest card ?
Summer Monsoon | Winter Monsoon
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,37260.0.html
The first idea reminds me of http://gatherer.wizards.com/pages/card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=50400But making it a permanent will lose the theme of "Echo", and with an overlapping role with Hourglasses
This is a hotly contested card where some think it is golden and others think it is a net drain.
I would suggest at least letting them target the card being returned and perhaps make it into a permanent with an activation cost rather than a repeating spell.
Each echo needs an echo chamber. However there is overlap with Hourglass. I would consider Card Draw and Card Filtration to be synergistic rather than redundant. However some may disagree.The first idea reminds me of http://gatherer.wizards.com/pages/card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=50400But making it a permanent will lose the theme of "Echo", and with an overlapping role with Hourglasses
This is a hotly contested card where some think it is golden and others think it is a net drain.
I would suggest at least letting them target the card being returned and perhaps make it into a permanent with an activation cost rather than a repeating spell.
And will this be overpower if you can choose sending which card back to deck ?
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,37328.msg500635#msg500635I do not know.
Is this card's cost (including max hp cost) balanced in regard to its effects?
What are your thoughts on Shard of Integrity? Would you say it definitely favors certain shards over others?For those without Google Docs
| Element | Stats | Skills | ||||||||
| Unupped | Upgraded | 1copy | 2copies | 3copies | 4copies | 5copies | 6copies | 7copies | 8copies | |
| :aether | +2|+2 | +3|+3 | :earth: Burrow | :earth: Burrow Immaterial | :earth :earth: Lobotomize Immaterial | :earth :earth: Lobotomize Immaterial | :earth :earth: Lobotomize Immaterial | :earth :earth: Immortal (no effect) Immaterial | :earth :earth: Immortal (no effect) Immaterial | |
| :air | +2|+2 | +3|+3 | :earth: Burrow Airborne | :earth :earth: Queen Airborne | :earth :earth: Snipe Airborne | :earth :earth: Dive Airborne | :earth :earth: Dive Airborne | :earth :earth: Unstable Gas Airborne | :earth :earth: Unstable Gas Airborne | |
| :darkness | +2|+2 | +3|+3 | :earth: Burrow Devourer | :earth: Burrow Voodoo | Vampire Voodoo | Vampire Voodoo | :earth :earth: Liquid Shadow Voodoo | :earth :earth :earth: Steal Voodoo | :earth :earth :earth: Steal Voodoo | |
| :death | +2|+2 | +3|+3 | :earth: Infection | Scavenger | Scavenger | Venom | :earth :earth: Alfatoxin | Deadly Venom | Deadly Venom | |
| :earth | +1|+4 | +3|+3 | :earth: Burrow | :earth: Stone Form | :earth: Stone Form | :earth: Guard | :earth: Guard | :earth :earth: Petrify | :earth :earth: Petrify | :earth :earth: Petrify |
| :entropy | +2|+2 | +3|+3 | :earth: Dead and Alive | :earth :earth: Mutation | :earth :earth: Paradox | :earth :earth: Improved Mutation | Scramble | :earth :earth :earth :earth: Antimatter | :earth :earth :earth :earth: Antimatter | |
| :fire | +3|+0 | +4|+1 | :earth: Burrow | :earth: Ablaze | Fiery | Fiery | :earth :earth :earth: Destroy | :earth :earth: Rage | :earth :earth: Rage | |
| :gravity | +0|+6 | +1|+7 | :earth: Burrow Momentum | :earth: Burrow Momentum | :earth: Burrow Momentum | :earth: Burrow Momentum | :earth :earth :earth: Devour Momentum | :earth :earth :earth :earth: Black Hole Momentum | :earth :earth :earth :earth: Black Hole Momentum | |
| :life | +2|+2 | +3|+3 | :earth :earth: Growth | :earth :earth: Growth Adrenaline | :earth :earth: Growth Adrenaline | :earth :earth: Growth Adrenaline | :earth :earth: Adrenaline Adrenaline | :earth :earth: Mitosis Adrenaline | :earth :earth: Mitosis Adrenaline | |
| :light | +2|+2 | +3|+3 | :earth: Heal | :earth: Heal | :earth :earth: Endow | :earth :earth: Endow | :earth :earth: Endow | :earth :earth :earth :earth: Luciferin | :earth :earth :earth :earth: Luciferin | |
| :time | +2|+2 | +3|+3 | :earth: Burrow | :earth :earth: Scarab | :earth :earth :earth :earth: Deja Vu | Neurotoxin | Neurotoxin | :earth :earth: Precognition | :earth :earth: Precognition | |
| :water | +2|+2 | +3|+3 | :earth: Burrow | :earth :earth: Steam | :earth :earth: Steam | :earth :earth :earth: Freeze | :earth :earth :earth: Freeze | :earth :earth :earth :earth: Nymph | :earth :earth :earth :earth: Nymph |
Would it be a good idea to have a rareless way to generate shards, like nymph's tears generates nymphs in a rareless card?Yes, provided such a card serves a secondary purpose like Nymph's Tears and if the alternate cost was balanced relative to the shards.
Would Glass Shard (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,35283.0.html) be a good example of such a card?Would it be a good idea to have a rareless way to generate shards, like nymph's tears generates nymphs in a rareless card?Yes, provided such a card serves a secondary purpose like Nymph's Tears and if the alternate cost was balanced relative to the shards.
Nymph's tears is an alternate cost and a Pillar PC.
In fact, Shard of Integrity is begging for such a card to be made.
No Glass Shard resembles Nymph's Tear too closely and did not adjust to the new cost range. (7 :water/8-9 :underworld -> 6 :rainbow/~5 :rainbow?)Would Glass Shard (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,35283.0.html) be a good example of such a card?Would it be a good idea to have a rareless way to generate shards, like nymph's tears generates nymphs in a rareless card?Yes, provided such a card serves a secondary purpose like Nymph's Tears and if the alternate cost was balanced relative to the shards.
Nymph's tears is an alternate cost and a Pillar PC.
In fact, Shard of Integrity is begging for such a card to be made.
Also, what are some good alternative effects that you feel would work with Mark Upgrades (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,37370.0.html)?
Can you analyze Massive Orb | Gravity Orb (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,36321.0.html)?Upgraded it is a repeat of Fire Nymph. Rage is a potent ability that would be devastating if available in the early game. Thus it was restricted to mid-late game by having a larger swing and thus a higher casting cost.
And then if a guardian angel, heavy armor, or holy light is also in the scene?Can you analyze Massive Orb | Gravity Orb (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,36321.0.html)?Upgraded it is a repeat of Fire Nymph. Rage is a potent ability that would be devastating if available in the early game. Thus it was restricted to mid-late game by having a larger swing and thus a higher casting cost.
Unupped
1 card + 2 :gravity for 0|10
1 :gravity: +2|-3
0|10 is worth n/a cost units (It does not have a primary use to compare to. The secondary usages are not sufficiently quantified)
2|7 is worth 3 cost units
4|4 is worth 4 cost units
6|1 is worth 6 cost units
So it has 4 modes
0|10 costs 1 card + 2 :gravity = 3 cost units (cu)
2|7 costs 1 card + 3 :gravity -2 damage ~= 4cu
4|4 costs 1 card + 4 :gravity -6 damage ~= 6cu
6|1 costs 1 card + 5 :gravity -12 damage ~= 8cu
What if it had no activation cost?
0|10 costs 1 card + 2 :gravity = 3 cost units (cu)
2|7 costs 1 card + 2 :gravity -2 damage ~= 3cu
4|4 costs 1 card + 2 :gravity -6 damage ~= 5cu
6|1 costs 1 card + 2 :gravity -12 damage ~= 7cu
Extra cost -> Extra benefitAnd then if a guardian angel, heavy armor, or holy light is also in the scene?Can you analyze Massive Orb | Gravity Orb (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,36321.0.html)?Upgraded it is a repeat of Fire Nymph. Rage is a potent ability that would be devastating if available in the early game. Thus it was restricted to mid-late game by having a larger swing and thus a higher casting cost.
Unupped
1 card + 2 :gravity for 0|10
1 :gravity: +2|-3
0|10 is worth n/a cost units (It does not have a primary use to compare to. The secondary usages are not sufficiently quantified)
2|7 is worth 3 cost units
4|4 is worth 4 cost units
6|1 is worth 6 cost units
So it has 4 modes
0|10 costs 1 card + 2 :gravity = 3 cost units (cu)
2|7 costs 1 card + 3 :gravity -2 damage ~= 4cu
4|4 costs 1 card + 4 :gravity -6 damage ~= 6cu
6|1 costs 1 card + 5 :gravity -12 damage ~= 8cu
What if it had no activation cost?
0|10 costs 1 card + 2 :gravity = 3 cost units (cu)
2|7 costs 1 card + 2 :gravity -2 damage ~= 3cu
4|4 costs 1 card + 2 :gravity -6 damage ~= 5cu
6|1 costs 1 card + 2 :gravity -12 damage ~= 7cu
Here I am being presumptious again but why do you use comparitive cost when looking at balance? Wouldn't a more accurate assessment be looking at potential applications rather than cost in a void?This is a good question.
I think the cost model of balance analysis is simpler and more concrete, but decks are more than the sum of their parts and it's decks that imbalance the game, not cards.
I would like hear some comments from you. Not only for the cost balance, bu also for the whole mechanics. Do you think this card is a good idea ?This card would protect creatures from damaging CC, by redirecting that damaging CC at the player.
Divine Protection | Divine Force
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,37461.0.html
Can I get your thoughts on:Diode is a 2 turn two sided form of Silence. As all two sided cards, the user would minimize costs and maximize benefits during deckbuilding. Unexpected side effects include unupped pandemonium acting like it was upgraded and unstable gas acting like thunderstorm (one sided rather than 2 sided).
:aether Diode (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,37524.0.html) and :aether Short Circuit (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,37507.0.html)?
How should it be balanced ? I'm not sure how much the "absorbed" quanta count, as compared to normal quanta consumption.It costs all your quanta and thus has a cost of X :rainbow [X=total quanta]
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,37525.0.html
If you have a lot of quanta, you are basically using3lots of quanta to gain a temporary creature with massive attack and HP. But it does take some risk to use this card.
May I know how you obtain the equations ?I obtained the equations by comparing Tower Shield, Titanium Shield, Quantum Pillar and Earth Pillar.
And I assume :water means attack, am I right ?
if :water means attack, then assume X is 12.
Y = (12-1.5)/1.5 = 7....
attack gained by 4 quanta = 7/3, well, not a good looking number, round it down ?
I'm pretty much at a loss on how to balance Stone Legion (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,37566).It is a bit unclear, can the creatures do anything other than sit there? Aka do the 3 Nymphs get to use their abilities?
What are you thoughts?
Yes. They can do everything a creature can do except attack (and for the unupgraded, be targeted).I'm pretty much at a loss on how to balance Stone Legion (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,37566).It is a bit unclear, can the creatures do anything other than sit there? Aka do the 3 Nymphs get to use their abilities?
What are you thoughts?
So unupped they are vulneable to PC but upgraded they are vulnerable to PC and some CC (Reverse Time)?Yes. They can do everything a creature can do except attack (and for the unupgraded, be targeted).I'm pretty much at a loss on how to balance Stone Legion (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,37566).It is a bit unclear, can the creatures do anything other than sit there? Aka do the 3 Nymphs get to use their abilities?
What are you thoughts?
Hm...I was thinking for those summoned by the upgraded card to be affected by all forms of CC by being a creature (with stats) in the permanent zone.1) Being vulnerable to CC would be better on the unupped card. (Upgrades are better not worse)
Note that Nymphs are just as expensive as Pharaoh and Anubis. In addition, Nymph abilities aren't all that powerful; an Anubis statue is surely better than a Turquoise statue.
As for Blue Nymph, I think that it only shows that 3 skills per turn from the 2nd turn onwards is a bit overpowered. However, summoning 2 doesn't really fit with summoning a legion...
Is a mechanic that summons 1 at the end of every turn for free balance-able, or does it need to be a timed permanent and/or a permanent with an ability cost? I've calculated that this permanent would cost 3/2 quanta (using your final cost as a basis for the effect's worth). Do you have a different conclusion for initial cost?
Ad Infinitum | Ad Infinitum (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,37658.0.html)The Eternal ability was submitted to the Crucible under a different name (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,23068.msg312922#msg312922) by Kami. It did not survive the polls and was archived. Eternal may deserve a better vehicle but we do not submit the same suggestion twice.
I feel the Eternal ability deserves a better vehicle. Am I correct, and could you join the discussion with your thoughts?
1) Cremation, Fractal, Mitosis, TU, and SoR all require targeting.Hm...I was thinking for those summoned by the upgraded card to be affected by all forms of CC by being a creature (with stats) in the permanent zone.1) Being vulnerable to CC would be better on the unupped card. (Upgrades are better not worse)
Note that Nymphs are just as expensive as Pharaoh and Anubis. In addition, Nymph abilities aren't all that powerful; an Anubis statue is surely better than a Turquoise statue.
As for Blue Nymph, I think that it only shows that 3 skills per turn from the 2nd turn onwards is a bit overpowered. However, summoning 2 doesn't really fit with summoning a legion...
Is a mechanic that summons 1 at the end of every turn for free balance-able, or does it need to be a timed permanent and/or a permanent with an ability cost? I've calculated that this permanent would cost 3/2 quanta (using your final cost as a basis for the effect's worth). Do you have a different conclusion for initial cost?
2) Unstable Gas, Black Hole, Antimatter and Rage Potion are very nice.
3) The larger the legion desired, the higher the cost to summon.
4) A permanent that summons something worth 2-4 quanta + 1 card per turn is going to cost more than 3 quanta + 1 card.
5) I think we should think twice before making a permanent that generates a Black Hole casting statue per turn.
1)1) Cremation, Fractal, Mitosis, TU, and SoR all require targeting.Hm...I was thinking for those summoned by the upgraded card to be affected by all forms of CC by being a creature (with stats) in the permanent zone.1) Being vulnerable to CC would be better on the unupped card. (Upgrades are better not worse)
Note that Nymphs are just as expensive as Pharaoh and Anubis. In addition, Nymph abilities aren't all that powerful; an Anubis statue is surely better than a Turquoise statue.
As for Blue Nymph, I think that it only shows that 3 skills per turn from the 2nd turn onwards is a bit overpowered. However, summoning 2 doesn't really fit with summoning a legion...
Is a mechanic that summons 1 at the end of every turn for free balance-able, or does it need to be a timed permanent and/or a permanent with an ability cost? I've calculated that this permanent would cost 3/2 quanta (using your final cost as a basis for the effect's worth). Do you have a different conclusion for initial cost?
2) Unstable Gas, Black Hole, Antimatter and Rage Potion are very nice.
3) The larger the legion desired, the higher the cost to summon.
4) A permanent that summons something worth 2-4 quanta + 1 card per turn is going to cost more than 3 quanta + 1 card.
5) I think we should think twice before making a permanent that generates a Black Hole casting statue per turn.
2) They also cost a hefty bit to use repeatably, which limits the impact of (initial) cost reduction. This is especially true for nymphs since you cannot remove an element from the equation since all nymphs have mono abilities.
3) This may not be true because of the delay. Assuming you activate all abilities once per turn, it takes 4 turns for my suggested version to match the capability of the your suggested version. In addition, the suggested version is much less reliable, since it can be destroyed before it stays out for 4 turns.
4) Assuming unit increase in ATK equals a unit increase in cost, an Air Nymph with 0 attack costs 2 quanta. In addition, you can only have 6 Air Nymphs in a deck.
5) I believe that the drastic decrease in or limit on damage potential upon the use of Stone Legion warrants the ability to field 6 Gravity Nymphs within 6 turns (6 turns assuming you don't need to wait for quanta to use its ability).
If a creature's attack depends on HP of both sides, will it be useful in the game ?If you are winning, Resonance Spirit gets weaker
Resonance Spirit | Mirror Spirit
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,37681.0.html
1) Noted.1)1) Cremation, Fractal, Mitosis, TU, and SoR all require targeting.Hm...I was thinking for those summoned by the upgraded card to be affected by all forms of CC by being a creature (with stats) in the permanent zone.1) Being vulnerable to CC would be better on the unupped card. (Upgrades are better not worse)
Note that Nymphs are just as expensive as Pharaoh and Anubis. In addition, Nymph abilities aren't all that powerful; an Anubis statue is surely better than a Turquoise statue.
As for Blue Nymph, I think that it only shows that 3 skills per turn from the 2nd turn onwards is a bit overpowered. However, summoning 2 doesn't really fit with summoning a legion...
Is a mechanic that summons 1 at the end of every turn for free balance-able, or does it need to be a timed permanent and/or a permanent with an ability cost? I've calculated that this permanent would cost 3/2 quanta (using your final cost as a basis for the effect's worth). Do you have a different conclusion for initial cost?
2) Unstable Gas, Black Hole, Antimatter and Rage Potion are very nice.
3) The larger the legion desired, the higher the cost to summon.
4) A permanent that summons something worth 2-4 quanta + 1 card per turn is going to cost more than 3 quanta + 1 card.
5) I think we should think twice before making a permanent that generates a Black Hole casting statue per turn.
2) They also cost a hefty bit to use repeatably, which limits the impact of (initial) cost reduction. This is especially true for nymphs since you cannot remove an element from the equation since all nymphs have mono abilities.
3) This may not be true because of the delay. Assuming you activate all abilities once per turn, it takes 4 turns for my suggested version to match the capability of the your suggested version. In addition, the suggested version is much less reliable, since it can be destroyed before it stays out for 4 turns.
4) Assuming unit increase in ATK equals a unit increase in cost, an Air Nymph with 0 attack costs 2 quanta. In addition, you can only have 6 Air Nymphs in a deck.
5) I believe that the drastic decrease in or limit on damage potential upon the use of Stone Legion warrants the ability to field 6 Gravity Nymphs within 6 turns (6 turns assuming you don't need to wait for quanta to use its ability).
Cremation + Stone Legion < Cremation + 0 cost Cremation Fodder.
Fractal + Stone Legion merely gives you an expensive 7th-12th copy of fractal fodder in the deck.
Mitosis + Stone Legion gives you a PC vulnerable version of Mitosis + Creature. (However it might require a large legion for a high cost to balance Stone Legion + Mitosis + SoR)
Twin Universe + Stone Legion would be balanced with Twin Universe + Creature assuming you balance Stone Legion
Shard of Readiness would be an additional cost to remove an element requirement. Additional costs deserve additional benefit
These suggestions reveal that they are additional benefits for additional costs. Being immune to CC is an additional benefit. It should have the additional cost of requiring the upgrade rather than have each of the listed synergies have to pay twice for the same benefit.
2)
The hefty cost is part of the reason why their skills are not valued at +8 quanta + 1 card or higher. I am not suggesting having Stone Legion cost more to get Nymph abilities than it costs Nymphs to get them. I am suggesting it cost the same as 0 attack versions of the Nymphs. OR I am suggesting it turn Nymphs into Pillars and you balance based on the next most valuable skill in the game.
3)
I do not have a version. Those were sample calculations.
Furthermore this line was about comparing similar version. (The Summon 2 instantly or the Summon 3 instantly)
4)
You do remember why I start calculations on the unupped creature. Otherwise you lose track of how many upgrades are on either side of the equation.
Furthermore: Did you know that people tend to be unwilling to upgrade Nymphs due to their extreme rarity? The rarity and the lack of a downgrade option in PvP Duel makes upgrading a Nymph useless in unupped events. However Air Nymph is an exception to this rule. The reason is that the upgrade adds enough power to compensate for the lost opportunity. This implies that Air Nymph is granted a more powerful upgrade than is standard for the balance between unupped and upped.
5)
Gravity Nymph barely notices the -1 attack. However the opponent will surely notice the never ending (1 CC per turn or 1CC + 1 PC) flow of Black Holes. There is such a thing as an effect that is too powerful for EtG even if given a balanced cost. EtG has a threshold for the magnitude of effects that are appropriate. There will never be a "pay 75 :fire and you win" card nor will we ever see a vanilla 1|1 for 1 :death again.
4) Each :air :air :air: Unstable Gas ability is worth 5 :air + 1 card.1) Noted.1)1) Cremation, Fractal, Mitosis, TU, and SoR all require targeting.Hm...I was thinking for those summoned by the upgraded card to be affected by all forms of CC by being a creature (with stats) in the permanent zone.1) Being vulnerable to CC would be better on the unupped card. (Upgrades are better not worse)
Note that Nymphs are just as expensive as Pharaoh and Anubis. In addition, Nymph abilities aren't all that powerful; an Anubis statue is surely better than a Turquoise statue.
As for Blue Nymph, I think that it only shows that 3 skills per turn from the 2nd turn onwards is a bit overpowered. However, summoning 2 doesn't really fit with summoning a legion...
Is a mechanic that summons 1 at the end of every turn for free balance-able, or does it need to be a timed permanent and/or a permanent with an ability cost? I've calculated that this permanent would cost 3/2 quanta (using your final cost as a basis for the effect's worth). Do you have a different conclusion for initial cost?
2) Unstable Gas, Black Hole, Antimatter and Rage Potion are very nice.
3) The larger the legion desired, the higher the cost to summon.
4) A permanent that summons something worth 2-4 quanta + 1 card per turn is going to cost more than 3 quanta + 1 card.
5) I think we should think twice before making a permanent that generates a Black Hole casting statue per turn.
2) They also cost a hefty bit to use repeatably, which limits the impact of (initial) cost reduction. This is especially true for nymphs since you cannot remove an element from the equation since all nymphs have mono abilities.
3) This may not be true because of the delay. Assuming you activate all abilities once per turn, it takes 4 turns for my suggested version to match the capability of the your suggested version. In addition, the suggested version is much less reliable, since it can be destroyed before it stays out for 4 turns.
4) Assuming unit increase in ATK equals a unit increase in cost, an Air Nymph with 0 attack costs 2 quanta. In addition, you can only have 6 Air Nymphs in a deck.
5) I believe that the drastic decrease in or limit on damage potential upon the use of Stone Legion warrants the ability to field 6 Gravity Nymphs within 6 turns (6 turns assuming you don't need to wait for quanta to use its ability).
Cremation + Stone Legion < Cremation + 0 cost Cremation Fodder.
Fractal + Stone Legion merely gives you an expensive 7th-12th copy of fractal fodder in the deck.
Mitosis + Stone Legion gives you a PC vulnerable version of Mitosis + Creature. (However it might require a large legion for a high cost to balance Stone Legion + Mitosis + SoR)
Twin Universe + Stone Legion would be balanced with Twin Universe + Creature assuming you balance Stone Legion
Shard of Readiness would be an additional cost to remove an element requirement. Additional costs deserve additional benefit
These suggestions reveal that they are additional benefits for additional costs. Being immune to CC is an additional benefit. It should have the additional cost of requiring the upgrade rather than have each of the listed synergies have to pay twice for the same benefit.
2)
The hefty cost is part of the reason why their skills are not valued at +8 quanta + 1 card or higher. I am not suggesting having Stone Legion cost more to get Nymph abilities than it costs Nymphs to get them. I am suggesting it cost the same as 0 attack versions of the Nymphs. OR I am suggesting it turn Nymphs into Pillars and you balance based on the next most valuable skill in the game.
3)
I do not have a version. Those were sample calculations.
Furthermore this line was about comparing similar version. (The Summon 2 instantly or the Summon 3 instantly)
4)
You do remember why I start calculations on the unupped creature. Otherwise you lose track of how many upgrades are on either side of the equation.
Furthermore: Did you know that people tend to be unwilling to upgrade Nymphs due to their extreme rarity? The rarity and the lack of a downgrade option in PvP Duel makes upgrading a Nymph useless in unupped events. However Air Nymph is an exception to this rule. The reason is that the upgrade adds enough power to compensate for the lost opportunity. This implies that Air Nymph is granted a more powerful upgrade than is standard for the balance between unupped and upped.
5)
Gravity Nymph barely notices the -1 attack. However the opponent will surely notice the never ending (1 CC per turn or 1CC + 1 PC) flow of Black Holes. There is such a thing as an effect that is too powerful for EtG even if given a balanced cost. EtG has a threshold for the magnitude of effects that are appropriate. There will never be a "pay 75 :fire and you win" card nor will we ever see a vanilla 1|1 for 1 :death again.
2) I disagree with what you suggest because of (4) and (5)
3) Then you should treat my (3) as a response to your (4). Assume "your suggested version" is the (balanced) "example" you suggested.
4) Even so, an unupgraded Air creature with the ability ":air :air :air : Unstable Gas" and 3 attack costs 8 quanta, so an unupgraded Air creature with the ability ":air :air :air : Unstable Gas" and 0 attack should cost 5 quanta. That's only twice the cost of the ability.
5) You completely missed the point. How do you expect to kill the opponent with 6 Amber Nymphs? Let's say you add 2 Stone Dragons for the finisher. That means that you only have a 53% chance to get out 2 Amber Nymphs instead of halving your damage potential by pulling only 1 Nymph and a useless Stone Dragon.
Would you please have a look at my very first attempt for a new card idea:Theme: Entropy is usually but not always random / chaotic.
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,37724.0.html (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,37724.0.html)
All comments are very much appreciated.
Thanks.
Can I get your thoughts on Draconian Emblem (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,37700.0.html) and Recursion (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,37720.0.html) ?Draconic Emblem: Play a card to get a discount on all dragons you play this turn (and all cards played after Draconic Emblem are dragons this turn).
Oh great OldTrees, what are your ideas on Century (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,37732.0.html)?When would you want to draw that much for just 1 turn? [Excluding OTK decks which don't need to be made that much faster.]
New mechanic: Stone Legion | Stone Legion (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,37566)What happens to spells? Do they act like Unstable Gas (Permanent with an activation cost to release the spell)
Yes, spells act like permanents with Sacrifice abilities. The "just an hourglass" idea is what I've been trying to avoid, but as you can see it's been quite difficult for me. As the Idea Guru, do you have any ideas to spice up this mechanic?New mechanic: Stone Legion | Stone Legion (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,37566)What happens to spells? Do they act like Unstable Gas (Permanent with an activation cost to release the spell)
Hourglass + Extra space - removal vulnerability + target-able.
It seems balanced. I am not sure if it adds anything new to the game or merely makes an Earth hourglass
I think the original variant, with a modification of "Nymphs becoming pillars" (because their abilities are too valuable compared to other creatures) would be the best of the variants.Yes, spells act like permanents with Sacrifice abilities. The "just an hourglass" idea is what I've been trying to avoid, but as you can see it's been quite difficult for me. As the Idea Guru, do you have any ideas to spice up this mechanic?New mechanic: Stone Legion | Stone Legion (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,37566)What happens to spells? Do they act like Unstable Gas (Permanent with an activation cost to release the spell)
Hourglass + Extra space - removal vulnerability + target-able.
It seems balanced. I am not sure if it adds anything new to the game or merely makes an Earth hourglass
Can you check the balance of the cards currently in the Mind series?8 is too many to judge at once.
(http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,37400.0.html )
:time Temporal Mirror | Eternal Mirror(Both players receive| Target player receives) copies of their last-drawn cards instead of drawing.
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,37745.0.html
I'm not sure if I have asked you before as this card is a remake of my old card.
Is there any thing that needs correction in particular ?
Quanta Dissolution (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,35054.0.html)Quanta Dissolution shuts down an entire stack of quanta producers. This is equivalent to destroying X2 quanta. This increases quickly and might be too powerful.
Slow Time (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,37595.0.html)
Do you feel that either of these mechanics are too powerful?
How can the scale of the mechanics respectively become balanced? I'm not sure how I'd change Quanta Dissolution. For Slow Time there's triggers and durations. Are either of those a bad step for Slow Time?Quanta Dissolution (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,35054.0.html)Quanta Dissolution shuts down an entire stack of quanta producers. This is equivalent to destroying X2 quanta. This increases quickly and might be too powerful. For it to increase you'd have to recast it.
Slow Time (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,37595.0.html)
Do you feel that either of these mechanics are too powerful?
Slow Time (upgraded) creates draw denial every other turn. This is a lot of card disadvantage and probably is too powerful. You are referring to the upgraded, right?
Slow Time is already set up with a duration mechanic. I would just adjust that.How can the scale of the mechanics respectively become balanced? I'm not sure how I'd change Quanta Dissolution. For Slow Time there's triggers and durations. Are either of those a bad step for Slow Time?Quanta Dissolution (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,35054.0.html)Quanta Dissolution shuts down an entire stack of quanta producers. This is equivalent to destroying X2 quanta. This increases quickly and might be too powerful. For it to increase you'd have to recast it.
Slow Time (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,37595.0.html)
Do you feel that either of these mechanics are too powerful?
Slow Time (upgraded) creates draw denial every other turn. This is a lot of card disadvantage and probably is too powerful. You are referring to the upgraded, right?
Slow Time is already set up with a duration mechanic. I would just adjust that.For what particular reasons?
Why use the cooldown duration? (I was not talking about a doomclock duration)Slow Time is already set up with a duration mechanic. I would just adjust that.For what particular reasons?
What do you mean by doomclock duration? I think I have an idea of it, but it's only a guess.Why use the cooldown duration? (I was not talking about a doomclock duration)Slow Time is already set up with a duration mechanic. I would just adjust that.For what particular reasons?
Since the people commenting on the card are already used to the ability only being used every X turns, I would use that existing balance mechanic rather than add a new one.
Sundial, Cloak, Dimensional Shield, and Wings have doomclocks of 1, 3, 3 & 5.What do you mean by doomclock duration? I think I have an idea of it, but it's only a guess.Why use the cooldown duration? (I was not talking about a doomclock duration)Slow Time is already set up with a duration mechanic. I would just adjust that.For what particular reasons?
Since the people commenting on the card are already used to the ability only being used every X turns, I would use that existing balance mechanic rather than add a new one.
Thoughts before I make requested change. http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,37795.0.htmlHaving a static damage draws attention towards the core of the card.
:death Unholy Curse | Deadly Curse"When your creatures die, your opponent gets boneyards."
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,37807.0.html
I think this card brings a lot more variety to death-effect-based decks. Do you agree ? And, will the upgraded version overshadow the current boneyard ?
Is there a thread about cards with mixed elements? I saw in the "Forge" cards that looked like they belonged to 2 elements at once and I was wondering how they went about explaining thoseThere are a few mixed element concepts.
Would it be ok to make a new thread regarding the discussion of that topic?Yes. Make it in design theory and defend your assertion. There is a significant burden of proof that should be given for large changes that require lots of zanz's time to make other improvements.
Is this a new kind of mechanics ?Yes, it is a new form of scaling.
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,38079.0.html
Is this a new kind of mechanics ?Yes it is a new kind of implementation.
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,38079.0.html
When you are feeling better, I have a few questions to break up the monotony of reviewing cards.Nice questions.
1If you were told EtG would be adding one more card for the rest of its existence (not likely, I know, but hypotheticals), what would you have the card be like; in other words, what is the most important problem the game has right now that could be fixed with a single card?
