Ask the Idea Guru

[furballdn]

Oh right. Double sided silence. doh. my bad. What if it was just silencing your opponent for 2 turns? How much would that cost? (I'm guessing 5-7).

Hm. Mind. That seems like it doesn't really fit. If I were to make a card that did what I just said (let you sacrifice cards for 1 quanta for 10hp regen), what element would that go best under? Would it work in other?

They haven't played it, but they still made use of it. In other words, by discarding a dragon, you're not just discarding the same worth as a photon. If later on during the game, when the player has more quanta, they could've made use of the dragon. Additionally, if a player has 5 , it wouldn't really be the same if they discarded an abomination or a photon. In addition to the space that a card takes up, its innate cost and usefulness should be factored into it a little bit in my opinion.

[OldTrees]

Oh right. Double sided silence. doh. my bad. What if it was just silencing your opponent for 2 turns? How much would that cost? (I'm guessing 5-7).

Hm. Mind. That seems like it doesn't really fit. If I were to make a card that did what I just said (let you sacrifice cards for 1 quanta for 10hp regen), what element would that go best under? Would it work in other?

They haven't played it, but they still made use of it. In other words, by discarding a dragon, you're not just discarding the same worth as a photon. If later on during the game, when the player has more quanta, they could've made use of the dragon. Additionally, if a player has 5 , it wouldn't really be the same if they discarded an abomination or a photon. In addition to the space that a card takes up, its innate cost and usefulness should be factored into it a little bit in my opinion.

2 turn Silence has too much synergy with Silence. I would not hazard a guess below 7 .

Other might work. I would still suggest giving it to an element that has a mental theme to match the hand: mind model.

They did not pay the casting cost. They should not gain a benefit from the casting cost. They did pay the draw cost. They should gain a benefit from the draw cost.
If an abomination might be more situationally useful than a photon when a player has 5 , then the photon is more useful than miracle in that situation.
However cards are not balanced based on situations because situations are created in response to card costs through deckbuilding. Ideally cards would be balanced that Abomination/5 + 1 card ~= Photon/1 card.

[waterzx]

I've been thinking about a new way of damage negation.

Here's the rough idea : You discard a card from deck whenever you are attacked in the next turn.

And I want to make it a Time card with a theme of escaping to future.

Here's the question :

1. Do we need another stalling card, especially in Time element ?

2. How much is enough ? How many turns should it last and how many cards should be discarded per unit damage ?

3. Is there still room for mechanics like mixing the roles of cards, quanta and HP ? I mean something like using HP to play cards, using cards which normally have no healing function to replenish HP, etc.

[OldTrees]

I've been thinking about a new way of damage negation.

Here's the rough idea : You discard a card from deck whenever you are attacked in the next turn.

And I want to make it a Time card with a theme of escaping to future.

Here's the question :

1. Do we need another stalling card, especially in Time element ?

2. How much is enough ? How many turns should it last and how many cards should be discarded per unit damage ?

3. Is there still room for mechanics like mixing the roles of cards, quanta and HP ? I mean something like using HP to play cards, using cards which normally have no healing function to replenish HP, etc.

1) The game would benefit from more cards. Time already has a lot of stall but could use some more after it gains some more non stall cards.
2) I see a problem:
Cards lost from the deck are less/more valuable than cards in the hand depending on the quantity. Most games end by 0hp rather than deckout. When this happens the loser still has X cards in their deck. They would not have been effected by milling X cards because they would reach 0hp before running out of deck. However the X+1th card would have lost them a turn. So milled cards from 1 to X are worth 0. From X+1 onwards they are worth 1 turn each. However it cannot give a turn of defense(you survive 1 more turn) since it cost a turn of defense. The best it could do would be a turn of offense(they survive 1 less turn).

3)Yes.

[furballdn]

What if the cost for creatures was no longer paid quanta? A 10 merely means you have to have 10 death pillars minimum. That means, with 3 life pillars, you can play as many frogs as you have frogs, but anything more than 3 . How would the game have to be rebalanced?

[OldTrees]

What if the cost for creatures was no longer paid quanta? A 10 merely means you have to have 10 death pillars minimum. That means, with 3 life pillars, you can play as many frogs as you have frogs, but anything more than 3 . How would the game have to be rebalanced?

The first thing to note is that 2 creatures cost less than twice the cost of 1 creature. (Except in the case of 0 cost creatures where it is exactly equal)
1 11 cost creature would have an equal cost to 11 1 cost creatures or 8 4 cost creatures or 6 6 cost creatures.
5 11 cost creatures would have an equal cost to 15 1 cost creatures or 12 4 cost creatures or 8 8 cost creatures.

Each card would individually have a benefit equivalent to a 0 cost creature. Playing a pillar would enable access to the next tier of creatures. Access to the next tier of creatures would have a net benefit equivalent to the net benefit of a 0 cost creature. The value of a 0 cost creature would need to be large enough that these net benefits could be expressed via incremental stat increases.

