Post by: Drake_XIV on October 19, 2012, 11:58:50 pm
Much like my predecessor, I am available for questions.
Please keep the questions on topic. You are asking the Idea Guru not a scientist/philosopher/theologian/engineer/comedian ...
If a question would take too long to answer in this thread I might make another thread to address that question.
I welcome all on topic questions. However Suggestion Design questions are my specialization and are the most useful to card suggestion designers.
References:
Ask the Idea Guru [Original] - http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,32272.0.html
For now, I assume both threads will be kept open and OT will still respond every now and then, but the older one may eventually be locked. But it will be kept for reference.
Post by: ZephyrPhantom on October 20, 2012, 04:20:49 am
Is this based off BP's thread?
2) What are the top five nonshard cards you think should be buffed/reworked in this game, and how would you rework them?
3) Why do you feel the 1.31 Shards were so badly accepted by the ETG community?
Post by: Rutarete on October 20, 2012, 04:36:11 am
1)Funny seeing that quote here.Is this based off BP's thread?
How much do you think the three types of damage in elements should be balanced in amount compared to each other? Do you think we absolutely need more non-creature damage?
Post by: Drake_XIV on October 21, 2012, 07:37:18 am
1)Is this based off BP's thread?
2) What are the top five nonshard cards you think should be buffed/reworked in this game, and how would you rework them?
3) Why do you feel the 1.31 Shards were so badly accepted by the ETG community?
Heh, that question... On a more serious note, this is more heavily focused on card design than general game mechanics.
The five cards that I would say are, and this is just considering the unupgraded formes and without seriously affecting their stats and costs...
- Antlion - In light of Graboid, Antlion is definitely overshadowed. It got some help from Shard of Patience, but that isn't exactly as effective or fast. But rather than buffing Antlion itself, I'd like to see some modification to its Burrow ability. Perhaps shield bypassing and the like would be appropriate.
- Cockatrice - Compared to Frog and the combos that it can do, Cockatrice is underpowered despite having superior stats. Looking at its buff thread, there are several suggestions for abilities I wouldn't mind seeing on Cockatrice without seriously affecting the stats and costs of the present card.
- Flooding - This card has so much potential, especially in locking down the field. And while this is possible, I find it isn't often successful. I am at a loss as to how it should be redone, but feels as if it could be redone better.
- Aflatoxin - Another card that I feel could do so much better but is overlooked due to its price and is otherwise used for fun decks. This can be solved with simply dropping the costs, but I wonder how it would play out if it was changed to a mass poison effect, afflicting both sides with weaker Aflatoxin.
- Deathstalker - Compared to Dune Scorp, I can't help but feel Deathstalker is underpowered. Perhaps modifying the range of its poison, like inflicting 2 poison with every death effect or something similar. Or, and this applies to all scorpions, poisoning creatures when they attack them [Gravity Pull].
To be honest, I don't feel too many issues with Non-Shards. However underused most may be, they are balanced in their own respects.
For the Shards, I feel they were addressed the way they were because they felt... rushed. This was exactly the same kind if feel when someone takes what had seemed like a great Series idea and just pumped out ideas just to complete. I know, I've done it before.
Aside from that, there is the effects that it gave. Shard of Bravery gave all elements access to quicker drawing, which I felt should have been left to :time. And most infamous would be Shard of Focus, which allowed for relatively cheap, reusable PC to :rainbow decks, and still providing all other elements lacking in PC access to it. And I shouldn't have to go into detail, we've seen the threads.
On the opposite of the spectrum, some Shards just didn't feel worth it. Most notable, in my opinion, is Shard of Void. With the current gameplay, there is no reason to use this outside of a couple of viable decks. There is also
1)Funny seeing that quote here.Is this based off BP's thread?
How much do you think the three types of damage in elements should be balanced in amount compared to each other? Do you think we absolutely need more non-creature damage?
Three types? I assume that's referring to Physical [Creature and Weapon], Spell [Spell and Aether], and Poison damages.
I'll refrain from discussing balance until I get a better definition of what you mean by balance. Do you mean that they should maintain an equal ratio [Same amount of sources of Physical as Spell damage] or that they should hold true to a set ratio [For every 3 Physical sources, there should at least be 1 Spell].
As for non-creature damage, I don't think it will be so much an issue in adding more of it as long as counters are added sufficiently to the game. So if we were to expand the range of Spell dealing cards or Poison, it should be accompanied by another reflective shield or poison removal card.
All in all, I don't think it's NEEDED when strictly considering the current balance. But when looking for something new to add to the mix, it wouldn't hurt.
Post by: Rutarete on October 21, 2012, 07:59:42 am
Post by: Drake_XIV on October 21, 2012, 08:09:38 am
The third type I was referring to is Permanent damage. Currently the only in-game example of this is Catapult. Another example of this type of damage is my Giant card. Also, Zblader and I have made a series for this type on CIP, to be posted soon (hopefully). And I was thinking kind of of the latter ratio you mentioned.
Fixed some grammar things.
Well, considering Permanent damage, there is also Unstable Gas as well, but that is Spell damage. Also, Shard of Void may fit into this section as well. That being said, there isn't really much of a range as to classify this as its own.
Well, like I said before, I do not feel there should be a ratio set between the kinds of damage. However, it should be maintained that Physical damage takes a majority of damage sources. However the rest of this ratio ends up, I hold that it matters more to the amount of counters that resist said damage.
I shall expand on this more once I've had some rest.
Feel free to ask more questions.
Post by: waterzx on October 21, 2012, 11:46:49 am
This is one of the concept cards I have in mind, when you play that card, your opponent needs to choose either one : lose 10 HP or let you draw a card from opponent's deck.
Post by: Arwulf on October 21, 2012, 12:34:50 pm
For instance: Card X says : Do 3 damage to a creature or 5 to a player.
Using such phrasing a player does not even have to choose before the spell resolves as the target receives damage according to what type it is (3 if a creature, 5 if a player).
But then again, I know nothing about coding and/or whether Zanz feels like altering what cards may or may not do.