2What card(s) currently in the game, if any, would you oughtright remove or significantly change, and why?
3How many cards total do you think EtG needs?
4Finally, some other CCGs include what I'll call "Explicit Combos". This is beyond just synergy; the cards were designed to be used with each other, often in specific strategies. What advantages and disadvantages would these bring to EtG? If it could be good, what would be the biggest such combination you would be comfortable with?
Currently, Giant Ant is not doing well in the life crucible. (will edit with link when i get computer access tommorow). Do you think this is because of the mechanic, the implementation of the mechanic, or the text not revealing the mechanic combined with laziness for not looking at threads? Do you think the mechanic is worth another go?Yes it is probably the mechanic. It feels interesting to some but it feels weird to most.
Thank you. I shall work on developing this further with this feedback in mind.Currently, Giant Ant is not doing well in the life crucible. (will edit with link when i get computer access tommorow). Do you think this is because of the mechanic, the implementation of the mechanic, or the text not revealing the mechanic combined with laziness for not looking at threads? Do you think the mechanic is worth another go?Yes it is probably the mechanic. It feels interesting to some but it feels weird to most.
I think some parts of the mechanic might be valuable (Card A spawns Card B. Y happens to Card B if X happens to Card A) but other parts feel like novelty without utility (the adjacent slots requirement).
Now that the new shards are released, what are your thoughts on each of the shard's balance/theme/impact on the metagame?SoW Shard of Wisdom
Does the passive skill "airborne" add to the cost of creatures at all? I admit to not scouring every resource and my overriding laziness at this moment in time.The value of Airborne will increase as more cards are added. Currently it adds somewhere between 0 and 1. However costs are then rounded down. Multiple abilities worth between 0 and 1 each would accumulate a cost (Airborne + Poisonous = +1 cost).
Would you comment on this card ?
:darkness Moondial | Nightdial
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,38993.0.html
And, what is your thoughts on introducing a card that affect airborne creatures negatively ?
Does the cost include the delay turns ? Or you are suggesting a playing cost of 5 :darkness ? (for upped version, I guess ? )
I would consider it worth about as much as Firestorm
Does the cost include the delay turns ? Or you are suggesting a playing cost of 5 :darkness ? (for upped version, I guess ? )
I would consider it worth about as much as Firestorm
Moondial can be countered by various strategy (either rush faster or stall for 3 turns) and various PC, besides you always need at least one more card to kill creatures, do these help lower the cost ?
=====
By negative effect on Airborne, I mean something like airborne creatures delay one turn or take damage. Will such kind of cards affect the game in a harmful way ?
Then assume the average damage is 4.5, is that extra 1.5 damage really worth the cost of 3 turns delay + prone to PC ?
7 :darkness|5 :darkness is a good starting estimate. However you should double check by calculating the average damage per creature and comparing it to Firestorm. I made the 7|5 estimate with the assumption (crude estimate) that the average damage was around 4.5.
(http://i.imgur.com/Yo3wX.png) | (http://i.imgur.com/sNNIC.png) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
The extra damage + The 3 turns when creatures will not be played is probably worth around the cost of 3 turns delay + prone to PC (assuming SoF is fixed). Based on my estimates that is treating the additional cost as if the additional cost were greater than 4.5 quanta.Then assume the average damage is 4.5, is that extra 1.5 damage really worth the cost of 3 turns delay + prone to PC ?
7 :darkness|5 :darkness is a good starting estimate. However you should double check by calculating the average damage per creature and comparing it to Firestorm. I made the 7|5 estimate with the assumption (crude estimate) that the average damage was around 4.5.
SoV attacks the max hp. Damaging the max hp does not damage the current hp unless their current hp exceeds their max hp. SoV reduces the max by 2-3 each turn for 5 :rainbow|3 :rainbow.table]
Leech Darkness 4 :darkness Creature 1 | 3 Drains opponent's max HP and adds it to this creature's HP; If killed, inflict 3 poison counters on the opponent.
Leech Darkness 3 :darkness Creature 1 | 3 Drains opponent's max HP and adds it to this creature's HP; If killed, inflict 3 poison counters on the opponent.
Arun Arum If this isn't at all really that clear to you, then here is an explanation.
It attacks the Opponents max HP and drains 1(4, 6, 90, whatever it's attack is) HP. That drained HP goes to the leech.
If the leech is killed, inflict 3 poison counters to your opponent.
Can you check this idea and give feedback before I paste it into the forums? Please?
How long does it usualy take for a card to get from the Crucible to the relinquary? Because I can see all thes realy cool cards in there but none of them ever is added to the game.Getting to the Armory is not required nor guarantees a card will be added to the game. A card being in the Armory is a message to Zanz that the card is well liked. Nothing less, nothing more.
Is there a way to speed up this proces?
Was there already an idea for a light card that provided soft CC by blinding (delaying) creatures? I want to make a card based on delaying a creature based on how much light emitting creatures you have. What should the blind counter be (as in light emitters or light emitters+1?) and what should the cost be? (I want to keep it between 0-2), and should it be in :light, or like holy light, be rainbow later on?The first blinding effect I could find (after Flame Child below) was Blind | Blind (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,28693). It prevented a creature from attacking or targeting other creatures for 1 turn.
Can I get your thoughts on:Twilit Tyrant
Twilit Tyrant
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,37865.html
Twilit Queen
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,37870.0.html
Twilit Queen
Restoring creatures to their original state has been done before in Time and Light.
Ex: http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,22580.msg286116.html#msg286116
PS: Did you mean "Twilight"?
The +1|+1 does not stack. I do not see it making much of an addition beyond the restoration. However I might be underestimating that feature.Twilit Queen
Restoring creatures to their original state has been done before in Time and Light.
Ex: http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,22580.msg286116.html#msg286116
PS: Did you mean "Twilight"?
No, I meant Twilit, as in having natures of twilight.
While the restoring nature of Twilit Queen | Twilit Empress has been done, and the provided card is a year old and still in the Smithy, I was thinking that the redeeming feature wasn't that it reset the stats, but how the +/-1 to both stats, respective to the ability, would affect the target creature. Any thoughts on that aspect?
Is 2 :light | 1 :light balanced for delaying a creature for 2 plus the number of light emitting creatures on your side of the field turns?Freeze for 3 turns costs 1 :water +1card
What is your thoughts on this ?The mechanic is: Drain X quanta and [Effect].
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,39347.msg489308.html#new
Lots of questions for this card.1. Linking is a genre of mechanics. However I do not remember one similar to this.
:darkness Moon Wizard | Moon Sorcerer
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,39406.0.html
1. Does my card resemble any old cards made ?
2. Is the cost too high or too low ?
3. Does the mechanics have potential ?
4. If it has potential, would you suggest any fine adjustment to it to make it more useful (or more balanced ) ?
5. Would it be a good idea to make a Wizard series based on this card and my previous Green Wizard card ? The theme would be some magic stuff, just like the healing magic of Green Wizard and psychic magic of this one.
Dark Prince (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,28336.0.html) is the only similar one I can think of.Thanks.
2. Probably too high for 3 reasons.I can understand you saying that the attack boost is a bit too weak for the large drawback.
The drawback is significant. The benefit is weaker than creating 2|4s [3-4] and stronger than Ablaze [1-2].
You probably want the card to enter play earlier than a 7 non fire casting cost would allow.
The high starting attack is not synergistic with the attack boost mechanic.
4. See [2]. I would suggest checking and then placing it in a cost/speed niche that differs from existing growing damage cards like Lava Golem, Steam Machine and Firefly Queen. Use charts / tables of damage / cost over time looking for thresholds like 100 or 200 hp.
I made a mistake and overlooked that use.2. Probably too high for 3 reasons.I can understand you saying that the attack boost is a bit too weak for the large drawback.
The drawback is significant. The benefit is weaker than creating 2|4s [3-4] and stronger than Ablaze [1-2].
You probably want the card to enter play earlier than a 7 non fire casting cost would allow.
The high starting attack is not synergistic with the attack boost mechanic.
4. See [2]. I would suggest checking and then placing it in a cost/speed niche that differs from existing growing damage cards like Lava Golem, Steam Machine and Firefly Queen. Use charts / tables of damage / cost over time looking for thresholds like 100 or 200 hp.
But you haven't mentioned the CC aspect of this card. If I lower the cost so it can enter play in turn 2 or 3, you could link with almost every enemy creature coming out later and wipe out all of them with a single bolt.
How should I evaluate the skill value when a skill has 2 different uses ?
In theory, how large do you feel the card pool should be before the majority of card-based 'flavor' features are added to the game, such as same-element cards with similar roles, card crafting, or alternate upgrades?Same-element cards with similar roles
Thoughts on this mechanic:That is not a complete mechanic. How do they move?
Free Range: (passive)
For airborne creatures the could move up to N number of spaces and if in top row said creatures may change sides.
On a non airborne creature the creature still moves but it can't change sides.
If this mechanic is usable i will attempt a few ideas using it.
Example: an Airborne creature that when it changes sides its attack is inverted.
I think this card needs your advice. http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,39486.0.htmlI do not remember a card like this. It probably is original.
You keep mentioning "card cost", a factor I've never really considered. What is it and why is it so important?All cards have to be drawn to be played (net 1 card cost)
Can you give me some feedback on Time Anomaly | Time Disruption (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,39485.0.html) ?All your creatures are rewinded, but they also stay on the field.
I'm looking for balancing advice and what do you think of its metagame impact. Any additional thought is welcome too!
Thanks for your feedback, and thanks for your compliment! :)Can you give me some feedback on Time Anomaly | Time Disruption (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,39485.0.html) ?All your creatures are rewinded, but they also stay on the field.
I'm looking for balancing advice and what do you think of its metagame impact. Any additional thought is welcome too!
(aka a copy is put on top of your deck)
The Manuz has a very good summary of the cardBack to the card, it does the following:
Every targetable creature on your side of the field is affected by a reverse time, so a copy of it is put on the top of your deck, BUT the creature remain on the field.
The order of the creatures on the top of your deck is the same order they have on the field.
The main effect of this spell is Fractal-like: its purpose is to multiply creatures beyond the 6-cards limit.
However this spell requires the draw power of Time to effectively use the new created creatures.
It can also be used to mass rewind skeletons and mummys. In this case, they behave normally: Mummys become Pharaohs and Skeletons become random creatures.
Another side effect is to add a lot of cards on top of your deck, effectively giving you a lot of turns more to play. A wonderful anti-deckout (but it needs creatures to fuel it).
In general, it's useful once you establish control of the field but you need more "firepower".
The first thing to note is that it costs more than Fractal but can be played earlier and in mono.
The second thing to note is it is not limited by the hand size. Though its cost scales.
It provides cheaper anti deckout than Eternity but more expensive than SoBe. This matches the extend of the anti deckout. SoBe decks out 30 card decks. Time Anomaly decks out SoBe. Eternity decks out Time Anomaly.
These balancing factors help balance the card. It still generates significant potential card advantage. It is more likely that is it OP than UP right now. However its potency is hard to measure without playtesting. I suspect we would see the same reaction to Time Anomaly as we did with the first version of Fractal. That is to say a significant fraction of the metagame would be dominated by the card advantage derived from Time Anomaly + unrestrained draw engines. Lots of Time duos would be used. After awhile things would settle giving accurate data about how much it would need to be nerfed. At that point it would still be a great card advantage enabler. It would help stalls that included it as well as undead decks.
Great design for a draw engine enabler.
In your post following round 3 of the CDW, you stated that you had, correctly, expected my loss in that round, but implied that my match was closer than you expected, and that you would look at my card more closely.
Could I ask your impressions before the vote, and your impressions after studying the card, if they have changed?
Sorry for missing that post.In your post following round 3 of the CDW, you stated that you had, correctly, expected my loss in that round, but implied that my match was closer than you expected, and that you would look at my card more closely.
Could I ask your impressions before the vote, and your impressions after studying the card, if they have changed?
Just quoting this. I'm not sure if you missed it or have a reason not to answer it, but I'm really curious to see your response :)
Is there any element or niche card designers should give attention to?None that deserve or could handle a general call to action.
Would it be OP to Steal or copy a card from opponent's hand?Stealing a random card = A random discard + A mindgate draw
Can I get your thoughts on:Y: http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,39557
Yatagarasu
Orochi
I apologize for lack of linkage. I am currently incapable of retrieving and copying them.
How much cost should instant damage from a weapon be? How much should the instant damage be if it can be used once per turn? Used once per weapon?Instant damage? You mean like "Snipe player"?
I think hearing your thoughts on my latest wizard could tell me whether it's a good idea to continue the wizard series.A Wizard that is as great a fighter (physical damage too) as a Dragon? Huh? I must admit I am really confused at why this is a wizard.
Density Wizard | Density Sorcerer
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,39572.0.html
Is there any thing in particular about the whole wizard series (e.g. themes, mechanics) you want to comment on ?
Y: http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,39557Yeah, the :light connection is to justify its placement in the series.
7|6 stats are normally worth 7 :darkness+1card
Preventing 6 destructions and dealing 18|30 damage is a bit much for no additional cost.
I would reduce the attack and hp. The hp to reduce the value of the skill. The attack to pay for the skill.
PS: Why does it have a connection to Light? It costs only :darkness. (This might have to do with the series)
Oh great and powerful guru, please bless me with thine wisdom.(the notes do not match the table/image)
What is thine opinion on caretaker|overseer (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,39588.0.html), and how might I move it from the pre-smithy forums to the smithy for voting?
Oh great and powerful guru, please bless me with thine wisdom.(the notes do not match the table/image)
What is thine opinion on caretaker|overseer (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,39588.0.html), and how might I move it from the pre-smithy forums to the smithy for voting?
Caretaker
Protect: Target creature cannot be affected by enemy spells and permanents. Lasts 1 turn.
This appears to be an activated ability. The extent of the protection is not well clarified at this point. (Does it protect the creature from flooding? What about Fire shield?)
This ability seems to range from a 1 turn immaterial to a 1 turn immunity or even a 1 turn momentum immunity. I think it fits the theme of caretaker well. The gamewarden theme makes life seem fitting.
Would you clarify the effect for me?
PS: PM a Curator to move your thread when you are ready.
It sounds like a potent ability, well able to do its intended goal.Oh great and powerful guru, please bless me with thine wisdom.(the notes do not match the table/image)
What is thine opinion on caretaker|overseer (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,39588.0.html), and how might I move it from the pre-smithy forums to the smithy for voting?
Caretaker
Protect: Target creature cannot be affected by enemy spells and permanents. Lasts 1 turn.
This appears to be an activated ability. The extent of the protection is not well clarified at this point. (Does it protect the creature from flooding? What about Fire shield?)
This ability seems to range from a 1 turn immaterial to a 1 turn immunity or even a 1 turn momentum immunity. I think it fits the theme of caretaker well. The gamewarden theme makes life seem fitting.
Would you clarify the effect for me?
PS: PM a Curator to move your thread when you are ready.
I must apologize about the notes, they were regarding older iterations of the card concept.
It protects the creature both from flooding and fire shield. The creatures are unaffected by enemy spells and permanents. They may not be targeted by enemy spells, or enemy permanents, and act as though they have momentum.
However, enemy CREATURES may still affect protected creatures as normal. Life is protecting itself against the inanimate.
THe hope is for this to be the soft-protection life needed. Keep your mitosis safe, keep your rustler safe, or even keep a adrenaline'd frog safe. It's cheap to get out fast, and durable to stay alive if it isn't targeting itself.
Have you made any decks or any interesting deck ideas oldtrees?No. I almost beat an In Development deck to the punch. However as usual there are members that are much better and quicker deckbuilders than me. Glitch is one example. [I love USEM]
So increase the card to 2 life quanta? Or decrease the stats?Probably
I want to keep it cheap so you can drop it /before/ you drop what you're trying to protect.
Draw until the total card cost in the hand is greater than/equal to 10. (reveal hand?)That is probably too complicated. Even MtG never used casting cost to determine card draw / discard.
possible upgrade: the opponent discards until their total card cost in their hand is 10/less than 10
Is this too much of an MtG-like idea? Do you think it could fit in EtG?
What if it was simplified to:Perhaps the term "unnecessarily complicated" would be more appropriate.
If (TotalCastingCost < 10)
Draw; // just one card.
And for opponent if it's greater, they just discard one. This gets rid of the ghostmare potential the previous had. Is it still too complicated this way?
It is time for me to again request your wisdom.Duo :entropy/ :gravity Fission: Target creature gains +2|+1, this card gets -2|-1. You can use this ability multiple times per turn.
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,39818.0.html
If we were to have a card that increased the quanta cap, Which element would be better :aether :air :water? and for the opposite affect, :gravity :earth?Shard of Conscience was abandoned. Its thread would prove useful for the decrease effect.
What are your thoughts on duo-cost abilities, as in it costing :light and :fire but not :light or :fire ?It depends on what precisely you mean:
Also, may I have your thoughts on...
:aether Technophage | Technophage (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,39747.0.html)
What's your thoughts on the new nymph changes?Seconded. Also, if you're given the chance to rebalance all 12 nymphs, how will you do it? (casting cost, attack, HP, skill cost)
I tend to ignore nymphs most of the time. They too rare unupped for decent playtesting data to be collected by the player mass. An upgraded nymph is even rarer because some tournaments are unupped only. So there is too little playtesting to double check my balance predictions.What's your thoughts on the new nymph changes?Seconded. Also, if you're given the chance to rebalance all 12 nymphs, how will you do it? (casting cost, attack, HP, skill cost)
| Cost | Stats | Activation Cost | Skill cost | My estimate on the unupped |
| 8 :aether | 7|4 / 9|4 | :aether :aether :aether | 3|3 | Balanced |
| 8 :air | 6|8 / 7|9 | :air :air :air | 2|3 | Slightly too low. Nerf attack. |
| 8 :darkness | 3|5 / 5|5 | :darkness :darkness | 7|7 | Too high. Boost attack and hp. |
| 8 :death | 6|8 / 7|9 | :death | 1|2 | Skill is not very useful to repeat. Stats are slightly too high. |
| 8 :earth | 6|8 / 7|9 | :earth :earth :earth | 2|3 | Balanced |
| 9 :entropy | 3|1 / 3|2 | :entropy :entropy :entropy :entropy | 9|11 | Too high. Boost hp and attack. |
| 8 :fire | 1|6 / 1|7 | :fire :fire :fire / :fire :fire :fire :fire | 9|12 | Too high. Boost attack and hp. |
| 9 :gravity | 1|3 / 1|4 | :gravity :gravity :gravity | 10|12 | Too high. Boost attack and hp. |
| 8 :life | 3|6 / 3|7 | :life :life | 7|9 | Too high. Boost attack and hp. |
| 9 :light | 6|9 / 7|9 | :light :light :light / :light :light :light :light | 3|5 | Balanced? |
| 8 :time | 6|8 / 7|9 | :time :time | 2|3 | Balanced |
| 8 :water | 6|8 / 7|9 | :water :water :water :water | 3|4 | Balanced or slightly too low. |
It is time for me to again request your wisdom.Duo :entropy/ :gravity Fission: Target creature gains +2|+1, this card gets -2|-1. You can use this ability multiple times per turn.
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,39818.0.html
Duo :gravity/ :entropy Fusion: Target creature gets -1|-2, this card gets +1|+2.
Convenient summary of Fission and Fusion as they relate to entropy
Fission causes particles to divide into more particles causing entropy to increase. (aka :entropy)
Fusion causes particles to melt together causing entropy to decrease. (aka :gravity)
Based on these definitions, I do not see the reason for these to be duo creatures.
As a mono creature, Matter Mage would have easier access to cross element synergies.
(Unupped: Wyrm, Angel, Heavy Armor, Basilisk Blood)
Fission gives +2X|+X for Casting Cost + X * Activation Cost where X=hp of Matter Mage.
+6|+3 for Casting Cost + 3 * Activation Cost
+12|+6 for Casting Cost + Plate Armor + 6 * Activation Cost
+18|+9 for Casting Cost + Heavy Armor + 9 * Activation Cost
+46|+23 for Casting Cost + Basilisk Blood + 6 turns + 23 * Activation Cost (OTK potential for OTK cost)
Since it gives 2 attack per activation cost, the activation cost of 2 quanta is appropriate. However the casting cost is a bit high.
The casting cost is high because the Matter Mage starts with 6 attack. Less attack would allow a lower casting cost.
Fusion is a 2 attack swing, +2hp and a 2hp CC. This is slightly better than Growth due to the versatility. Cost should be about 2-3 more than the starting stat value.
I'm thinking it may be smarter to just post all 6 card ideas for the series (eventually 12?) before I make them.
Core concept: upgrading a card changes the element.
Flaw: I (personally) hate cards that force upgrades v. downgrades. The best example of this is pufferfish. If I want to make a water/life adrenaline poison rush, I have to upgrade pufferfish. It won't work otherwise. As such, I need to design these cards in such a way that despite changing their base element, you still use them in the same decks for the same things, upgraded or unupgraded. My solution is to have them all being duo, and upgrading switching the ability cost and the base creature cost. This means regardless of upgrade or downgrade they're still used in the same duo. At this point, I began looking at the duos themselves.
:life/ :death some sort of evolution card. Poison all creatures, when they die, bring random ones into play. One version, death creatures turn into random life creatures, other version, dying life creatures grant random death ones.
:gravity/ :entropy Fission/Fusion idea listed above
:air/ :earth Cave bat: unupgraded has burrow, burrowing doesn't halve it's attack. Upgraded comes into play burrowed with dive.
:time/ :aether It gets +1/+1 and suspends itself a turn. Upgraded version is immortal while suspended.
:light/ :darkness When it attacks it gets it's own HP increased. It can heal you at the cost of it's own HP.
:fire/ :water No clue.
Would care to host the next Community Card, using what was learned from the last one to improve the process?No. I would prefer to leave that opportunity available for others to contribute.
Concerning the :fire/ :water...Perhaps, it could have a choice of Creature ability? :fire would be direct damage, perhaps at the cost of it's own HP/life to mimic Rage.Ideally both effects would be used in the same deck slot. CC and anti-CC do not fill the same slot.
While :water could purify a creature, either at the cost of it's own Atk power, freezing either itself or the target (think like how surgury has anesthetic to put you out while they operate.) There's also good old qaunta costs.
The :life/ :death one makes sense as it creates Death creatures from the Life creatures by adding Death. They both have the same purpose of creature generation and anti CC. I wonder if Graveyard would be too much competition. I also am concerned that the Duo element would not be represented by an activation cost in this version. Modifying it to represent both types of quanta would be wise.
The :gravity/ :entropy is good but I do not think they fill the same deck slot. Care to enlighten me?
:air/ :earth Diving while Burrowed? This feels like a joke. (funny visual images) It also does not fit the previous thematic pattern of Using A to convert extreme B toward A.
:time/ :aether Half growth, delayed and immaterial. I know you have more creative ideas than a slowed and sometimes immaterial Lava Golem.
:darkness/ :light This is a delayed Vampire effect. I do not see potential here but it is quirky enough that I might be overlooking something obvious.
:fire/ :water Cool down | Heat up?
thoughts? http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,40076.0.htmlDiminishing Returns
is this possible in ETG?It is possible.
Name: ?
Element: Time
Cost: ? :time
Type: Spell
Atk|HP:
Ability: Look at the top 3 cards of target player deck and arrange them in any order.
Notes:
Owner of Idea: EmeraldTiger
Art:
Thread: http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,40330.0.html
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,40392.new.html#new
Do I have a valid point here?
When I went silver grinding several minutes ago, I found a mono-aether deck with SoW. The problem with this deck is that it is difficult to counter. Reflective shields do not do much to this deck, since the player playing the mono-aether can hold back SoW and pierce through said shield. By their nature, immortal creatures are difficult to control. This is especially true when immortals with SoW bypass shields that could kill them. Unlike other decks based on spell damage such as UG decks and firestalls, there are few ways to avoid the wave of spell damage.Immaterial the hard to counter defense. Or is it? Let me count the ways (obvious to subtle):
I think this does not reflect any overpoweredness of SoW itself, but the lack of effective counters to both spell damage and hard hits of physical damage. I propose that a shield such as Divine Shield | Divine Protection (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,39839.msg494492.html#msg494492) or Dodging | Wild Dodging (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,38999.msg484674.html#msg484674) be added to the game. (These are my card ideas, since I noticed this deficiency before anyone else I know did.) Thank you for reading.
Can I get some help with this?Gulp. 5|5 Indestructible Momentum creature that fits any type specific combo?
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,40351.msg500148.html#msg500148
Regarding both the card as shown, and the ideas presented throughout the thread. Thanks!
Why not:
Gains +1 attack from each turn it fails to deal damage. (DR, Miss Chance, Sundial, Freeze, Delay)
The first time it would die it is reduced to 0hp instead
Combined this might be worth 5-7 :earth +1card for a 5|5.
That list has some rather, ridiculous, reactions. I would first make all the reactions of equal value and then estimate from there.
Why not:
Gains +1 attack from each turn it fails to deal damage. (DR, Miss Chance, Sundial, Freeze, Delay)
The first time it would die it is reduced to 0hp instead
Combined this might be worth 5-7 :earth +1card for a 5|5.
I like that idea. What if I made the card gain 1 ATK per missed attack, plus it can adapt one time for the first trigger on the list to occur?
That list has some rather, ridiculous, reactions. I would first make all the reactions of equal value and then estimate from there.
Why not:
Gains +1 attack from each turn it fails to deal damage. (DR, Miss Chance, Sundial, Freeze, Delay)
The first time it would die it is reduced to 0hp instead
Combined this might be worth 5-7 :earth +1card for a 5|5.
I like that idea. What if I made the card gain 1 ATK per missed attack, plus it can adapt one time for the first trigger on the list to occur?
Thoughts http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,40424.0.htmlA creature with
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,40504.0.htmlAnger: If a creature on your side dies, Mother Bear attacks one more time per death on its next attack
I need your opinion on this
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,40463.0.html1) Elite Immortal gains +1 attack, +1 hp tier for +1 cost. +2 comes with a similar cost increase (See Phase Dragon).
What is your opinion on this (Regarding its balance etc.)?
What are your thoughts on combining physical and spell damage in one card ?My initial thoughts were it sounded like a clunky mechanic for partial partial momentum. However the use of Ice Bolt surprised me. In some ways this is a better design for Fahrenheit.
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,40367.0.html
(I always forget which immaterial creature is the UP one)
Do you think a small amount (say, about 5) of specialized cards would benefit ETG? A medium amount? What's the limit before it would be detrimental?Imagine a card pool of 10 cards. We can use lines to represent the synergies and combos the cards create. The more lines exist, the more opportunities exist for decks. Specialized cards are cards with fewer connections than average. In this manner being specialized is a con in design proportional to the degree of specialization. Since specialized is relative to the average, no more than 50% of cards can be specialized. The metagame is benefited more by higher average connections per card. Adding cards with fewer connections lowers the average and thus reduces this benefit.
I'm not sure if it's been mentioned before...But something I thought of was the idea of a :life creature with stats of X|X, where X was the number of creatures on your side of the field.Fractal, mitosis, and aflatoxin will make that very hard to balance.
However, in attempts to balance it, I didn't like what I saw...Basically, it starts out a 1|1, since it counts itself, but the cost wouldn't be balanced well with the effect. I'd like to have balanced it at 4 :life or maybe 5 :life, but the fact that it's ability is an unreliable booster, makes it hard to know just how to balance the thing...Any ideas?
I'm not sure if it's been mentioned before...But something I thought of was the idea of a :life creature with stats of X|X, where X was the number of creatures on your side of the field.This has been suggested before a few times. (usually as an Aether creature strangely enough)
However, in attempts to balance it, I didn't like what I saw...Basically, it starts out a 1|1, since it counts itself, but the cost wouldn't be balanced well with the effect. I'd like to have balanced it at 4 :life or maybe 5 :life, but the fact that it's ability is an unreliable booster, makes it hard to know just how to balance the thing...Any ideas?
What do you think would be a good balance for using HP instead of quanta for an ability activation (in this case growth) I valued it at 5 HP for an activation, thus making 5 HP equal to 1 :life/ :earthUsually a crude approximation can be made by reversing an existing effect. Heal is 3 :life + 1 card for 20 hp. If 1 card is worth ~2 quanta then 1 elemental quanta -> 4hp healing (assuming linear value for healing). However this is a crude estimate. 5hp is close enough.
card in question (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,40589.msg502698.html#msg502698)
I think I need your thoughts on this card.Concerns:
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,40881.0.html
Hrm..New idea for ya Old Trees-http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,26801.0.html
A creature that derives it's stats from your current life. I figure the conversion rate might be something along the lines of Catapult, but not sure.
Hrm..New idea for ya Old Trees-So it starts with 50 attack?
A creature that derives it's stats from your current life. I figure the conversion rate might be something along the lines of Catapult, but not sure.
Is this a viable fix ?I think I need your thoughts on this card.
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,40881.0.html
My suggestion would be to nerf the effect instead (or more likely along with) raising the cost. I would then compare the Energy Rein OTKs vs competitive OTKs. Similar cost for similar effect.
Hp buffIs this a viable fix ?I think I need your thoughts on this card.
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,40881.0.html
My suggestion would be to nerf the effect instead (or more likely along with) raising the cost. I would then compare the Energy Rein OTKs vs competitive OTKs. Similar cost for similar effect.
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,40881.0.html
This topic came up during chat.Bone Dragon is a fairly good dragon from a cost / benefit view. However many dragons have equal or better stats. Reverse Time would give it a minor stat boost. rather than returning it to the hand. 2 Reverse Times would "kill" the dragon and deny a draw. (Compared to 2x "kill" or deny) In total this would be a rather insignificant buff. Similar to giving Colossal Dragon +10hp. It would not make an observable difference to the balance.
Suppose Bone dragon got an ability that if it were RT'd, it would instead become a random dragon instead. Is this a buff or nerf to the dragon?
Why or why not should this be implemented?
Hp buffIs it impossible to balance both functions of the card just based on cost adjustment ?
The "all" -> "next"
It is also slowed 1 turn
Finally it is vulnerable to interference.
5 :aether + 30|20 stock :fire +1 :earth|1 :entropy +3 cards for 12|3. This is probably close to balanced if not already balanced.
Fractal OTK
The Silence makes it vulnerable to interference.
15 :aether + 52 stock :fire + 3 cards of 12 in 30 for TTK is probably still to low. However it is not as clearcut as it was before.
Silence yourself this turn, the next damage spell targeted on you becomes creature of N | 0.
N = spell damage.
The new fix does not hamper either aggressive strategy and does remove the weak anti CC usage.Hp buffIs it impossible to balance both functions of the card just based on cost adjustment ?
The "all" -> "next"
It is also slowed 1 turn
Finally it is vulnerable to interference.
5 :aether + 30|20 stock :fire +1 :earth|1 :entropy +3 cards for 12|3. This is probably close to balanced if not already balanced.
Fractal OTK
The Silence makes it vulnerable to interference.
15 :aether + 52 stock :fire + 3 cards of 12 in 30 for TTK is probably still to low. However it is not as clearcut as it was before.
