Ask the Idea Guru

[plastiqe]

http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,43537.0.html

OldTrees are you leaving?  Say it ain't so!

[OldTrees]

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

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

6 fused quanta is less expensive than 6 elemental quanta (the later has a predefined pool) however they are very close.
If destroyed it refunds you with a card. (I will assume a balanced card because the shards should not be imbalanced)
Thus it pretty much only costs 6 fused rather than 6|3 fused + 1 card. This is about 3-5|0-2 fused + 1 card.
This seems to indicate 4|4 => 1|1 stats would be the minimum.
Having the quanta used determine the shard created was wise both thematically (source of the elemental influence) and mechanically (versatility).

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

7|6 + 1 card
~= 5-6|4-5 + 2 turns + 1 card
~= 5-6|4-5 + 2 turns + 1 card
~= 5-7|4-6 fused + 2 turns + 1 card
This does not take hybrid results, immaterial or the positional prerequisite into account.
I think these factors would err towards the cheaper side of the range.

PS: When does it copy statuses?

http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,43537.0.html

OldTrees are you leaving?  Say it ain't so!

Leaving? No. Stepping down? Very likely.

[furballdn]

Can I have your ideas so far on this?

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.

[plastiqe]

Well that's good.  I would've missed butting heads with you in the GS&F section.  : )

[OldTrees]

Can I have your ideas so far on this?

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.

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.

Having a merit based voting advantage does make sense if it uses causation rather than mere correlation. (Or at least uses a stronger correlation)

Your new layout does seem useful however the table is there in part so the thread does not rely on an image that can disappear or be out of date.

Approval points are an interesting idea.

We want a pyramid shape out of the number of poll threads. 12>3 therefore it should happen first.

I am stepping down for 3 reasons (not in order):
1) I think someone can manage the Idea Factory better than I have.
2) I need someone to make the new generation of cost theory. This requires them to feel confident enough to correct my mistakes. (Especially the ones I do not see)
3) Real life will make my activity less reliable. Since I do not know how active I will be I do not know if I will be active enough. It is better to find a replacement while I am still active.
I do not expect the next Idea Guru to fill the void I leave. I expect they will cover most of it and cover some areas I was not as skilled in.


@plastique
: )

[furballdn]

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 .
What if it were targettable and could target the opponent?

[OldTrees]

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 .
What if it were targettable and could target the opponent?

People have suggested reverse time based healing both for players and creatures (revert to original).
The ability to do this is akin to (but weaker than) preventing damage for 1 turn. (compare number of turns per card to Dim Shield) It probably would need a limit to prevent endless stall power. Having it target either play would increase the versatility of the card.

[furballdn]

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?

If I have something that is 3 cards + 1 , 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 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 and a 20|3 creature should cost 19 :underwrold?

[Zaealix]

Cost theory...
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 to freeze target creature for three turns.
Whereas Artic Squid, costs 2 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?

[ZephyrPhantom]

What are your thoughts on the healing/draw ratio of Mending Pocketwatch | Mending Pocketwatch?

[OldTrees]

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?

If I have something that is 3 cards + 1 , 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 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 and a 20|3 creature should cost 19 :underwrold?

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.

3 cards + 1 ~= 5-7 + 1 card. So around 6-7 damage per turn.

It is possible. In fact at the high attack extreme it might be likely for it be be non linear. (50 attack for 49 quanta? No thanks.) The relationship is non linear even in the range we work in. However no one has yet found the best vanilla creature yet so the approximation might be fairly accurate.

Yes a 5|3 creature costs 4 + 1 card. However I would not pay 19 + 1 card for a 20 attack creature.

Part of the non linear relationship for the high end has to do with the game ending before the creature dies. This means the creature has lower maximum resilience than lower attack creatures' average resilience.

Cost theory...
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 to freeze target creature for three turns.
Whereas Artic Squid, costs 2 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?

[Notes]
Eternal means as many times per turn as you want and have quanta.
Reusable would be once per turn.

Arctic Squid: Reusable Freeze for 2 that costs 3 + 1 card to play, has to wait 1 turn to Freeze, is a 2hp creature, and has 1 attack.
Freeze: One time Freeze for 1 + 1 card, no delay, no vulnerability, no attack.
[/Notes]
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).

What are your thoughts on the healing/draw ratio of Mending Pocketwatch | Mending Pocketwatch?

Expected draws before healing is uses would be fairly constant so the ratio would be dependent on the cost.
Costs 3 + 1 card + 2 = 5 + 1 card vs 3 + 1 card ~= 7.5 vs 5.5
X/7.5 = 20/5.5
X = 15*20/11 = 27
So the unupped is expected to heal around 27hp. (assuming the turns waited are normal for healing cards) That would be 6.75 turns with the current ratio. (assuming no draw accel)

[eaglgenes101]

opinion on impact pump | impact buckler?