Ask the Idea Guru

[waterzx]

Lots of questions for this card.

  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.

[OldTrees]

Lots of questions for this card.

  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.

1. Linking is a genre of mechanics. However I do not remember one similar to this.

2. Probably too high for 3 reasons.
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.

3. I think the drawback is probably too large for your mechanic. However the benefit has potential given a suitable drawback. Even certain drawbacks would have potential.

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.

5. Would testing more cards of this theme be a good idea? Yes.

Making it a thematic series (a series thread) would let each idea give free advertising for the other ideas. However they would also all be judged by the worst card included in the series.

[Rutarete]

Dark Prince is the only similar one I can think of.

[OldTrees]

Dark Prince is the only similar one I can think of.

Thanks.

Dark Prince is also a good example of an alternative drawback.

[waterzx]

2. Probably too high for 3 reasons.
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 can understand you saying that the attack boost is a bit too weak for the large drawback.

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 ?

[ZephyrPhantom]

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?

[OldTrees]

2. Probably too high for 3 reasons.
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 can understand you saying that the attack boost is a bit too weak for the large drawback.

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 ?

I made a mistake and overlooked that use.

Here you have 2 effects that trade off being the benefit / drawback. The CC use gains benefit from the drawback to the buff use. Likewise it sees the attack buff as a drawback. In cases like these you want to make the relative benefit/drawback ratio equal for either use. I would probably suggest reducing the deadly effect to be more on par with the attack buff. This way both the CC and Buff usages would be of roughly equal value. Cards with multiple uses of equal value cost slightly (~0-1 quanta) more than cards with 1 use of the same value.

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
I think Seraph was a little premature. However the certain elements are near that point where subtle differences between cards can be appreciated alongside large differences. This would be a process of glacial speed.

Card Crafting
The 2 forms of card crafting have little to do with the size of the card pool. The "make your own card" version requires Zanz to have a pinpoint accurate balance theory. The craft rare cards version is a version of rarity.

Alternative upgrades
Alternative upgrades add 1 upgraded card to the game without adding an unupped card to the game. It would be a rare circumstance indeed for the unupped card pool to be so much larger than the upgraded card pool to justify the inclusion of alternate upgrades.

[EmeraldTiger]

Thoughts on this mechanic:

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.html

[OldTrees]

Thoughts on this mechanic:

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.

That is not a complete mechanic. How do they move?

The mechanic by itself provides little benefit. The card it comes with should provide a benefit.

I think this card needs your advice. http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,39486.0.html

I do not remember a card like this. It probably is original.

It fits the generic subtheme of Other well.

Pillar | Tower is worth 0quanta + 1card
A 1|1 is worth 0quanta + 1 card
Versatile cards cost more than less versatile cards
Forgotten Soldier | Forgotten Knight costs 1 + 1 card

[furballdn]

You keep mentioning "card cost", a factor I've never really considered. What is it and why is it so important?

[OldTrees]

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)
Precognition draws a card replacing itself (net 0 card cost)
Photon costs 0 quanta yet gives a benefit. It happens to cost 1 draw (1 card cost)

Essentially card cost is an attempt to compare quanta costs and card advantage/disadvantage. It also explains why people would prefer a 12|3 for 10 over a 2|1 for 1 for their decks. The attack/quanta ratio of Ash Eater is greater than that of Crimson Dragon. However once the cost to draw the card is included the attack/cost ratio changes in Crimson Dragon's favor. This predictive and explanatory ability is why I discuss card costs.

Currently Shard of Integrity and I disagree about how much quanta a card is worth and how that scales as additional cards are included. If Shard of Integrity turns out to be balanced, then I will reevaluate my estimate. This is a real possibility. It might also be possible that card costs and quanta costs do not have an additive relationship. The interaction might be more complex.

[TheManuz]

Can you give me some feedback on Time Anomaly | Time Disruption ?

I'm looking for balancing advice and what do you think of its metagame impact. Any additional thought is welcome too!