If it is impossible, how do you think about this fix ?QuoteSilence yourself this turn, the next damage spell targeted on you becomes creature of N | 0.
N = spell damage.
Name: ?
Element: ?
Cost: somewhere between 3 and 5, inclusive
Spell
Text: Your Hp is now equal to the total Hp of all creatures on your field. If it is higher than your max, your max is raised.
Upgraded change: Your Hp is now equal to the total Hp of all creatures on the field. If it is higher than your max, your max is raised.
What do you think of this and what's the best to compare it to?
Sounds like a :life (thematic match of other cards in :life) or :gravity ( strongest mono implementation of card) card to me.The upgrade is not double the power of the unupped because the opponent's deck will not be tailored to synergize with this card. I would expect the upgrade to be about a 20% increase in power.
As for the cost...Un upped I think could have the 3 cost, but the upgraded could be 5, since it's a significant leap in power.
The unupped requires you to have either high HP creatures, or gamble that the opponent won't have a way to prevent mass creature spawning.
The upgraded has the benefit of being able to serve as a sot counter to decks with high HP creatures as it's strategy, however, I can't think of very many decks that work that way...
So I was brainstorming another random chaos type card for entropy, just for the fun of it, and I thought of a card that removes all skills from all creatures on the field and then randomly assigns every creature a new skill. I'm thinking the "skill pool" could be almost any creature skill in the game and/or skills granted via spell.
At second glance it seemed overpowered because unless your opponent is using a rainbow, odds are they won't be able to use any of the skills that they get, so that makes it a kind of field wide lobotomy.
Questions:
-First off, is this original?
-Suggestions for mechanic balance, like what skills would you not include in the pool?
-What would this card cost to play?
-Does :entropy need another card? If not, what other element could use this?
Concerning mechanic balance...This idea of yours makes me think first of a sort of mass version of mutation, like the way pandemonium is sort of a mass version of chaos seed. Now, this doesn't affect stats of the creature, but it does affect skills...Depending on the creature, it could make it more or less powerful, since not all abilities require quanta.Is it original?
Momentum, Venom, Gravity Pull, Immaterial, are some if not all of the abilities that don't require quanta.
Mitosis would count, as the cost of mitosis is always the cost of the creature's casting cost, which would not have changed.
Entropy is the only thing that really fits for this idea, so it'd have to go here...The REAL question, if you ask me, is will this card be useful enough to be worth using despite it's natural randomness?
Some ideas I've considered...
A card that basically works like Mindgate, but for your own deck: it draws a copy of the card you're about to draw.
Cons:
Can be abused for incredible pillar creation and quanta production (Bolts are back!)
Pros:
Easier to work with, Mindgate for the most part, seems to require a good deal of :aether quanta sunk before you can start making use of it.
Since Time is the element of drawing cards, and Time paradoxes can, in a sense, generate more of one thing, I figured this could be a time card.
Some ideas I've considered...Could make it totally a reverse mindgate as a possible form of denial. giving opponent a copy of ur top card.
A card that basically works like Mindgate, but for your own deck: it draws a copy of the card you're about to draw.
Cons:
Can be abused for incredible pillar creation and quanta production (Bolts are back!)
Pros:
Easier to work with, Mindgate for the most part, seems to require a good deal of :aether quanta sunk before you can start making use of it.
Since Time is the element of drawing cards, and Time paradoxes can, in a sense, generate more of one thing, I figured this could be a time card.
Secondly: A card that does damage whenever a creature is put into play, :life element if possible, as it works mechanically with life's cheap easy to spawn creatures, as well as mitosis.
Not sure about the balance this card might have...
Some ideas I've considered...
A card that basically works like Mindgate, but for your own deck: it draws a copy of the card you're about to draw.
Cons:
Can be abused for incredible pillar creation and quanta production (Bolts are back!)
Pros:
Easier to work with, Mindgate for the most part, seems to require a good deal of :aether quanta sunk before you can start making use of it.
Since Time is the element of drawing cards, and Time paradoxes can, in a sense, generate more of one thing, I figured this could be a time card.
One thing here is that, because Mindgate works with your opponent's deck, you will need a decent amount :rainbow. With a reverse-Mindgate, you know exactly what's in your deck, so you can use it with only one quanta type. I'm not sure if it would work or not; just a note.In some ways it will be like an Hourglass. However some cards have abnormal synergy when breaking the 6 copy barrier and it would not be powered by your deck size.
Secondly: A card that does damage whenever a creature is put into play, :life element if possible, as it works mechanically with life's cheap easy to spawn creatures, as well as mitosis.
Not sure about the balance this card might have...
I have an idea for a non-rare weapon card. I would like to know
1) Has it already been done (or is there another card too similar to it out there right now)
2) Is it low key enough to be a non-rare weapon. More specifically is it a good idea to add non-rare type "other" weapons that have non-vanilla abilities or should that be reserved for elemental weapons.
3) Is it balanced well compared to the other non-rares (dagger, hammer, bow, sword)
Card: Razor Disc | Chakram
Cost: 1 :rainbow
Text: "Weapon (Ranged): Deals 2 (4 upped) damage, as spell if mark is :aether .
0 throw: deal 1 damage to target and return to deck."
Return to deck could mean either top or randomly shuffled in.
Hmm, if the spell damage part is too much, I can always change it to:
"Weapon (Ranged): Deals 2 damage, plus 1 if mark is :aether.
0 throw: deal 1 damage to target and return to deck."
I had the spell damage part in there to try and keep this weapon sufficiently distinct from Owl's Eye as well as the other non-rares in place already.
This one is in the archives: http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,35691
Would having it return to hand be OK? That way it won't have anit-deckout abilities and will be different from the crucible archive card.Yes.
Oldtrees, I've a question for you concerning spell damage and shields.Such a shield would only be useful vs Wisdom and Physical damage. This is probably sufficiently useful.
As of right now, shields have 1 of 2 responses to spell damage.
Either reflection, which not only renders targeting the player with attack spells useless, but grants the shield immortality (via reflection of any attempt to destroy it) and causes any such spell to rebound on it's wielder.
I've been considering the idea of creating a shield that, instead of 'reflecting spells' merely acts as 'spell' resistance, but in exchange, has either improved damage resistance (Unlikely, due to the very limited spectrum that defensive shields allow) Or a cost trade off.
Example:
:rainbow Force Field
costs 1 :rainbow|2 :rainbow
Normal: Reduces spell damage done to you by 3
Upgraded: Reduces spell damage done to you by 3, and physical damage by 1.
This idea I was contemplating as a way to create alternate shields for :aether, which has the controversial Dim|Phase Shield. and Gravity's oft-spurned Gravity shield.
Your thoughts?
A while ago Essence mentioned the possiblity of having 'classes' with various special effects as well as tradebacks on an elemental playstyle. Some examples:
Beserker : Use a weapon slot in place of your shield slot. You cannot heal.
Cleric : Spell cards heal you 2x the amount. You cannot use weapons. (Original Cleric by Essence)
Hunter : You can up to 7 copies of each creature, and 4 copies of each spell/permanent (pillars don't count.)
Lich : Upon death, revive with 15 HP. Start with 5 Poison.
What are your thoughts on their possible impact on the game?
A while ago Essence mentioned the possiblity of having 'classes' with various special effects as well as tradebacks on an elemental playstyle. Some examples:MY thoughts are this:
Beserker : Use a weapon slot in place of your shield slot. You cannot heal.
Cleric : Spell cards heal you 2x the amount. You cannot use weapons. (Original Cleric by Essence)
Hunter : You can up to 7 copies of each creature, and 4 copies of each spell/permanent (pillars don't count.)
Lich : Upon death, revive with 15 HP. Start with 5 Poison.
What are your thoughts on their possible impact on the game?
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,41143.0.htmlIt is not very similar to Otyugh at all.
Can I get a thought on this vs. Otyugh, oh Great Tree-ey One?
Thank godhttp://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,41143.0.htmlIt is not very similar to Otyugh at all.
Can I get a thought on this vs. Otyugh, oh Great Tree-ey One?
It is more similar to "Copy and kill target creature with less than 6|8 hp"
This is turn is similar to "Copy and deal 5|7 damage to target creature"
So it is similar to a Lightning + Parallel Universe that have to target the same creature.
(Lightning + Parallel Universe) - enemy creature only
(9 :aether + 2 cards) - 2 :aether + 1 card (estimate) = 7 :aether + 1 card
7 :aether + 1 card = 5 :gravity (casting) + 2 :gravity (activating) + 1 card
However since the stats are overwritten, the starting stats should be worth the casting cost.
4-5 | 5-6 attack could be justified
Conclusion: Buff attack and increase activation cost.
Transformation | Transformation
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,41186.0.html
Do you think it's a good idea to make it a :entropy card ? My original idea was to make it an other card but I changed it in the last minute for no convincing reason.
And do you think such way to adjust quanta production a useful addition for decks which require accurate quanta balance ?
Something I thought of was some sort of 'chargable spell'.Please extrapolate. What is the core of this idea?
Basically, when played, you can 'activate' the spell to feed it quanta,much like Rustler, and then it applies it's effects either at the end of your turn, or at the end of your opponent's turn (in case a counter-measure to it should be the case.) based on the quanta fed to it.
Thoughts?
A core idea is the smallest fraction of an idea without which it is no longer the suggestion.Originally? A :gravity spell that would do something based on the amount of quanta spent, the idea being this 'event' was somehow related to the creation of a new star or something.Something I thought of was some sort of 'chargable spell'.Please extrapolate. What is the core of this idea?
Basically, when played, you can 'activate' the spell to feed it quanta,much like Rustler, and then it applies it's effects either at the end of your turn, or at the end of your opponent's turn (in case a counter-measure to it should be the case.) based on the quanta fed to it.
Thoughts?
However, it's an idea that could be applied in a number of ways, depending on how you look at it.
The idea was something akin to a bolt, more quanta fed, more damage dealt, or something like that.This is multiple modes.
Someone told me that this game does not need any new CC. Do you agree ?Does the game have enough CC? No. Light and Life (more CC) should have thematically appropriate CC mechanics.
And if I want to make a card that damages creature and triggers secondary effect if target is killed, how much damage is suitable for this card in order to lower the CC aspect to minimum ?
( In other words, killing a creature is just a condition for the card to function and I don't want CC to be the main goal of the card. I thought of 1 damage but that would be a very harsh condition for the card to function properly so I settled with 2 damage. Is this enough ? )
These questions are related to the following card but I think it would be better not to limit the questions to just one particular card.
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,41214.0.html
Someone told me that this game does not need any new CC. Do you agree ?Does the game have enough CC? No. Light and Water should have thematically appropriate CC mechanics.
Thanks. I meant Life (I clicked a quanta symbol rather than type the name. I did not proof read)Someone told me that this game does not need any new CC. Do you agree ?Does the game have enough CC? No. Light and Water should have thematically appropriate CC mechanics.
Just a minor error, but I'm pretty sure between squid, ice bolt, permafrost and freeze, water has quite a bit of CC ^^
If you could make one change (nothing that has to do with cards themselves though) to the game right now, what would it be? What features would you add/change/remove?"Nothing to do with the cards themselves"
1) What are your thoughts on the concept of 'Hero' cards and a 'Hero' slot?1) Hero cards are like Weapons and Shields. (Like a planeswalker if you were limited to only 1 planeswalker)
2) What are your thoughts on cards that limit/expand the number of copies they can have in a deck?
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,41239.0/topicseen.htmlAll creatures have a 50% miss chance for the next 3 turns. | All enemy creatures ...
What would be a balanced cost for this card?
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,41239.0/topicseen.htmlAll creatures have a 50% miss chance for the next 3 turns. | All enemy creatures ...
What would be a balanced cost for this card?
The unupped is akin to a 1.5 turn sundial | The upgraded is akin to a 1.5 turn Dimensional Shield
1.5x 1 :time + 1 card | (0.5x 6 :aether + Shield + 1 card) - upgrade
If 1 card = 2 quanta and Shield = 3 quanta
1.5x 3 :time | (0.5x 11 :aether) - upgrade
4.5 :time | 5.5 :aether - upgrade
2.5 :time + 1 card | 3.5 :aether + 1 card - upgrade
upgrade = 1-2
3 :light + 1 card | 3 :light + 1 card
PS: Currently it does not have synergy with Immortal. "All creatures" does not imply the effect targets. You might want to update the notes to explain whether it does target (immaterial creatures are immune) or does not target.
Assume I have a card that has the effect "Gain X hp per turn" and its cost is Y quanta.
How much should a card that has the effect "Gain 5X hp" cost?
How much should a card that has the effect "Increase your max hp by X every turn" cost?
How much should a card that has the effect "Increase your max hp by 5X" cost?
How much is Y in respect to X?
General thoughts on a creature that is affected by buffs and healing in reverse.1) I have a hard time imagining a creature that would be healed by burns, beatings and bolts that would also be harmed by healing.
-Any attempt to damage this creature via spell or skill heals it by that amount instead.
-Vise-versa for attempts to heal it.
-Casting Infection on it instead casts a +1 Purify and vise-versa.
Thinking about having the same for buffs to attack... but there's lack of negative and positive diversity in buffs and debuffs. There's no spell to reduce something's attack in the game right now, so this would only allow negative affects.
I'd think such a creature, would simply become suspectible to different things.Yeah that's part of why I brought this up, buffs are underrated.
Ex. Basilisk blood would most likly insta-kill it (-20 HP), but if it didn't work, it would grant the creature adrenaline.
Adrenaline however would delay it, if we grant these two equivilance, than it would be 6 turns of delay.
I feel this creature highlights what is a perhaps a precieved weakness in buff cards, namely that they 'aren't worth the investment' or that they are too easily countered.
1) I have a hard time imagining a creature that would be healed by burns, beatings and bolts that would also be harmed by healing.Let me go a little more in detail with the idea.
2) It would be really hard to remove.
3) There would be more debuffing if a debuff were added rather than a card that was debuffed by buffs.
I think the damage effect has been done before via negative hp on an undead creature. (However I could not find it)
1) Buff cards are worth the investmentI'd think such a creature, would simply become suspectible to different things.Yeah that's part of why I brought this up, buffs are underrated.
Ex. Basilisk blood would most likly insta-kill it (-20 HP), but if it didn't work, it would grant the creature adrenaline.
Adrenaline however would delay it, if we grant these two equivilance, than it would be 6 turns of delay.
I feel this creature highlights what is a perhaps a precieved weakness in buff cards, namely that they 'aren't worth the investment' or that they are too easily countered.1) I have a hard time imagining a creature that would be healed by burns, beatings and bolts that would also be harmed by healing.Let me go a little more in detail with the idea.
2) It would be really hard to remove.
3) There would be more debuffing if a debuff were added rather than a card that was debuffed by buffs.
I think the damage effect has been done before via negative hp on an undead creature. (However I could not find it)
I'm thinking a 5|1 creature that can only be killed by a heal or buff.
If we're thinking outside the box, an opponent who has Guardian Angel as a key creature is a nightmare. This is saying I've never found a particularly good reason why we can target enemies with heal.
This hypothetical creature of mine would be some kind of chaotic reverse energy monster, or possibly some kind of spirit or undead thing. :darkness or :entropy maybe?
hrm...A method to turn adversity(incoming spells) into power...A spirit of conflict or something along those lines (shadow ...) could work.
Perhaps some sort of 'absorbtion?' except that does not explain the negative effects of beneficial effects...
Another idea is some sort of 'reflective' creature, like the many times you see in tales of an adventurer coming across a 'shadow' of oneself, and having to either fight and defeat it...Or somehow 'accept it'. This seems like a more fitting idea, the shadow you must 'accept', as such a thing is only strengthened by conflict, but defeated when subjected to kindness.
More bothersome questions for the aged perennial woody plant!I have looked through Majofa's changes and for the most part found them to be positive or neutral.
Majofa did his own version of changes to the current cards. What changes would you make to the current cards? You may not add or remove any cards, only slightly rework them. What are the top 5 that you would change? How and why?
Reflective Shield & Emerald Shield
Back when I joined the forum there was a deck type that only used Bolt cards as a win condition. I believe this deck type disappeared due to the addition of Reflective Shield. If this counter were nerfed as part of a berf to both cards, I think this deck type would return. (Generally the more deck types exist the better the metagame is.
As your second paragraph correctly assumed, I was not talking about Fire Stall.Reflective Shield & Emerald Shield
Back when I joined the forum there was a deck type that only used Bolt cards as a win condition. I believe this deck type disappeared due to the addition of Reflective Shield. If this counter were nerfed as part of a berf to both cards, I think this deck type would return. (Generally the more deck types exist the better the metagame is.
I have seen you say this in multiple places, but this is - in my opinion - false. It is usually easy to circumvent reflective shield, since you can have your own: you need only a single nova to power it. If reflective shields are unavailable to you, you will more often than not still attempt to bolt your opponent (speaking of deck choice) because of the rarity of reflective shields in pvp. Even with a reflective shield in play, Fahrenheit can still win the game for you.
The only real thing ruining (read as: hindering in the case of fire bolt) bolter decks is the quanta cap. It makes 2 out of 3 bolts nigh useless for one-turn-kill purposes. You need to have caused a serious amount of damage already to be able to OTK with them. Which is not as easy for Darkness and Water as for Fire.
If "a deck type that only used Bolt cards as a win condition" means truly bolts only (so no other sources of damage, like a Fahrenheit, which is a pretty natural addition to such a deck), I agree such decks have disappeared and what I wrote earlier can be ignored. But the reason is that all bolter decks use some other source of damage to soften up your opponent, to win earlier and to be able to OTK with the quanta cap.
Now that I've read that, what about a card to increase the quanta cap.Other is the way to go.
I'm thinking a :rainbow permanent that raises the cap by a finite amount or,
removes the cap altogether.
Or it could be tied to one element and force a duo for bolt decks.
Creative juices not flowing for theme idea...
Bolts and Faren would already exploit the increase.Now that I've read that, what about a card to increase the quanta cap.Other is the way to go.
I'm thinking a :rainbow permanent that raises the cap by a finite amount or,
removes the cap altogether.
Or it could be tied to one element and force a duo for bolt decks.
Creative juices not flowing for theme idea...
I would recommend having 2 effects: One to increase the quanta cap, the other to exploit the increase.
Including an internal effect that exploits the increase enables using the card without using Farenheit or a Bolt. This increases possible uses and reduces the forced combo problem.Bolts and Faren would already exploit the increase.Now that I've read that, what about a card to increase the quanta cap.Other is the way to go.
I'm thinking a :rainbow permanent that raises the cap by a finite amount or,
removes the cap altogether.
Or it could be tied to one element and force a duo for bolt decks.
Creative juices not flowing for theme idea...
I would recommend having 2 effects: One to increase the quanta cap, the other to exploit the increase.
What do you think of an Aftereffect mechanic? That being, if a certain card (combo-restricted) or certain type/categorization of card/ability (less restricted) is played/used after this card is played, something happens. The Aftereffect could be varied by duration (in which to activate it), but, the shorter that time is restricts it to combos, or luck."When ____/a ____ is played, _______."
OldTrees! OldTrees! You didn't comment on my idea here (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,41346.0.html) (in fact nobody did). Could I ask what you think of it?Unupped
Hmm. I priced submerge at 1 :water because 3 :life + 1 :water + 1 turn for a psuedo immortal 5|4 creature. A 5|4 creature in :life should cost between 4-5 :life, and I would probably gauge psuedo immortality at around one quanta. If looked at this way, it should probably cost around 5-6 quanta, but I thought the fact that a one turn delay and the fact that it required a duo would lower the cost a bit, so I ended up with a final cost of around 4.OldTrees! OldTrees! You didn't comment on my idea here (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,41346.0.html) (in fact nobody did). Could I ask what you think of it?Unupped
3 :life + 1 card for 3|4 (Cockatrice -1 attack)
3 :life + 1 card + 1 :water + duo for 5|4 Immaterial (Immortal -1 cost, +1|+1)
Upped
3 :life + 1 card for 4|5 (Cockatrice -1 attack)
3 :life + 1 card + 1 :water + duo for 6|5 Immaterial (Immortal -1 cost, +1|+1)
Submerge probably should cost :water :water.
This is a rare case where duo was the correct mechanical choice. Niether Water nor Life have Attack buffs and Attack buffs have abnormally potent synergy with submerge.
A return question:
"My thoughts: Didn't really like the ambush ability"
Would you elaborate so I may improve?
Immaterial (even pseudo immaterial) is a value multiplier not an independent value. The higher the value of the creature, the higher the value of the protection. 1 turn vulnerability is not that much. (See SoF)Hmm. I priced submerge at 1 :water because 3 :life + 1 :water + 1 turn for a psuedo immortal 5|4 creature. A 5|4 creature in :life should cost between 4-5 :life, and I would probably gauge psuedo immortality at around one quanta. If looked at this way, it should probably cost around 5-6 quanta, but I thought the fact that a one turn delay and the fact that it required a duo would lower the cost a bit, so I ended up with a final cost of around 4.OldTrees! OldTrees! You didn't comment on my idea here (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,41346.0.html) (in fact nobody did). Could I ask what you think of it?Unupped
3 :life + 1 card for 3|4 (Cockatrice -1 attack)
3 :life + 1 card + 1 :water + duo for 5|4 Immaterial (Immortal -1 cost, +1|+1)
Upped
3 :life + 1 card for 4|5 (Cockatrice -1 attack)
3 :life + 1 card + 1 :water + duo for 6|5 Immaterial (Immortal -1 cost, +1|+1)
Submerge probably should cost :water :water.
This is a rare case where duo was the correct mechanical choice. Niether Water nor Life have Attack buffs and Attack buffs have abnormally potent synergy with submerge.
A return question:
"My thoughts: Didn't really like the ambush ability"
Would you elaborate so I may improve?
I'd assume psuedo-immaterial will be less than true immaterial. Before, I always thought of immaterial as a +2 cost. Now I feel that it's more like a 1.5* attack cost. Immortal=4attack*1.5=6 phase dragon=12attack*1.5+1 cost for 6hp=13. Upped immortal=5attack*1.5-upgradebonus=7 Upped phase dragon=10attack*1.5-upgradebonus=14. Is that what you price immaterial as? What would psuedo immateriality be worth then? A 1.25 multiplier?1.5x is my current estimate for immaterial.
A 1.4 multiplier puts the cost at 7 quanta. 1.25 puts it at 6.25. Clearly, it should be around 6-7 if this is the case. However, because of life bonus or duo bonus, I feel it should be slightly less. Paying 6-7 quanta (duo) and a turn for a pseudo-immaterial 5|4 creature seems pretty bad. I think I'll take the suggestion and put the activation cost at 2 :water.The life bonus theory has been replaced. Current theory (post Damselfly buff) is all creatures have a -1 cost bonus. Current justification is the draw cost (+1 card).
So can I get updated on the new "mechanics of creature cost"?The skeleton is:
So can I get updated on the new "mechanics of creature cost"?The skeleton is:
Stats
Photon/Spark is worth 0 quanta + 1 card
+1 average damage per turn over the course of the average game = +1 quanta
Each hp tier is worth +1 quanta (1-3hp/4-6hp/7-9hp/10+hp)
+1 card ~= +2 quanta (used for comparing )
Activation cost
0(1 weapon) = +1 quanta
1(2 weapon) = +0 quanta
2-3(3 weapon) = -1 quanta
4+ = -2 quanta
1.5*(X+1) :rainbow ~= X quanta [approximation has problems at high values of X]
Upgrade is typically a 1-2 cost reduction or an equivalent buff.
Hrm...Something I was toying with, was a new idea for :life...
Thrive.
Gain a purify counter for every creature summoned this turn.
The idea was to give :life more options for surviving, and something of a resistance to poison...But it won't remove poison counters already existing.
Another thought was to make it some sort of pure 'damage' spell, since One of the biggest issues for life is the lack of methods it has for getting around shields.
Questioning is good. It helps me double check my assumptions.So can I get updated on the new "mechanics of creature cost"?The skeleton is:
Stats
Photon/Spark is worth 0 quanta + 1 card
+1 average damage per turn over the course of the average game = +1 quanta
Each hp tier is worth +1 quanta (1-3hp/4-6hp/7-9hp/10+hp)
+1 card ~= +2 quanta (used for comparing )
Activation cost
0(1 weapon) = +1 quanta
1(2 weapon) = +0 quanta
2-3(3 weapon) = -1 quanta
4+ = -2 quanta
1.5*(X+1) :rainbow ~= X quanta [approximation has problems at high values of X]
Upgrade is typically a 1-2 cost reduction or an equivalent buff.
So the mechanics of creature cost formula doesn't take into account the dramatic difference between 5HP and 6HP? And why is 2 rainbow ~ 1 quanta? Does this mean that QP is overpowered? I don't mean to sound abrasive, just trying to understand where this came from.
still having a little trouble following the costs/notation... if i were to have a vanilla Other creature that cost 12, what stats could i give it?12 :rainbow = 1.5(X+1) :rainbow
SoG is 5 :rainbow, and heals for 3 life per turn.The field effect would be almost an immaterial Empathic Bond. The self target is likely to heal 5 hp per turn. SoG is likely to heal 5hp per turn (but costs a mark). 4 :life|3 :life is a good starting point.
Thrive heals 1 per turn for every creature summoned that turn...The situational style of it reduces it's effect's power, but considering there's no real counter...
Another point of comparison is Purifiy, which is 2 :water quanta for 2 HP healing per turn, plus the removal of poison effects.
So, here's my guess.
Thrive should cost 4 :life, 3 :life when upgraded...Hrm..Perhaps, as a way to set it apart, it gives counters to EVERY creature on the field, including any creature summoned...
That would alter it majorly, and the new cost...I think 6 :life, 5 upgraded...
Which idea do you like more OldTrees?
The self-target Thrive that costs 4, or the field effect Thrive that costs 6?
Is Finial (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,40023.msg497030.html#msg497030) balanced? The idea is quite old but I still like it and may revive it at some point.Obviously the correct element (gravity contains attracting things).
Specifically: Is it overcosted (should it be 2|1?), is it in the correct element (logic is gravity=attracting things), and what should be the interaction with RP and/or RT (RP giving +5|+0 and destroying Finial is interesting, and RT could be blocked to make it stronger with appropriate wording changes).
12 :rainbow ~= 7 quantathe problem here is that as you increase the cost of an other card, each additional quanta is worthe much less. so for example, if you said that 6 other=3 of an element, 12 other would probably be 5 of the element, and 24 other would probably be 6 of the element. the reason is that cards like nova and supernova devalue large quantities of other becuase of rush potential. that is why no other card costs as much as 12.
Fishing for opinions.People have tried Flying Shields. The exemplar of the multiple shield genre is surprisingly not an animate card (the Armory card Dual Buckler).
I've been wondering for a while if anyone has ever attempted a animate shield.
I would have it be a :earth spell because it's thematically opposite of :air.
I had an idea for a skill they might have that's kind of a combination of Guard and Gravity Pull.
It's "redirect next attack of target on this next turn". Obviously could shorten it for the card text.
The ability that sheild had would become a passive skill and effects would apply on attack.
I imagine they would all have a decent amount of HP, may or may not go for giving them attack.
Or, I could flip the whole idea around and figure ways to apply their abilities to attack effects, but that sounds like it could get complicated...
Slightly more personal question. When looking at card ideas, are there any that make you instantly think "this is not a very good idea"? If so, what causes that and why? (not based on inbalance, but rather the concept)Yes there are.
Oh wise Guru, I'd like your input on this (admittedly, very rough) concept, based on a mixture of opposing Elemental hate and synergy. Oh, and super-high costs, because I think this game could use some huge power-bombs for endgames.It is wise for cards to have a low enough cost to be played before killed by a rush deck. 10 elemental quanta is high enough.
The basic mechanic, across all Elements, would be a permanent that a) costs ridiculous quanta (20+); and b) has an activated effect using the opposing Element's quanta.
Samples:
:aether: Aetherial Plane - 25 :aether. 7 :gravity: Opponent cannot play any cards with :gravity casting cost next turn.
:gravity: Reality - 25 :gravity. 7 :aether: Opponent cannot play any cards with :aether casting cost next turn.
. . . and so on.
Alternately, I was thinking of lowering the effect's cost, but adding the passive "Fragile: this permanent cannot be protected."
Anyways, to the best of your knowledge, is this an idea that's been persued before? If not, is it one you think worth developing? Are there any obvious, glaring faults that would wreck EtG if this were implemented?
Also:
???:rainbow: Grey Area. Both player's quanta pools are drained to 0. Players cannot play Elemental spells. Lasts 3 turns; Fragile.
I look forward to your input on this concept.
It is wise for cards to have a low enough cost to be played before killed by a rush deck. 10 elemental quanta is high enough.
Punishing players for choosing Aether as their element of choice is Elemental Hate. Color Hate has had a net negative effect for Magic the Gathering.
Your modifications are IMHO* improvements. However I would suggest increasing the scope of each card. Have each card counter a large genre that is primarily in the opposed element but still has significant presence outside that element. See Sanctuary as an example of a non Elemental Hate version of opposition.Quote from: OldTreesIt is wise for cards to have a low enough cost to be played before killed by a rush deck. 10 elemental quanta is high enough.
Punishing players for choosing Aether as their element of choice is Elemental Hate. Color Hate has had a net negative effect for Magic the Gathering.
I'm not sure if comparing to Magic is quite fair, but if we were to, I'd say that the net negative (and reason I stopped playing years ago) lies in having too many cruddy, slapped together cards, not from any specific colour hate. Various "protection from" mechanics kept the game fresh, and provided answers to the more commonly used OP rares in any tournament metagame. Also, in that other game, there are only 5 colours (plus other) - for any one colour, there are 2 others that you're built to hate.
"Color Hate was a net negative for MtG" is not a claim that the greatest flaw with MtG was Color Hate. It is the claim that MtG would have been better without Color Hate.
To be clear, the Elemental Hate of your idea was that it would lock down a single predetermined element and have no effect on other elements.
This idea hit me when facing (yet another) Chrysora/Arsenic build in the Arena. If a Silence effect is too hate-y (it's a word now, darn it!), what about just using the natural counters each Element's theme suggests?
:light Dawn - Vampiric abilities do you no damage/ :darkness Dusk -(insert idea here - :light is kinda weak already);
:life Vaccine - You and all your creatures are immune to further Poisoning/ :death Deadly Bonds - Opponent gets 1 Poison counter for every creature he has in play;
etc.
I notice that my first posted conceptualization of this hit at least 2 of your hot-buttons (Elemental hate; Lockdown). Do you think that revamping the idea in this way would be more acceptable? After all, if nothing else, it would add to the metagame (players would have to de-focus their decks a little - a Poisonstall would have to pack at least a few creatures, just in case of Vaccine).
Or, perhaps, I should just scrap it - or throw it into the "Steal My Idea" thread, for better minds to chew on?
Your modifications are IMHO* improvements. However I would suggest increasing the scope of each card. Have each card counter a large genre that is primarily in the opposed element but still has significant presence outside that element. See Sanctuary as an example of a non Elemental Hate version of opposition.
