Ask the Idea Guru

[OldTrees]

Compact Guard has been shown to have balancing difficulties regarding facing a mono-deck with a different mark or similar decks that rely on the mark as a source to fuel low-costing cards/abilities but not the majority of the deck itself. Does +1 cost help resolve this issue or do I need to consider other balance measures?

The +1 cost would delay the playing of the shield. If it is a problem then it would be a problem due to the lockdown capability. Delaying the playing of the shield would only be effective at the point that the shield might/might not be too late. This would render it much less useful against all other decks.

If it is a problem, then a +1 cost would not be sufficient.

I would compare the damage it deals to mark splashing decks against the damage devourer does to those decks.

[furballdn]

Had some ideas yesterday.

A creature that is very efficient, but requires sacrificing a card from your hand (or perhaps top card of deck?) to attack. What should stats and cost be?

A permanent that damages any player for X damage if a player doesn't play a card during their turn. How much should X be? How much should cost be? Is this a forced combo with silence?

A permanent or spell that heals the user for X hp each time their opponent plays a card. Good idea? Half-good idea?

[OldTrees]

Had some ideas yesterday.

A creature that is very efficient, but requires sacrificing a card from your hand (or perhaps top card of deck?) to attack. What should stats and cost be?

A permanent that damages any player for X damage if a player doesn't play a card during their turn. How much should X be? How much should cost be? Is this a forced combo with silence?

A permanent or spell that heals the user for X hp each time their opponent plays a card. Good idea? Half-good idea?

Sacrificing a card per attack is very expensive. Based on how people reacted to the initial Flooding (Absorb ). A card per attack would have a similar problem. Aka the upkeep cost is probably too high.

It would be a combo with Silence and/or Quanta Denial. It would also be used to cause the opponent to play cards slower. It would have a low-medium cost (3-5). The damage would probably be around 5 but get input from the community.

Healing per card played would act like Healing per turn. In most cases it would be redundant with current Regeneration.

[furballdn]

Had some ideas yesterday.

A creature that is very efficient, but requires sacrificing a card from your hand (or perhaps top card of deck?) to attack. What should stats and cost be?

A permanent that damages any player for X damage if a player doesn't play a card during their turn. How much should X be? How much should cost be? Is this a forced combo with silence?

A permanent or spell that heals the user for X hp each time their opponent plays a card. Good idea? Half-good idea?

Sacrificing a card per attack is very expensive. Based on how people reacted to the initial Flooding (Absorb ). A card per attack would have a similar problem. Aka the upkeep cost is probably too high.

It would be a combo with Silence and/or Quanta Denial. It would also be used to cause the opponent to play cards slower. It would have a low-medium cost (3-5). The damage would probably be around 5 but get input from the community.

Healing per card played would act like Healing per turn. In most cases it would be redundant with current Regeneration.

What if you chose to activate it? It has high stats and cheap cost, but you need to activate it's ability that costs 0 quanta and says something like "Discard a card from your hand (or maybe the top of your deck). Attack"

Only 5? That seems really little, considering how it affects both players and is worse than a minor phoenix or lava golem.

Hm, okay.

Why do I feel SoI is a forced combo card?

What should be done about a card that is more powerful for its cost yet still UP?

[OldTrees]

Had some ideas yesterday.

A creature that is very efficient, but requires sacrificing a card from your hand (or perhaps top card of deck?) to attack. What should stats and cost be?

A permanent that damages any player for X damage if a player doesn't play a card during their turn. How much should X be? How much should cost be? Is this a forced combo with silence?

A permanent or spell that heals the user for X hp each time their opponent plays a card. Good idea? Half-good idea?

Sacrificing a card per attack is very expensive. Based on how people reacted to the initial Flooding (Absorb ). A card per attack would have a similar problem. Aka the upkeep cost is probably too high.

It would be a combo with Silence and/or Quanta Denial. It would also be used to cause the opponent to play cards slower. It would have a low-medium cost (3-5). The damage would probably be around 5 but get input from the community.

Healing per card played would act like Healing per turn. In most cases it would be redundant with current Regeneration.

What if you chose to activate it? It has high stats and cheap cost, but you need to activate it's ability that costs 0 quanta and says something like "Discard a card from your hand (or maybe the top of your deck). Attack"

Only 5? That seems really little, considering how it affects both players and is worse than a minor phoenix or lava golem.

Hm, okay.

Why do I feel SoI is a forced combo card?

What should be done about a card that is more powerful for its cost yet still UP?

Having it be an activation cost would not be much of an improvement. Although it would be necessary to reduce the vulnerability to adrenaline.

I might have overestimated the potential combos. It would be the second non weapon permanent with an attack. SoV has low attack.