Post by: Drake_XIV on October 21, 2012, 10:36:27 pm
Do you think it is a good idea to have a card that have multiple effects, and when you play that card, your opponent can choose one of the effects to take place ?
This is one of the concept cards I have in mind, when you play that card, your opponent needs to choose either one : lose 10 HP or let you draw a card from opponent's deck.
To expand on that idea, how are the possibilities of implementing modal cards where you can choose out of two effects? I see how Waterzx's idea conflicts with current Elements interaction models (turn based), so letting an opponent making a choice upon resolution of your spells might be difficult; if YOU get to make decisions that should not apply though.
For instance: Card X says : Do 3 damage to a creature or 5 to a player.
Using such phrasing a player does not even have to choose before the spell resolves as the target receives damage according to what type it is (3 if a creature, 5 if a player).
But then again, I know nothing about coding and/or whether Zanz feels like altering what cards may or may not do.
The key issue with a concept like this is requiring opponent input during your turn, or vice versa. It may not prove to be an evident issue in PvE, but PvP will definitely make this incredibly troublesome, enough that it probably wouldn't be worth it.
Personally, I don't like the concept of having two ACTIVE abilities. However, if it were made in the form of a choice, where the card will have an effect in hand but do something different when played [See: Ghost of the Past].
As for the effects that waterzx is suggesting, I don't really like the concept of drawing from your opponent's deck, unless it's like Mindgate, or I am simply reading it wrong, so I can't accurately judge if that would be an applicable ability for such a case.
In Arwulf's case, the way I see it [For instance: Card X says : Do 3 damage to a creature or 5 to a player.], you could target both a creature or a player, but it would simply have a different effect depending on the target [Akin to Shockwave on a non-frozen and on a Frozen, RT on non-Undead and on an Undead]. But, again, if the choice is given to the opponent, that will be a pain to implement, from what I understand of the coding and of the interactions of PvP, which are usually strained enough.
Post by: artimies7 on October 21, 2012, 11:03:09 pm
OldTrees, which element needs a new card more than the others?None need a new card. All are functional.
All would benefit from a new card.
Most are incomplete.
Water is the element that would benefit the most after considering incompleteness and how long it has been.
2nd Life
3rd Earth
I've done a card for both Water (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,42758.0.html) and Life (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,43219.0.html) and neither were voted very far up in the Crucible chain.
Have you any particular observations for Earth on first thematics and then balance?
If you have time, reboot suggestions for the two previous cards would also be appreciated.
Post by: ZephyrPhantom on October 21, 2012, 11:11:04 pm
Post by: OldTrees on October 21, 2012, 11:16:19 pm
Game information only flows 1 way in a PvP game. It flows from the active player to the inactive player. This allows you to take your turn without waiting for returning messages. The consequence is you can only make decisions on your turn.
Background detail on completeness:
The completeness of an element is the extent they are able to initiate a variety of threats, respond to a variety of threats and respond to a variety of responses using only their type of quanta. (Don't forget about SoR)
Post by: Drake_XIV on October 21, 2012, 11:24:38 pm
In OT's thread (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,32272.msg528558.html#msg528558), he said:OldTrees, which element needs a new card more than the others?None need a new card. All are functional.
All would benefit from a new card.
Most are incomplete.
Water is the element that would benefit the most after considering incompleteness and how long it has been.
2nd Life
3rd Earth
I've done a card for both Water (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,42758.0.html) and Life (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,43219.0.html) and neither were voted very far up in the Crucible chain.
Have you any particular observations for Earth on first thematics and then balance?
If you have time, reboot suggestions for the two previous cards would also be appreciated.
River Monster
Two issues I see here are an ability that has very minimal effect and it utilizes a duo that will not be , or is rarely, used. It is a nice idea, but with the ability cost and the effect, it doesn't seem like it would really assist either :water or :time.
Mycelium
The unupgraded is fine, helps with minor CC issues in :life, but doesn't really help as most conventional CC would get rid of creatures before Mycelium kicks in if it is too late.
The upgraded is too similar to the original Shard of Patience, in my opinion, which poses a problem, especially with the attack boost that disregards delay and type. I personally do not like this passive mass growth in damage, as this turns a small swarm of low level creatures into sturdy midrange attackers quickly. But this does assist :life 's issues with bypassing DR.
To sum up my thoughts, I don't think these are exactly the kind of additions that :water and :life need. :water has too many out-element abilities, so putting a :time :time ability into it for something that would not be used so much isn't exactly something that would be used. :life could do with the buffing of this Mycelium, but I worry about how it can be abused. I'd suggest playtesting it.
I'm trying to get a better grasp of card analysis for now, which I still feel is a bit out of reach, so I will again refrain from make making design suggestions.
Post by: Zaealix on October 21, 2012, 11:37:47 pm
Post by: Drake_XIV on October 21, 2012, 11:57:50 pm
Do you think that there should be at least 1 competitive Mono-deck of every element?
In the perfect world, it would be nice to see that. And to a point, there is. Some are simply just better than others.
I guess that's the aim for balance that should be attained. What cards should be added in order to keep their respective MonoDecks up to par with the others'? But I digress...
Post by: OldTrees on October 21, 2012, 11:59:35 pm
When thinking about how to help an element here are some questions to consider:In OT's thread (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,32272.msg528558.html#msg528558), he said:OldTrees, which element needs a new card more than the others?None need a new card. All are functional.
All would benefit from a new card.
Most are incomplete.
Water is the element that would benefit the most after considering incompleteness and how long it has been.
2nd Life
3rd Earth
I've done a card for both Water (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,42758.0.html) and Life (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,43219.0.html) and neither were voted very far up in the Crucible chain.
Have you any particular observations for Earth on first thematics and then balance?
If you have time, reboot suggestions for the two previous cards would also be appreciated.
River Monster
Two issues I see here are an ability that has very minimal effect and it utilizes a duo that will not be , or is rarely, used. It is a nice idea, but with the ability cost and the effect, it doesn't seem like it would really assist either :water or :time.