*Those 2 personal taboos are merely opinions based on my tastes. They are in a much less significant category compared to the rest of the list.
:light Dawn - Vampiric abilities do you no damage/ :darkness Dusk -(insert idea here - :light is kinda weak already)is still a bit too much elemental hate imho, but
:life Vaccine - You and all your creatures are immune to further Poisoning/ :death Deadly Bonds - Opponent gets 1 Poison counter for every creature he has in play;are both great, and when developed could be terrific card ideas.
memimemi
the reason elemental hate sucks is because there are 12 elements. if a card hates on an element, it means 2 things.
1. if your opponent isnt that element the card sucks.
2. if your opponent is that element then the card is OP.
so unless you want every match to be decided by the RNG, elemental hate is stupid.
sorry to answer someones question in your thread idea guru. i just want to give me 2 :electrum
If we are allowed to comment on other's ideas, I would just like to say that:
Quote from: memimemi on Today at 02:58:19
:light Dawn - Vampiric abilities do you no damage/ :darkness Dusk -(insert idea here - :light is kinda weak already)
is still a bit too much elemental hate imho, but
Quote from: memimemi on Today at 02:58:19
:life Vaccine - You and all your creatures are immune to further Poisoning/ :death Deadly Bonds - Opponent gets 1 Poison counter for every creature he has in play;
are both great, and when developed could be terrific card ideas.
Just my 2 :electrum.
(Also, I would be happy to steal it from you, but it's such a good idea you'll probably want to keep it for yourself.) ;)
@esranCorrect. Others commenting is allowed.
I believe it's been stated by OldTrees that others commenting on ideas presented for him to critque is allowed, and possibly encouraged.
@OldTrees
In lieu of Santuary's becoming a counter to dissapation shield, do you think :entropy could use a new shield, or no?
Elemental Hate suffers from being inherently situational in the problematic manner. The range of value created by your opponents choice is large enough that both extremes cannot be simultaneously balanced*. A UP/Balanced one would be passed up for balanced cards. A Balanced/OP one would always be selected over similar alternatives. A UP/OP one would be passed up for balanced cards except in War.Quote from: esranmemimemi
the reason elemental hate sucks is because there are 12 elements. if a card hates on an element, it means 2 things.
1. if your opponent isnt that element the card sucks.
2. if your opponent is that element then the card is OP.
so unless you want every match to be decided by the RNG, elemental hate is stupid.
sorry to answer someones question in your thread idea guru. i just want to give me 2 :electrum
I see your point; however, what you see as a weakness to the idea, I see as a strength. When building decks, players would have to be prepared for the chance at having a hate-bomb dropped on their decks - so people might have to pull out the 6th Shrieker for an extra counter (or 6th whatever) - leading, potentially, to an expanded metagame. The idea is to have cards that can hate on elements, but also be countered by that same element, with clever play.
Also, I'm not sure if point 1 is valid. If the only counter-strategy that can rip apart my deck comes from a specific element (BH, Neurotoxin, and Sanctuary come to mind as exemplars), I may pack a couple of these as extra defense for my deck's goal. If I don't face that strategy, then my counters would be no less useful in my deck than SoF is vs a PSN deck, or Phase Shield vs a creatureless Poisondials build.
Perhaps you'd be interested in helping design suitably broad-range cards, with balanced effects?
opposing :underworld : gain <ability> or <stats>
Time traveler some :time
opposing :aether: gain Deja Vu
Life guardian some :life
opposing :death: gain 2 purify counter (on the creature, not on the player).
Sometime ago i was thinking about some soft elemental-haters creatures.Having an Elemental Hate ability be weak enough to qualify as a semivanilla* ability does enable both extremes to be simultaneously balanced. I see no problems with this implementation. (I still don't like the taste of elemental hate, but the personal taste of one person is not a problem)
The idea was to have semi-vanilla creatures that receive a little boost when facing the opposing element (the mark counts for this purpose).
I was thinking to text the ability this way:Quoteopposing :underworld : gain <ability> or <stats>
The purpose of this kind of creature would be to add more vanilla creatures with a twist, and also (subsequently) add more luciferin-like spells and effects (affecting vanilla creatures).
However i didn't find this idea interesting enough, so i gave up.
Maybe someone here can find an interesting way to develop this idea.
Since i'm talking about this, OldTrees, what do you think about it?
To Anyone Else Lurking: I mentioned, in passing, a passive ability for perms called "Fragile." Basically, they would not be targetable by PA, or any future perm protection card that comes about. What do you all think of the idea?Fragile would be more useful as a design tool after soft targeting PC is added to the game. Fragile permanents would be destroyed by soft PC. This would then warrant a cost decrease around 1quanta. Until then it would not have the utility to be used as a design tool in most cases.
i think fragile could work, but unless the permanent is earth, it doesnt seem to be a strong enough weakness to warrant a lowered quanta cost. it would be most relevant on earth permanents, or permanents that synergize well with earth.
Fragile would be more useful as a design tool after soft targeting PC is added to the game. Fragile permanents would be destroyed by soft PC. This would then warrant a cost decrease around 1quanta. Until then it would not have the utility to be used as a design tool in most cases.
hi, can i get some input/balancing help on my berf idea?2 :light|1 :light
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,41599.new.html#new
Will it be beneficial to the game to introduce the third kind of damage ?Would it be beneficial? Not at this time. (No comment about the future)
Right now we have physical and spell damage and they cover pretty much everything but there's still one kind of damage not included in the 2-damage system.
That kind of damage does not involve physical contact but it also does not involve magical energy. For example, the fire breath of a dragon, the wind blade made by some fast-moving creatures....These damages are not magic and are usually produced by creatures.
In order not to make things complicated, I think it would be nice to have a few (2-3) creatures that deal this kind of "absolute" damage that can't be countered by physical or magical shields.
This random thought comes from the game Dragon Quest in which there are 3 kinds of damage : physical damage, magic and breaths. Breaths are known to be strong and difficult to mitigate but only a few characters/enemies are able to use.
Do you think we need this kind of damage ?
@TheManuz: that seems like a decent compromise. How far did you get with the idea?Not much, just the ideas i exposed here. If you think it's interesting and want to develop and modify it you can do it with no problem on my side.
Will it be beneficial to the game to introduce the third kind of damage ?Chemical damage? (as in damage by chemical change)
Right now we have physical and spell damage and they cover pretty much everything but there's still one kind of damage not included in the 2-damage system.
That kind of damage does not involve physical contact but it also does not involve magical energy. For example, the fire breath of a dragon, the wind blade made by some fast-moving creatures....These damages are not magic and are usually produced by creatures.
In order not to make things complicated, I think it would be nice to have a few (2-3) creatures that deal this kind of "absolute" damage that can't be countered by physical or magical shields.
This random thought comes from the game Dragon Quest in which there are 3 kinds of damage : physical damage, magic and breaths. Breaths are known to be strong and difficult to mitigate but only a few characters/enemies are able to use.
Do you think we need this kind of damage ?
Had another idea...
-Name: (insert appropriate word) Ritual
-Spell
-Cost: none or low
-Effect: Play creatures this turn for Maximum Health instead of quanta.
P.S. Thoughts on the "this turn" mechanic?
Had another idea..."This turn" is a useful implementation when used well. The effect it is currently linked to seems problematic.
-Name: (insert appropriate word) Ritual
-Spell
-Cost: none or low
-Effect: Play creatures this turn for Maximum Health instead of quanta.
P.S. Thoughts on the "this turn" mechanic?
Death Permanent Idea:I do not remember it being done before.
Danse Macabre 5 :death
"Poisoned players and creatures lose 1 max hp per turn for every 6 poison counters (rounded up)."
-Has this been done?
-Is it well balanced: OP, UP, or too situational
-Should it be stackable (with 6 of these poison would effectively drain both hp and max hp simultaneously)?
Thoughts on this:"Earth creatures gain +0|+3"
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,41632.msg516355.html#new
I created it to have a strong mono-core strategy.Thoughts on this:"Earth creatures gain +0|+3"
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,41632.msg516355.html#new
"Burrowed creatures generate :earth per turn."
Mass hp buffs are hard to balance. Most Earth/Gravity creatures do not benefit from additional hp. Sparks would benefit more than most creatures.
Ideally you would balance it for all creatures. (Including Spark, Scarab and Otyugh)
I have not perfected balancing cards that generate variable amounts of quanta.
It currently looks reasonable balanced despite not doing much.
The theme works and it preforms its quanta generating function. The additional hp (which I mistook as the main effect) does not do much when restricted to Earth.I created it to have a strong mono-core strategy.Thoughts on this:"Earth creatures gain +0|+3"
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,41632.msg516355.html#new
"Burrowed creatures generate :earth per turn."
Mass hp buffs are hard to balance. Most Earth/Gravity creatures do not benefit from additional hp. Sparks would benefit more than most creatures.
Ideally you would balance it for all creatures. (Including Spark, Scarab and Otyugh)
I have not perfected balancing cards that generate variable amounts of quanta.
It currently looks reasonable balanced despite not doing much.
I do also see some applications for :darkness | :earth decks that use Devourer and :time | :earth decks with Graboids, that could use alternative way of generating :earth to make more room for other cards.
The main effect was the "burrowed creatures generate quanta". That alone didn't seem like enough, so I threw on the +0|+3 with the idea that it would strengthen Earth's theme for durability, plus, a Shreiker with 6 hp would shake up how to go about CC for earth .
And, in my opinion, the theme works. Where does all the dirt go?
I forgot. What's the theoretical fastest way to deal 100 damage assuming you have complete control of the RNG and your opponent does nothing?IIRC
Now what about without RNG control, or at least reasonable playing of odds?6.9 | 5.5 turns.
Now suppose you could tell Fortuna to give you the chance advantage, but you wouldn't consistently get one-in-a-thousand events. Now what would you say?That would be too difficult for me to calculate. (It also depends on what you would and would not count.)
I forgot. What's the theoretical fastest way to deal 100 damage assuming you have complete control of the RNG and your opponent does nothing?IIRC
Quantum Towers providing 3 quanta of your choice each.
Pandemonium providing Mass Parallel Universe.
So perhaps it was
1) Photon
2) Quantum Tower -> 3 :entropy
3) 3 :entropy -> Improved Mutation (Photon -> 19|6 Ruby Dragon with :fire:Dive)
4) Quantum Tower -> 3 :entropy
5) 3 :entropy -> Pandemonium (Parallel Universe -> 19|6 and 23|10 Ruby Dragons with :fire:Dive)
6) Quantum Tower -> 3 :entropy
7) 3 :entropy -> Pandemonium (Parallel Universe -> 19|6, 23|10, 23|10 and 27|14, Ruby Dragons with :fire:Dive)
Total: 92 damage turn 1 going first with 384 damage next turn.
If going second, a Ball Lightning can be inserted at step 3.5 for 4 Ball Lightnings, dealing an additional 20 damage.
Total: 112 damage turn 1 going second with 384 damage next turn.
I'm pretty sure you can get ruby dragons from mutants. Only things you can't get are chimera, devonian dragon, fate egg, immortal, and scarab.
Just want to point out that this scenario is impossible, due to the fact you cannot get UPs as mutants.
Oooh. :-XI'm pretty sure you can get ruby dragons from mutants. Only things you can't get are chimera, devonian dragon, fate egg, immortal, and scarab.
Let me rephrase that.Just want to point out that this scenario is impossible, due to the fact you cannot get UPs as mutants.
Errata: I forgot Improved Mutation only created unupped creatures.I forgot. What's the theoretical fastest way to deal 100 damage assuming you have complete control of the RNG and your opponent does nothing?IIRC
Quantum Towers providing 3 quanta of your choice each.
Pandemonium providing Mass Parallel Universe.
So perhaps it was
1) Photon
2) Quantum Tower -> 3 :entropy
3) 3 :entropy -> Improved Mutation (Photon -> 19|6 Ruby Dragon with :fire:Dive)
4) Quantum Tower -> 3 :entropy
5) 3 :entropy -> Pandemonium (Parallel Universe -> 19|6 and 23|10 Ruby Dragons with :fire:Dive)
6) Quantum Tower -> 3 :entropy
7) 3 :entropy -> Pandemonium (Parallel Universe -> 19|6, 23|10, 23|10 and 27|14, Ruby Dragons with :fire:Dive)
Total: 92 damage turn 1 going first with 384 damage next turn.
If going second, a Ball Lightning can be inserted at step 3.5 for 4 Ball Lightnings, dealing an additional 20 damage.
Total: 112 damage turn 1 going second with 384 damage next turn.
Just want to point out that this scenario is impossible, due to the fact you cannot get ruby dragons from mutants.
Anyways, OT, I haven't been paying much attention to war. For round 11, if we assume everyone has a 50% chance of winning, what are the percent chances that :time will win war? :fire? :aether?I have not been paying any attention to the current war and do not have the vault management knowledge to make an accurate estimate of their current positions.
1) Photon
2) Quantum Tower -> 3 :entropy
3) 3 :entropy -> Improved Mutation (Photon -> 16|7 Crimson Dragon with :fire:Dive)
4) Quantum Tower -> 3 :entropy
5) 3 :entropy -> Pandemonium (Parallel Universe -> 16|7 and 20|11 Crimson Dragons with :fire:Dive)
6) Quantum Tower -> 3 :entropy
7) 3 :entropy -> Pandemonium (Parallel Universe -> 16|7, 20|11, 20|11 and 24|15, Crimson Dragons with :fire:Dive)
Total: 80 damage turn 1 going first with 336 damage next turn.
If going second, a Ball Lightning can be inserted at step 3.5 for 4 Ball Lightnings, dealing an additional 20 damage.
Total: 100 damage turn 1 going second with 336 damage next turn.
Good point about SoR (to use the mutant's ability) and Chaos Seed(cheaper pandamonium if only 1 target, though 2 QT + 2 Pandamonium = 1 QT + 3 Seeds)1) Photon
2) Quantum Tower -> 3 :entropy
3) 3 :entropy -> Improved Mutation (Photon -> 16|7 Crimson Dragon with :fire:Dive)
4) Quantum Tower -> 3 :entropy
5) 3 :entropy -> Pandemonium (Parallel Universe -> 16|7 and 20|11 Crimson Dragons with :fire:Dive)
6) Quantum Tower -> 3 :entropy
7) 3 :entropy -> Pandemonium (Parallel Universe -> 16|7, 20|11, 20|11 and 24|15, Crimson Dragons with :fire:Dive)
Total: 80 damage turn 1 going first with 336 damage next turn.
If going second, a Ball Lightning can be inserted at step 3.5 for 4 Ball Lightnings, dealing an additional 20 damage.
Total: 100 damage turn 1 going second with 336 damage next turn.
Hand: Photon, Mutation, QT, QT, Chaos Seed, Chaos Seed, Chaos Seed.
Photon+Mutation => 17 Crimson Dragon.
22 Crimson Dragon from Seed.
27 Crimson Dragon from Seed.
32 Crimson Dragon from Seed.
Or Hand: Photon, Mutation, QT, QT, Seed, SoR, something
Photon+Mutation => 15 Devonian Dragon with Dive.
Sor => 60 attack Devonian Dragon.
Chaos Seed, party. 65 attack Devonian Dragon.
If going second, there is the chance to change that something with 1 more SoR and 1 more QT. Just to make things insane.
Two questions for the same card idea.1|1 immaterial creature that can triple its attack every other turn at the cost of not attacking for a turn and temporary partial vulnerability to CC.
Thoughts on reusing a name that's been used multiple times, in this case Locust.
Thoughts on this card idea:
- Locust 1|1 creature
- Cost Undecided (what do you think would be balanced for life cost theory?)
- Enters game burrowed. Skill: (Sacrifice card) create 3 Locust Eggs.
- Locust Egg
- 0|1 creature
- Skill: Hatch into Locust.
Wondering what costs should be applied to the skills. I'm thinking 1 :life :earth or :time
Ghost of the Past (unupped) is the highest attack Time creature a mutant can be.Good point about SoR (to use the mutant's ability) and Chaos Seed(cheaper pandamonium if only 1 target, though 2 QT + 2 Pandamonium = 1 QT + 3 Seeds)1) Photon
2) Quantum Tower -> 3 :entropy
3) 3 :entropy -> Improved Mutation (Photon -> 16|7 Crimson Dragon with :fire:Dive)
4) Quantum Tower -> 3 :entropy
5) 3 :entropy -> Pandemonium (Parallel Universe -> 16|7 and 20|11 Crimson Dragons with :fire:Dive)
6) Quantum Tower -> 3 :entropy
7) 3 :entropy -> Pandemonium (Parallel Universe -> 16|7, 20|11, 20|11 and 24|15, Crimson Dragons with :fire:Dive)
Total: 80 damage turn 1 going first with 336 damage next turn.
If going second, a Ball Lightning can be inserted at step 3.5 for 4 Ball Lightnings, dealing an additional 20 damage.
Total: 100 damage turn 1 going second with 336 damage next turn.
Hand: Photon, Mutation, QT, QT, Chaos Seed, Chaos Seed, Chaos Seed.
Photon+Mutation => 17 Crimson Dragon.
22 Crimson Dragon from Seed.
27 Crimson Dragon from Seed.
32 Crimson Dragon from Seed.
Or Hand: Photon, Mutation, QT, QT, Seed, SoR, something
Photon+Mutation => 15 Devonian Dragon with Dive.
Sor => 60 attack Devonian Dragon.
Chaos Seed, party. 65 attack Devonian Dragon.
If going second, there is the chance to change that something with 1 more SoR and 1 more QT. Just to make things insane.
Improved mutation is +0-4|+0-4 A 16|7 (12|3 +4|+4)Crimson Dragon is the best stats mutation can initially obtain.
Devonian Dragon is not able to be obtained by mutation.
I need to check if multiple dives in the same turn stack. (Otherwise Mitosis might be better)
Hello again OldTrees! If I were to make a card that allowed protection of your permanents based on the number of airborne creatures you have (like one airborne creature=one permanent protected), where would weapon/shield fall in the queue? Before pillars/others? After? In between? If such a card exists, would it be bad if the upped form of it used other quanta?For simplicity I would suggest permanents be selected in numerical order (1-3, S, 6-9, W, 11+). Skip the mark [5] of course. Usually this means it will be Pillars, Misc, Shield then Weapon.
Well that could work. Putting all the permanents in a queue (pillars and misc first based on order of play, then shield then weapon). One airborne creature protects one each. I was actually thinking this card be a permanent, so it could synergize very well with mono air and SoFre. I thought of a 3|2 :air cost at first, but now I'm considering 3 :air unupped and 3 :rainbow upped. It'd make it more flexible while not being overly splashable.Hello again OldTrees! If I were to make a card that allowed protection of your permanents based on the number of airborne creatures you have (like one airborne creature=one permanent protected), where would weapon/shield fall in the queue? Before pillars/others? After? In between? If such a card exists, would it be bad if the upped form of it used other quanta?For simplicity I would suggest permanents be selected in numerical order (1-3, S, 6-9, W, 11+). Skip the mark [5] of course. Usually this means it will be Pillars, Misc, Shield then Weapon.
I would recommend the card be airborne so it can be self sufficient. (and not protect itself)
I would recommend the upped still cost :air but I see good reasons for it costing :rainbow too. It has a strong thematic connection to Air but has sufficient support outside of Air that it could work mechanically as an other card. I think theme wins in this case but the opposition is not certain.
Clarification: I did not say "Putting all the permanents in a queue (pillars and misc first based on order of play, then shield then weapon)". The shield is the 4th permanent slot. The weapon is the 10th permanent slot. I suggested having it protect the permanents from lowest to highest slot.Well that could work. Putting all the permanents in a queue (pillars and misc first based on order of play, then shield then weapon). One airborne creature protects one each. I was actually thinking this card be a permanent, so it could synergize very well with mono air and SoFre. I thought of a 3|2 :air cost at first, but now I'm considering 3 :air unupped and 3 :rainbow upped. It'd make it more flexible while not being overly splashable.Hello again OldTrees! If I were to make a card that allowed protection of your permanents based on the number of airborne creatures you have (like one airborne creature=one permanent protected), where would weapon/shield fall in the queue? Before pillars/others? After? In between? If such a card exists, would it be bad if the upped form of it used other quanta?For simplicity I would suggest permanents be selected in numerical order (1-3, S, 6-9, W, 11+). Skip the mark [5] of course. Usually this means it will be Pillars, Misc, Shield then Weapon.
I would recommend the card be airborne so it can be self sufficient. (and not protect itself)
I would recommend the upped still cost :air but I see good reasons for it costing :rainbow too. It has a strong thematic connection to Air but has sufficient support outside of Air that it could work mechanically as an other card. I think theme wins in this case but the opposition is not certain.
Ah. shield was 4 and weapon is 10. That makes things a lot easier, since I thought shield and weapon were 22 and 23. Then yes, permanents are protected from lowest to highest.I do believe that requiring some light CC and an extra PC to be able to get through the anti-PC would call for a slightly higher cost to compensate for the card advantage. (Just checking: This, unlike cloak, does have indefinite duration correct?) 4 :air | 4 :rainbow. (This is a slightly larger upgrade than normal) It might need to be changed to 5 :rainbow.
How can this be removed? If it's a permanent, it'd be often played second or third in a mono air deck I imagine, so it'd require some light CC (or AoE CC) and a deflag/steal.
I priced it at 3 :air, since I tried to balance it to cloak. It requires creatures to be useful, so I made it slightly cheaper than unupped cloak. Is the requirement for its removal too much though for its price?
Hm. Making it as a creature also has benefits. What would a name or theme be thematically then? I originally proposed a permanent since the idea was that your airborne creatures would beat their wings to generate clouds or something to hide your permanents.Have a tactician rather than a tactic? Have a creature that knows this trick and recruits other airborne creatures to aid it.
That could work. I'd probably go towards an aged wise large creature. As for stats, I'd think something like 2|6 or something would be pretty nice. Would the ability be passive? Active?Hm. Making it as a creature also has benefits. What would a name or theme be thematically then? I originally proposed a permanent since the idea was that your airborne creatures would beat their wings to generate clouds or something to hide your permanents.Have a tactician rather than a tactic? Have a creature that knows this trick and recruits other airborne creatures to aid it.
Active is default. It only changes to passive when a reason is present (need room for a 2nd ability, needs to ignore lobotomy)That could work. I'd probably go towards an aged wise large creature. As for stats, I'd think something like 2|6 or something would be pretty nice. Would the ability be passive? Active?Hm. Making it as a creature also has benefits. What would a name or theme be thematically then? I originally proposed a permanent since the idea was that your airborne creatures would beat their wings to generate clouds or something to hide your permanents.Have a tactician rather than a tactic? Have a creature that knows this trick and recruits other airborne creatures to aid it.
Genesis - :time cardI do not remember a complete restart effect. (There are lots of mulligans though)
Reverts hand and field to start
All permanents and creatures on field are removed and shuffled back into deck.
Quanta costs for each respective player's cards are added to their pool.
Each Player starts next turn with 7 random cards from their deck.
Health and health effects are unaffected.
What would this cost?
Has it been suggested before?
Genesis - :time cardI do not remember a complete restart effect. (There are lots of mulligans though)
Reverts hand and field to start
All permanents and creatures on field are removed and shuffled back into deck.
Quanta costs for each respective player's cards are added to their pool.
Each Player starts next turn with 7 random cards from their deck.
Health and health effects are unaffected.
What would this cost?
Has it been suggested before?
I do not know how to evaluate its worth. How would you abuse its effect?
Hello again once more OldTrees! Thanks for all your help with Stolas!There was an attempt once. It was discovered that changing the mark had the potential to cripple decks to easily. It would destroy 1+X/2 quanta per turn. [X=number of pendulums] Furthermore it would usually eliminate all the sources of a type of quanta. A permanent with a duration would be the most workable implementation.
Has there been cards already where they changed a player's mark to something random? Would a card like that be better as a permanent or spell? How much should it cost? If it's a spell, I'd estimate it at a cost of 2|1 :entropy.
What are your thoughts on inflicting Singularity?Gulp. Singularity is more damaging than Antimatter. It can only be fixed by mutation. Chance cards work by having moderate variance between the best and the worst results. I am worried that the value of Singularity is too great to fit a chance well. I would have Singularity be one of many possible results. Say 25% chance of Singularity, 25% chance of Antimatter, 2 other effects of in between value. Cost 10 :entropy?
If you had to place a :underworld cost on placing Singularity on a creature, what would you say it would be? What if it were given at a chance?
So the biggest problem is ruining pends. Well what if somehow the mark changed, but the pends continued to act the way they used to? What if the mark stayed the same but gave different quanta (As in a mark of entropy giving fire quanta and life quanta)? What if the mark was just disabled (no quanta gained)? Are any of these valid ways of looking at it or is the concept something that should just be discarded?Hello again once more OldTrees! Thanks for all your help with Stolas!There was an attempt once. It was discovered that changing the mark had the potential to cripple decks to easily. It would destroy 1+X/2 quanta per turn. [X=number of pendulums] Furthermore it would usually eliminate all the sources of a type of quanta. A permanent with a duration would be the most workable implementation.
Has there been cards already where they changed a player's mark to something random? Would a card like that be better as a permanent or spell? How much should it cost? If it's a spell, I'd estimate it at a cost of 2|1 :entropy.
Those variation remove the problem but render it a scrambling of a single pillar/mark/pendulum. I do not see a useful implementation. However that merely means I have writer's block.So the biggest problem is ruining pends. Well what if somehow the mark changed, but the pends continued to act the way they used to? What if the mark stayed the same but gave different quanta (As in a mark of entropy giving fire quanta and life quanta)? What if the mark was just disabled (no quanta gained)? Are any of these valid ways of looking at it or is the concept something that should just be discarded?Hello again once more OldTrees! Thanks for all your help with Stolas!There was an attempt once. It was discovered that changing the mark had the potential to cripple decks to easily. It would destroy 1+X/2 quanta per turn. [X=number of pendulums] Furthermore it would usually eliminate all the sources of a type of quanta. A permanent with a duration would be the most workable implementation.
Has there been cards already where they changed a player's mark to something random? Would a card like that be better as a permanent or spell? How much should it cost? If it's a spell, I'd estimate it at a cost of 2|1 :entropy.
Also, slightly more personal question, can I go submit alligator | giant alligator to the crucible and all that?
Could you give your thoughts on Blood Pocketwatch | Soulbound Pocketwatch (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,41873.0.html)? I am interested in knowing the following, it if helps your critique:1) Storing life has not been placed in an element yet.
1. Whether it is in the correct element.
2. If the HP amount of draining/healing is UP or OP.
3. If I should be concerned about :darkness 's mass of healing cards leading to redundancy or niche interference in an expanding meta.
What would the metagame be like if there was no limit to how big or small your deck size could be (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,41921.msg520246.html#msg520246)?What is the fewest number of cards for an OTK? (Supernovas included) Some decks would be just a few cards more than that.
If you wanted to define the concepts of 'Good' and 'Evil' in a card(s), how would you do so?
Do you think the game would benefit from a fourth type of card? (besides creature, permanent, and spell) I'm not sure what to suggest though, so it's a vague question. Would the sudden influx of cards of that fourth type be too much to keep the game balanced as well as keep the amount of each of the card types relatively close?
Oh great and wise OldTrees! I have another idea!I do not remember one.
Has the idea of a creature taking damage for creatures next to it (left and right only) been done before? If not, what element would it be best in (I'm thinking earth or gravity)?
I was sort of thinking along the lines of a phalanx or something. The creature would protect the creatures beside it (what I have in mind is the earth dragon spreading its wings to cover the nearby creatures).That is different than what I thought it said.
Yes. Physical cover. That is what I imagined. As for that, would 6 (hexagonal) protection be better or just 2 (sideways)? How much hp should it have? I'm thinking around 12. What should it cost? And, should AoE ignore the protection like AoE ignores most other psuedo invincibility?I was sort of thinking along the lines of a phalanx or something. The creature would protect the creatures beside it (what I have in mind is the earth dragon spreading its wings to cover the nearby creatures).That is different than what I thought it said.
If it is protecting adjacent creatures (could even be all 6) then Earth would probably be best if it is physical cover.
I'm sorry if this was not addressed a few months ago, but could I get your thoughts on:In many ways it is similar to the Armory card Monkey (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,21667.0.html)
:air Odonata | Odonata (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,40354.0.html)
Also, could I have you post your thoughts in the thread as to fulfill the Crucible requirements? Much appreciated.
AoE would be the weakness of Cover since the guardian would quickly die. It is rare for there to be a difference between hexagonal and sideways. Either works.Yes. Physical cover. That is what I imagined. As for that, would 6 (hexagonal) protection be better or just 2 (sideways)? How much hp should it have? I'm thinking around 12. What should it cost? And, should AoE ignore the protection like AoE ignores most other psuedo invincibility?I was sort of thinking along the lines of a phalanx or something. The creature would protect the creatures beside it (what I have in mind is the earth dragon spreading its wings to cover the nearby creatures).That is different than what I thought it said.
If it is protecting adjacent creatures (could even be all 6) then Earth would probably be best if it is physical cover.
So what should the stats/pricing of it be? I feel the pricing should be around 3-4 :earth and the hp should be near 10. That also brings up the point of what should upping it change about it. More hp? Cheaper casting cost? Higher attack? Some or all of the above?10 hp, 2|4 attack, cost 5-7 :earth|4-6 :earth
Can I get your opinion on:It is good practice to make a card useful in an amount of 1-6. Unstable limits the card so the 2nd copy is a dead card. Taking this into account, what Aether deck would not include precisely 1 Energy Wyrm? A card is obviously OP if a card improves any deck. Finally, it is too similar to Psion.
