Ask the Idea Guru

[Daguerreo]

Could you join discussion thread of Yuki-Onna (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,34760.12.html) please?

[Daguerreo]

What about Atlantis's Protection (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,31232.0.html)?
Cost is balanced?

[darkrobe]

its about Angler (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,34903.0.html).

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?

[OldTrees]

What about Atlantis's Protection (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,31232.0.html)?
Cost is balanced?

Hard to tell. The card negates half of the opponent's PC. I would suggest a cost increase (7 |5 ) and a poll asking the community's opinion.
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.

its about Angler (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,34903.0.html).

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?

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.

Lure to edge + Flooding is repeatable instant kill CC. It should take effort and resources to set that combo up. Flooding being in effect is not additional effort so it should not matter for when the ability is usable. Angler needing to be at the edge is a reasonable effort to be able to Lure things to the edge. What if Lure moved the creature toward Angler's slot? That would require Angler to be in the Flooding area for the combo without requiring Angler to be underwater.

The activation cost seems low. It is the cost of the CC after all.
With my suggestion for Lure, it seems that a weak low cost creature would work better than a strong  high cost creature.
The ability improves slightly when upgraded since the targets improve. Thus a -1 cost reduction or the equivalent is warranted instead of a -2 cost reduction or the equivalent.

Nice card.

[Daguerreo]

What about Atlantis's Protection (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,31232.0.html)?
Cost is balanced?

Hard to tell. The card negates half of the opponent's PC. I would suggest a cost increase (7 |5 ) and a poll asking the community's opinion.
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.

Added some notes and a poll, could you vote it?

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.

[OldTrees]

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.

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.
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).

Problem: Delay prevents activated skill use.
Solution: Make the ability target thus a non delayed Croc can remove delay from a delayed Croc.
Variations: Would the Croc that was delayed but is not anymore be able to use its skill?
Ideal Variant: When in doubt aim for Simple, Versatile and Balanced. Let the removal of delay ready the activated skill of the target.
Concern: Allowing it to target allows it to target non Crocs that would not lose the patience buff.
Solution: Rather than remove the buff if the target is a Croc, just pay for the ability through the activation cost.

[Pineapple]

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.

[OldTrees]

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:
2|2 / 3|3 stats for 5 |5 (Subject to elemental influence in cases like Fire or Gravity. Elemental bonuses have since been rejected in theory. All cards had a free -1 elemental cost reduction from the card/draw cost.)
An elemental effect triggered if the creature survives X turns.

The delayed effect is very similar to a one use activated ability. Of course it is different in that it is paid for in the casting cost, has a chance of being paid for but not happen and, gets a slight cost reduction for the risk involved.
The backbone/vehicle (2|2 / 3|3 for 5 |5 ) does not have merit in itself but only in how it works for implementing the rider ^ effect compared to other vehicle variants. The other cost allows all elements access to the elemental effect. However the effects shown so far draw their power from the presence of like element cards so the other cost does not free the card form the corresponding element. Rather the other cost allows more flexible casting in trio or duo decks. Flexibility/versatility is valuable.

5 +1 card ~= 2 + 1 card
2|2 / 3|3 stats ~= 1 +1 card

Drawing ~= 1 or 1 card
Summoning ~= casting cost of creature
Generating 2 mark per  creature in hand ~= 1 per  creature in hand on average when effect triggers

The risk involved deserves a cost reduction. I am not certain of what fraction would be appropriate. I would guess as a starting point a 50% reduction to the cost of the triggered ability.

Based on this estimate the Time one is OP (In the excess by the ability to summon Dragons for free)
The Dark one might be balanced but I do not see the connection with Darkness nor do I see why it would be a Animus rather than a spell.

[ZephyrPhantom]

What are your thoughts on the following?
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)

[OldTrees]

What are your thoughts on the following?
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)

Higurashi
1|1 attack twice for 3 |3 +1card with low 1|3hp.
Solo it is UP by 2|3 casting cost (2 atk for 4 cost units)
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)
Duo with ability it is UP by 2|3 cost units (6 cost units for Silence [4 cost units])
A different upgrade change would help balance 1->3 hp is not much.
The difference between Mono and Duo attack might make it balanced.

Black Sunadokei | Kuro Hourglass
Manipulation was meant as a high level descriptor. It described the attitude towards the opponent in contrast to the Light non interactive attitude.
Does the first mechanic fit Water?
Is the 1 +1card high enough to balance the Dragon casting cost being produced?
Does the second mechanic fit Time? (It is more akin to an alternate cost like Immolation than it is to a penalty for discarding)
Is 1 +10hp (1 holy light, 1/2 a heal) a high enough cost for a Dragon?
Take means damage. Lose does not mean damage. Take would be reversed by SoSac. Lose would not.

[EmeraldTiger]

I would like to know your thoughts on my latest hybrid ideads.

[plastiqe]

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 per turn. Unfortunately 1/2 quanta is a contradiction in terms. The 3 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.

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.
Also: Vanilla creatures are useful for expanding the audience to include vanilla only players.

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.html
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,30797.msg462651#msg462651

Too much to answer in those links.
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 , cannot manually target twice during the same effect) which can be fixed by asking Xenocidius in his Coding Q&A thread.

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.  : )

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