Mycelium
The unupgraded is fine, helps with minor CC issues in :life, but doesn't really help as most conventional CC would get rid of creatures before Mycelium kicks in if it is too late.
The upgraded is too similar to the original Shard of Patience, in my opinion, which poses a problem, especially with the attack boost that disregards delay and type. I personally do not like this passive mass growth in damage, as this turns a small swarm of low level creatures into sturdy midrange attackers quickly. But this does assist :life 's issues with bypassing DR.
To sum up my thoughts, I don't think these are exactly the kind of additions that :water and :life need. :water has too many out-element abilities, so putting a :time :time ability into it for something that would not be used so much isn't exactly something that would be used. :life could do with the buffing of this Mycelium, but I worry about how it can be abused. I'd suggest playtesting it.
I'm trying to get a better grasp of card analysis for now, which I still feel is a bit out of reach, so I will again refrain from make making design suggestions.
1) What is the difference between a weakness and a deficiency?
Fire's creatures have low hp. However Fire is not deficient in responses to CC heavy decks.
2) What are the deficiencies of the element in question?
Life is creature based and thus can be shut down with CC. The creature focus is a weakness of Life but also a deficiency since Life does not have a response to CC heavy decks.
3) What are possible responses to the deficiency?
Responses to CC include but are not limited to: Non creature win conditions, Swarming, CC resilience/immunity, Punishing CC.
4) Which responses fit the element in question?
Enter thematics
5) Is my implementation of the response vulnerable to the problem?
Mitosis enables spawning but is shut down by CC. Therefore Mitosis based spawning is not a response to CC.
6) Does my implementation work against the problem?
5 is about whether the solution is shut down by the problem. 6 is about whether the solution would work if not shut down.
Post by: Zaealix on October 22, 2012, 12:15:13 am
Post by: Annele on October 22, 2012, 12:18:54 am
Post by: EmeraldTiger on October 22, 2012, 02:55:24 am
Post by: Rutarete on October 22, 2012, 03:00:04 am
Post by: Drake_XIV on October 22, 2012, 03:03:36 am
Posting to keep track, and to ask; what you think 2 damage reduction is worth, compared to 1 damage reduction?
I like to think that the initial DR costs 1 :underworld while every subsequent DR adds +2 :underworld to cost.
What do you think would be good substitutes for the series in game? Ex dragons, nymphs. Are they the best representation for what they are (big fantasy creatures) and what they do?
I'm sorry, but could you elaborate on what exactly you are asking? What do you mean by substitutes? Do you mean representations of their elements?
Post by: Rutarete on October 22, 2012, 04:09:57 am
It's more of a question on thematics/representation. Would it be better to have dinosaurs instead of dragons (not all Dinos are airborne, just an example of other big things). Is there a creature that would fit the nymph's abilities better than a nymph?What do you think would be good substitutes for the series in game? Ex dragons, nymphs. Are they the best representation for what they are (big fantasy creatures) and what they do?
I'm sorry, but could you elaborate on what exactly you are asking? What do you mean by substitutes? Do you mean representations of their elements?
Post by: OldTrees on October 22, 2012, 04:31:00 am
Titanium Shield -> Diamond Shield: 1 upgrade + 2 cost = +1DRPosting to keep track, and to ask; what you think 2 damage reduction is worth, compared to 1 damage reduction?
I like to think that the initial DR costs 1 :underworld while every subsequent DR adds +2 :underworld to cost.
Ice Shield -> Permafrost Shield: 1 upgrade + 1 cost = +1DR
Post by: Drake_XIV on October 22, 2012, 04:32:09 am
Titanium Shield -> Diamond Shield: 1 upgrade + 2 cost = +1DRPosting to keep track, and to ask; what you think 2 damage reduction is worth, compared to 1 damage reduction?
I like to think that the initial DR costs 1 :underworld while every subsequent DR adds +2 :underworld to cost.
Ice Shield -> Permafrost Shield: 1 upgrade + 1 cost = +1DR
Yes, but I was simply approaching it from unupgraded. There is still the upgraded cost drop to consider after the fact, which usually comes out to be -1 :underworld.
Post by: Drake_XIV on October 22, 2012, 04:35:33 am
It's more of a question on thematics/representation. Would it be better to have dinosaurs instead of dragons (not all Dinos are airborne, just an example of other big things). Is there a creature that would fit the nymph's abilities better than a nymph?What do you think would be good substitutes for the series in game? Ex dragons, nymphs. Are they the best representation for what they are (big fantasy creatures) and what they do?
I'm sorry, but could you elaborate on what exactly you are asking? What do you mean by substitutes? Do you mean representations of their elements?
Dinosaurs? What? Those seem to embody :earth more than anything and the allowance of Dragons ensures that elements like :earth aren't completely screwed over by Wings.
Yes, there would definitely be better themes that would embody the niche the Nymphs fill much better than they do, but they would lose a series feel to them, meaning there is no set of creatures, or creature, that is well rounded enough to replace them. Unless you go for machinery or mecha, but that's subject to the designer's whims.
Post by: Captain Scibra on October 26, 2012, 08:11:02 pm
Post by: Drake_XIV on October 26, 2012, 09:37:39 pm
For the weaker elements, what do you think would greatly improve them the most? How would you address the problem that they face in events like War?
Well, it depends on the Element, no? What exactly do you define as "weak," because all that comes to my mind as elements as a whole are :water and :life
:water could do with some way to actually to use its many abilities at once without having to turn to being a Rainbow.
:life could do with some means of buffing its frail but cheap creatures.
To be honest, I am unfamiliar really with how War works, so I'm afraid I must refrain from saying anything for the time being. However, wouldn't this lead to an increase of duos and the like instead of running strict mono?
Post by: Captain Scibra on October 26, 2012, 11:31:53 pm
Well, it depends on the Element, no? What exactly do you define as "weak," because all that comes to my mind as elements as a whole are :water and :life
:water could do with some way to actually to use its many abilities at once without having to turn to being a Rainbow.
Osmoson sounds like a possibility, as what you suggest could be an alternative to being a counter to a skill-heavy deck.