:aether Energy Wyrm | Energy Wyrm (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,41927.0.html)
You think 6|5 :earth? Isn't that a bit excessive? That's nearly 2 :earth higher than my initial idea. I could lower the attack, but it's more of meant to act as a protector or guardian, so it's attack isn't that important.So what should the stats/pricing of it be? I feel the pricing should be around 3-4 :earth and the hp should be near 10. That also brings up the point of what should upping it change about it. More hp? Cheaper casting cost? Higher attack? Some or all of the above?10 hp, 2|4 attack, cost 5-7 :earth|4-6 :earth
I am assuming that the player will be taking advantage of guardian effect to protect multiple other creatures.You think 6|5 :earth? Isn't that a bit excessive? That's nearly 2 :earth higher than my initial idea. I could lower the attack, but it's more of meant to act as a protector or guardian, so it's attack isn't that important.So what should the stats/pricing of it be? I feel the pricing should be around 3-4 :earth and the hp should be near 10. That also brings up the point of what should upping it change about it. More hp? Cheaper casting cost? Higher attack? Some or all of the above?10 hp, 2|4 attack, cost 5-7 :earth|4-6 :earth
If quint costs 4|3 :aether, this card acts as a psuedoquint for about 2 (you rarely see so many creatures that hexagonal protection would be usefl). A psuedoquint would probably half to 3/4th the cost of a quint to me, and then you double that, and then add on a bit more cost for stats, so I think a 4|3 :earth sounds reasonable. 5|4 as well. Either way, I see cost hovers around 3-5 :earth.I am assuming that the player will be taking advantage of guardian effect to protect multiple other creatures.You think 6|5 :earth? Isn't that a bit excessive? That's nearly 2 :earth higher than my initial idea. I could lower the attack, but it's more of meant to act as a protector or guardian, so it's attack isn't that important.So what should the stats/pricing of it be? I feel the pricing should be around 3-4 :earth and the hp should be near 10. That also brings up the point of what should upping it change about it. More hp? Cheaper casting cost? Higher attack? Some or all of the above?10 hp, 2|4 attack, cost 5-7 :earth|4-6 :earth
I put those ranges because I am not sure of the pratical strength of the effect. It might be 5 :earth|4 :earth
Wait. I made the Voodoo/Armagio mistake again. I counted the hp and the skill separately despite only one providing benefit at a time.If quint costs 4|3 :aether, this card acts as a psuedoquint for about 2 (you rarely see so many creatures that hexagonal protection would be usefl). A psuedoquint would probably half to 3/4th the cost of a quint to me, and then you double that, and then add on a bit more cost for stats, so I think a 4|3 :earth sounds reasonable. 5|4 as well. Either way, I see cost hovers around 3-5 :earth.I am assuming that the player will be taking advantage of guardian effect to protect multiple other creatures.You think 6|5 :earth? Isn't that a bit excessive? That's nearly 2 :earth higher than my initial idea. I could lower the attack, but it's more of meant to act as a protector or guardian, so it's attack isn't that important.So what should the stats/pricing of it be? I feel the pricing should be around 3-4 :earth and the hp should be near 10. That also brings up the point of what should upping it change about it. More hp? Cheaper casting cost? Higher attack? Some or all of the above?10 hp, 2|4 attack, cost 5-7 :earth|4-6 :earth
I put those ranges because I am not sure of the pratical strength of the effect. It might be 5 :earth|4 :earth
Now then some actual implementation questions:
What if two guardians both guard a creature and your opponent targets the creature? Who gets hit? The first guardian played?
If two guardians guard protect each other, and your opponent targets one, who gets hit? The first guardian played?
Will there be something like "layers" of protection with each guardian you play?
Maybe also when upped, it gains a bit more attack at a more expensive price. I wanted it to seem like a phalanx, protective yet also able to deal damage. Or the other way around. An expensive phalanx like creature unupped, cheap (like minor phoenix) guardian creature upped?
Do you feel Essence Wyrm (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,39507.0.html) needs a "Minimum ATK | HP" cap to it's stats?Perhaps a minimum of 1|1 or 0|0. Negative hp does not exist after all. Beyond that I do not see much of a purpose to restricting the cost.
Can you comment on this about the card's balance? http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,41945.msg520631.html#msg520631
Thank you.
Assume we have two players with enough quanta to use 1 Fractal and play at least 8 copies of any card that costs 3 quanta. Both players have only Fractal in their hand.Clock deals quadratic (aX2+bX) rather than linear (aX) damage with respect to the number of creatures.
Player 1 has only 1 Flesh Spider on the field.
Player 2 has only 1 Clock on the field.
Both players cast Fractal and proceed to play the 8 copies of creatures they got from it.
Player 1 now has 9 Flesh Spiders on the field.
Player 2 now has 9 Clocks on the field.
If this was an unupped-only game:
Player 1 has paid 2 Cards + 10+all :aether + 27 :death to get 9*3 = 27 damage.
Player 2 has paid 2 Cards + 10+all :aether + 27 :time to get 9*(2+9) = 99 damage.
If this was an upped-only game:
Player 1 has paid 2 Cards + 9+all :aether + 27 :death to get 9*6 = 48 damage.
Player 2 has paid 2 Cards + 9+all :aether + 27 :time to get 9*(3+9) = 108 damage.
Just throwing this one out here:The vast majority of Armory cards are balanced. However some are not. It is similar to how most cards in game are balanced but some are not. No armory card is more imbalanced than cards already in game.
Would it be possible to dump all the Armory (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/board,128.0.html) cards into the game and have ETG remained balanced?
Could use an opinion of this please. Prowler | Prowler (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,41956.0.html)1) I am not sure if Life should be king of Lethal CC.
I guess Atlantis's Protection (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,31232.msg520720.html#new) would be a good example of "mitigation" about your protection cards threadYes. Atlantis's Protection (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,31232.0.html) (good card, people should check it out) still permits PC but requires the opponent to use more PC to achieve the same effect. Since it is reducing the efficiency but not stopping the effect it is classified as "Mitigation".
Can I get your thoughts on the revised Energy Wyrm (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,41927.0.html)?What changed?
But I was also considering the drawbacks when accounting for CC.The major problem of the card is the imbalance and restrictions you created when combining high attack and unstable. To fix the card you need to make the first copy balanced (rather than OP) and then make the 6th copy still useful and balanced (rather than UP).
This was inevitable. I had assumed it in the previous evaluation because I knew you would fix it.
And yes, it isn't as cheap as UG, but the idea was it would be slightly more flexible.
What do feel is the biggest difference between weapons/shields and other types of cards (such as 'heroes') that attempt to limit the number of potentially viable copies in a deck?Weapons and Shields are based on expected limitations resulting from the presumption of a humanoid body. Most other limits are less expected. (What do you mean I can't have a right hand man and a left hand man?)
Has the idea of a creature reducing damage done to the creatures around them been done before? If not, how should it be balanced?Yes, though around was defined as the whole field.
Just had an idea:It has been tossed around at the theme level (aka people will recognize it as obviously Entropy) but it has never been made into a card.
Chaotic Nexus
:entropy Permanent
Unupped: all randomized effects have their effects strengthened
Upped: all randomized positive effects are strengthened for you; all negative effects are strengthened for opponent. All negative random effects are weakened against you; all positive random effects are weakened for your opponent.
Has this idea been tossed around already? Is there any glaring fault that pops out immediately?
By "strengthened," I mean that all damage done by Chaos Seed/Pandemonium has a random (1-3) boost; Pandemonium is less likely to be a dud against any given creature; Mutation/Fallen Elf are more likely to create mutants instead of Abominations; Improved Mutation/Fallen Druid's creatures gain an extra Chaos Power's boost on creation; etc.
I'm keen to hear your input. I'd like to see more mono- :entropy builds, using all the awesome randomized goodies that are availible.
Cards that require support (the random effect in this case) should have a variety of different supports that the player can choose from.
It is unlikely that your opponent will use any random cards. Do not assume they will but also make it remain balanced even if they do.
Read up on the random effects. (Pandamonium effects every creature. No duds. What you perceive as duds are multiple instances of Gravity Pull defaulting to the last Gravity Pulled creature.)
I do not think you need to change the card design. I was merely reminding you to make it useful with each of the random effects (Mutation, Chaos Seed, Discord, Quantum Pillars, Hatch) so that it does not become dependent on a single one. You can have it effect the opponent's effects. Just don't underestimate or overestimate their frequency.QuoteCards that require support (the random effect in this case) should have a variety of different supports that the player can choose from.
It is unlikely that your opponent will use any random cards. Do not assume they will but also make it remain balanced even if they do.
Read up on the random effects. (Pandamonium effects every creature. No duds. What you perceive as duds are multiple instances of Gravity Pull defaulting to the last Gravity Pulled creature.)
I don't quite understand the first point. Wouldn't most of :entropy's arsenal count as a variety of different supports from which to choose?
The second point makes sense. Maybe if it just boosted your own effects, and had nothing to do with the opponent? Do you think that would make for easier balancing?
Point three: the moar you know. I was totally unaware of that.
Wise old trees! If I provide a few ideas can you tell me which has potential?
A 3|2 :life card that stops target player from drawing for one turn
An :air card that grants +2atk and airborne status
A :water creature called flying fish that is airborne, and has X% of getting critical hits and dodging as long as it is airborne
Wise old trees! If I provide a few ideas can you tell me which has potential?
A 3|2 :life card that stops target player from drawing for one turn
An :air card that grants +2atk and airborne status
A :water creature called flying fish that is airborne, and has X% of getting critical hits and dodging as long as it is airborne
The Life card does not have an obvious theme for the :time :darkness draw lock :time :darkness. If it had a reasonable theme then the next question would be whether a simple draw lock card would be valuable to a game that already has 2 cards that are similar but with additional benfits.
The Air card relies on Airborne being beneficial. Currently that does not matter to enough support cards [1. Sky Blitz, 2. Shard of Freedom and 3. Nothing yet). So it would have a minor case of the Forced combo problem.
The Water card is self sufficient. It does seem to have a greater Airborne mechanical theme than any current Air creature. This might be a problem.
1. Life can both Rush and Stall. Stall, Control and Denial are not synonymous despite being related. If Nightmare is to be believed, the hand is part of the mind. Last and most important: What benefit would the game get from adding Draw Denial in a manner similar to 2 previous cards that each had additional effects?Wise old trees! If I provide a few ideas can you tell me which has potential?
A 3|2 :life card that stops target player from drawing for one turn
An :air card that grants +2atk and airborne status
A :water creature called flying fish that is airborne, and has X% of getting critical hits and dodging as long as it is airborne
The Life card does not have an obvious theme for the :time :darkness draw lock :time :darkness. If it had a reasonable theme then the next question would be whether a simple draw lock card would be valuable to a game that already has 2 cards that are similar but with additional benfits.
The Air card relies on Airborne being beneficial. Currently that does not matter to enough support cards [1. Sky Blitz, 2. Shard of Freedom and 3. Nothing yet). So it would have a minor case of the Forced combo problem.
The Water card is self sufficient. It does seem to have a greater Airborne mechanical theme than any current Air creature. This might be a problem.
1. I imagine either a trap, or obstructive vines/roots trapping the player from getting their next card (or if cards are like spells, restraining them from managing to find a new one). Why do I think :life needs this? Life is an element based purely on speed and no control right now, so I feel it'd beneficial if life had some kind of control. Having a card like that (I balanced it similarly to silence) would allow for some actual control from life, as well as powering the element in general. Stopping your opponent from drawing can save your fragile 12|3 frog. Additionally, you could also cast it on yourself to delay deckout, or even help with fractal.
2. Actually, I admit that the +2 atk is the true part of the card. I noticed momentum had a +1 boost, blessing had a +3 boost, so there should be a +2 boost as well. Just a pure boring boost to attack would be pointless, so I added a secondary effect (like momentum's shield bypass and blessing's health increase). I'll agree that the airborne does feel a bit forced. Do you have any good suggestions?
3. That's true, but I felt it'd be nice if :water had some kind of soft PC and anti CC.
Something I had in mind once was this:Why not play Druidic Staff? It would do the job of 5 shrooms.
life fungus| life shroom
1 :life
0|1
heals you for 1 HP per turn
Upgraded either has 0|3 or possibly 0 cost.
Your thoughts to this?
1. Life can both Rush and Stall. Stall, Control and Denial are not synonymous despite being related. If Nightmare is to be believed, the hand is part of the mind. Last and most important: What benefit would the game get from adding Draw Denial in a manner similar to 2 previous cards that each had additional effects?1. Well, if you spring a trap for your opponent, I'd imagine that they'd have a hard time concentrating for new ideas. Why would the game benefit? I imagine the draw denial more similarly to silence rather than nightmare. It acts as a way to keep the opponent where they are. :life is an element of speed, so getting the upper hand and being able to restrict your opponent allows for both Anti-CC (Stopping your opponent from drawing control cards), as well as very minor soft PC (Stop them from drawing that dim shield). Nightmare also gives your opponent cards and drains hp, whereas my idea only stops drawing. In this way, it's not a hard counter to fractal (can even benefit it), is good vs rainbows, and can be even used on the player playing the card as some kind of anti-stall for not decking out.
2. Thanks Annele
@Furballdn
I do not have any goo replacements yet. The +2 attack has utility but feels like a secondary effect. I would wait until you find a primary effect that is weak enough to tie the +2 to.
3. Soft PC and anti CC does not necessitate Critical Strikes and Evasion. How would Water do Soft PC/anti CC?
1. Draw Denial is most similar to Draw Denial (RT or Nightmare). Draw Denial is a form of Hand Denial (RT, Nightmare, Silence, Neurotoxin)1. Life can both Rush and Stall. Stall, Control and Denial are not synonymous despite being related. If Nightmare is to be believed, the hand is part of the mind. Last and most important: What benefit would the game get from adding Draw Denial in a manner similar to 2 previous cards that each had additional effects?1. Well, if you spring a trap for your opponent, I'd imagine that they'd have a hard time concentrating for new ideas. Why would the game benefit? I imagine the draw denial more similarly to silence rather than nightmare. It acts as a way to keep the opponent where they are. :life is an element of speed, so getting the upper hand and being able to restrict your opponent allows for both Anti-CC (Stopping your opponent from drawing control cards), as well as very minor soft PC (Stop them from drawing that dim shield). Nightmare also gives your opponent cards and drains hp, whereas my idea only stops drawing. In this way, it's not a hard counter to fractal (can even benefit it), is good vs rainbows, and can be even used on the player playing the card as some kind of anti-stall for not decking out.
2. Thanks Annele
@Furballdn
I do not have any goo replacements yet. The +2 attack has utility but feels like a secondary effect. I would wait until you find a primary effect that is weak enough to tie the +2 to.
3. Soft PC and anti CC does not necessitate Critical Strikes and Evasion. How would Water do Soft PC/anti CC?
2. Blessing's atk boost is the primary effect while momentum's attack boost is a secondary effect. If I look at it this way, I would want to balance out the +2atk with some other effect that's roughly the same. I'll have to think a bit on that.
3. Hm. I sort of wanted to use flying fish or the SoFre concept in other elements. PC and anti-CC? Well perhaps freeze should be able to target permanents, or another water card that protects water creatures, or making flooding protect water creatures.
Why does the game need this? Because while both RT and nightmare have draw denial, they require different per-equisites and have different consequences along with the draw denial. RT is meant as soft CC for time, and also serves to damage not very quanta heavy decks, while nightmare is an anti-rush deck that punishes decks that dump their hands. Why can't there be just a simple card for draw denial? If we have cards that say "If A or B do X and Y" and "If A do X and Z", why don't we just have a card saying "do X"?While it is true that for draw denial, Reverse Time requires a creature on their field and Nightmare simply requires a creature. Those prerequisites are insignificant.
Your thread currently spans 61 pages / 730 Posts and growing. Are there any particularly notable questions/ideas that you feel that might deserve to be revisited a bit?I will need to go through and double check. This will take awhile. There are probably some questions worth linking to in the OP but I don't recall any worth revisiting.
So what should I do about the card? Add some secondary effect to it as well or just scrap the idea because of enough draw denial cards?I think we have enough cards that do draw denial for the sake of draw denial. Additionally I think that all draw denial cards would need a secondary effect or be able to deny more than 1 turn.
Why not play Druidic Staff? It would do the job of 5 shrooms.Indeed, which is why the idea needs sprucing up...Perhaps the inclusion of an activatable version of Maligant cell's ability might be called for?
That skill would be called MitosisWhy not play Druidic Staff? It would do the job of 5 shrooms.Indeed, which is why the idea needs sprucing up...Perhaps the inclusion of an activatable version of Maligant cell's ability might be called for?
I'm not sure if this is a very original idea, but here goes:Other is not an element. As such there are many things (requiring a high cost or an elemental component) it probably should not have (no Other dragon, Nymph, Alchemy or 13th shard).
Should the "Other" category be developed into a full-fledged element with its own spells, creatures, rare(s), shard (excluding the Shards corresponding to the other elements), etc.?
Here is an idea for the rare weapon of the "Other" element.
Weapon (Rare)
Cost: 5 :rainbow
Damage: 4
Animated Stats: 4/4
Active Ability: Blacksmith (This weapon turns into a random rare weapon)
Passive Ability: NONE
I think the "Other" creatures should have the ability to change colors, and there should be "Other" cards that benefit them if they are a certain colors. This will obviously result in more "Other" cards than any other.
Suggestions, community and Mr. Sequoia?
Something I just thought of was the idea of a card that could clog the opponent's hand with some sort of 'fake card' like Relic.Repeatable Nightmare would be OP since it is a lockdown.
Since Nightmare does that and more, the card might be a creature featuring an ability, or somehow repeatable.
Barring the above, a card that simply stopped you from drawing for a turn.
Relic Nightmare would be OP since relics cannot be discarded.
doh. Thanks for the correction. I was confusing the "not leaving the hand when cast" with the old "not able to be discarded" relic buff suggestion.Relic Nightmare would be OP since relics cannot be discarded.
They can, and even if they couldn't, it could be a new fake card.
Would a card that made it so when a player ended their turn they had to have equal to or less cards than their opponent be good?It would probably be used in a instant quanta based rush deck to force the opposing stall deck to discard several cards. This is probably too potent unless this particular usage is heavily nerfed.
Well at least you agree it's something beneficial and interesting. How would you propose to nerf it then?Would a card that made it so when a player ended their turn they had to have equal to or less cards than their opponent be good?It would probably be used in a instant quanta based rush deck to force the opposing stall deck to discard several cards. This is probably too potent unless this particular usage is heavily nerfed.
I do think discarding would be beneficial to add.
The problem is two fold.Well at least you agree it's something beneficial and interesting. How would you propose to nerf it then?Would a card that made it so when a player ended their turn they had to have equal to or less cards than their opponent be good?It would probably be used in a instant quanta based rush deck to force the opposing stall deck to discard several cards. This is probably too potent unless this particular usage is heavily nerfed.
I do think discarding would be beneficial to add.
Thoughts on a passive skill that a creature uses "in hand"?Obsession (Ghost of the Past) is a passive that triggers from the hand. (So obviously it is possible.)
Applied to a creature that "every other turn" can be played for max hp instead of quanta.
I'm thinking a small to mid-ranged creature for balance. Thoughts on cost as well?
More HP? (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,42078.0.html)Sure. There is not much difference between 10 and 15 hp.
Except, in this case, there is. Normally, the difference in hp diminishes after it gets high enough (like over 10), but in this case, (protecting other creatures) hp is actually an important point. If there should be an increase in HP, how much?More HP? (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,42078.0.html)Sure. There is not much difference between 10 and 15 hp.
There is a significant difference between 10 and 18 hp for this card. Not as much between 10 and 15.Except, in this case, there is. Normally, the difference in hp diminishes after it gets high enough (like over 10), but in this case, (protecting other creatures) hp is actually an important point. If there should be an increase in HP, how much?More HP? (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,42078.0.html)Sure. There is not much difference between 10 and 15 hp.
What about 3|15 stats for the upped? Still for 4 :earth?Yes.
How much do you consider protecting a target row (essentially, 1/3 of a cloak) to be worth?Cloak also protects permanents.
How much do you consider protecting a target row (essentially, 1/3 of a cloak) to be worth?Depends on the Row. If the player gets to choose then it would be almost the same as the current cloak without protecting either the creatures (middle row) or the permanents. Probably 2-3 :darkness + 1 card.
How much is card cost worth? Like, what's the equivalent of 1 card in terms of quanta? HP? Other benefit?1 card cost ~= 2-3 quanta cost
1) Would a permanent that lets you discard costs to increase your hp or gain quanta (like half of the discarded card) be good?1)
2) Do some shards fit too much of a niche instead of being able to be splashable like they were meant to?
3) Would something like this (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,38939.msg483949.html#msg483949) be a good idea? As a spell? If the difference was changed to +/- 4?
4) Would a permanent that stopped all spells for both people for 3 turns be a good idea? What would be the cost?
5) Besides the shards, are there any cards that you feel to be OP?
6) Did you ever try this logic game (http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/598731)? It's quite fun.
2 turns and 4 quanta? Wouldn't that make it slightly inferior to cloak?
Null Field
*2 turns
*4 quanta
*Can't be targetted by spells
*Can be destroyed through destroy skill
Cloak
*3 turns
*hides field
*4 quanta
*Can be destroyed/stolen
*Disappears with AoE
They can still play creatures and permanents. Null Field only stops spells from being played. If there are two rush decks facing off against each other, the one packing null field would be slightly slower.Doh. I was thinking about MtG for a moment where all cards are spells.
You said 2 turn silence would cost 4 quanta. I disagree. Wouldn't it increase in a way that's greater than linear? 2 turn silence form one card should be at least 5 or 6 quanta.2 turn double sided silence that started counting on your opponent's turn would be a minimum of 4 quanta. (1 more than the mark produces in that time)
Which element best embodies the qualities of "salvaging"?No element has a salvaging theme yet. I would go for a mental element since the hand is affected by nightmares and obsession.
If you pay 1 quanta + discard 1 card per turn, what should the gain be? 10hp per turn?
Why do you disagree with discarding a dragon and reaping X benefit while discarding a photon reaps X/10 or a smaller amount of benefit?
Oh right. Double sided silence. doh. my bad. What if it was just silencing your opponent for 2 turns? How much would that cost? (I'm guessing 5-7).
Hm. Mind. That seems like it doesn't really fit. If I were to make a card that did what I just said (let you sacrifice cards for 1 quanta for 10hp regen), what element would that go best under? Would it work in other?
They haven't played it, but they still made use of it. In other words, by discarding a dragon, you're not just discarding the same worth as a photon. If later on during the game, when the player has more quanta, they could've made use of the dragon. Additionally, if a player has 5 :entropy, it wouldn't really be the same if they discarded an abomination or a photon. In addition to the space that a card takes up, its innate cost and usefulness should be factored into it a little bit in my opinion.
I've been thinking about a new way of damage negation.1) The game would benefit from more cards. Time already has a lot of stall but could use some more after it gains some more non stall cards.
Here's the rough idea : You discard a card from deck whenever you are attacked in the next turn.
And I want to make it a Time card with a theme of escaping to future.
Here's the question :
1. Do we need another stalling card, especially in Time element ?
2. How much is enough ? How many turns should it last and how many cards should be discarded per unit damage ?
3. Is there still room for mechanics like mixing the roles of cards, quanta and HP ? I mean something like using HP to play cards, using cards which normally have no healing function to replenish HP, etc.
What if the cost for creatures was no longer paid quanta? A 10 :death merely means you have to have 10 death pillars minimum. That means, with 3 life pillars, you can play as many frogs as you have frogs, but anything more than 3 :life. How would the game have to be rebalanced?The first thing to note is that 2 creatures cost less than twice the cost of 1 creature. (Except in the case of 0 cost creatures where it is exactly equal)
Does the game need more PC in the form of a creature (that can use destroy or something once) or PC in the form of permanents? If so, which elements?Does the game need more PC? Yes. Particularly in the elements that don't have any Hard or Soft PC. Shard of Focus could do this but I think the game would be better served with the addition of some more soft PC as well. Whether it is implemented in a spell, creature or permanent does not make much difference.
Would a mine that dealt damage once the opponent played a creature/spell/permanent be a good idea? Should it damage each time they play a certain type of card or just a one time burst? Which element most fits this?
Oh, and I have an idea for a weapon that gets bonus damage when you have no shield equipped. Has this idea been done before? Which element would it fit under? I'm thinking earth. How much damage boost? A constant like +5 or a multiplier like double?
Are you a robot?
Hm. I was thinking more along the lines of something like a Cestus. Having two hands free would allow more damage, but one could also use a shield. This way, it can be used together with a shield, but it does better without a shield. How should it be balanced if I want to make it deal double damage if the shield slot is empty? And what element does that fall under? Earth? Gravity?Not even RPGs let a 2 handed weapon deal double damage. A Cestus (as you have described it) is a 1-1/2 handed weapon.
What about instead of doubling, it's attack twice? It'd get affected by shields twice, and if I have the atk start at 3|4 for 3 or 4 quanta, it seems like it'd be relatively balanced. (3 cost for 6 damage is balanced with sacrificing shield. If shield sacrifice is -3, then that's 3dmg for 3 quanta.) (3 quanta for 8 damage sacrifice shield makes it around a 5/3 dmg/cost ratio, about the same as fahren and lobo). I don't know how it'd do with AW and buffs though.Why would having a shield relate to weapon speed?
Furball: http://www.medieval-life-and-times.info/medieval-swords-and-armor/bastard-sword.htmSo bear trap deals 1 damage per turn to alternating creatures?
To me, it would fit best in :light, the Element of Crusaders and chivalry. Also, a damage modifier of (k(1.5)) makes more sense than double damage, as adding an extra hand doesn't double the effectiveness of the weapon, but it does add some more power to your swings.
As for traps, how about these:
Bear Trap ( :life): each trap deals 1 damage to the first untrapped attacking creature, and delays it 1 turn.
Land Mine ( :fire, or maybe :earth): deals 5 damage to the first creature played, and 5 to its controller. Destroyed with first activation.
What are your thoughts on Hailstorm | Icicle Storm (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,42104.0.html)?The implementation is mildly interesting. The base effect is dull. Assuming Pandemonium is balanced, it seems balanced.
So bear trap deals 1 damage per turn to alternating creatures?
Both would work as traps.
I have not received enough data about traps yet to make a precise cost analysis. However they should cost more for happening sooner and less for letting if the opponent chooses the target.
A question for you, OT: what would E:tG look like, if 0-attack creatures still attacked at the end of the turn? Would SoF being affected by your Procrastination, Thorn Carapice, etc., be a good thing for the game, a bad one, or just interesting? Same with unbuffed Dune Scorps, Wardens, and any future 0-ATK critters.Nerfing Chrysaora and Warden in order to nerf SoFo is probably a bad idea. There is a place for creatures that don't attack.
Would it be a strict nerf? Does Feral Bond count 0-ATK critters as attackers already?Feral Bond counts creature turns not attackers.
I wasn't looking for a way to nerf SoF - I personally think it's fine how it is, though I know it's a minority opinion. Otyugh protection for :time (Turtle Shield) and for :life (Carapice) could be neat, too. Any Element could use extra protection from Butterfly Effect, as well. I don't see this idea so much as a nerf to 0-cost creatures, as a buff to defense for :life and :time, as well as a buff to quanta acceleration for :light (w/Solar Buckler).
Anyways, you did answer the question, as put to you. So, is it fair to say that you see a creature's 0-ATK as a weak form of protection against situational CC? If so, can you think of any mechanics that could use that tiny bit of CC to advantage?
Feral Bond counts creature turns not attackers.
If you meant can I think of a use for the tiny CC protection then:
I see 0-Atk to be a useful design (as a result of the protection from CC shields) in that it allows the existence of non fighting utility creatures. Devourer, Chyrsaora and Warden are the best examples in my opinion.
If not, please rephrase the question.
Oh.If you meant can I think of a use for the tiny CC protection then:
I see 0-Atk to be a useful design (as a result of the protection from CC shields) in that it allows the existence of non fighting utility creatures. Devourer, Chyrsaora and Warden are the best examples in my opinion.
If not, please rephrase the question.
Well, I was thinking more along the lines of: can you think of a(some) hypothetical new mechanic(s), which would create synergies specific to 0-ATK creatures i.e. "Immobility - 0-ATK creatures gain +0/+6 and are delayed at the end of every turn?" Or, you know, whatever - that's why I'm asking you, oh Guru!
Oldtrees, I've been pondering ideas for a thematic :life card that gives it an answer to getting CC'd in the face...Something I came up with was a creature that would make the next creature you played (or perhaps the next creature period, meaning your opponent could get this boost, in exchange for increased power/ reduced cost.) The idea was something that would somehow 'enhance' the summoning, like...To use a somewhat odd comparison, meta-magic, on the creatures you summon.Interesting. The metamagic or augmented summoning is an intriguing mechanic. Like most buffs this would actually be more (not less) vulnerable to CC. However that is before taking the buff into account.
Your thoughts on this idea?
What about instead of doubling, it's attack twice? It'd get affected by shields twice, and if I have the atk start at 3|4 for 3 or 4 quanta, it seems like it'd be relatively balanced. (3 cost for 6 damage is balanced with sacrificing shield. If shield sacrifice is -3, then that's 3dmg for 3 quanta.) (3 quanta for 8 damage sacrifice shield makes it around a 5/3 dmg/cost ratio, about the same as fahren and lobo). I don't know how it'd do with AW and buffs though.Why would having a shield relate to weapon speed?
1 attack double damage is difficult because:
2X -3 -3 = X -3
6 (6 attack) -3 (weapon slot) -3 (shield slot) = 3 (6 attack) -3 (weapon slot) = 0
Obviously flown weapons do not get a bonus from the shield hand. That hand is busy with the current cestus.
2 attacks would seem like a constant effect independent of a shield. I thought an adrenal weapon had been suggested before.
However 2 attacks is weaker than double damage so it would be +4 damage for +3 cost.
2X -1 -3 -3 = X -3
8 (8 damage per turn) -1 (affected by shields twice) -3 (weapon slot) -3 (shield slot) = 4 (4 attack) -3 (weapon slot) = 1
A weapon that gained adrenaline if held in the weapon slot with an empty shield slot would have
10 (10 damage per turn) -2 (affected by shields thrice) -3 (weapon slot) -3 (shield slot) = 5 (5 attack) -3 (weapon slot) = 2
If 5 are flying and you have one in your primary hand, your off hand (aka the shield hand) would be unable to assist all 6 weapons.What about instead of doubling, it's attack twice? It'd get affected by shields twice, and if I have the atk start at 3|4 for 3 or 4 quanta, it seems like it'd be relatively balanced. (3 cost for 6 damage is balanced with sacrificing shield. If shield sacrifice is -3, then that's 3dmg for 3 quanta.) (3 quanta for 8 damage sacrifice shield makes it around a 5/3 dmg/cost ratio, about the same as fahren and lobo). I don't know how it'd do with AW and buffs though.Why would having a shield relate to weapon speed?
1 attack double damage is difficult because:
2X -3 -3 = X -3
6 (6 attack) -3 (weapon slot) -3 (shield slot) = 3 (6 attack) -3 (weapon slot) = 0
Obviously flown weapons do not get a bonus from the shield hand. That hand is busy with the current cestus.
2 attacks would seem like a constant effect independent of a shield. I thought an adrenal weapon had been suggested before.
However 2 attacks is weaker than double damage so it would be +4 damage for +3 cost.
2X -1 -3 -3 = X -3
8 (8 damage per turn) -1 (affected by shields twice) -3 (weapon slot) -3 (shield slot) = 4 (4 attack) -3 (weapon slot) = 1
A weapon that gained adrenaline if held in the weapon slot with an empty shield slot would have
10 (10 damage per turn) -2 (affected by shields thrice) -3 (weapon slot) -3 (shield slot) = 5 (5 attack) -3 (weapon slot) = 2
Perhaps I should reword it. "Gain 1 extra attack if you do not have a shield equipped" The idea is that without using a shield, your shield hand is free, and that lets you pull off one extra attack (If it's flying, you jump and grab it in the air to punch your opponent). If it had 3|4atk, how much cost would that be in elemental quanta? What about in other quanta? Which element would it fit under?
