Ask the Idea Guru

[OldTrees]

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 ?

Would it be beneficial? Not at this time. (No comment about the future)
Would we ever need breaths as a type of damage? No. We would have better material to use.

Some details:
We just recently went from Physical and Untyped to Physical, Magical and Untyped. (Before Psion and its child Shard of Wisdom, Mirror Shield reflected spells not spell damage.)

Usually draconic breath weapons are classified as magical. Even wind blades from supernaturally fast creatures are usually categorized as magical. When wind blades are not categorized as magical they are instead classified as cutting/slashing (aka physical).

I think a good way to think if the current division is Force(Impact, Puncture or Cutting) vs Energy(Fire, Cold, other magical energy).

[TheManuz]

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

Not much, just the ideas i exposed here. If you think it's interesting and want to develop and modify it you can do it with no problem on my side.
I'd just like to follow your ideas on the theme, just because i like to see game-design solutions!

[Zaealix]

As far as a third damage type, something that the  shield Wings brought out was the 'ranged' category. As of right now, it only applies to weapons, due to the act that a creature would simply just have the 'flying' passive.
This, to me, suggests a few card ideas: Something to make the 'Ranged' category more viable, like protection from shields that 'counter' enemy attackers, like how  's shield damages targets-you aren't getting close enough to gete burnt.
Something to make Flying creatures seperate, but a decent alternative to 'Ranged'. As of right now, the only card that interacts with this that I can think of MIGHT (because I don't actually have it yet.) Is  's shard of freedom, and I might be wrong on that.
And last but not least, a 'fairly large' series of 'Ranged' creatures, perhaps focused in the elements that lack flying creatures.
The thing is, this would be a LARGE expansion to the game of elements, and could require extensive re-balancing across the board.

[esran]

i think if a crusader targets a ranged weapon, he gets ranged and is unafected by web and sofreedom, but is still blocked by shields normally and goes through wings.

[eaglgenes101]

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 ?

Chemical damage? (as in damage by chemical change)

[Jyiber]

Had another idea...
-Name: (insert appropriate word) Ritual
-Spell
-Cost: none or low


-Effect: Play creatures this turn for Maximum Health instead of quanta.



P.S. Thoughts on the "this turn" mechanic?

[russianspy1234]

Had another idea...
-Name: (insert appropriate word) Ritual
-Spell
-Cost: none or low


-Effect: Play creatures this turn for Maximum Health instead of quanta.



P.S. Thoughts on the "this turn" mechanic?

fractal ruby dragon.

[OldTrees]

Had another idea...
-Name: (insert appropriate word) Ritual
-Spell
-Cost: none or low


-Effect: Play creatures this turn for Maximum Health instead of quanta.



P.S. Thoughts on the "this turn" mechanic?

"This turn" is a useful implementation when used well. The effect it is currently linked to seems problematic.
(Fractal Ruby dragon -> 7 dragons -> -93 max hp -> 105 attack)

Shard of Sacrifice teaches us that 4 turns of protection are worth equal or greater than -48 hp + 1 card. Dimensional Shield is 6 :ather + shield + 1 card (~9 + 1 card). We can see that 3quanta ~>= -12hp. Strangely -Max Hp is probably less expensive than -Hp since Max Hp is rarely attacked.

[OdinVanguard]

Death Permanent Idea:
Danse Macabre  5
"Poisoned players and creatures lose 1 max hp per turn for every 6 poison counters (rounded up)."

-Has this been done?
-Is it well balanced: OP, UP, or too situational
-Should it be stackable (with 6 of these poison would effectively drain both hp and max hp simultaneously)?

[OldTrees]

Death Permanent Idea:
Danse Macabre  5
"Poisoned players and creatures lose 1 max hp per turn for every 6 poison counters (rounded up)."

-Has this been done?
-Is it well balanced: OP, UP, or too situational
-Should it be stackable (with 6 of these poison would effectively drain both hp and max hp simultaneously)?

I do not remember it being done before.

Creatures rarely get 6 infection but are healed equally infrequently.
It is situational in that it requires the opponent to have healing for it to be worthwhile.
I am not sure if it is too situational (I do not remember how often people have healing to counter poison) but I suspect it is too situational. (It would also cost less. 3 tops)

Should it be stackable? Default: Yes.
6 of these and 29 poison should drain 24 max hp

[Jyiber]

Thoughts on this:
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,41632.msg516355.html#new

[OldTrees]

Thoughts on this:
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,41632.msg516355.html#new

"Earth creatures gain +0|+3"
"Burrowed creatures generate  per turn."

Mass hp buffs are hard to balance. Most Earth/Gravity creatures do not benefit from additional hp. Sparks would benefit more than most creatures.
Ideally you would balance it for all creatures. (Including Spark, Scarab and Otyugh)

I have not perfected balancing cards that generate variable amounts of quanta.

It currently looks reasonable balanced despite not doing much.