:life could do with some means of buffing its frail but cheap creatures.
Not sure about this one, though several reactive anti CC cards have been put forth as card ideas.
To be honest, I am unfamiliar really with how War works, so I'm afraid I must refrain from saying anything for the time being. However, wouldn't this lead to an increase of duos and the like instead of running strict mono?
War to me tests how an element works as a part of duo, and occasionally as a mono or part of a rainbow. On top of that there is of course strategy elements involved. So I guess the main question is: what elements do you think have problems synergizing with multiple elements on an effective basis, and what could be a solution for those that don't?
Post by: Drake_XIV on October 26, 2012, 11:54:29 pm
Well, it depends on the Element, no? What exactly do you define as "weak," because all that comes to my mind as elements as a whole are :water and :life
:water could do with some way to actually to use its many abilities at once without having to turn to being a Rainbow.
Osmoson sounds like a possibility, as what you suggest could be an alternative to being a counter to a skill-heavy deck.:life could do with some means of buffing its frail but cheap creatures.
Not sure about this one, though several reactive anti CC cards have been put forth as card ideas.To be honest, I am unfamiliar really with how War works, so I'm afraid I must refrain from saying anything for the time being. However, wouldn't this lead to an increase of duos and the like instead of running strict mono?
War to me tests how an element works as a part of duo, and occasionally as a mono or part of a rainbow. On top of that there is of course strategy elements involved. So I guess the main question is: what elements do you think have problems synergizing with multiple elements on an effective basis, and what could be a solution for those that don't?
To be honest, I don't think that any one element has a problem, just that some may be better than others. That being said, I'd have to say :aether, :darkness, and :fire. Great as they may be as monos, they kind of lack in expanding past that.
Outside of Fractal and Parallel Universe, :aether has a hard time just being added to a deck as a bigger part while maintaining proper balance.
:darkness has some out-element abilities, but none are very useful. And Nightmare's use in Ghostmare or anti-AI Neuro decks does not really count towards a complete synergy.
While :fire does has Immolation | Cremation, it is rarely seen used to generate any really Rainbow decks and any non-:fire cards are merely cheap splashes. However, Deflagration | Explosion is easily added to most decks with its costs and Lava Golem | Lava Destroyer is often seen in many a Rainbow deck.
Post by: ZephyrPhantom on October 27, 2012, 02:47:32 pm
What element do you feel is the least flexible?
(Completion =/= Flexiblity. One element may fit both questions, though.)
Post by: Drake_XIV on October 27, 2012, 03:13:12 pm
What element do you feel is the least Complete?
What element do you feel is the least flexible?
(Completion =/= Flexiblity. One element may fit both questions, though.)
Let's turn to this Article for comparison.
http://elementscommunity.org/wiki/Overview_of_the_elements
In terms of Complete, we can see that :air, :death, :life, and :water would be the most incomplete, seeing as they are lacking in at least three major sections.
However, this doesn't exactly translate into inflexibility. Not exactly. I believe that the most inflexible elements are :life and :time in terms of synergy. :life does not often stray outside the realm of pure rushing lest it is splashed into other decks and :time doesn't really use much of others since it is pricey. Also, I'd say :fire is pretty inflexible since it doesn't really require the need of another element. The same can be said for :entropy and :darkness, who are among the most complete elements. But this is much different from saying they are invalid elements due to this.
Post by: ZephyrPhantom on October 27, 2012, 03:37:27 pm
Post by: Drake_XIV on October 27, 2012, 04:01:18 pm
What do you believe creates a lot of disinterest/backlash in the idea of PseudoElement cards?
Personally, I don't like most of them, to be honest. It over complicates things.
Also, from a designer's perspective, it may just seem lazy. I find several ideas can easily be fit into another element, but are not. They are instead added to an element of choice.
Do not get this confused with duo element cards, although that can be refuted the same way. Would Steam Machine be any different if it was :fire with a :water ability?
However, I can see the appeal. The Pseudo allows for a larger creative support for the card as you have free reign over thematics.
Post by: OldTrees on October 28, 2012, 06:11:09 am
For the weaker elements, what do you think would greatly improve them the most? How would you address the problem that they face in events like War?The weaker elements in EtG are usually weaker in that they do not have an answer to their weakness. Thus the result of clashing with their weakness is predicable enough for their opponent to exploit. (Hence my push for what I call completeness)
I have not played War. The following is from my observations as a spectator and my experiences at similarly higher tier metagames.
(regular MtG multiplayer playgroup with evolving decks to utilize mental interaction like politics and manipulating threat levels.)
War is not an EtG match. War is not a tournament of EtG matches. War is a vault strategy game using a tournament of EtG matches as the field. A team who is more predictable can be taken advantage of.
What do you believe creates a lot of disinterest/backlash in the idea of PseudoElement cards?
4 reasons
1) No obvious in game precedent. ( :rainbow and Pendulums excluded as being coincident)
2) Generally poor quality as a result of rushing and not deriving the correct usages of the suggestion.
3) Lack of well communicated persuasive reasons for how EtG would benefit.
4) Generally poor themes or misunderstanding of the correct classification.
If you meant the PseudoElement classification rather than the PseudoElement Crucible, please correct me.
Post by: Zaealix on November 05, 2012, 02:31:09 pm
Some way to stop drawing cards, either to force opponent into a stalemate, or to protect from deckout-
Possibly split into 2 cards, one for self use in exchange for some other benefit (Maybe an extra mark quanta per turn of not drawing a card?) As well as a version to use on the opponent to 'lock down' or at least give yourself the time to get a slow strategy going.
Thoughts?
Post by: ZephyrPhantom on November 07, 2012, 12:21:56 am
I am concerned there may be a broken combo with one of the rainbow-generation cards (Nova, Immolation) that I'm missing. Do you see pootential abuse between this + Nova or this + Immolation?I think if there is a tie among highest quanta pools, it should generate 2/3 randomly among those tied.