@ZaealixWhat exactly is this idea that you're proposing? a 1-time shield against any ability targeting the creature?
Rather than :aether :gravity :light, what about:
:aether Split creatures in half. (2 creatures half atk, half hp, 1.5x activation costs)
:gravity [aura] The last creature played is gravity pulled.
:light Creatures ignore the first targeting effect.
Yes. It would increase the cost of using CC (in cards) against those creatures.@ZaealixWhat exactly is this idea that you're proposing? a 1-time shield against any ability targeting the creature?
Rather than :aether :gravity :light, what about:
:aether Split creatures in half. (2 creatures half atk, half hp, 1.5x activation costs)
:gravity [aura] The last creature played is gravity pulled.
:light Creatures ignore the first targeting effect.
If 5 are flying and you have one in your primary hand, your off hand (aka the shield hand) would be unable to assist all 6 weapons.Well thematically, what's to say that 5 crusaders can endow one weapon? There's no clear indication, so just like how the crusaders pass the weapon around or something, the user could also attack with each flying cestus with their free hand each time a flying cestus attacks (like disgaea's team attacks). Attacking twice is also different from adrenaline. Attacking twice makes it feel more like vampire dagger, doubling the effectiveness of buffs and other things. In fact, an epi'd flying 4atk creature does 9 damage. A flying (upped) cestus with your support only does 8.
If they all get an extra attack (weird) then it would be:
Between a -3 and a -0.5 cost reduction for the shield slot. (shield slot value / number of weapons affected)
However if a flying weapon gets an extra attack then it will be buffed with Blessing|Chaos Power. So it is more valuable than a held weapon getting a 2nd attack. Let's estimate a 3 attack weapon would get a +5 cost for an extra attack.
I would try 3 attack 2 :underworld + 1 card +/- 1 quanta.
As for element, if each weapon is getting an extra attack, I would direct you towards Adrenaline.
However: http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,18253.0.html and http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,23405.0.html
Remember: When it comes to weapons, you can check here first: http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,30645
Endow is the process of copying the enchantment of a magical weapon onto the mundane blade the crusader starts with. It is endowing the blade with the potency of the elemental's weapon.If 5 are flying and you have one in your primary hand, your off hand (aka the shield hand) would be unable to assist all 6 weapons.Well thematically, what's to say that 5 crusaders can endow one weapon? There's no clear indication, so just like how the crusaders pass the weapon around or something, the user could also attack with each flying cestus with their free hand each time a flying cestus attacks (like disgaea's team attacks). Attacking twice is also different from adrenaline. Attacking twice makes it feel more like vampire dagger, doubling the effectiveness of buffs and other things. In fact, an epi'd flying 4atk creature does 9 damage. A flying (upped) cestus with your support only does 8.
If they all get an extra attack (weird) then it would be:
Between a -3 and a -0.5 cost reduction for the shield slot. (shield slot value / number of weapons affected)
However if a flying weapon gets an extra attack then it will be buffed with Blessing|Chaos Power. So it is more valuable than a held weapon getting a 2nd attack. Let's estimate a 3 attack weapon would get a +5 cost for an extra attack.
I would try 3 attack 2 :underworld + 1 card +/- 1 quanta.
As for element, if each weapon is getting an extra attack, I would direct you towards Adrenaline.
However: http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,18253.0.html and http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,23405.0.html
Remember: When it comes to weapons, you can check here first: http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,30645
Anyways, I've had another idea based on the "mine" idea we discussed earlier. It'd be a water parasite that when played, goes to the opponent's side of the field. Whoever owns the card takes X damage each time they play a card.
How much should X be? How much should the parasite cost? I assume X=5 would be the same as neurotoxin, and dunescorp+momentum=4 quanta + duo + 2 cards. This means if I have X=5, the parasite would have to cost 6 :water. Any advice? And how it should function upped?
Maybe the flying cestii are inspired your bravery and lack of shield so they hit twice. I dunno.Try 3 for 4 :water|2 :water.
If I want to make it more playable (3-5) range, how much should X be lowered to?
What about 4 :water | 4 :waterMaybe the flying cestii are inspired your bravery and lack of shield so they hit twice. I dunno.Try 3 for 4 :water|2 :water.
If I want to make it more playable (3-5) range, how much should X be lowered to?
That would also work.What about 4 :water | 4 :waterMaybe the flying cestii are inspired your bravery and lack of shield so they hit twice. I dunno.Try 3 for 4 :water|2 :water.
If I want to make it more playable (3-5) range, how much should X be lowered to?
but X is 3|5?
Or would that make a way bigger difference than the regular upped of (+2 bonus)?
Can I get your thoughts on the following ideas, preferably in their respective threads?
Whirlpool | Whirlpool (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,42194.0.html)
Quark Burst | Quark Burst (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,42180.0.html)
Labyrinth | Labyrinth (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,42190.0.html)
Comment on Cymothoa (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,42197.0.html)?I think I misunderstood. I thought Cymothoa dealt damage at the end of the turn rather than when the controller cast a card.
Would an entropy card that increased your max/current (one of them) hp for scrambling yours/youropponent's (One of them) quanta be a good idea?
If cestus was implemented into the other element as it is now, would it be too powerful in a deck dedicated to flying them and buffing them?
Really? I tried balancing it around dune scorp, but I personally feel Cymothoa is actually a bit UP. Besides the first (and second) turn, it is very rare for a player to play more than 1-2 cards. The chances of getting out Cymothoa in the first two turns is small (Even with towers). Because of this cost, Cymothoa would most likely enter the game at around turn 2-3. If we assume the opponent plays an average of 1.5 (is probably less unless hourglasses, dexterity, fractal, etc) cards per turn, Cymothoa does around 4.5|7.5 damage per turn.Comment on Cymothoa (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,42197.0.html)?I think I misunderstood. I thought Cymothoa dealt damage at the end of the turn rather than when the controller cast a card.
Would an entropy card that increased your max/current (one of them) hp for scrambling yours/youropponent's (One of them) quanta be a good idea?
If cestus was implemented into the other element as it is now, would it be too powerful in a deck dedicated to flying them and buffing them?
I would decrease it to 2|4 damage.
Neat reference by the way.
I don't think Entropy needs a 2nd Discord yet.
If flying cestuses were affected by the shield slot then it would need to cost elemental quanta rather than random quanta.
4.5|7.5 unblockable damage per turn (that requires single target CC, pandemonium, catapult, immolation or chimera to remove.)Really? I tried balancing it around dune scorp, but I personally feel Cymothoa is actually a bit UP. Besides the first (and second) turn, it is very rare for a player to play more than 1-2 cards. The chances of getting out Cymothoa in the first two turns is small (Even with towers). Because of this cost, Cymothoa would most likely enter the game at around turn 2-3. If we assume the opponent plays an average of 1.5 (is probably less unless hourglasses, dexterity, fractal, etc) cards per turn, Cymothoa does around 4.5|7.5 damage per turn.Comment on Cymothoa (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,42197.0.html)?I think I misunderstood. I thought Cymothoa dealt damage at the end of the turn rather than when the controller cast a card.
Would an entropy card that increased your max/current (one of them) hp for scrambling yours/youropponent's (One of them) quanta be a good idea?
If cestus was implemented into the other element as it is now, would it be too powerful in a deck dedicated to flying them and buffing them?
I would decrease it to 2|4 damage.
Neat reference by the way.
I don't think Entropy needs a 2nd Discord yet.
If flying cestuses were affected by the shield slot then it would need to cost elemental quanta rather than random quanta.
Let us compare to blue crawler and toadfish
Blue crawler 3 :water 3|3
Cymothoa 4 :water 4.5|4
Toadfish 5 :water 6|4
Abyss crawler 4 :water 6|6
Cymothoa 4 :water 7.5|4
Toadfish 5 :water 3(+1 each turn)|5
In this way, isn't it balanced? (Going onto the opponent's side of the field would probably count as less than .25 :rainbow in cost imo)
What if it scrambled your own quanta? Like, increase your hp by 1-5 each turn. Scramble that many number of quanta.
Hm. Probably. I can probably try and do some testing, but at a glance, it does feel OP. If it fits into an element, which element would it best fit into? :gravity and :earth for strength? :light for honor? :air and :fire for speed and aggressiveness?
OldTrees OldTrees! I has some evidence of testing! Testing to see how much cards opponent plays in the first 7 turns. (blanks are because I got lazy or forgot)+84 rep for evidence of playtesting. Playtesting is an important part of balancing. Emerald Tiger and ZBlader have a system for testing nonofficial cards using deck vs deck playtesting.
1: 3 3 4 4 4 2 1
2: 0 1 1 2 1 1 2
3: 2 1 1 1 2 1 1
4: 1 2 1 2 1 1 1
5: 2 2 1 1 1 1 1
6: 1 1 1 0 2 1 1
7: 1 0 1 2 0
Averages are 1.43, 1.43, 1.5, 1.57, 1, and 1. So the total average is 1.32. So averagely a cymothoa is a 3.96, roughly 4 momentum'd attacker.
BUT
It is absolutely impossible to get out cymothoa in the first turn unupped. It's possible to get it out second turn, but impossible to get it out first turn (unless you get 2 novas, 2 photons, 2 immolations, and a cymothoa), so the first turn should be discarded.
New averages are 1.17, 1.17, 1, 1, 1.5, 1, and 1. New total average is 1.12. Averagely, a cymothoa does 3.36 momentum'd damage in the first 7 turns of the game, making it slightly better than blue crawler, but not as good as toadfish.
I also meant as the go to opponent's side as less than .25 :rainbow to indicate that it was practically negligible. .25 :rainbow is also less than .25 :water.
Well I thought the give to opponent part was negligible. It doesn't have much synergies, can give your opponent an immotarget as well as bond, and even mutation fodder in exchange for clogging up one of their field slots.1 :rainbow is negligible in small quantities.
Comments on Chronoblast (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,42213.0/topicseen.html)?It is a damaging targeting AoE. (I have seen too many of those) Most of these have a balance point of around 4-5 creatures relative to single target CC. Usually one of these would kill more creatures than 1 rain of fire. However each additional Chronoblast is weakened dramatically.
How would it work without AoE? Like an eternal spell that does more damage each time you cast it? Actually, that sounds like a pretty good idea. How would you balance an eternal card that does more damage each time it's cast (in one turn)? Can the game keep track of how many times a certain spell has been played in a turn?I believe there was a meteor themed card that was a single target version.
Would a firewood card idea be good? It'd be a 0 cost life permanent with ability being either immolation or cremation. If so, should the activation cost be 1 :rainbow, 1 :fire, or 0?So 1 card that duplicates Immolation + Photon?
Would a firewood card idea be good? It'd be a 0 cost life permanent with ability being either immolation or cremation. If so, should the activation cost be 1 :rainbow, 1 :fire, or 0?It sounds too much like a replacing card. A permanent is harder to remove, as there are less cards that do so. This would allow the same boost that immo combos do, at half the card slots. In fact, this card very well could possibly replace Nova and Supernova, which were specifically nerfed to prevent rapid spamming of said cards.
Seems redundant yeah. But I thought of it as saving card space. It'd allow immorushes to pack more cards.Would a firewood card idea be good? It'd be a 0 cost life permanent with ability being either immolation or cremation. If so, should the activation cost be 1 :rainbow, 1 :fire, or 0?So 1 card that duplicates Immolation + Photon?
That would be redundant with Immolation.
That would place it in the same redundancy tier as a :life :entropy fallen elf in addition to the :entropy :life fallen elf.Seems redundant yeah. But I thought of it as saving card space.Would a firewood card idea be good? It'd be a 0 cost life permanent with ability being either immolation or cremation. If so, should the activation cost be 1 :rainbow, 1 :fire, or 0?So 1 card that duplicates Immolation + Photon?
That would be redundant with Immolation.
Tossing an idea at you, OT:2 :life + 3 turns for a 5|6 creature that generates acorns. This feels much worse than just casting mitosis on something. Either bump up the stats insanely high for the oak or cut out the sapling. If you'll notice the "evolving" concept of grabboid, it jumps from 2atk to 8|10 atk. 1 turn delay means quite a lot.
Acorn|Acorn (Creature, :life)
0 :life|0 :life
0/1 | 0/1
:life : Grow. Turns into Sapling. | :life : Grow. Turns into Sapling.
Sapling|Sapling
1/3 | 1/4
:life : Grow. Turns into Oak. | :life : Grow. Turns into Ancient Oak.
Oak|Ancient Oak.
4/5 | 5/6
:life Propagate. Generates an Acorn. | 1 :rainbow Propagate. Generates an (upgraded) Acorn.
Thoughts?
2 :life + 3 turns for a 5|6 creature that generates acorns. This feels much worse than just casting mitosis on something. Either bump up the stats insanely high for the oak or cut out the sapling. If you'll notice the "evolving" concept of grabboid, it jumps from 2atk to 8|10 atk. 1 turn delay means quite a lot.
Tossing an idea at you, OT:It has been done before as 2 cards (rather than 3)
Acorn|Acorn (Creature, :life)
0 :life|0 :life
0/1 | 0/1
:life : Grow. Turns into Sapling. | :life : Grow. Turns into Sapling.
Sapling|Sapling
1/3 | 1/4
:life : Grow. Turns into Oak. | :life : Grow. Turns into Ancient Oak.
Oak|Ancient Oak.
4/5 | 5/6
:life Propagate. Generates an Acorn. | 1 :rainbow Propagate. Generates an (upgraded) Acorn.
Thoughts?
Let's compare graboid evolving to shrieker.
1 :time + 1 turns = +6atk
If we look at it this way, the 1 :time probably contributes a +2atk, so 1 turn should be worth 3-4 atk at least. Your acorn idea needs 3 turns to fully come out. That means if it starts with 0atk, the final form should have around 9-12atk. With the 2 :life you spent, probably around 11-13atk.
Then compare that to dragon.
Is 2 :life + 3 turns = 10 :life?
1) It has already been done as 2 cards.Let's compare graboid evolving to shrieker.
1 :time + 1 turns = +6atk
If we look at it this way, the 1 :time probably contributes a +2atk, so 1 turn should be worth 3-4 atk at least. Your acorn idea needs 3 turns to fully come out. That means if it starts with 0atk, the final form should have around 9-12atk. With the 2 :life you spent, probably around 11-13atk.
Then compare that to dragon.
Is 2 :life + 3 turns = 10 :life?
Oldtrees, you ninja'd this one. Instead of me rewriting it, what do you think of these amendments? They feel a bit better to me.
Blarp brought up a good point on Guardian (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,42078.msg522848.html#msg522848) Compared to cloak, it mostly only protects 2 creatures whereas cloak protects your entire field for the same cost.Guardian has CC vulnerability, PC immunity and attack.
What makes rational thinking (with logic) the right way of thinking?
How much is 1 :underworld upkeep worth? 2?I don't know. Flooding is the only example and it is hard to make an accurate comparison. I would assume it would be closer to 4 :underworld. However I do not have enough data to calculate how imprecise that estimate is.
Would etg benefit from a field slot that affects the whole field like nightfall and flooding? Should there be one field slot for each player or one field slot for the whole board?
[sarcasm](http://elementscommunity.org/chat/skin_default/smilies/laughing.png)
:o It cannot flood at night? Thank goodness!
[/sarcasm]
There is no reason why global enchantments would exclude other global enchantments. Likewise there is no reason global enchantments should not strengthen as duplicates are played.Are there good exceptions such as (and besides) Sunrise | Morning Sun (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,8807.0.html) and Nightfall's not stacking to avoid potential balance concerns, or does this rule just apply to global enchants in general?
Some themes might not mesh (Sunrise + Nightfall). However most would (Morning Sun + Eclipse). The universal stacking is a guideline. However I see no problem with :darkness :death :light receiving power during the day of the new moon (re themed nightfall and sunrise to be lunar and solar influences).Quote[sarcasm](http://elementscommunity.org/chat/skin_default/smilies/laughing.png)
:o It cannot flood at night? Thank goodness!
[/sarcasm]QuoteThere is no reason why global enchantments would exclude other global enchantments. Likewise there is no reason global enchantments should not strengthen as duplicates are played.Are there good exceptions such as (and besides) Sunrise | Morning Sun (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,8807.0.html) and Nightfall's not stacking to avoid potential balance concerns, or does this rule just apply to global cards in general?
Just a thought.The amount of Elemental Hate is unrelated to metagame size and health.
What if elemental hate is widespread? As in, almost every element have elemental hate card. (As of now, only Holy Light is elemental hate)
Will it open up more strategy and meta, or just narrow it down?
I have some people saying Cestus (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,42297.0.html) is OP, and some say that it's UP. Can I get your opinion on balance?Why did you chose Light? Normally cards are not put in the element that have the most synergy with. This way there is a duo and mono usage that can be simultaneously balanced. (rather than a duo usage that will be strictly worse than the mono usage)
Element was a very hard decision. I ended up with light since that was the highest number of votes for an elemental element in my preliminary poll. I also felt light really deserved a weapon to endow. Forcing crusaders to be duos or endow other cards just felt odd.I have some people saying Cestus (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,42297.0.html) is OP, and some say that it's UP. Can I get your opinion on balance?Why did you chose Light? Normally cards are not put in the element that have the most synergy with. This way there is a duo and mono usage that can be simultaneously balanced. (rather than a duo usage that will be strictly worse than the mono usage)
Vampire dagger has an HP swing equal to double its attack.
Cestus has an HP swing equal to double its attack.
The more damage in an hp swing the better.
The most efficient usage of VD is a Trio|Duo
The most efficient usage of Cestus is a Duo|Mono
It is close to balanced. 4|6 attack might be better.
Element was a very hard decision. I ended up with light since that was the highest number of votes for an elemental element in my preliminary poll. I also felt light really deserved a weapon to endow. Forcing crusaders to be duos or endow other cards just felt odd.I have some people saying Cestus (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,42297.0.html) is OP, and some say that it's UP. Can I get your opinion on balance?Why did you chose Light? Normally cards are not put in the element that have the most synergy with. This way there is a duo and mono usage that can be simultaneously balanced. (rather than a duo usage that will be strictly worse than the mono usage)
Vampire dagger has an HP swing equal to double its attack.
Cestus has an HP swing equal to double its attack.
The more damage in an hp swing the better.
The most efficient usage of VD is a Trio|Duo
The most efficient usage of Cestus is a Duo|Mono
It is close to balanced. 4|6 attack might be better.
Technically, Cestus has slightly less, since it is blocked by shields twice and only works if the user has no shield equipped. However, I believe that attacking twice is worth slightly more than attacking and draining health.
Wouldn't putting it at 4|6 make it too similar to vampire stiletto?
Also, would a card that forced both players to have no equipment be good? Would it be good as a creature, permanent, or spell?
Ramping it from 3|4 for 3 :light to 4|6 for 3 :light seems like a pretty big jump to me. I'll consider 4|5 atk for 3 :light though.It is meant to use cards are the primary cost. I would use a lower casting cost. Say 2 :time|1 :time
Could I get your opinion on this (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,42302.msg526360.html#msg526360)?
Interesting thinking experiment: What would the stats of a regular human (You and me as opposed to elementals) be if they were in EtG? You can use other cards, pictures, and gameplay mechanics for reference.Zaealix has a good answer.
Shakar?Shakar was a human in the backstory of the FG grinding deck Shakar's Revenge. He discovered a way to become a voodoo elemental.
But is it canon? What exactly is canon anyway?Shakar?Shakar was a human in the backstory of the FG grinding deck Shakar's Revenge. He discovered a way to become a voodoo elemental.
But is it canon? What exactly is canon anyway?
How do vampires work? Bite the enemy, suck their blood then inject it into you? Do elementals have blood types? How do antimattered vampires work? How do antimattered creatures heal the enemy anyway? Why is a photon or spark as strong (or stronger) than some other creatures that'd seem they'd be stronger?
It is not in game canon. However it might be forum canon. (I consider it such)But is it canon? What exactly is canon anyway?Shakar?Shakar was a human in the backstory of the FG grinding deck Shakar's Revenge. He discovered a way to become a voodoo elemental.
How do vampires work? Bite the enemy, suck their blood then inject it into you? Do elementals have blood types? How do antimattered vampires work? How do antimattered creatures heal the enemy anyway? Why is a photon or spark as strong (or stronger) than some other creatures that'd seem they'd be stronger?
Can i have your opinion on the overall concept, the way it is applied, and the balance, of this series (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,42289.msg526204.html#msg526204) please?
What is happiness and fun? In the context of EtG?This varies from player to player. The ability for EtG to reward many different player types is one of its greatest aspects. Here are a few stereotypes:
Do all meta games eventually devolve into rock paper scissors or rock paper scissors lizard spork? Is this bad?No. Some metagames are rock rock rock. ;)
Would EtG be better with a much larger card base or a small one?Larger. More options create more diverse experiences and thus more wealth(in the form of happiness).
How do you place more emphasis on creativity/deck building in EtG without grinding or forum based PvP?Expand PvP Duel. Let people play PvP Duel without prior arrangement (a lobby) and have it separated based on intent (Competitive decks, Creative decks).
How much would a darkness element spark that cannot be buffed (it dies when targetted with any buff, stays alive with nightfall) be worth? Good idea or bad? Thematically, it could be some kind of super arrogant, injured warrior.1)
how much is repeatable -0/-1 for all creatures worth? What about only your opponent's? What about reusable -1/-1 for all creatures? Only your opponent's? What if this was eternal (able to be cast multiple times per turn)
Are there any series in the game besides nymphs/alchemy? Should more be added? Are series good or bad?
What is the theoretical value of each status effect ?1)
By theoretical, I means the average value of a status effect.
For example, momentum costs 2 quanta per card but Chargers have built-in momentum, which means the cost of momentum is not exactly 2 quanta for all creatures. What is the average value for all creatures then ?
I also want to know how to estimate the theoretical benefit of removing a status effect from creature. For example, how much benefit I would gain and how much cost the opponent would pay if I could remove adrenaline from an opponent's creature ?
And how should I consider "berf" status such as Gravity Pull ?
These questions are related to a new card I made. Just as soon as I clicked the "post" button, I start to feel that my estimate (which actually based on nothing) is completely wrong....
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,42342.0.html
Can I get your opinions on balance on Toadfish | Pufferfish (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,2067.0.html)? Something about them feels off.6|4 costs either 4 or 5 :water + 1 card depending on which hp value scale is used.
Toadfish has quite decent stats at 6|4 unupped, that alone should warrant almost a 6 :underworld cost, but it also comes with a useful ability.
On the other hand, pufferfish feels weak. It'd take over 6 turns to deal more damage than toadfish, and if we look at scorpion, venom is a +2 cost. 3atk +2cost = 5. Where is the upgrade bonus?
What happens when we compare charger and psion?Upped cards usually get between a -1 and a -2 cost decrease or the equivalent.
Unupped charger
5 :gravity
4|5
ignores all shields
Unupped Psion
4 :aether
4|4
ignores most shields
completely ruined by reflect
Upped Charger
5 :gravity
7|5
ignores all shields
can be paradox'd
Upped Psion
4 :aether
5|5
ignores most shields
completely destroyed by reflect
Hey OldTrees, let's try something audacious, more audacious than :rainbow birds.What is the core suggestion? The card was merely a tool/means of making your core suggestion. What was that suggestion?
Remember this (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=40742.0)? As a spell it wasn't that useful. What if it turned into a permanent that affected every creature | only your creatures? How much would it cost then? Would an upkeep cost be useful to it? Should it bring the atk to the closest "magical" number or just bump it to the next highest magical number?
Make all creatures | only your creatures attacks into the magical number of either 3, 8, or 15. Probably rounded to which number is closer.Hey OldTrees, let's try something audacious, more audacious than :rainbow birds.What is the core suggestion? The card was merely a tool/means of making your core suggestion. What was that suggestion?
Remember this (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=40742.0)? As a spell it wasn't that useful. What if it turned into a permanent that affected every creature | only your creatures? How much would it cost then? Would an upkeep cost be useful to it? Should it bring the atk to the closest "magical" number or just bump it to the next highest magical number?
That was the tool. What was the suggestion? What was the purpose that being able to set the attack to 3, 8, 15 helps achieve?Make all creatures | only your creatures attacks into the magical number of either 3, 8, or 15. Probably rounded to which number is closer.Hey OldTrees, let's try something audacious, more audacious than :rainbow birds.What is the core suggestion? The card was merely a tool/means of making your core suggestion. What was that suggestion?
Remember this (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=40742.0)? As a spell it wasn't that useful. What if it turned into a permanent that affected every creature | only your creatures? How much would it cost then? Would an upkeep cost be useful to it? Should it bring the atk to the closest "magical" number or just bump it to the next highest magical number?
Magic number buff/adrenaline synergy valueSynergy with adrenaline/green nymph, a quicker boost of damage to your creatures, probably weakening your opponent's creatures.That was the tool. What was the suggestion? What was the purpose that being able to set the attack to 3, 8, 15 helps achieve?Make all creatures | only your creatures attacks into the magical number of either 3, 8, or 15. Probably rounded to which number is closer.Hey OldTrees, let's try something audacious, more audacious than :rainbow birds.What is the core suggestion? The card was merely a tool/means of making your core suggestion. What was that suggestion?
Remember this (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=40742.0)? As a spell it wasn't that useful. What if it turned into a permanent that affected every creature | only your creatures? How much would it cost then? Would an upkeep cost be useful to it? Should it bring the atk to the closest "magical" number or just bump it to the next highest magical number?
Something I kinda wanna do, because the element is close to being capable of a 'pure mage' deck, is some sort of long-lasting :darkness spell or permanent, that builds power over time and can be released for a powerful effect.1)builds power over time and can be released for a powerful effect.
I've had...Limited success, in that while I've made the idea, it mechanically fits better in other elements, besides, the only 'thematic' tie, is to the idea of a villian having some sort of 'doomsday' device or artifact...
Anyhow, musing aside, here's the alternate versions:
1. Consumes :fire quanta per turn, activate ability to sacrifice it, drain all :fire quanta and do damage to opponent equal to all :fire quanta absorbed.
2. Consumes :death quanta per turn, activate ability to sacrifice it, doing damage to opponent equal to death counters+ :death quanta absorbed.
I'm trying to think of a way to add :darkness flavor to this spell, but the best thing I have is some sort of 'gain counters when you drain quanta from opponent' or something like that...Not so good. Maybe 'drain life'? Any ideas, OldTrees?
Hrm...Manipulat-oooooh.... :D :D :DInteresting ideas.
Shadow Army... Perhaps roughly 5 :darkness|4 :darkness
Copy all creatures in one row on opponent's side of the field. The copies vanish (provides death effects) after 1 turn.
Or possibly:
Treacherous summoning- 2 :darkness | 4 :darkness spell (creates effect grapic like Sant or Silence on yourself)
The next creature you summon uses :rainbow quanta from the opponent.
Maybe even:
Mind looping 2 :darkness | 1 :darkness spell
Add a copy of the last card opponent has drawn to his/her hand. (Yes, this can be crossed with Nightmare!)
Some new ideas for darkness. I was hoping to construct another damage spell, since between Drain life and Nightmare, :darkness Seems like the element that will most easily become able to use spells only to decimate the opponent, forgoing the use of creatures...But this works too I think.
What if all cards cost 1 type of quanta like :fire? How would the metagame be like then? What if all cards cost :fire but you could only have 1 copy of a card in a deck besides fire pillars? (ignore immolation, nova, QT for now)First case: Only 1 type of quanta exists.
OldTrees, which element needs a new card more than the others?None need a new card. All are functional.
Is SoFre balanced? How much should it cost if you were to create it?25% to deal +50% is an average of +12.5%Shield bypass is +2. SoFre is +.25
Double damage is +6. 1.5 damage is probably +4.5. SoFre is +1.125
Cloak is +3. Protecting only creatures is probably +1.5. SoFre is +.375
That gets me 1.75 quanta. Is that equivalent to the 3 :rainbow cost it has now? How do I factor in whole field affection? How do I factor in stacking? How do I factor in airborne only?
Hey, I posted a restart (excluding health) card idea for time here a while ago.Unupped is similar to Fiber Jar from Yuigoh. I am not saying you borrowed the idea. I am merely making the comparision.
I recently posted this idea in Level 0 with a different upgrade concept:
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,42437.0.html
Thoughts?
Compact Guard (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,42305.msg528617.html#msg528617) has been shown to have balancing difficulties regarding facing a mono-deck with a different mark or similar decks that rely on the mark as a source to fuel low-costing cards/abilities but not the majority of the deck itself. Does +1 cost help resolve this issue or do I need to consider other balance measures?The +1 cost would delay the playing of the shield. If it is a problem then it would be a problem due to the lockdown capability. Delaying the playing of the shield would only be effective at the point that the shield might/might not be too late. This would render it much less useful against all other decks.
Had some ideas yesterday.Sacrificing a card per attack is very expensive. Based on how people reacted to the initial Flooding (Absorb :water :water :water). A card per attack would have a similar problem. Aka the upkeep cost is probably too high.
A creature that is very efficient, but requires sacrificing a card from your hand (or perhaps top card of deck?) to attack. What should stats and cost be?
A permanent that damages any player for X damage if a player doesn't play a card during their turn. How much should X be? How much should cost be? Is this a forced combo with silence?
A permanent or spell that heals the user for X hp each time their opponent plays a card. Good idea? Half-good idea?
What if you chose to activate it? It has high stats and cheap cost, but you need to activate it's ability that costs 0 quanta and says something like "Discard a card from your hand (or maybe the top of your deck). Attack"Had some ideas yesterday.Sacrificing a card per attack is very expensive. Based on how people reacted to the initial Flooding (Absorb :water :water :water). A card per attack would have a similar problem. Aka the upkeep cost is probably too high.
A creature that is very efficient, but requires sacrificing a card from your hand (or perhaps top card of deck?) to attack. What should stats and cost be?
A permanent that damages any player for X damage if a player doesn't play a card during their turn. How much should X be? How much should cost be? Is this a forced combo with silence?
A permanent or spell that heals the user for X hp each time their opponent plays a card. Good idea? Half-good idea?
It would be a combo with Silence and/or Quanta Denial. It would also be used to cause the opponent to play cards slower. It would have a low-medium cost (3-5). The damage would probably be around 5 but get input from the community.
Healing per card played would act like Healing per turn. In most cases it would be redundant with current Regeneration.
Having it be an activation cost would not be much of an improvement. Although it would be necessary to reduce the vulnerability to adrenaline.What if you chose to activate it? It has high stats and cheap cost, but you need to activate it's ability that costs 0 quanta and says something like "Discard a card from your hand (or maybe the top of your deck). Attack"Had some ideas yesterday.Sacrificing a card per attack is very expensive. Based on how people reacted to the initial Flooding (Absorb :water :water :water). A card per attack would have a similar problem. Aka the upkeep cost is probably too high.
A creature that is very efficient, but requires sacrificing a card from your hand (or perhaps top card of deck?) to attack. What should stats and cost be?
A permanent that damages any player for X damage if a player doesn't play a card during their turn. How much should X be? How much should cost be? Is this a forced combo with silence?
