Ask the Idea Guru

[memimemi]

memimemi
the reason elemental hate sucks is because there are 12 elements. if a card hates on an element, it means 2 things.
1. if your opponent isnt that element the card sucks.
2. if your opponent is that element then the card is OP.
so unless you want every match to be decided by the RNG, elemental hate is stupid.
sorry to answer someones question in your thread idea guru. i just want to give me 2

I see your point; however, what you see as a weakness to the idea, I see as a strength.  When building decks, players would have to be prepared for the chance at having a hate-bomb dropped on their decks - so people might have to pull out the 6th Shrieker for an extra counter (or 6th whatever) - leading, potentially, to an expanded metagame.  The idea is to have cards that can hate on elements, but also be countered by that same element, with clever play.

Also, I'm not sure if point 1 is valid.  If the only counter-strategy that can rip apart my deck comes from a specific element (BH, Neurotoxin, and Sanctuary come to mind as exemplars), I may pack a couple of these as extra defense for my deck's goal.  If I don't face that strategy, then my counters would be no less useful in my deck than SoF is vs a PSN deck, or Phase Shield vs a creatureless Poisondials build.

Perhaps you'd be interested in helping design suitably broad-range cards, with balanced effects?

If we are allowed to comment on other's ideas, I would just like to say that:
Quote from: memimemi on Today at 02:58:19

    Dawn - Vampiric abilities do you no damage/ Dusk -(insert idea here -  is kinda weak already)

is still a bit too much elemental hate imho, but
Quote from: memimemi on Today at 02:58:19

    Vaccine - You and all your creatures are immune to further Poisoning/ Deadly Bonds - Opponent gets 1 Poison counter for every creature he has in play;

are both great, and when developed could be terrific card ideas.
Just my 2 .
(Also, I would be happy to steal it from you, but it's such a good idea you'll probably want to keep it for yourself.) 

Howabout instead of theft, we aim for collaboration?  Thank you for the compliment: the / balance seemed like a no-brainer.  / , however. . . I could use all the help I can get on this one!

[OldTrees]

@esran
I believe it's been stated by OldTrees that others commenting on ideas presented for him to critque is allowed, and possibly encouraged.

@OldTrees
In lieu of Santuary's becoming a counter to dissapation shield, do you think  could use a new shield, or no?

Correct. Others commenting is allowed.

Sanctuary is not a counter to Dissipation Shield (aka your Sanctuary will not disrupt my Dissipation Shield)
I do think the card pool is large enough for a second shield for every element that doesn't already have a second.

memimemi
the reason elemental hate sucks is because there are 12 elements. if a card hates on an element, it means 2 things.
1. if your opponent isnt that element the card sucks.
2. if your opponent is that element then the card is OP.
so unless you want every match to be decided by the RNG, elemental hate is stupid.
sorry to answer someones question in your thread idea guru. i just want to give me 2

I see your point; however, what you see as a weakness to the idea, I see as a strength.  When building decks, players would have to be prepared for the chance at having a hate-bomb dropped on their decks - so people might have to pull out the 6th Shrieker for an extra counter (or 6th whatever) - leading, potentially, to an expanded metagame.  The idea is to have cards that can hate on elements, but also be countered by that same element, with clever play.

Also, I'm not sure if point 1 is valid.  If the only counter-strategy that can rip apart my deck comes from a specific element (BH, Neurotoxin, and Sanctuary come to mind as exemplars), I may pack a couple of these as extra defense for my deck's goal.  If I don't face that strategy, then my counters would be no less useful in my deck than SoF is vs a PSN deck, or Phase Shield vs a creatureless Poisondials build.

Perhaps you'd be interested in helping design suitably broad-range cards, with balanced effects?

Elemental Hate suffers from being inherently situational in the problematic manner. The range of value created by your opponents choice is large enough that both extremes cannot be simultaneously balanced*. A UP/Balanced one would be passed up for balanced cards. A Balanced/OP one would always be selected over similar alternatives. A UP/OP one would be passed up for balanced cards except in War.

*An opponent choice is not a cost. Balance is when all effects are paid by an equivalent cost.

[TheManuz]

Sometime ago i was thinking about some soft elemental-haters creatures.
The idea was to have semi-vanilla creatures that receive a little boost when facing the opposing element (the mark counts for this purpose).
I was thinking to text the ability this way:

opposing : gain <ability> or <stats>

For example:

Time traveler                                 some
opposing : gain Deja Vu

Or:

Life guardian                           some
opposing : gain 2 purify counter (on the creature, not on the player).

The purpose of this kind of creature would be to add more vanilla creatures with a twist, and also (subsequently) add more luciferin-like spells and effects (affecting vanilla creatures).

However i didn't find this idea interesting enough, so i gave up.
Maybe someone here can find an interesting way to develop this idea.

Since i'm talking about this, OldTrees, what do you think about it?