The reason tie=no generation is to avoid Nova abuse. 1 Nova = 2 Butterflies, which leaves 1 quantum in 2 pools; perfect for an aggresive start as the butterflies would each generate 2 quanta. Rainbow rushes are powerful and this card is meant to encourage duo/trio builds.
BUT their mark will generate 1 quanta. Which would make the butterfly generate 1 mark quanta, that's it.
Post by: Drake_XIV on November 09, 2012, 06:40:11 pm
Man things got slow up in here-Hey, basic spell card idea
Some way to stop drawing cards, either to force opponent into a stalemate, or to protect from deckout-
Possibly split into 2 cards, one for self use in exchange for some other benefit (Maybe an extra mark quanta per turn of not drawing a card?) As well as a version to use on the opponent to 'lock down' or at least give yourself the time to get a slow strategy going.
Thoughts?
Compare to Eternity/Rewind and Nightmare.
Eternity/Rewind has a similar exchange effect where they put you into a draw lock if you leave a creature vulnerable, but in exchange for that creature not being killed.
Nightmare does so as well by generating a hand full of the target creature.
That being said, I'd say the compensation for your effects would be to significantly raise the cost of your idea or generate more quanta for the target.
Dichromatic Butterfly (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,42298.0.html)I am concerned there may be a broken combo with one of the rainbow-generation cards (Nova, Immolation) that I'm missing. Do you see pootential abuse between this + Nova or this + Immolation?I think if there is a tie among highest quanta pools, it should generate 2/3 randomly among those tied.
The reason tie=no generation is to avoid Nova abuse. 1 Nova = 2 Butterflies, which leaves 1 quantum in 2 pools; perfect for an aggresive start as the butterflies would each generate 2 quanta. Rainbow rushes are powerful and this card is meant to encourage duo/trio builds.
BUT their mark will generate 1 quanta. Which would make the butterfly generate 1 mark quanta, that's it.
With Nova, not really. It is really dependent on what the Moth drains.
With Immolation, perhaps. It might overshadow Brimstone Eater, but definitely Ash Eater in Immo decks.
But this is dependent on there being no ties, which may actually seem harder than it is with a Rainbow. That being said, I do not know how to gauge abuse when considering the RNG.
Post by: OldTrees on November 09, 2012, 07:24:23 pm
Dichromatic Butterfly (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,42298.0.html)I am concerned there may be a broken combo with one of the rainbow-generation cards (Nova, Immolation) that I'm missing. Do you see pootential abuse between this + Nova or this + Immolation?I think if there is a tie among highest quanta pools, it should generate 2/3 randomly among those tied.
The reason tie=no generation is to avoid Nova abuse. 1 Nova = 2 Butterflies, which leaves 1 quantum in 2 pools; perfect for an aggresive start as the butterflies would each generate 2 quanta. Rainbow rushes are powerful and this card is meant to encourage duo/trio builds.
BUT their mark will generate 1 quanta. Which would make the butterfly generate 1 mark quanta, that's it.
Nova + 2 Butterflies =
1 quanta in 2 random pools
+ 2 quanta to each of those pools
+ 1 mark quanta for either 4|3|0x10 (34/144) or 3|3|1|0x9 (110/144) quanta
4|3|0x10 (34/144) is 1 Mark + 2 Mark Pillars + non mark 2 Elemental Pillars of a random type for 1 Mark + 3 cards
3|3|1|0x9 (110/144) is 1 Mark + 2x2 non mark Elemental Pillars of random types for 1 Mark + 3 cards
Not worth the investment.
Immolation + 2 Butterflies ~=
41% 6 :fire + 1 quanta of 1 non fire type
2 Fire Pillars + 2 Mark Pillars (1/11 since the mark is not fire)
2 Fire Pillars + 2 non fire non mark pillars (10/11 since the mark is not fire)
38% 5 :fire + 1 quanta of 2 non fire types
On the third turn the butterfiles would see 5 :fire, 2 mark quanta and 2 irrelevant quanta. (90/121 since the mark is not fire)
or on the second turn they would see 5 :fire, 2 mark quanta and 1 irrelevant quanta. (31/121 since the mark is not fire)
Post by: ZephyrPhantom on November 13, 2012, 05:19:56 am
Is the card correctly priced?
Post by: OldTrees on November 13, 2012, 05:55:48 am
Elemental Gem | Refined Elemental Gem (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,44683.0.html)If I have a full hand of 1 Elemental Gem and 7 Elemental cards, I pay 5 :rainbow (in a mono deck that is very close to 5 Mark quanta) to get 7 Mark quanta. Of course we could do Nova + Fractal + Elemental Gem x2 for 3 cards -> 12 Mark quanta turnaround. However I do not see it used without nova.
Is the card correctly priced?
Post by: Jyiber on November 17, 2012, 07:57:40 am
This spell card sacrifices your starting mark card, 25% of your maximum health, and costs 10 of it's element.
It creates a creature that has high health and attack, which has a new and unique power for each element.
Post by: Drake_XIV on November 17, 2012, 08:09:43 am
Thoughts on a card called Avatar? Thematically, you summon a representation of your elemental.
This spell card sacrifices your starting mark card, 25% of your maximum health, and costs 10 of it's element.
It creates a creature that has high health and attack, which has a new and unique power for each element.
I feel as if I've seen an idea like this floating around the CIA a few times. I'll have to dredge through the older pages...
Considering the effect, what incentive do you have to carry multiple of these? An idea, as I've learned, should be viable even with multiple copies. Also, the concept of "Hero" cards, from what I've seen, are not favoured here. [Seeking appropriate link]
Also, how would it react with Parallel Universe?
Post by: memimemi on November 17, 2012, 08:31:04 am
On to the question: I agree with your point on how Flooding/Inundation feels like it should be a good card, but just plain isn't.
Would you agree with me that a reasonable way to balance it (and buff Water a bit, which needs it imho) would be to make it work on immaterial and/or burrowed creatures?
Post by: Jyiber on November 17, 2012, 09:21:43 am
Thoughts on a card called Avatar? Thematically, you summon a representation of your elemental.
This spell card sacrifices your starting mark card, 25% of your maximum health, and costs 10 of it's element.