A permanent or spell that heals the user for X hp each time their opponent plays a card. Good idea? Half-good idea?
It would be a combo with Silence and/or Quanta Denial. It would also be used to cause the opponent to play cards slower. It would have a low-medium cost (3-5). The damage would probably be around 5 but get input from the community.
Healing per card played would act like Healing per turn. In most cases it would be redundant with current Regeneration.
Only 5? That seems really little, considering how it affects both players and is worse than a minor phoenix or lava golem.
Hm, okay.
Why do I feel SoI is a forced combo card?
What should be done about a card that is more powerful for its cost yet still UP?
Something like 3 :underworld for 8|4 and 0: discard a card to attack. Is that balanced?Yes. 8 attack would probably be balanced.
Well what about a comparison?
Berserk field
*does direct damage
*applies to both players
*only applies when a player plays no cards
* :underworld
*can combo with silence/denial
SoV
*permanent damage
*only applies to the opponent and happens every turn
* :rainbow
A card that's more powerful for cost but also UP is a hypothetical example. Please ignore the forced combo issues that arise from the following example.
Magical potato 2 :underworld "Target antlion gains +10/+10". This card is more powerful than its cost, and would most likely be OP and OU, so it would require a nerf. What about something like this though?
Magical tomato 1 :underworld "Target antlion gains +2/+4 and momentum". This card is more powerful than its cost, but would it be OU or OP? Would that warrant a nerf?
How can i accurately estimate the strength of this mechanism (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,42531.msg529834.html#msg529834), and thus deduce the cost it should have?Cloak is usually used to prevent targeting. (Because it is hard to hide actual information from veterans) In this manner it is similar to a temporary mass Quint. Your suggestion is better at hiding information.* But does not prevent targeting.
Do you think this precise mechanism has been suggested before? (note the fundamental difference with the "cloak target thing" mechanism)
Should it be able to hide the colored bars aswell?
How would a SoSa disloyalty penalty be changed to a loyalty bonus? Perhaps lose less hp if mark is :death?Add an optional* sacrifice to heal some of the paid hp. [death trigger]
Why exactly is "do something super good/bad to random player" a bad idea? Wwhat if the something good/bad had a 60-40 split of percentages as opposed to a 50-50 one? What exactly, in your words, makes ese huge luck dependent game swingers a bad idea?People value merit. A victory feels more satisfying if it was you that won rather than luck that won because it does not reflect on your character. Likewise a defeat feels worse when you lost to luck rather than to a good play because you might have won if not for bad luck.
Consider me back. I would like to revisit the Blood mechanic where cost = player HP. What should be taken into consideration?One starts with hp available to spend. This is similar to starting with cards to spend.
Something that came to mind: If you're doing a 'blood' series or element, something that could balance it, is 'blood pillars' that work by reducing the HP cost of any 'blood' element card by 1. I figure that to prohibit the use of this in rainbows, the HP costs would be rather significant. Ex: something like say, a Gnome Rider would cost maybe 5-7 HP, meaning that playing blood cards without blood pillars will suck you dry very quickly.Blood will not be an Element (it will not have a quanta pool). It might be a Pseudoelement (a series with an elemental theme but no quanta pool). However it is likely to only be an alternate cost mechanic (cards using hp costs without an elemental theme).
I'm curious what you have in mind Emerald...Something I like the idea of is that the 'blood' element is fairly powerful, to compensate for the sheer speed gained by casting from HP.
Pseudoelement? Or perhaps something that could fit into various elements in it's own way?
Like, a :darkness card, could have a Blood cost to grant a creature Vampirism, or a :life spell/permanent might allow you to summon Creatures with HP replacing quanta.
There's even just basic 'you may lose X HP to summon this creature instead of paying it's quanta cost', or perhaps a 'lesser upkeep' which might read like this 'pay X quanta per turn, or lose X HP' These mechanics could be used to balance out weaker than normal creatures, or justify an abnormally powerful one.
Fitting Blood creature/ability costs into the current 12 elements should be pretty easy. A notable example that is almost the exact same is the introduction of Phyrexian mana into Magic: the Gathering. The designers used a slightly different symbol, but still the same color. http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/arcana/686 (http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/arcana/686)
That link shows an example from MtG, where the "Blood" mechanic is in effect on a black card.
In addition, as a kind of spin-off of this idea, I'm proposing a "Bloodthirsty" passive skill. Similar to vampire, this ability heals the creature whenever it deals damage. I suppose this would be better on high-HP, low attack darkness or death creatures.
Hrm...Something else I considered, was the idea of various ideas from the '13th element Contest.' being made into the 'select a class' idea, you select a '13' element, that alters your abilities...Drop the word element. It has a specific meaning.
Blood elements would have some amount of extra HP and the ability to use HP to replace quanta.
Void element, could perhaps attack the Max HP and quanta generation of the opponent...
I forget the rest, but it's just another addition to the ideas already in waiting...
There seem to be a fair number of cards using "HP" (player's hit points) as a cost mechanic instead of (or even in addition to) quanta. I've had a few ideas myself, but before fleshing them out, I wanted to get your opinion:Should it scale linearly? Nothing scales linearly. However some sections of the function can be approximated with simpler (possibly linear) functions.
How do "HP" costs fit in with the current Cost Theory paradigm / schemes?
To be a bit more specific:
- How much :underworld is 1 HP worth.
- Should this value scale linearly?
- Should the scale be different for skill / ability costs than spell costs?
- Should HP costs be put in the "Cost" position next to quanta if both HP and Quanta costs are used or should the HP cost always be moved to the card text if a quanta cost is also needed?
Do you feel it is appropriate for elements to counter themselves? What are some ingame examples of self-element countering?Yes.
I don't know. It usually gives more quanta than it destroys. However it reduces quanta quality.What is quanta quality? What cards increase/reduce quanta quality?
Discord scrambles quanta. This lowers the total value of the quanta to the user.I don't know. It usually gives more quanta than it destroys. However it reduces quanta quality.What is quanta quality? What cards increase/reduce quanta quality?
Has the idea of a permanent that does damage (but isn't a weapon) been done before? Like a creature, only unaffected by CC, and can be deflagged or stolen.Do you mean something with an ability like " :fire :fire : Deal 5 damage to target player"? That sounds good, as it will require players to focus on all areas of the field instead of just the creature slots.
Has the idea of a permanent that does damage (but isn't a weapon) been done before? Like a creature, only unaffected by CC, and can be deflagged or stolen.Yes. (Beyond SoV) I forget what though. [Original but not of high quality in the default form]
Has an idea of stealing an enemy permanent in exchange for them getting a random permanent of yours been done before?
What about a creature that instantly disappears when targetted (makes it easier to kill, not fractal-able)?
Are these good and original ideas?
I also have an idea for a mechanic, called "Destiny Bond". A creature with the active, one-time use skill Destiny Bond can target a creature. When either creature dies, the other dies as well.Reminds me of Puppet: http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,6321.0.html
That idea is pretty similar to Puppet. However, mine is an actual activated ability, and the only time the creatures display linkage is when one of them dies (e.g. poison, damage, etc. aren't shared between creatures). I feel that Elements needs more one-time activation abilities, for some diversity among "growing" creatures.I also have an idea for a mechanic, called "Destiny Bond". A creature with the active, one-time use skill Destiny Bond can target a creature. When either creature dies, the other dies as well.Reminds me of Puppet: http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,6321.0.html
I think there is a more recent (my time not yours) version that is even closer.
That idea is pretty similar to Puppet. However, mine is an actual activated ability, and the only time the creatures display linkage is when one of them dies (e.g. poison, damage, etc. aren't shared between creatures). I feel that Elements needs more one-time activation abilities, for some diversity among "growing" creatures.I also have an idea for a mechanic, called "Destiny Bond". A creature with the active, one-time use skill Destiny Bond can target a creature. When either creature dies, the other dies as well.Reminds me of Puppet: http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,6321.0.html
I think there is a more recent (my time not yours) version that is even closer.
I was not able to locate the more similar version.That idea is pretty similar to Puppet. However, mine is an actual activated ability, and the only time the creatures display linkage is when one of them dies (e.g. poison, damage, etc. aren't shared between creatures). I feel that Elements needs more one-time activation abilities, for some diversity among "growing" creatures.I also have an idea for a mechanic, called "Destiny Bond". A creature with the active, one-time use skill Destiny Bond can target a creature. When either creature dies, the other dies as well.Reminds me of Puppet: http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,6321.0.html
I think there is a more recent (my time not yours) version that is even closer.
Not card related, but more of logic related."You can prove "X does not exist" false by showing the existence of X. How do you prove "X does not exist" or "X exists"?"
You can prove "X does not exist" false by showing the existence of X. How do you prove "X does not exist" or "X exists"?
How do we define something as existing?
How come humans are not able to view everything objectively?
| Exists | Does not exist | |
| Evidence for existence | A | C |
| Evidence against existence | B | D |
thoughts http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,42812.0.htmlBalanced but needs to enter play later in the game. This should enter around the same time as Fire Storm. A 5 :earth casting cost should be a decent goal to balance towards.
Estimated Oldtrees Greetings, I'm planning on posting a permanent card, but do i not want to risk having a card ever created before, so I need the help of your memory, and also your comment of the balance.I do not know of an earlier weapon version. However I would warn you that the ability to kill a dragon is very situation. What frequency of matches will you face a dragon?
the card is a sword of 6 :fire, 6 damage, the player will have the option of paying 3 :fire, the sword is not caused damage this turn, but the target dragon suffers damage, is a sword that kills the dragon, I know of some earlier attempts, but not know if it was this way.
Any thoughts?Coincidentally the only "negative status effect" that is not quantified is Gravity Pull. However there are many suggested negative status effects that do not come in multiples (Pacify is an example). You should consider how it would handle these.
River Monster | River Behemoth (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,42758.0.html)
Any thoughts?Coincidentally the only "negative status effect" that is not quantified is Gravity Pull. However there are many suggested negative status effects that do not come in multiples (Pacify is an example). You should consider how it would handle these.
River Monster | River Behemoth (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,42758.0.html)
Infect is weak so removing 1 infection counter is weak.
Freeze and Delay come cheap in large quantities. So removing 1 turn is weak.
Probably not. The problem is the core of the card is a semivanilla ability (an ability weak enough to not affect the cost of the card).Any thoughts?Coincidentally the only "negative status effect" that is not quantified is Gravity Pull. However there are many suggested negative status effects that do not come in multiples (Pacify is an example). You should consider how it would handle these.
River Monster | River Behemoth (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,42758.0.html)
Infect is weak so removing 1 infection counter is weak.
Freeze and Delay come cheap in large quantities. So removing 1 turn is weak.
Would lowering the cost of the ability by one be sufficient?
Comments on Tumult (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,42839.msg534224.html#msg534224)?Cheaper and weaker than Steal.
Is the idea of compensatory PC (like tumult) a good idea that could be explored more?
Should it destroy or steal a permanent? What compensatory response would be good?
For example, a 3|2 :light card that destroys target permanent, owner gains twice the quanta cost of the card as HP. Good idea?
What about a Grave Robber | Relic Hunter creature with 0|10 stats and a passive ability which makes him to gain +1|-1 every time a Relic is played?Would playing it without Relics be UP? If so then it would only be played with Relics. This is a forced combo indicating the card has much lower versatility than cards in the game. One way to improve the design would be to give it at least 2 other options for triggering its effect.
Would you consider a creature that gets stronger when the opponent plays permenants soft PC?I would consider it a counter to permanents. It might be a tier more indirect than soft PC. However it still would be a counter to permanents and thus fill a similar role.
can this be balanced by cost or is mechanic adjustment needed? http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,42873.0.htmlIt can be balanced by cost. I would suggest playtesting against a (unknown to you) deck that is not warned about the effect.
Has the idea of causing a creature's attack to be redirected randomly been done before or have potential? Should it be a spell (one use, perhaps last more than 1 turn and cause confuse status), permanent (must cast each turn) or creature? If confuse is a % chance to attack something random, what should it be?I am sure there have been creatures that attack randomly and I think there have been cards to make creatures attack randomly.
Light card called Construct that copies a target permanent and gives you a "light version". Changes costs and generation to light.Why Light?
For example you targeted an Owls Eye and get a version that costs :light to use. Targeted pillars generate :light
Thoughts on this and possible costs.
What is the difference between doing 1 damage to all creatures on the field (t-storm), making all creatures on the field take 1 damage per turn (plague), and repeatable, once a turn 1 damage to all the field (basically if t-storm was a permanent) in terms of cost/balance?1 damage takes effect faster than 1 damage per turn but deals less damage.
If I want to make a creature that gains attack every time one of your permanents is destroyed, how much attack should it gain? I'm thinking between 3-5.
How much is taking up a shield slot worth? What about weapon slot? What's the difference between two permanents with identical everythings, but one is a weapon and the other is just a permanent?Taking a unique slot is usually estimated as a -3 casting cost.
Would a weapon that acted like fire shield (1 damage to all opponent's creatures) be better with just that effect or should it have to be activated each turn? How much? I'm thinking of 2 :underworld per turn if it needs an upkeep. If it affects your own creatures it gets the standard -2 cost right?
Has the idea of a card that brings bad things upon its owner but has the ability to switch sides been done (sort of like cymothoa, only you need to activate its ability to switch sides)?
What would be a good negative parasitic effect? Cymothoa's was deal damage each card played, but what about just passively adding poison onto the owner? How much poison per turn is good? 1? 2? 3?
Any non-immaterial permanent is target-able. Animated weapons are technically creatures, so not them. I think the median cost for permanents is lower than creatures so... 6|5 or 5|4.Light card called Construct that copies a target permanent and gives you a "light version". Changes costs and generation to light.Why Light?
For example you targeted an Owls Eye and get a version that costs :light to use. Targeted pillars generate :light
Thoughts on this and possible costs.
Parallel Universe costs slightly less than most copied creatures.
What would (would not can) be copied?
It is slightly more useful than just copying a permanent. It might deserve a +0-1 casting cost after this calculation.
Photon would not be targeted by Parallel Universe. A Pillar will not be targeted by this effect.Any non-immaterial permanent is target-able. Animated weapons are technically creatures, so not them. I think the median cost for permanents is lower than creatures so... 6|5 or 5|4.Light card called Construct that copies a target permanent and gives you a "light version". Changes costs and generation to light.Why Light?
For example you targeted an Owls Eye and get a version that costs :light to use. Targeted pillars generate :light
Thoughts on this and possible costs.
Parallel Universe costs slightly less than most copied creatures.
What would (would not can) be copied?
It is slightly more useful than just copying a permanent. It might deserve a +0-1 casting cost after this calculation.
Interesting choice in Light, eh? I think it would give Light a way to match Permanents, without having direct PC.
Also give a small, if not circumstantial boost to Crusaders and their potential in a mono light deck. They'd be able to use weapon skills from other elements.
Light is also thematically opposite of Dark, so instead of steal... copy.
That's completely circumstantial. Often, there would be a choice of a few permanents. If the only type of permanent they own are pillars, they might be targeted. But the advantage taken will always be given to what would help my strategy most in that moment. An exception would be for a deck you know well or understand... then you could wait out for something more helpful if you know it's coming.Photon would not be targeted by Parallel Universe. A Pillar will not be targeted by this effect.
Any non-immaterial permanent is target-able. Animated weapons are technically creatures, so not them. I think the median cost for permanents is lower than creatures so... 6|5 or 5|4.
Interesting choice in Light, eh? I think it would give Light a way to match Permanents, without having direct PC.
Also give a small, if not circumstantial boost to Crusaders and their potential in a mono light deck. They'd be able to use weapon skills from other elements.
Light is also thematically opposite of Dark, so instead of steal... copy.
Which permanents would be targeted? Let your competitive side at this question. What would maximize the advantage taken?
Comments on Sea Devil (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,42961.0.html)?4 :water + 1 card +5 attack -> 5 poison
And a tentative 40%|60% on gap (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,42887.msg534902.html#msg534902)?
My question is targeted at getting you to make an accurate estimate based on the incentives of the person building a deck with this card.That's completely circumstantial. Often, there would be a choice of a few permanents. If the only type of permanent they own are pillars, they might be targeted. But the advantage taken will always be given to what would help my strategy most in that moment. An exception would be for a deck you know well or understand... then you could wait out for something more helpful if you know it's coming.Photon would not be targeted by Parallel Universe. A Pillar will not be targeted by this effect.
Any non-immaterial permanent is target-able. Animated weapons are technically creatures, so not them. I think the median cost for permanents is lower than creatures so... 6|5 or 5|4.
Interesting choice in Light, eh? I think it would give Light a way to match Permanents, without having direct PC.
Also give a small, if not circumstantial boost to Crusaders and their potential in a mono light deck. They'd be able to use weapon skills from other elements.
Light is also thematically opposite of Dark, so instead of steal... copy.
Which permanents would be targeted? Let your competitive side at this question. What would maximize the advantage taken?
If you want examples of cards that I might target: Golden Hourglass, Mindgate, Empathetic Bond, Dissipation Shield, Pulverizer (if they can't use it next turn), ... etc.
Off topic: the art for this card would be the image of the card you copied with a transparent light symbol over it.
My question is targeted at getting you to make an accurate estimate based on the incentives of the person building a deck with this card.
Your answer was permanents around 4-5 quanta + 1 card in cost. Compare this to creatures of 8-10 quanta + 1 card for Parallel Universe.
7 quanta + 1 card is to 9 quanta + 1 card as X quanta + 1 card is to 4.5 quanta + 1 card.
What is X? About 3 quanta.
Unupped or upped version? If attack gain is changed to 6, what should the poison gain be changed to?Comments on Sea Devil (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,42961.0.html)?4 :water + 1 card +5 attack -> 5 poison
1 :death + 1 card -> 2 poison
4 :water + 1 card + 5 poison -> +5 attack
3 :light + 1 card -> +3 attack
6 attack would be closer to balanced.
Ah, you wanted the math. Well...No. I wanted to differentiate between the median cost of permanents and the median cost of permanents that would be combo'd with this card.
The upgrade should probably be a cheaper version of the unupped. You don't want to replace Deadly Poison.Unupped or upped version? If attack gain is changed to 6, what should the poison gain be changed to?Comments on Sea Devil (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,42961.0.html)?4 :water + 1 card +5 attack -> 5 poison
1 :death + 1 card -> 2 poison
4 :water + 1 card + 5 poison -> +5 attack
3 :light + 1 card -> +3 attack
6 attack would be closer to balanced.
I seem to be running into difficulties regarding [Element] Crowned Pillar (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,42976.0.html)'s use (unupped). How can I alter the card so that the unupped provides a benefit like the upped would?Upgraded costs: 3 draws + 0 quanta for 3 quanta per turn. (2 PC and 2 deckslots)
So +6/+0 for +5 poison counters as ability of both creatures, and a 4|3 :water casting cost sound all right?
If hp were doubled, all mentions of atk, damage (including poison) and hp (including creature hp) would be doubled.So +6/+0 for +5 poison counters as ability of both creatures, and a 4|3 :water casting cost sound all right?
What would happen to the game by itself if players started with 200hp? Or drew two cards per turn instead of 1?
Erm, you still haven't really confirmed that if you thought +6/+0 for +5poison and a 4|3 cost was a balanced idea or not.Sorry. I thought I had.
Thoughts on the following?1/3 of Cloak + a 1:6 :darkness :light Rustler as a permanent.
Moon Dial | Luna Dial (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,42934.0.html)
Monsoon | Hurricane (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,42783.0.html)
Also, what do you think of the following cost requirement for the unupped Crowned Pillar (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,42976.0.html)'s effect?
"Send a pillar to the bottom of your deck to play this card."
What should be the initial cost of a creature that starts with 0atk, and every turn gains 1atk per turn? What about 2? Or 3? Is the formula for cost linear or exponential? What is the formula?The formula for the cost would be linear since the average attack per turn would have a linear difference.
Has there a card made that gains 1atk for every time the owner gets hit in a turn, and then resets every turn? How much would that cost? (I would hazard a guess that it would averagely do 4 more damage than its basic attack)
Would a temporary weapon be a good idea? It would be a cost efficient weapon that disappeared in 2|3 turns, but by paying quanta, the user could return the weapon either to their deck or hand, so they can keep the weapon card.
Deflag (destroy any permanent) is 3|2 :underworld. How much would a card that only destroyed your opponent's weapon or shield cost? 2|1 :underworld?
Would it be OP if a creature could cast nightmare on itself with 1-2 damage while in hand?I did not understand what you meant by "with" and "while in hand".
Would it be OP if a creature could cast nightmare on itself with 1-2 damage while in hand?I'll assume what you mean is a creature that can nightmare itself, as well as causing 1-2 damage in the hand of the owner. Yes, I'd say that's OP. Moomoose made a card that nightmared itself when targetted, but the additional psuedo-poison is too much.
Definitely no. Especially with that cheap cost. A card that can nightmare itself indefinitely is already pretty OP, and with the extra 5-ish damage per turn, it's definitely OP.Furballdn ninja'd me.
Giving the opponent nightmares is too powerful an effect for a player to be able to inflict once per turn.But if it was just upon entering play?
Still OP. A sudden burst of nightmare would bring around 4 (guessing) cards into their hand. Assuming they discard one the first turn, you basically just gave them 3 poison counters. Add more nightmares or fractal and it's an OP combo.Giving the opponent nightmares is too powerful an effect for a player to be able to inflict once per turn.But if it was just upon entering play?
Then what if they were given the ability to play them by having a :rainbow cost? Enough if a cost that there would still be a bit of temporary poison-like damage, say, 5 or 6?Still OP. A sudden burst of nightmare would bring around 4 (guessing) cards into their hand. Assuming they discard one the first turn, you basically just gave them 3 poison counters. Add more nightmares or fractal and it's an OP combo.Giving the opponent nightmares is too powerful an effect for a player to be able to inflict once per turn.But if it was just upon entering play?
They play the card, your hand becomes nightmared. Opens up a large can of worms and just nightmare duels over and over. Not exactly fun.Then what if they were given the ability to play them by having a :rainbow cost? Enough if a cost that there would still be a bit of temporary poison-like damage, say, 5 or 6?Still OP. A sudden burst of nightmare would bring around 4 (guessing) cards into their hand. Assuming they discard one the first turn, you basically just gave them 3 poison counters. Add more nightmares or fractal and it's an OP combo.Giving the opponent nightmares is too powerful an effect for a player to be able to inflict once per turn.But if it was just upon entering play?
It would still be a darkness card.
A creature that cost :rainbow and cast nightmare on itself when played would be used with Mitosis for permanent draw lock for a maximum of 3 :underworld per turn (higher and SoR would be used).Then what if they were given the ability to play them by having a :rainbow cost? Enough if a cost that there would still be a bit of temporary poison-like damage, say, 5 or 6?Still OP. A sudden burst of nightmare would bring around 4 (guessing) cards into their hand. Assuming they discard one the first turn, you basically just gave them 3 poison counters. Add more nightmares or fractal and it's an OP combo.Giving the opponent nightmares is too powerful an effect for a player to be able to inflict once per turn.But if it was just upon entering play?
It would still be a darkness card.
Concept of dealing damage while in the hand is good, but abusable with nightmare. My advice would be "take 1 damage when this card enters your hand" as a passive. Without the constant damage, it can be balanced much more easily.Nightmare friendly creatures:
Are these (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,43074.0.html) thematically and mechanically executed well? Any advice for the things I'm missing?Naegling will be played without shields. It will be similar to Momentum with a lower Atk but unchanged damage. Examine Animate Weapon + Atk buff combos for problems.
Even a 1 time use nightmare skill would be OP?How exploitable would it be with Mitosis + SoR?
Glass Knight | Stained Glass Knight (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,43035.0.html)A 6|1 would be worth around 4-6 :underworld + 1 card.
People initially felt the 'anti-Nova' casting penalty [spoilered version] was initially too much and said it was not needed to balance the card.
Now that I've removed that penalty, I've started experiencing the opposite opinion (quantum drain helps to balance it out in speedbow).
Do you feel the drain penalty is necessary, or does the 'Fragile' (dies when targeted) ability balance it enough?
In looking at Glass Knight, I can't help but notice a fairly strong 'anti-rainbow' sentiment in the disscussions...Kinda makes me wonder if we should consider the idea of 'mark enhancement' akin to what the Shards do for card suggestions, as a potential method to say 'this card is not meant for rainbow use'. That said, that'd probably be better off used in elements that see minor rainbow involvement, as opposed to 'essential' rainbow elements like :entropy or :water.Mark enhancement promotes MarkBows. It is not a signal for "this card is not meant for rainbow use".
However antinova is a bit direct. Subtlety might be received better.Do you have any suggestions for more subtle effects than 'Drain/convert X quanta'?
At lower costs, :underworld and :rainbow are closer. What if it were cheaper and weaker?However antinova is a bit direct. Subtlety might be received better.Do you have any suggestions for more subtle effects than 'Drain/convert X quanta'?
How large should the card pool be before we start considering adding Unique/Legendary cards to the card pool?
Hrm...Legendary cards could be rather controversial to make. On the one hand, it has to be more worth the investment, and easier to use in general, to justify the enhanced limitation of copies per deck, then again, having less then 6 or so means that it's less likly for a legendary card to be a 'dead draw'...At lower costs, :underworld and :rainbow are closer. What if it were cheaper and weaker?However antinova is a bit direct. Subtlety might be received better.Do you have any suggestions for more subtle effects than 'Drain/convert X quanta'?
How large should the card pool be before we start considering adding Unique/Legendary cards to the card pool?
The issue is not related to the size of the card pool. It is related to the limit on copies per deck.
Perhaps a 'legendary' card could be a stronger varient of a normal card, and fall under that card for the 6 per deck limit, as well as the further limit of 1 legendary per deck. An Example:That idea sounds pretty interesting. On a slight tangent from this, would Elements be able to introduce double upgrades? I don't know how card art would change on the second upgrade, but I think (since several people have complained that upgrades don't give enough of a benefit in many cases) that it would make the game be more interesting and quicker.
Spark, Ball lightning, Thunder Wisp:
cost: 0 ( :aether)
stats: 10|0
...Maybe this system would be better off implemented as a 'legendary slot', which would make it much more newcomer friendly, as it would cut out a great deal of grinding to get the card...
A card being legendary does not affect its balance. It merely limits the amount used per deck.Hrm...Legendary cards could be rather controversial to make. On the one hand, it has to be more worth the investment, and easier to use in general, to justify the enhanced limitation of copies per deck, then again, having less then 6 or so means that it's less likly for a legendary card to be a 'dead draw'...At lower costs, :underworld and :rainbow are closer. What if it were cheaper and weaker?However antinova is a bit direct. Subtlety might be received better.Do you have any suggestions for more subtle effects than 'Drain/convert X quanta'?
How large should the card pool be before we start considering adding Unique/Legendary cards to the card pool?
The issue is not related to the size of the card pool. It is related to the limit on copies per deck.
Perhaps a 'legendary' card could be a stronger varient of a normal card, and fall under that card for the 6 per deck limit, as well as the further limit of 1 legendary per deck. An Example:
Spark, Ball lightning, Thunder Wisp:
cost: 0 ( :aether)
stats: 10|0
...Maybe this system would be better off implemented as a 'legendary slot', which would make it much more newcomer friendly, as it would cut out a great deal of grinding to get the card...
We do not want to widen the gap between vets and new players. A 2nd upgrade would do this.Perhaps a 'legendary' card could be a stronger varient of a normal card, and fall under that card for the 6 per deck limit, as well as the further limit of 1 legendary per deck. An Example:That idea sounds pretty interesting. On a slight tangent from this, would Elements be able to introduce double upgrades? I don't know how card art would change on the second upgrade, but I think (since several people have complained that upgrades don't give enough of a benefit in many cases) that it would make the game be more interesting and quicker.
Spark, Ball lightning, Thunder Wisp:
cost: 0 ( :aether)
stats: 10|0
...Maybe this system would be better off implemented as a 'legendary slot', which would make it much more newcomer friendly, as it would cut out a great deal of grinding to get the card...
What about a Permanent which gives +1|+1 or +2|+1 to all burrowed creatures (works like Nightfall|Eclipse, but buffs :earth creatures instead, in case of a burrowed Devourer|Pest the bonuses gained by Nightfall and this new permanent don't stack)? Is it a good idea? Has it been suggested before?I do not think a Nightfall for burrowed creatures has been suggested before. However it is just another Nightfall. In this case choosing burrowed creatures is less versatile than choosing Earth creatures. (Nightfall and this could be allowed to stack)
OldTrees Greetings once again I need to know if a card has already been created previously. It would be a spell, would give a bonification for weapon, for example: the target weapon gets + 4 attack.I do not recall it being suggested before. However, is it versatile enough?
Can you explain to me the rules and gameplay of MtG in a brief paragraph using only EtG terms?
Also, vangelios, the idea has been suggested. It's called Temper and was a fire card.
Can you explain to me the rules and gameplay of MtG in a brief paragraph using only EtG terms?1 paragraph? Impossible. Here is a broad incomplete outline in 3 paragraphs.
I have no idea how MtG works so I will try and think with the best of my EtG knowledge.Quote from: kirantIt's the ability that's scary. In Magic, you get summoning power from Mana. Creatures that ramp up this speed are generally popular.Ah. I had first assumed it was a vanilla creature. I see now that it is a mana accelerating creature.
A popular "Rare" creature is Birds of Paradise. It's a 0/1 Flying for 1 Green Mana with the ability of "Tap: Add one of any colour". It's highly sought after in multicolour green decks because it can help with ANY colour. Old Sliver decks often ran them heavily since their best cards are separated between different colours (but were deadly when used)
(http://elementscommunity.org/images/Cards/Dragonfly.png)
comes to mind, but so does
(http://elementscommunity.org/images/Cards/Devourer.png)QuoteWhat makes Gemhide Sliver terrifying is that it gives this to all creatures of the "Sliver" type. In a Sliver deck, every Sliver card gives bonuses to every Sliver. So you can see how this works: Gemhide comes out. Next turn, it and the two land required to summon it, in addition to the land you just played, gives you 4 mana to the opponent's 3 (you can only play 1 land a turn). So let's say you play two 2 CMC Slivers (Muscle Sliver, which strengthens them, and Heart Sliver, which gives everything Haste so it can move he turn of summoning). Next turn, you have 7 available mana to work with in opposition to your opponent's 4. And if you get enough Slivers out, your creatures will be stronger (Generally, if you can't kill a few off early, you'll have groupings of 5-6 of 5/5 to 6/6 strength creatures with multiple abilities mobbing you). And if you take a look at all their legendaries (such as the aforementioned Sliver Legion), you can see they also require 1 of each colour to cast. Imagine how broken it is and how much of a threat it is if you can pull out an end game powered creature on turn 3. That makes everything else you own stronger. And survives a lot of basic removal cards.
Elements lacks any exponential attack creatures. The closest I can think of are scarab and eclipse.