SoI has 12 different possible partners. However it is not as flexible as most combos with 12 partners. I would not classify it as a forced combo however it is closer than I would feel comfortable designing.

There is a card that is more efficient than the standard for balance and yet is UP? Could you give an example?

[furballdn]

Something like 3 for 8|4 and 0: discard a card to attack. Is that balanced?

Well what about a comparison?

Berserk field
*does direct damage
*applies to both players
*only applies when a player plays no cards
*
*can combo with silence/denial

SoV
*permanent damage
*only applies to the opponent and happens every turn
*

A card that's more powerful for cost but also UP is a hypothetical example. Please ignore the forced combo issues that arise from the following example.

Magical potato 2 "Target antlion gains +10/+10". This card is more powerful than its cost, and would most likely be OP and OU, so it would require a nerf. What about something like this though?

Magical tomato 1 "Target antlion gains +2/+4 and momentum". This card is more powerful than its cost, but would it be OU or OP? Would that warrant a nerf?

[OldTrees]

Something like 3 for 8|4 and 0: discard a card to attack. Is that balanced?

Well what about a comparison?

Berserk field
*does direct damage
*applies to both players
*only applies when a player plays no cards
*
*can combo with silence/denial

SoV
*permanent damage
*only applies to the opponent and happens every turn
*

A card that's more powerful for cost but also UP is a hypothetical example. Please ignore the forced combo issues that arise from the following example.

Magical potato 2 "Target antlion gains +10/+10". This card is more powerful than its cost, and would most likely be OP and OU, so it would require a nerf. What about something like this though?

Magical tomato 1 "Target antlion gains +2/+4 and momentum". This card is more powerful than its cost, but would it be OU or OP? Would that warrant a nerf?

Yes. 8 attack would probably be balanced.

Good point with the comparison. I would up it to 10.

Both magic potato and tomato are OP. Antlion would be UP. UP + OP can be UP, net balanced or OP. OP cards should be nerfed and UP cards should be buffed. Magic tomato (while OP) would actually be an obstacle to balancing Antlion.

[odideph]

How can i accurately estimate the strength of this mechanism, and thus deduce the cost it should have?

Do you think this precise mechanism has been suggested before? (note the fundamental difference with the "cloak target thing" mechanism)

Should it be able to hide the colored bars aswell?

[furballdn]

How would a SoSa disloyalty penalty be changed to a loyalty bonus? Perhaps lose less hp if mark is ?

[OldTrees]

How can i accurately estimate the strength of this mechanism, and thus deduce the cost it should have?

Do you think this precise mechanism has been suggested before? (note the fundamental difference with the "cloak target thing" mechanism)

Should it be able to hide the colored bars aswell?

Cloak is usually used to prevent targeting. (Because it is hard to hide actual information from veterans) In this manner it is similar to a temporary mass Quint. Your suggestion is better at hiding information.* But does not prevent targeting.

The creature usage is soft anti CC when used on multiple creatures. (Might be better if 1 card can affect multiple targets)
Soft anti CC is balanced based on the additional resources required to succeed with the CC. In general anti-X should cost less than X. So Soft-anti CC should cost less than the additional CC required. Say 1 + 1 card cost per 3 + 1 card waste.
The player usage is information denial. (No good comparison to make here. Instead estimate it based on the waste it causes for the opponent.)

No your precise method of obscuring has not been tried before. There have been cards that cloak individual creatures but I think yours is sufficiently different bith in the scope and the type of obscuring.

Yes hide the colored bars

*You cannot obscure elemental quanta from a veteran ( can be obscured but only in character not in quantity). Atk buffs (Overdrive) can only be obscured if used on 1 of 2 or more 0 atk creatures.

How would a SoSa disloyalty penalty be changed to a loyalty bonus? Perhaps lose less hp if mark is ?

Add an optional* sacrifice to heal some of the paid hp. [death trigger]
*See the optional accreation when SoFo turns into a Black Hole.

[furballdn]

Why exactly is "do something super good/bad to random player" a bad idea? Wwhat if the something good/bad had a 60-40 split of percentages as opposed to a 50-50 one? What exactly, in your words, makes ese huge luck dependent game swingers a bad idea?

[OldTrees]

Why exactly is "do something super good/bad to random player" a bad idea? Wwhat if the something good/bad had a 60-40 split of percentages as opposed to a 50-50 one? What exactly, in your words, makes ese huge luck dependent game swingers a bad idea?

People value merit. A victory feels more satisfying if it was you that won rather than luck that won because it does not reflect on your character. Likewise a defeat feels worse when you lost to luck rather than to a good play because you might have won if not for bad luck.

However luck does a good job of making games less boring and less certain.