It creates a creature that has high health and attack, which has a new and unique power for each element.
I feel as if I've seen an idea like this floating around the CIA a few times. I'll have to dredge through the older pages...
Considering the effect, what incentive do you have to carry multiple of these? An idea, as I've learned, should be viable even with multiple copies. Also, the concept of "Hero" cards, from what I've seen, are not favoured here. [Seeking appropriate link]
Also, how would it react with Parallel Universe?
I'm not really sure what is meant by hero card, since I don't really play card games. This is just a random idea I had based on the whole "your element is an elemental" thing. I suppose the main idea on getting one on the field is for a strong mono-element purpose. That would mean that the effects created would have strong synergies with multiple cards from it's element.
I think your only allowed to have one on your side of the field at a time, for balance purposes. PU and Fractal cannot target it. Casting a new one cost another 25% of your max health and 10 quanta of it's element. The idea for carrying multiple of it's card is to have backup for if it gets killed, since it'll be essential to whatever strategy it carries.
I think if it dies, you regain the mark card you sacrificed to summon it, allowing you to recast, but wait a turn to get it going.
Post by: OldTrees on November 17, 2012, 09:59:41 am
I think your only allowed to have one on your side of the field at a time, for balance purposes.The problem with cards that only allow 1 copy (legendary, hero, avatar, ...) is that this ^ is not a balance tool. It does not impact balance despite its deceptive appearance. All it does is artificially limit the card pool versatility and disguise potential imbalance.
Post by: Jyiber on November 17, 2012, 06:52:15 pm
I think your only allowed to have one on your side of the field at a time, for balance purposes.The problem with cards that only allow 1 copy (legendary, hero, avatar, ...) is that this ^ is not a balance tool. It does not impact balance despite its deceptive appearance. All it does is artificially limit the card pool versatility and disguise potential imbalance.
Ok, revision. Allow there to be multiple copies, or even different elemental's avatars on the field. But you need the additional mark cards to create them, as well as have to keep in mind how much health you have. The 25% of your maximum health is reactivated each time.
I'm also curious on how to proceed with the percentage of maximum health thing. Should it be:
Example A) Summons Avatar while at 100/100 Health. Health becomes 75/100
Example B) Summons Avatar while at 100/100 Health. Health becomes 75/75
Thematically your creating a representation of your elemental, so it's like your cutting a piece of yourself off.
Post by: eaglgenes101 on November 19, 2012, 01:03:45 am
Thoughts on a card called Avatar? Thematically, you summon a representation of your elemental.
This spell card sacrifices your starting mark card, 25% of your maximum health, and costs 10 of it's element.
It creates a creature that has high health and attack, which has a new and unique power for each element.
I feel as if I've seen an idea like this floating around the CIA a few times. I'll have to dredge through the older pages...
Considering the effect, what incentive do you have to carry multiple of these? An idea, as I've learned, should be viable even with multiple copies. Also, the concept of "Hero" cards, from what I've seen, are not favoured here. [Seeking appropriate link]
Also, how would it react with Parallel Universe?
Shields tend to be suckish in multiples. The most no-expiration shields I've seen in a serious deck, as far as I can remember, is in a CCYB mod (3).
Post by: Rutarete on November 19, 2012, 05:33:12 am
Post by: Drake_XIV on November 19, 2012, 05:49:32 am
I think your only allowed to have one on your side of the field at a time, for balance purposes.The problem with cards that only allow 1 copy (legendary, hero, avatar, ...) is that this ^ is not a balance tool. It does not impact balance despite its deceptive appearance. All it does is artificially limit the card pool versatility and disguise potential imbalance.
Ok, revision. Allow there to be multiple copies, or even different elemental's avatars on the field. But you need the additional mark cards to create them, as well as have to keep in mind how much health you have. The 25% of your maximum health is reactivated each time.
I'm also curious on how to proceed with the percentage of maximum health thing. Should it be:
Example A) Summons Avatar while at 100/100 Health. Health becomes 75/100
Example B) Summons Avatar while at 100/100 Health. Health becomes 75/75
Thematically your creating a representation of your elemental, so it's like your cutting a piece of yourself off.
It depends. In the case of B, would the health be returned? Would max HP be raised again?
Thoughts on a card called Avatar? Thematically, you summon a representation of your elemental.
This spell card sacrifices your starting mark card, 25% of your maximum health, and costs 10 of it's element.
It creates a creature that has high health and attack, which has a new and unique power for each element.
I feel as if I've seen an idea like this floating around the CIA a few times. I'll have to dredge through the older pages...
Considering the effect, what incentive do you have to carry multiple of these? An idea, as I've learned, should be viable even with multiple copies. Also, the concept of "Hero" cards, from what I've seen, are not favoured here. [Seeking appropriate link]
Also, how would it react with Parallel Universe?
Shields tend to be suckish in multiples. The most no-expiration shields I've seen in a serious deck, as far as I can remember, is in a CCYB mod (3).
Well, Shields and Weapons are kind of exempt from this multiple rule since they can only occupy the same slot. For creatures, it is felt that since there are 23 available slots, they should be promoted in numbers, particularly because when it comes to these single copy cards, it may be too abusable in Rainbows or just not that helpful in Monos.
How do you feel about the power of Symbiosis (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,44722.0.html)? And what do you think about comboing it with Nightmare?First thing that came to my mind was Feral Bond when I saw it.
Ah, the upgraded version... It's a tad interesting because unless you're up against :gravity, :earth, or :light, you risk taking much more damage than needed since you're amplifying it with Nightmare, which should be their creatures considering you need them to play them to make the upped and Nightmare to be worth it...
Post by: Cheesy111 on November 19, 2012, 08:07:01 am
Post by: Jyiber on November 19, 2012, 08:51:47 am
I'm also curious on how to proceed with the percentage of maximum health thing. Should it be:
Example A) Summons Avatar while at 100/100 Health. Health becomes 75/100
Example B) Summons Avatar while at 100/100 Health. Health becomes 75/75
Thematically your creating a representation of your elemental, so it's like your cutting a piece of yourself off.