(http://elementscommunity.org/images/Cards/Eclipse.png)(http://elementscommunity.org/images/Cards/EliteScarab.png)QuoteIn my own deck, I run cards specifically BECAUSE of Gemhide Sliver. I have cards that I have no ability to effectively utilize unless one of 12 cards (8 special lands) is out. Gemhide are four of them and are the ones any opponent decides WILL die if they see it on the field because it effectively turns every creature on my side (which can spring into the 4-6 creature range quick) into a creature of immense popularity and power. In addition to kicking your ass in combat. So again, it's not exactly what Gemhide Sliver will do to you...it's what Gemhide Sliver does to my side that makes them a major threat.So specific counters? This is probably a big part where MtG and EtG are different. WHile specific counters do exist in EtG, there isn't a lot of "elemental hate" besides one specific card that counters the above mentioned devourer. This is because EtG has a relatively small cardbase (less than 200 I think) and MtG has what, thousands?
(http://elementscommunity.org/images/Cards/HolyFlash.png)QuoteThe two biggest concerns with Slivers have always been: 1) They are multicoloured and are restricted by your land and 2) They're slow to start. Gemhide Sliver fixes both since it's "any colour", not a specifically predefined one. A set Sliver army can't get stopped very easily. Not unless you use mass removal.So the biggest problem with them are their mana acceleration and flexibility?
Moomoose did a fire card for it. I'll find the link.OldTrees Greetings once again I need to know if a card has already been created previously. It would be a spell, would give a bonification for weapon, for example: the target weapon gets + 4 attack.I do not recall it being suggested before. However, is it versatile enough?
Can you explain to me the rules and gameplay of MtG in a brief paragraph using only EtG terms?@furball : Here's a detailed breakdown, if you need more info on it. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/MagicTheGathering)
At lower costs, :underworld and :rainbow are closer. What if it were cheaper and weaker?Glass Knight is intended to be a midhitter closer to role of GoTP, Puffer Fish, and Phoenix - I feel bringing it down to the scale of a 'small' creature might make step more into the area of creatures such as Giant Frog, Abyss Crawler, and Graviton Mercenary, which I'm trying to avoid because I don't want this card to suddenly replace them in a low-cost speedbow or mono-element rush.
A card being legendary does not affect its balance. It merely limits the amount used per deck.But doesn't the amount of cards used per deck play a role in it's balance, too? The less copies of a card you can use, the less of a chance you'll actually see this card used during the game (admittedly, this is somewhat luck-based, but since the luck revolves around the deck it's possible to manipulate the deck to some degree with cards that allow you to draw. ETG lacks 'search' cards but I would expect them to also play a role.)
Morning, Idea Guru. So I made some Mycelium (fancy mushroom) art:Creature healing is situational because few attempts to kill a creature give you a turn inbetween to respond with healing.(http://i.imgur.com/8Lzet.jpg)and I needed your insight into what would be thematically correct while also proper for the metagame as it is.
I was first going to have it heal 0 | 1 || 1 | 1 every turn, but the chat thought that was situational, similar to Guardian Angel.
Then I thought of simply draining the target creature of 1 hp every turn, but that's just poison all over again.
Life needs permanent control, right? So the latest idea I've been toying with is that it takes so many turns to destroy a targeted permanent. Yet toppling pillars isn't exactly what mushrooms do.
Any thoughts, good sir?
While :rainbow =/= :underworld I counted the other weapons like that for now since most would see use in mono decks. (You don't often see rainbow decks using them).Other weapons are usually used begrudgingly in mono decks when unupped. However this is a good point that might explain why they are considered UP. (cost being higher than it appears)
I am confused on why > is needed instead of =. Doesn't > mean greater than?
For example,
5 :aether + 1 card + permanent - weapon bonus = 3 :aether,
why do you say 2 :underworld < 0 instead of 2 :underworld = 0?
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?
full analyse please. http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,43247.0.htmlImagerie
Hey OldTrees. Haven't popped in here for a while.This is not a black and white issue.
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 (http://imageplay.net/img/m7Gbd226141/Anma.png) 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.
How would I go about balancing this (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,43354.0.html)?[using upgraded cards in calculations]
Grateful Oak (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,43448.0.html)Grateful Oak draws Grateful Oaks
Wise Ascendant (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,43446.0.html)
Focused Tinkerer (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,43447.0.html)
^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.)
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,43486.new.html#newThis cuts pillar production in half|thirds among other effects (momentum every other turn).
Analysis please?
It's been a while since I stepped in here...6 fused quanta is less expensive than 6 elemental quanta (the later has a predefined pool) however they are very close.
Could I get your thoughts on:
Glass Figurine | Glass Miniature
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,43176.0.html
Stem Celluloid | Stem Celluloid7|6 :aether + 1 card
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,43171.0.html
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,43537.0.htmlLeaving? No. Stepping down? Very likely.
OldTrees are you leaving? Say it ain't so!
Can I have your ideas so far on this (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,43432.msg1000576.html#msg1000576)?Seniority does not cause skill. At best seniority in card designers correlates to how often they have been corrected/criticized. I assume a similar lack of causation occurs for pvp skill.
Is element-->type voting the best way to vote? What would happen if crucible was separated by type and forge was separated by element?
Why are you stepping down? If you leave the position of idea guru, I don't think anyone can replace the void that will appear.
I haven't seen any concepts of time and healing, and I was thinking, why can't time elementals heal? Thematically they could literally reverse the time on their own bodies to when they weren't injured.
How much should a card cost that returns the user's hp to the amount of hp they had last time? I'm thinking around 5-6 :time.
What if it were targettable and could target the opponent?
Yeah. After thinking about the idea for a while, a one turn health return for the user would be akin to a more powerful sundial that only affects the opponent. Do you think the idea of reverting your opponent's health to how it was one turn ago has potential?Negating your damage and their healing for 1 turn is not normally useful. Usually if healing > damage then the stall deck has already started to ascend.
If I have something that is 3 cards + 1 :underworld, how much damage should it do per turn?
Is it possible that the stat values of creatures aren't worth integer costs? (1atk could be worth .75, 2atk could be worth 1, 3atk could be worth 2.5 and HP also be like that). This way, it'd make it so that an X+1|3 creature be worth more than just 1 :underworld than an X|3 creature due to rounding.
If you go by a vanilla creature having X-1 as cost, does this mean a 5|3 creature should cost 4 :underworld and a 20|3 creature should cost 19 :underwrold?
Cost theory...[Notes]
I believe Oldtree's method for this was something along the lines of offensive potential, survivability, and ability potential...
It couldn't handle one-off spells, and thus became a problem...
I unfortunatly learn from experience, and this isn't my forte, nor do I think I understand what would go into managing the idea factory...
But I think I could make, if nothing else, a 'Spell theory' that works alongside OldTree's 'Cost theory' while being seperate.
EDIT: I've come up with a theory of sorts, originally a 'Spell theory' but I think one that can envelop all types of cards.
Attack, Survival are creature specific traits.
Ability potential is maintained throughout spells, permanents, and creatures.
Now, this enables Spell to Creature comparisons, which work as thus:
Freeze is 1 :water to freeze target creature for three turns.
Whereas Artic Squid, costs 2 :water to use freeze, which makes Freeze the better option, but Artic Squid has the benefit of being repeat-castable (eternal?). This (eternal) effect comes at the price of being tied to a creature with relatively weak stats=1|2, so it can be destroyed by the defensive measure of CC.
This should enable balancing not only amongst creatures, or spells, but also creatures, spells and permanents.
Now, OldTrees, your counter?
What are your thoughts on the healing/draw ratio of Mending Pocketwatch | Mending Pocketwatch (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,41873.0.html)?Expected draws before healing is uses would be fairly constant so the ratio would be dependent on the cost.
opinion on impact pump | impact buckler?Solar Shield
What do you think of a :life permanent that added a Heal to the bottom of your deck when an allied creature died?I find the idea interesting, I've been wanting to do something like this, but :death has death effects and scavenger, so it was hard figuring out something that wouldn't seem more thematically fitting of :death instead of :life.
I don't have much to add other thanWhat do you think of a :life permanent that added a Heal to the bottom of your deck when an allied creature died?I find the idea interesting, I've been wanting to do something like this, but :death has death effects and scavenger, so it was hard figuring out something that wouldn't seem more thematically fitting of :death instead of :life.
Now as for balancing...
That's easier said then done: I suppose the first place to look for comparisons is :aether's mindgate, Shard of Serindipity, and Fractal, as well as possibly Eternity for the cost of anti-deckout.
Arctic Squid: Reusable Freeze for 2 :water that costs 3 :water + 1 card to play, has to wait 1 turn to Freeze, is a 2hp creature, and has 1 attack.Hrm...So the biggest issue with Spells, is that their effects are too varied to create a unifying 'balance table' like what creatures have. But that's my take on how to figure out the price of spells!
Freeze: One time Freeze for 1 :water + 1 card, no delay, no vulnerability, no attack.
Spells are one of the areas that I did not have a good enough technique/comparison list to create a cost theory.
I would love to see someone create the next generation of the cost theory (just as I did when I expanded on PhantomFox's).
Different spells have different exploitabilities. Some are highly exploitable when repeated (black hole, nightmare, freeze), and some are barely exploitable at all (most shields, aflatoxin, sky blitz). How would we factor this exploitability into the formula?How do we factor this in for Dimensional Shield?
I'm trying to find a thematic for a light card that heals you every time your opponent plays a card. Help?Something along the lines of gaining courage or something to face the outnumbered odds?
I'm trying to find a thematic for a light card that heals you every time your opponent plays a card. Help?
Alternatively Darkness has a large theme of using the opponent. Healing from cards they play would be up its alley.I'm trying to find a thematic for a light card that heals you every time your opponent plays a card. Help?
Does it have to be light? imo, light has too much healing. It could also work thematically in life, where if a creature is played then you get healed. (vitality).
Though if you do want it to be light, it could be something along the line of keeping order/justice.
How much is putting 3 poison on the opponent worth if it requires two cards?Deadly poison = 2 :death + 1 card + upgrade for 3 poison.
How much is putting 3 poison on the opponent worth if it requires two cards?Deadly poison = 2 :death + 1 card + upgrade for 3 poison.
If we assume 1 card = 2 :underworld,
2 cards + 2 :underworld = 3 poison
OP, UP, OU, and UUUsage is related to balance but not solely defined by balance. OPUU and UPOU cards tend to be cards with hidden strengths/weaknesses that cause people to inaccurately evaluate them. Alternatively they could appeal/repel the more popular play styles. In general I assume that when it comes to OPUU or UPOU cards that either I am mistaken about the card or I am mistaken about the player tastes. In both cases I would tend to leave them alone unless the usage is extreme in either direction.
OP and OU example: Shard of Focus
OP and UU example: Elite charger, long sword
UP and OU example: ???
UP and UU example: Antlion, graviton mercenary
OP and OU cards should be nerfed. UP and Uu cards should be buffed. What about OP and UU cards? Or UP and OU cards? I can't seem to find any UP and OU examples, are there any? I think if they did exist, they'd be "fun" cards that players would use just for messing around and not serious play, like mutation.
Of the various 12-Element series (Ingame Examples: Pillars/Dragons/Nymphs/Alchemy/Rare Weapons) posted on this forum, which ones do feel have notable design features for card designers to learn from? (Said 12-element series does not have to be 'complete' if implied there are 12 elemental counterparts)1) Pillars
What about non-ingame examples (aka Card idea ones)?Of the various 12-Element series (Ingame Examples: Pillars/Dragons/Nymphs/Alchemy/Rare Weapons) posted on this forum, which ones do feel have notable design features for card designers to learn from? (Said 12-element series does not have to be 'complete' if implied there are 12 elemental counterparts)1) Pillars
This is the foundation of EtG and thus careful examination of how quanta is valued is useful.
2) Pendulums
This is an example of an expansion of possible decks through a simple quantum mechanic.
3) Dragons
This starts to show the practical limit for casting costs and also hints at the non linear section of cost:attack
Monolith/Obelisk series has examples of skilled pillarsWhat about non-ingame examples (aka Card idea ones)?Of the various 12-Element series (Ingame Examples: Pillars/Dragons/Nymphs/Alchemy/Rare Weapons) posted on this forum, which ones do feel have notable design features for card designers to learn from? (Said 12-element series does not have to be 'complete' if implied there are 12 elemental counterparts)1) Pillars
This is the foundation of EtG and thus careful examination of how quanta is valued is useful.
2) Pendulums
This is an example of an expansion of possible decks through a simple quantum mechanic.
3) Dragons
This starts to show the practical limit for casting costs and also hints at the non linear section of cost:attack
:fire Quick Heat | Quick Fire1. It allows you to replace destroyed permanents with quanta rather than quanta + draws.
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,43779.0.html
1. What do you think about this kind of anti-PC ?
2. How much quanta should a semi-passive drawing ability cost ?
3. Would this card have too much impact against PC-oriented decks ?
4. Is the potential risk of decking out yourself significant enough to avoid abuse of this card ?
Is Clock | Chronometer (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,43840.msg1004572.html#msg1004572) balanced? If not, how would you balance it?
Is Clock | Chronometer (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,43840.msg1004572.html#msg1004572) balanced? If not, how would you balance it?
The +3|-3 of Tick Tock is roughly the value of Snipe. (slightly better)
:air :air: Snipe costs Owl's Eye roughly 3 :air + 1 card
:time :time :time: Give 3 +1|-1s would cost around 3-4 :time + 1 card
So we are in the right neighborhood. But how to include Aging? (aka extra use of skills including non activated ones)
Probably worth +1-2 :time for a total of 4-6 :time + 1 card.
PS: How does your Puffer Fish example work? Venom requires an attack to trigger so it would not be repeated by Aging.
3 attack, 8 attack, 9 attack = 3, 11 and 20 total damage (Clock)
3 attack, 9 attack, 9 attack = 3, 12 and 21 total damage (Chronometer)
Yes with the existing Puffer Fish. Unknown with the alternative Puffer Fish.Is Clock | Chronometer (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,43840.msg1004572.html#msg1004572) balanced? If not, how would you balance it?
The +3|-3 of Tick Tock is roughly the value of Snipe. (slightly better)
:air :air: Snipe costs Owl's Eye roughly 3 :air + 1 card
:time :time :time: Give 3 +1|-1s would cost around 3-4 :time + 1 card
So we are in the right neighborhood. But how to include Aging? (aka extra use of skills including non activated ones)
Probably worth +1-2 :time for a total of 4-6 :time + 1 card.
PS: How does your Puffer Fish example work? Venom requires an attack to trigger so it would not be repeated by Aging.
3 attack, 8 attack, 9 attack = 3, 11 and 20 total damage (Clock)
3 attack, 9 attack, 9 attack = 3, 12 and 21 total damage (Chronometer)
So I've got the balancing right then? Oh, and my Puffer Fish example was about my new Puffer Fish (that furball kindly help balance) here. (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,43688.msg1004264.html#msg1004264) Thankyou for pointing that out, I will add that link to the Notes.
What do you think about a card using an active ability before it's been drawn? Or of having a passive ability be occurring before being drawn?A card using an ability before it's been drawn? Why not? However the types of abilities that would work would be limited. Things like "starts in the top 10 cards".
can i get some help balancing the numbers with this?
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,43845.0.html
Hrm.Elemental equivalent:
This mechanic has been used before in the bolt series, as well as :fire's fahrenheit, but not as :rainbow quanta...
I would presume simmilar balancing should be applied, however, this creature easily serves rainbows far better than it does :life, so adjusting for that is a necessity.
I would reccomend a different attack table set-up, with a base amount of attack power and a slower attack scaling ratio, as a quanta pillar/tower could feed this creature more effectively than a fire pillar could feed fahrenheight, to encourage mono-use, instead of specifically being for rainbow use.
hmmm i did originally have it at 15, not sure why i thought bringing it down to 10 was a good idea. possibly because it can't be creature removal. making it mono-life would be thematically awkward wouldn't it? that was the main reason i did rainbow, couldn't think of a good theme for something that wasn't.Thematically awkward? That is not the first obstacle. Shifting it so all stages of Life usage (Mono, Duo, Trio and Rainbow) is a mechanically puzzle that I do not see a good answer to. (Maybe have it check the highest pool?) The thematic issue might change the ending element but would be a tiny obstacle.
Is this card balanced, mechanic-wise?Shard of Sacrifice has lots of available counters. The question is the efficiency of SoSac and the efficiency of the counters. This is really hard to predict in theory to this degree. (Theory only complains about the real SoSac not having a cost) If this version were imbalanced then it would be imbalanced by inches not feet. This means cutting the duration in half would probably be over reacting. The max hp loss is hard to increase and the casting cost is near the ideal limit for :rainbow.(http://i.imgur.com/gpGlE.png)(http://i.imgur.com/83C7M.png)If it's OP, will reducing the effect to 1 turn balance it?
Please excuse this large deluge of questions. These popped up while I was analyzing creature cost theory. Started here (http://elementscommunity.org/wiki/Creature_cost_theory) if you were curious by the way.
This motive means I need to go more in depth to support my opinions such that the author can judge for themselves. I will answer some but you will need to submit the rest again more slowly. You could resubmit some right after you read this. I just need the unread posts reminder.
Is the upgrade bonus consistent? I think there are times they are a -1 bonus, most of the time it is -2, and occasionally we have the probably OP -3 bonus.
We have an interesting range of metagames for EtG. Unupped and Upped of course but also some metagames that are partially upgraded. To maintain balance in these metagames we would need a relatively consistent bonus per upgrade. Additionally all in game cards have the same upgrade price. This implies that the optimal design move would be to have a consistent upgrade bonus. (With some variance due to the gut feel and playtest balance system Zanz uses) I have interpreted cards to have a range of +0 to -3 bonus with a significant portion having -1 to -2.
If a creature has 0atk, do they get a -1 bonus, or is it still 0?
A 0|1 has very little value. It is not worthless in that it can power immolation, feed Otyugh, power bonds, be flung, destroy permanents or be buffed. Assuming Photon is balanced then a 0|1 has a value between 0 quanta + 0 cards and 0 quanta + 1 card.
Is it okay to make say, gravity dragon slightly OP to give gravity (one of the least offensive elements) some offense? It is pretty expensive so it doesn't get to be abused by rainbows, and the high cost will mean that someone playing them will most likely be using mono gravity, already a handicap to offense.
If we do it then we have no reason not to repeat it for similar circumstances like Life CC. This would increase the time and complexity of balancing cards. Ideally we can give Gravity ways to use its own offense (Like Dim Shields do for Phase Dragons). Additionally we can add more offensive cards like Acceleration. However this hints at another topic. What about creatures that have dis-synergy with their element? Cards that are more powerful in duos than in monos even after adjusting for the duo cost? If we make the duo usage OP enough we enable the mono usage. However in doing so we have moved the goal that it needed to reach for the mono usage to be viable compared to the duo usage. In general it is better to have UP usages that are never used rather than OP usages which drain players from other strategies in addition to preventing the weaker usage.
How much exactly do you feel duo cost ability and how much ability costs add on to a creature? I feel a 1 :underworld upkeep is worth +1 card.
Abilities come with an investment and a per use cost. The investment is usually the casting cost - the stat value + the turn delay + the risk of wasting the investment to removal. Duo cost ability is usually as expensive as a duo combo. I have made a gut estimate of +1 quanta per additional quanta type. However this is merely a gut estimate. Ability costs might be worth a card the turn before the effect is used. However the real question is either how much does a 0 cost activated ability increase the cost of a photon or how much would an activated ability cost if it did not affect the casting cost. Also remember that cost transferred from the activation cost to the casting cost slows down the rest of the card and increases the investment being risked (and thus the risk cost of investment).
How much is a "drain all :underworld left" side-effect on a spell worth?
The casting cost is how much cost is usually paid not what it printed in the upped right corner.
Can you hold something that is not being held?If I could hold something that is not being held it would become held as a result of my holding it.
When balancing creatures, should they only be balanced individually or should their combos (adrenaline) and element be taken into account? How should it be taken into account?
Combos should be considered, yes. If there was no Max HP increasers, miracle should be cost little under.
Seems all the dragons are a bit wonky. Devonian dragon has 10|5 stats and costs 10 :time. Seems balanced. Silurian dragon has 13|4 stats and costs 12 :time. Where'd the upgrade bonus for silurian go?
Upped bonus can still be -0. See SN. Lost its free cost, but it can power 12 :underworld instead of 6 :underworld total. This is kinda big difference. It is actually seems OP to me but see the super duper Instosis combo. Devonian cannot support them. Generally dragons don't have good ATK/Cost Ratio, but it is the main of OTKs. Sometimes its own existence have meaning.
Should certain elements give benefits to their own creatures? i.e. :life gives all its creatures -1 cost. :fire gives its creatures +1atk. :earth and :gravity give their creatures free hp boost.
It's about the concept of the elements. Like, :fire is more aggressive so gaining ATK boost while losing some HP. :earth gained HP but ATK. Exchanging of Equivalent HP and ATK.
How would you price passives? (mummy, voodoo, airborne, swarm, possessive)
Mummy + RT = Pharaoh.
1. Mummy + RT = 2 Cards + 3 :death + 1 :time = 4(card itself) + 3 + 1 - 1(duo) = 7 cost total, without RT 5 ATK. Even better than the Pharaoh but much less HPs.
Pharaoh = 11 cost total.
Mummy+RT seems little better than Pharaoh.
1-1. Skeleton + RT = Egg.
Skeleton + RT = 2 Cards + 1 :death + 1 :time = 4(card itself) + 1 + 1 - 1(duo) = 5 cost total, without RT 2 ATK.
Egg = 6 cost total. Skeleton+RT seems little better than the egg.
2. Voodoo passive is just in Golem and Dolls. I will ignore golem part since voodoo golem is just anti-CC mechanism. (Or just for fun)
With dolls, voodoo passive should be count as card strategy itself. It has lots of HP to get along with. Its damage bypasses anything (but SoSac ;)) and the poison is doubled. Doubles the GP and BB synergy (not only blocking all damage but reflecting to your opponent). Hard but it seems the best balance.
3. Airborne..? Blitz, SoFre, Wing/web, Wardens. Anyway airborne is better than nothing so cost 1 quantum...
Though, :air creatures with airborne is pretty natural, and others synergy should be in duo(Okay okay SoFre but let's think in the out of the way of Shards), so 1 quantum - 1 duo bonus seems zero for me.
Like.. If it's airborne, good. If not, well, okay.
4. With swarm ability, it must swarm. or it's nothing. (not counting Blessing kinda thing)
So like voodoo-passived dolls, let's see Scarabs.
Scarab costs 2 :time and 3 ATK. 1 :gravity devour ability but cannot be done without swarm.
Cost ATK ratio is same with Poison so without swarm is is worse than poison maybe. Swarm is the potential. So like... 0.5 :underworld?
5. You meant poisonous? Well this is just an anti-specific CC mechanism. Too specific so like airborne, I see zero cost.
Btw I think virus should be poisonous.. Maybe it is so petty to make infect in the digesting system. ;)
How is vampire calculated? I originally had it set at +2, but I assume it is closer to something like immateriality, with attack times a number (*1.5 perhaps?)
Answering again sure with my guess. X ATK with vamp ability = 2X-1 actual ATK point.
Seems like we got a new guru in da house.Several, if the activity here is any indication.
A lot of dragons (and their upped counterparts) don't fit into my current model. Why is this? Are they supposed to be like this?
Would you pay 49 :underworld + 1 card for a 50 attack creature? I would not yet I would pay 1 card for a Photon or 2 :life + 1 card for a Horned Frog. This indicates that the balance is not indefinitely linear and deviates from linear as cards get more expensive/powerful. However dragons are old cards and do not significantly deviate from the theory. They might be slightly imbalanced and thus not corrected.
When balancing creatures, should they only be balanced individually or should their combos (adrenaline) and element be taken into account? How should it be taken into account?
The rational usage should be considered. The rational player would use cards optimally. This would include their combos unless their combos are worse than the individual card. This would include individual cards unless they are worse than the combo.
Should certain elements give benefits to their own creatures? i.e. :life gives all its creatures -1 cost. :fire gives its creatures +1atk. :earth and :gravity give their creatures free hp boost.
It is easier to balance cards if elements did not have separate balance theories. However it is wise to give a nod to thematic when crafting mechanics. A fire card would have more attack which would make it more expensive than a life card.
If we go by mechanics and the creature cost theory already, it seems a lot of darkness creatures are UP, yet in actual game play, they're balanced, if not pretty powerful? Why is this? Is this because of nightfall? If a card like nightfall was in other elements, would that warrant a tiny nerf to that element's creatures? How come death creatures don't seem to be UP?
There are differences between the elements based on the elemental favor (opposite of elemental hate) effects that exist in the game. If these differences are considered during balancing then forced combos with very weak force will be created. The other option results in inaccurate measurements of balance.
How would you price passives? (mummy, voodoo, airborne, undead, poisonous [causes poisoning if eaten], swarm, possessive [ghost ability])
How would you price abilities? Examine the ability to see how it operates. Mummy is an optional cost for a transformative effect. Luckily it is also an alternate cost for an effect with another default cost.
How is vampire calculated? I originally had it set at +2, but I assume it is closer to something like immateriality, with attack times a number (*1.5 perhaps?) 1.5*attack seems to fit the model I have now.
Vampire should be more valuable on Black Dragon than it is on Photon due to the higher attack. However healing is not as valuable as damage.
Comparing certain cards makes me feel that there is some disparity. In all cases, the last is better.
Virus = 1|1 + infect for sacrifice + 1 :death
Bloodsucker = 1|1 + :death for infect + 2 :darkness
Toadfish = 6|4 + :air for infect + 5 :water
Sacrifice creates a death trigger and prevents a second use of infect. These are relevant. Either Toadfish or Bloodsucker is imbalanced.
Forest spirit = 1|1 + :water for growth + 2 :life
Lava golem = 5|1 + :earth for growth + 5 :fire
One of these is imbalanced.
lycanthrope = 1|1 + :darkness :darkness for +5/+5 + 1 turn + 2 :entropy
Graboid = 2|3 + immaterial + :time for +6/+0 + 1 turn + 3 :earth
Graboid's ability is OP.
Seems like we got a new guru in da house.Several, if the activity here is any indication.
Kitsune Trickster | Kitsune Trickster (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,43674.0.html)Shuffling the opponent's deck while seeing their next draw is too powerful for the activation cost. It is similar to but not as powerful as a draw lock.
Is the card accurately priced for its disruption abilities?
I believe I may have given you my thoughts on the targeting of Imamterial creatures before. So, disregarding the view of it so far, would you say that Machian Falcon (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,44101.0.html) is balanced? Would the range of Immaterial objects count as being subjected to Elemental Hate?1) The linked card does not necessarily target. (Nightfall effects "all creatures" and does not target)
Also, can I get your thoughts on Pesticide (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,44097.0.html)?
- Color Hate in MTG vs. Element Hate (Theorectical) in ETGSince the frequency of an element/color is lower is EtG, Elemental Hate cards are more situational and have larger gaps between hate/nonhate usages than Color Hate.
Are there any notable differences/similarities?
Oh, great Idea Guru Drake (just teasing you :P), what about a high hp :fire creature which can gain +1|-1 per turn? Would that be balanced?
Oh, great Idea Guru Drake (just teasing you :P), what about a high hp :fire creature which can gain +1|-1 per turn? Would that be balanced?Reminds me the Onryo.
To expand on what Drake_XIV said:Oh, great Idea Guru Drake (just teasing you :P), what about a high hp :fire creature which can gain +1|-1 per turn? Would that be balanced?
Well, that does depend on its base stats and playing cost, neither of which has been provided.
However, I don't see how that fits thematically within a :fire. Maybe a duo creature with :fire being the ability, but aside from that, it does not seem obvious immediately. Considering Acceleration, the ability itself may actually be underpowered and may better suit :gravity.
Perhaps this thread should be retired and Drake start a new one.
so i want to make a card like nightfall but for :time (or perhaps :time/ :aether or :time/ :gravity). How different would the balance need to be since time has dune scorpion, which is a bit more powerful than deathstalker?
Being limited to Time would not be a forced combo unless it was cheaper than its cost thus forcing all Time players to run it. However it would not be as versatile as an alternative design would be. (Versatility can increase the metagame)so i want to make a card like nightfall but for :time (or perhaps :time/ :aether or :time/ :gravity). How different would the balance need to be since time has dune scorpion, which is a bit more powerful than deathstalker?
I've actually toyed with this idea for a time, but couldn't settle on a solid thematic connection myself.
Regardless, for starters, considering the range, it couldn't be limited to :time [Forced Combo (?)] nor be a :time card [Easily Abusable]. Considering the lock down and stall :time has in element, that would be the worse element to put something like that. But if you did, it would have to somewhat pricey and/or temporary.
If you went for something that exactly paralleled Nightfall, like stated above, it'd have to be in a duo element [You considered :aether] and considerable more expensive, looking not only at Dune Scorpion, but other candidates both in :time [Deja Vu] and out [If :aether, Psion]. I would actually consider Shard of Patience when balancing something like this.
I will withhold further statements as I think it will be more as a Card Designer and my own feelings when it comes to card creation as opposed to what I feel should be an unbiased view of an ability. Still trying to determine if these should be kept separate and if so, where I should draw the line.
Silly question time -- 3 Elements have scorpions, each of them with their own special ability. Considering the thematics (and making the scorpion not broken), what other element would a new scorpion fit, and, if any element at all would fit, would the scorpion need to be "bland" or have a special ability to make up for it?
(This is just a question I have toyed with in my mind plenty of times and never found the answer to.)
(A thread that would show my general idea for that scorp would be here. (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=35318.0)
Silly question time -- 3 Elements have scorpions, each of them with their own special ability. Considering the thematics (and making the scorpion not broken), what other element would a new scorpion fit, and, if any element at all would fit, would the scorpion need to be "bland" or have a special ability to make up for it?
(This is just a question I have toyed with in my mind plenty of times and never found the answer to.)
(A thread that would show my general idea for that scorp would be here. (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=35318.0)
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,26416.0.html
Silly question time -- 3 Elements have scorpions, each of them with their own special ability. Considering the thematics (and making the scorpion not broken), what other element would a new scorpion fit, and, if any element at all would fit, would the scorpion need to be "bland" or have a special ability to make up for it?
(This is just a question I have toyed with in my mind plenty of times and never found the answer to.)
(A thread that would show my general idea for that scorp would be here. (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=35318.0)
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,26416.0.html
Such a nostalgic thread. :D
In any event, any element with attack buffs should not have a scorpion whose effect suggests that it starts with 0 attack. Exception is Fire, since it would kill it at the same time, but Light, Gravity, Darkness, and Entropy should not contain a special scorpion.
Immortal Enhancement vs. Immortal Destruction/RemovalI see them as less versatile than they could be (Why only immaterial?) and I would prefer if they did not target (Consistency).
What do you think of cards with either effect?
If this thread's going to be locked, let me express just how helpful you've been as the Idea Guru to me as well as the rest of the community, OT.Words can't express the greatness you have done. Thank you OT.
You're probably one of the most respected people here right now.
Thanks.