[OldTrees]

Sometime ago i was thinking about some soft elemental-haters creatures.
The idea was to have semi-vanilla creatures that receive a little boost when facing the opposing element (the mark counts for this purpose).
I was thinking to text the ability this way:

opposing : gain <ability> or <stats>

The purpose of this kind of creature would be to add more vanilla creatures with a twist, and also (subsequently) add more luciferin-like spells and effects (affecting vanilla creatures).

However i didn't find this idea interesting enough, so i gave up.
Maybe someone here can find an interesting way to develop this idea.

Since i'm talking about this, OldTrees, what do you think about it?

Having an Elemental Hate ability be weak enough to qualify as a semivanilla* ability does enable both extremes to be simultaneously balanced. I see no problems with this implementation. (I still don't like the taste of elemental hate, but the personal taste of one person is not a problem)

*semivanilla abilities are weak enough that they do not increase the cost of the creature.

[esran]

if i were going to make a card that does differently based on what element yourr opponent used, i would not make it like "if opponents element is x, do extra y" this is a pointless affect that would just give the rng even more prominence compared to skill. what i would suggest is a card like flood. flood drowns all creatures except water creatures. instead of hating on an element, it is liking on an element. and dont make the elemental like incidental, such as a card that say 'destroy target creature unless it is fire', make the elemental love part of the synergy for the player playing the card. so most cards with an elemental love would be field cards that effect both players. think flood or eclipse.
to make my idea i will give an example of a card that could be made.
fire huricane: some 
some  deal 1 damage to all non fire creatures.

[memimemi]

@TheManuz: that seems like a decent compromise.  How far did you get with the idea?

@OldTrees: well, I have to agree with you.  The way to go, it seems, is to hate on abilities that are associated with certain elements (poison for , speed-drawing for , etc), but based on ability, not element.  That way, they are less situational, shoring up weak spots in a deck's strategy as opposed to killing an opponent's strat.

@esran:  I like your concept, but it's far enough removed from mine to be it's own thing.  It'd be neat to see what you come up with - sounds similar to Annelle's Bolt Series, but with field effects rather than targeted ones.

To Anyone Else Lurking:  I mentioned, in passing, a passive ability for perms called "Fragile."  Basically, they would not be targetable by PA, or any future perm protection card that comes about.  What do you all think of the idea?

[esran]

i think fragile could work, but unless the permanent is earth, it doesnt seem to be a strong enough weakness to warrant a lowered quanta cost. it would be most relevant on earth permanents, or permanents that synergize well with earth.

[OldTrees]

To Anyone Else Lurking:  I mentioned, in passing, a passive ability for perms called "Fragile."  Basically, they would not be targetable by PA, or any future perm protection card that comes about.  What do you all think of the idea?

Fragile would be more useful as a design tool after soft targeting PC is added to the game. Fragile permanents would be destroyed by soft PC. This would then warrant a cost decrease around 1quanta. Until then it would not have the utility to be used as a design tool in most cases.

[memimemi]

i think fragile could work, but unless the permanent is earth, it doesnt seem to be a strong enough weakness to warrant a lowered quanta cost. it would be most relevant on earth permanents, or permanents that synergize well with earth.

I wasn't looking to lower casting costs, so much as allow for slightly stronger abilities that would be OP when comboed with PA.  As an example, if Sanctuary had "Fragile," it would possibly be justifiable to up the healing from 4 to 5 HP/turn.  Alternately, some abilities might have slightly lower costs - this could be a way to balance ability costs that are slightly too high to be very useful.  Example: if EE were Fragile, it could cost 1 less  to Sniper.

Of course, Fragile would also prevent weapons/shields/perms from Animating (I know weapons are the only targets right now, but in the future...)

Just slight buffs, to offset the slight debuff of not being able to protect the perms.

Fragile would be more useful as a design tool after soft targeting PC is added to the game. Fragile permanents would be destroyed by soft PC. This would then warrant a cost decrease around 1quanta. Until then it would not have the utility to be used as a design tool in most cases.

Yes.  I've seen suggestions, for example, of PC that delays, rather than destroys, perms.  A Fragile perm would still be destroyed, as even the slightest jostling can break these precious items.

[esran]

hi, can i get some input/balancing help on my berf idea?
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,41599.new.html#new

[OldTrees]

hi, can i get some input/balancing help on my berf idea?
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,41599.new.html#new

2 |1
Shield: reduce damage by 1. Ignores the first 2 effects. Reflective.

[waterzx]

Will it be beneficial to the game to introduce the third kind of damage ?

Right now we have physical and spell damage and they cover pretty much everything but there's still one kind of damage not included in the 2-damage system.

That kind of damage does not involve physical contact but it also does not involve magical energy. For example, the fire breath of a dragon, the wind blade made by some fast-moving creatures....These damages are not magic and are usually produced by creatures.

In order not to make things complicated, I think it would be nice to have a few (2-3) creatures that deal this kind of "absolute" damage that can't be countered by physical or magical shields.

This random thought comes from the game Dragon Quest in which there are 3 kinds of damage : physical damage, magic and breaths. Breaths are known to be strong and difficult to mitigate but only a few characters/enemies are able to use.

Do you think we need this kind of damage ?