It depends. In the case of B, would the health be returned? Would max HP be raised again?
Either I misunderstood you, or you misunderstood me. The question was which is a more fair sacrifice.
Ex A) Subtracting 25% of your maximum health from your current health.
Ex B) Actually cutting your max total max health by 25%.
A is a better price if your going to prevent rapid spamming, but leaves healing on the table for recovery.
B will make it harder to use healing (other than from something like SoD) because you cant heal back the lost max hp. But on the other hand... assuming this person has multiple mark cards, you could spam avatars because as a percentage the total hp lost each time gets smaller and smaller.
Post by: Drake_XIV on November 22, 2012, 09:04:33 am
What do you think of this idea for a new quanta generator type? http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,44740.0.html
Hm, it does seem worth expanding upon... I take it this will not be limited to Fire, but added to all elements? Would this be treated like a Pillar [unlimited copies] or like a standard card?
But looking at it more, this seems quite limited, especially if the card number is restricted, leaving Novae and Immo to be the better solutions...
I'm also curious on how to proceed with the percentage of maximum health thing. Should it be:
Example A) Summons Avatar while at 100/100 Health. Health becomes 75/100
Example B) Summons Avatar while at 100/100 Health. Health becomes 75/75
Thematically your creating a representation of your elemental, so it's like your cutting a piece of yourself off.
It depends. In the case of B, would the health be returned? Would max HP be raised again?
Either I misunderstood you, or you misunderstood me. The question was which is a more fair sacrifice.
Ex A) Subtracting 25% of your maximum health from your current health.
Ex B) Actually cutting your max total max health by 25%.
A is a better price if your going to prevent rapid spamming, but leaves healing on the table for recovery.
B will make it harder to use healing (other than from something like SoD) because you cant heal back the lost max hp. But on the other hand... assuming this person has multiple mark cards, you could spam avatars because as a percentage the total hp lost each time gets smaller and smaller.
Ah, sorry. I had meant for Case B, when this Avatar dies, would you regain this lost Max HP?
Post by: ZephyrPhantom on November 25, 2012, 09:17:28 pm
Minor Vampire 11 :darkness + 2 cards = 8 Vampire damage per turnDo you consider the following combos overpowered? If so, what do you recommend as a balance fix?
Otyugh 5 :gravity + 8 :darkness + 2 cards + 2 :gravity per turn = 6 damage per turn + 2 devours per turn (5hp & 9hp)
Post by: eaglgenes101 on November 26, 2012, 12:53:38 am
And is it balanced?
Post by: EmeraldTiger on December 09, 2012, 02:23:46 pm
thoughts?
Post by: Drake_XIV on December 10, 2012, 02:31:12 am
Deceptive Doppelgänger | Devious Doppelgänger (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,44814.0.html)Minor Vampire 11 :darkness + 2 cards = 8 Vampire damage per turnDo you consider the following combos overpowered? If so, what do you recommend as a balance fix?
Otyugh 5 :gravity + 8 :darkness + 2 cards + 2 :gravity per turn = 6 damage per turn + 2 devours per turn (5hp & 9hp)
I'd propose a larger cost. In my opinion, it is too much like Parallel Universe at its cost and that doesn't account for the stat boost.
I'm having trouble getting others to accept my thematics of http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,43736.0.html . Help?
And is it balanced?
I see where you are going with it...
However, it doesn't seem like :earth at the base of it. Your argument is that the quanta is being stored in an earthen vessel or sorts. The issue arises from that can be applied to anything. Why can't the quanta be stored in a plant based vessel or something? That being said, it goes down to what element takes the theme of storing energy, which goes to :gravity or :aether.
In any case, you can disregard all of that if you do wish. It really will only effect poll position.
As for balance, I would just set it equal to Silence. In compensation to playing things, you limit the use of abilities.
(http://i.imgur.com/5ZLJy.png)
thoughts?
I'm going to need more information on what "badly behaved" is.
Post by: EmeraldTiger on December 10, 2012, 04:07:46 am
Post by: Drake_XIV on December 10, 2012, 06:43:32 am
Post by: EmeraldTiger on December 10, 2012, 06:35:35 pm
Thought on the direction it should take. Also any balancing pointers.
Post by: Jyiber on December 12, 2012, 05:08:55 am
Imagine if every damage and healing effect has a random chance to reverse.
Imagine if the skill you try to give to a creature kills it.
Imagine if a Firebolt decided to do 4 damage per bolt on a target creature.
Imagine if that same Firebolt turned into Mitosis.
What I'm suggesting is that every cast spell under the effect has a random chance to behave differently or change entirely.
Post by: Drake_XIV on December 12, 2012, 06:52:55 am
How would it affect Pandemonium? Or other AoE spells for that matter?
Post by: MystiK_ on December 14, 2012, 02:27:45 am
Post by: Jyiber on December 15, 2012, 07:15:59 am
Hm... Interesting. I'd increase the cost a bit since it will kill Nova, Immo, etc.
How would it affect Pandemonium? Or other AoE spells for that matter?
Well, the easy way to answer the latter questions is to say: I want to avoid breaking the game.
Any multi-targeting card affected should either have
A) full randomness across the board or
B) the same random effect for everything.
Pandemonium's solution poses an interesting question: How do you make random more random?
I humbly suggest adding squirrels to the equation.
As for increasing the cost, yeah, that suggestion I had seen coming. I just was too lazy to change after I had finished making the card. It should go up.
Post by: Jyiber on December 29, 2012, 01:58:18 am
This idea I somewhat brought up on OT's thread a while back after the update that limited the quanta pool. What if there was a card that raised it. This time I'll try to bring forth all the parts of designing such a card I foresee as problems.
1) Would a card that raises the pool produce interesting synergies? Yes or no?
2) A card with the sole purpose of raising the pool isn't good enough. Yes or No?
3) What element do you feel this card belong to. See a clear fit?
4) If raising the pool isn't good enough, and you know what element this fits, what would a fitting secondary mechanic be?
