Ask the Idea Guru

[OldTrees]

Now that I've read that, what about a card to increase the quanta cap.

I'm thinking a  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...

Other is the way to go.
I would recommend having 2 effects: One to increase the quanta cap, the other to exploit the increase.

Bolts and Faren would already 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.

[Rutarete]

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.

[OldTrees]

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, _______."
Ex: "Generate  each time a creature is put into play" (Moomoose http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,37382.0.html)

I have always though EtG could benefit from the emergent optional complexity that triggered effects can create. The Aftereffect is one of the simpler kinds of Triggers. Since it is a relatively simple design tool, it has been used in the past many times. It has not been overused, merely used to the point that one should use the search to check for prior cards. I would avoid the forced combo of it requiring a specific card.

Balance:
Such cards should be slightly stronger than "Cost as a function of Number of uses * value of use".
However still slightly weaker than "Cost as a function of Summation (Value of use_i * Duration_i)"

[OdinVanguard]

I have a card idea, but I wanted advice on balance before I submit:
Unupped:
Abjuration - 8
"Sacrifice a non-pillar, non-spell card. Discard all copies in either hand. You lose 5 max hp for each."

Spoiler for Card Image:

Upped:
Execration - 9
"Sacrifice a non-pillar, non-spell card. Discard all copies in both hands or decks. You lose 5 max hp for each."

Spoiler for Card Image:

Is the 5 hp loss and sacrifice enough to balance the quite heavy effect?
Is the mass discard effect too over the top to ever balance?
Is this ok in Aether, or should it be moved to another element to help prevent abuse?

[OldTrees]

@OdinVanguard

Does the sacrifice have to be in the hand? Or is it meant to combo with Steal / Parallel Universe?

X: How many cards is it likely to discard / mill (removed from deck)?
Y: How valuable is a forced discard / mill?
Cost = X * Y

value of Mill = value of Forced discard - drawback of Forced draw
Whether it is them discarding or you drawing it ends up at +1 card advantage. Card advantage seems to be worth 1-2 quanta. So 2quanta per card.
A forced draw is probably a drawback worth -1quanta.

So it boils down to how many cards is this effect likely to discard/mill in a normal game?

[furballdn]

OldTrees! OldTrees! You didn't comment on my idea here (in fact nobody did). Could I ask what you think of it?

[OldTrees]

OldTrees! OldTrees! You didn't comment on my idea here (in fact nobody did). Could I ask what you think of it?

Unupped
3 + 1 card for 3|4 (Cockatrice -1 attack)
3 + 1 card + 1 + duo for 5|4 Immaterial (Immortal -1 cost, +1|+1)

Upped
3 + 1 card for 4|5 (Cockatrice -1 attack)
3 + 1 card + 1 + duo for 6|5 Immaterial (Immortal -1 cost, +1|+1)

Submerge probably should cost  .
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?

[furballdn]

OldTrees! OldTrees! You didn't comment on my idea here (in fact nobody did). Could I ask what you think of it?

Unupped
3 + 1 card for 3|4 (Cockatrice -1 attack)
3 + 1 card + 1 + duo for 5|4 Immaterial (Immortal -1 cost, +1|+1)

Upped
3 + 1 card for 4|5 (Cockatrice -1 attack)
3 + 1 card + 1 + duo for 6|5 Immaterial (Immortal -1 cost, +1|+1)

Submerge probably should cost  .
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?

Hmm. I priced submerge at 1 because 3 + 1 + 1 turn for a psuedo immortal 5|4 creature. A 5|4 creature in should cost between 4-5 , 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.

As for the ambush idea, I was never really a fan of series, but as for the idea itself, I think the biggest reason I wasn't so attracted towards it was because I really didn't feel any genius innovation like "Ah! I've never thought of it that way before! What a brilliant new idea!" In fact, the ambush ability seems like it'd only be used with fractal, adren, or mitosis. It seems like it was almost created for that purpose, and sort of "tied down" to existing ideas and mechanics as opposed to creating new ideas and combos.

[OldTrees]

OldTrees! OldTrees! You didn't comment on my idea here (in fact nobody did). Could I ask what you think of it?

Unupped
3 + 1 card for 3|4 (Cockatrice -1 attack)
3 + 1 card + 1 + duo for 5|4 Immaterial (Immortal -1 cost, +1|+1)

Upped
3 + 1 card for 4|5 (Cockatrice -1 attack)
3 + 1 card + 1 + duo for 6|5 Immaterial (Immortal -1 cost, +1|+1)

Submerge probably should cost  .
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?

Hmm. I priced submerge at 1 because 3 + 1 + 1 turn for a psuedo immortal 5|4 creature. A 5|4 creature in should cost between 4-5 , 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.

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)


Thanks for the feedback.

[furballdn]

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?

[OldTrees]

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.
Since this is immaterial with a short vulnerable gap rather that weaker forms of immaterial, I would put it between 1.25x and 1.5x. 1.4x or 4/3x would be my initial estimates.

PS: Sorry, initially I hit modify instead of quote. Nothing was changed.

[furballdn]

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 .