Nightfall gives all  and  creatures +1|+1 for 3 + 1 card.
A semi vanilla 4|2 (Phase Spider) costs 3 + 1 card.
Photon would be buffed to 4|2 stats, each +1 cost would translate into +1|+1 stats.

Card advantage in all forms (including activated abilities like snipe or growth) would be severely nerfed.
Mitigating effects would be strengthened. Removal and Negation would be nerfed.

Some effects like quanta denial would be removed.

[furballdn]

Does the game need more PC in the form of a creature (that can use destroy or something once) or PC in the form of permanents? If so, which elements?

Would a mine that dealt damage once the opponent played a creature/spell/permanent be a good idea? Should it damage each time they play a certain type of card or just a one time burst? Which element most fits this?

Oh, and I have an idea for a weapon that gets bonus damage when you have no shield equipped. Has this idea been done before? Which element would it fit under? I'm thinking earth. How much damage boost? A constant like +5 or a multiplier like double?

Are you a robot?

[OldTrees]

Does the game need more PC in the form of a creature (that can use destroy or something once) or PC in the form of permanents? If so, which elements?

Would a mine that dealt damage once the opponent played a creature/spell/permanent be a good idea? Should it damage each time they play a certain type of card or just a one time burst? Which element most fits this?

Oh, and I have an idea for a weapon that gets bonus damage when you have no shield equipped. Has this idea been done before? Which element would it fit under? I'm thinking earth. How much damage boost? A constant like +5 or a multiplier like double?

Are you a robot?

Does the game need more PC? Yes. Particularly in the elements that don't have any Hard or Soft PC. Shard of Focus could do this but I think the game would be better served with the addition of some more soft PC as well. Whether it is implemented in a spell, creature or permanent does not make much difference.

Trap based card have been suggested before. I think that the added complexity would be beneficial. However the mine idea does not have enough structure to have a default element. In cases like this a theme is needed to add further structure. How is the damage dealt? Why is the damage dealt?

I do not recall a 1-1/2 handed sword being suggested. There was a 2handed sword suggested. Taking a slot is worth -3 cost. +3 attack should be sufficient.

I am an organic robot but not a plant despite my namesake.

[furballdn]

Hm. I was thinking more along the lines of something like a Cestus. Having two hands free would allow more damage, but one could also use a shield. This way, it can be used together with a shield, but it does better without a shield. How should it be balanced if I want to make it deal double damage if the shield slot is empty? And what element does that fall under? Earth? Gravity?

For the mine idea, for balance, how much hp should the enemy lose if it's a one time thing, or if it's a "every time they play a certain card" type thing?

[OldTrees]

Hm. I was thinking more along the lines of something like a Cestus. Having two hands free would allow more damage, but one could also use a shield. This way, it can be used together with a shield, but it does better without a shield. How should it be balanced if I want to make it deal double damage if the shield slot is empty? And what element does that fall under? Earth? Gravity?

Not even RPGs let a 2 handed weapon deal double damage. A Cestus (as you have described it) is a 1-1/2 handed weapon.
Since it would get +3 attack a 3 attack weapon would be doubled to 6.
Earth probably fits better with the Strength them.

[furballdn]

What about instead of doubling, it's attack twice? It'd get affected by shields twice, and if I have the atk start at 3|4 for 3 or 4 quanta, it seems like it'd be relatively balanced. (3 cost for 6 damage is balanced with sacrificing shield. If shield sacrifice is -3, then that's 3dmg for 3 quanta.) (3 quanta for 8 damage sacrifice shield makes it around a 5/3 dmg/cost ratio, about the same as fahren and lobo). I don't know how it'd do with AW and buffs though.

[OldTrees]

What about instead of doubling, it's attack twice? It'd get affected by shields twice, and if I have the atk start at 3|4 for 3 or 4 quanta, it seems like it'd be relatively balanced. (3 cost for 6 damage is balanced with sacrificing shield. If shield sacrifice is -3, then that's 3dmg for 3 quanta.) (3 quanta for 8 damage sacrifice shield makes it around a 5/3 dmg/cost ratio, about the same as fahren and lobo). I don't know how it'd do with AW and buffs though.

Why would having a shield relate to weapon speed?

1 attack double damage is difficult because:
2X -3 -3 = X -3
6 (6 attack) -3 (weapon slot) -3 (shield slot) =  3 (6 attack) -3 (weapon slot) = 0
Obviously flown weapons do not get a bonus from the shield hand. That hand is busy with the current cestus.

2 attacks would seem like a constant effect independent of a shield. I thought an adrenal weapon had been suggested before.
However 2 attacks is weaker than double damage so it would be +4 damage for +3 cost.
2X -1 -3 -3 = X -3
8 (8 damage per turn) -1 (affected by shields twice) -3 (weapon slot) -3 (shield slot) =  4 (4 attack) -3 (weapon slot) = 1

A weapon that gained adrenaline if held in the weapon slot with an empty shield slot would have
10 (10 damage per turn) -2 (affected by shields thrice) -3 (weapon slot) -3 (shield slot) =  5 (5 attack) -3 (weapon slot) = 2