The thread is back. My primary arm can type.Is this a new kind of mechanics ?
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,38079.0.html
Yes it is a new kind of implementation.
Rather than linearly scaling cost and benefit (Lava Golem) or quadratically scaling benefit with linear cost (X per Y), you are linearly scaling benefit without scaling cost.
However new is not inherently good or bad. Does this implementation have utility?
When you are feeling better, I have a few questions to break up the monotony of reviewing cards.
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?
Nice questions.
11 card. Hmm. The game has so much left to patch and directions to expand in. I would probably make a lower quality patch that patched as much as possible. I would still take heed of when the marginal cost and marginal benefit intersected. Since the scenario left open the possibility of card changes, I would probably ignore metagame balance and instead focus on expanding inherent metagame balancing systems (aka Completeness). Since the goal would be to affect as many elements as possible it would have to be an Other card. The most important part of completeness is the ability to defend. However this could be done in a less elegant manner by merely expanding certain types of CC to also be general PC (Freeze). This could not be done for all elements (Life, Light). Offenses are not as diverse as desired but that is a lower priority.
So it would be an Other CC/PC card that had an alternative use as a growing spell damage offense. However it would have a balanced cost both for its effect but also including the tax for its increased versatility. I would design it to be slightly UP to discourage its use except by the decks that needed it. This would be intended to decrease the usage of the card to counteract the detail that it is 5-20 cards squished into 1.
2What card would I remove or significantly change?
Holy Light (Purify is 2nd, Shard of Focus is ignored because it is not in the game)
Holy Light has 4 usages
- Heal the player. Luciferin does the same for 2|1 rather than 1
|0. I would never use Holy Flash for this purpose and Luciferin is usable to start production. - Heal a creature. I rarely leave or see one of my creatures left injured. Waiting for a kill is better because damaging CC rarely has side effects. (Ice Bolt, Chaos Seed, Gravity Pull)
- Elemental Hate. Aka punish a player for liking Death or Darkness. There is no reason to include such damaging metagame influence such as Elemental Hate.
- 2x Holy Light + Voodoo Doll (upped) = 20 damage for 2 + 2
+ 3 cards + 1 upgrade + Duo. I prefer the more efficient Unstable Gas or Shakar.
So 4 usages with no sufficient reason for existing. That is sufficient reason to change Holy Light to a Pacifying effect.
Purify's "Remove all Poison" gets in the way of balancing the card because it is too situationally powerful.
3How many cards do I think EtG needs?
It depends on the quality concentration per card. The game could be complete with merely 120 interacting cards of Crusader quality. However more reasonable models would be 30-40 cards in each element or a continually increasing number of cards.
4Explicit combos are fine when not Forced, Imbalanced nor Unmentioned. However they are usually called Synergy in those cases.
Forced: As a rule of thumb a card is part of a forced combo if it cannot be used competently in 3 or more combos without repeating partners.
Imbalanced: Imbalanced card combos eliminate potential gameplay variety.
Unmentioned: We must remember that Elements is also meant to appeal to people that don't enjoy researching the game. Cards should not hate on newbs.
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).