As a side note: Maybe I had my design process backwards and I should have started with the elements that have cards that are dependent on quanta pool size: :fire :water :darkness :earth. These being Bolts and Stone Skin. Should I relate the card to an element that has synergies with each of these.
Post by: Daguerreo on January 04, 2013, 09:52:09 pm
I have a doubt about my old new creation, could I have some opinion please? :D
Sea Wave | Ocean Wave (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,45642.0.html)
Post by: Drake_XIV on January 16, 2013, 09:13:30 am
Hi again.
This idea I somewhat brought up on OT's thread a while back after the update that limited the quanta pool. What if there was a card that raised it. This time I'll try to bring forth all the parts of designing such a card I foresee as problems.
1) Would a card that raises the pool produce interesting synergies? Yes or no?
2) A card with the sole purpose of raising the pool isn't good enough. Yes or No?
3) What element do you feel this card belong to. See a clear fit?
4) If raising the pool isn't good enough, and you know what element this fits, what would a fitting secondary mechanic be?
As a side note: Maybe I had my design process backwards and I should have started with the elements that have cards that are dependent on quanta pool size: :fire :water :darkness :earth. These being Bolts and Stone Skin. Should I relate the card to an element that has synergies with each of these.
1. No, it does not necessarily seem to me that it would produce interesting synergies. It would just resurface the bolt decks that were more viable before the quanta caps.
2. With the current card pool and where such a card could fit, I would have to say no, it is not good enough. A spell card that would serve only to remove or raise quanta caps seems limited only bolt decks and the occasional Fractal dragon deck.
3. Outside of being colourless, this seems to me to be more of an :aether or :water idea, since quanta can be seen as energy that can be pooled. Definitely not fire, since it would have far too much to gain from it [Fire Bolt, Fahrenheit].
4. Well, I'd have the secondary ability be to somehow make use of raising said cap. It itself could be a card that raises the cap based on quanta [e.g "Raise quanta caps by 5 for every 10 :underworld you own."] or something to said effect.
5. As of 1.32, each of these elements have their own means of amassing loads of quanta to reach said cap quickly, but I'd feel it would do best in :water or :earth, if anything. However, I am unsure at the moment how this would affect the cards as of now. But if it were put out of element, there is simply not enough for it to see much use.
Hi new idea guru :D
I have a doubt about my old new creation, could I have some opinion please? :D
Sea Wave | Ocean Wave (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,45642.0.html)
It seems like a very interesting way to generate more :water. However, I question the use of the unupped in the long term for both versions.
1. Especially with the change in SoPa, the upgraded forme seems like it would see a lot of abuse despite the 0 health, and definitely overshadows Spark.
2. This actually seems a bit more balanced to me, although, again, the in-element SoPa comes to mind...
Also, with the addition of Dessication, I can't help but feel this is overshadowed in use by both the new spell and the redone SoPa.
Post by: laxnut90 on February 04, 2013, 08:52:22 pm
The way this ability would work is that some other effect would come from playing two of the same spell in the same turn.
In a way, this ability already exists with the 2 Supernovas produce a Singularity effect.
I think it would be interesting if this could be used in new spells and/or added to existing ones
Here are some ideas for cards based on this effect
Cyanide [Spell] [3 Death Quantum] : Target player gets 2 poison counters. Draw a card. Chain: Target gets an extra poison counter for each "Cyanide" played this turn.
Cascading Lava: [Spell] [5 Fire Quantum] : Target takes 3 damage for every 10 Fire Quantum you control. Chain: Target takes an extra damage per 10 Quantum for each "Cascading Lava" played this turn.
Steady Rejuvenation: [Spell] [4 Life Quantum] : Target gains 15 maximum health. Draw a card. Chain: Target gains an extra 10 maximum health for each "Steady Rejuvenation" played this turn.
Building Mass: [Spell] [4 Gravity Quantum] : Target creature gains +0/+5 and is affected by gravity pull. Chain: Target gains an extra +0/+3 for every "Building Mass" played this turn.
Worker Ant: [Creature] [2 Earth Quantum] : 2/2 Worker ant enters the battlefield burrowed. Chain: Worker Ant gets +2/+2 for every "Worker Ant" played this turn. Unburrow [1 Earth Quantum]
These may obviously need some balancing, but what do you think of the "Chain" idea itself.
Post by: Drake_XIV on February 05, 2013, 11:13:07 am
I saw an interesting idea for a new ability called "Chain" http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,37282.0.html
The way this ability would work is that some other effect would come from playing two of the same spell in the same turn.
In a way, this ability already exists with the 2 Supernovas produce a Singularity effect.
I think it would be interesting if this could be used in new spells and/or added to existing ones
If I recall properly, this was also pursued by odideph.
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,42289.0.html
Here are some ideas for cards based on this effect
Cyanide [Spell] [3 Death Quantum] : Target player gets 2 poison counters. Draw a card. Chain: Target gets an extra poison counter for each "Cyanide" played this turn.
Cascading Lava: [Spell] [5 Fire Quantum] : Target takes 3 damage for every 10 Fire Quantum you control. Chain: Target takes an extra damage per 10 Quantum for each "Cascading Lava" played this turn.
Steady Rejuvenation: [Spell] [4 Life Quantum] : Target gains 15 maximum health. Draw a card. Chain: Target gains an extra 10 maximum health for each "Steady Rejuvenation" played this turn.
Building Mass: [Spell] [4 Gravity Quantum] : Target creature gains +0/+5 and is affected by gravity pull. Chain: Target gains an extra +0/+3 for every "Building Mass" played this turn.
Worker Ant: [Creature] [2 Earth Quantum] : 2/2 Worker ant enters the battlefield burrowed. Chain: Worker Ant gets +2/+2 for every "Worker Ant" played this turn. Unburrow [1 Earth Quantum]
These may obviously need some balancing, but what do you think of the "Chain" idea itself.
Who draws the card? The affected player or the one who plays the card?
Building Mass seems to heavily overshadow Gravity Force and Basilisk Blood and their obvious combination.
Worker Ant seems to me to be the most abusable in the stat-cost ratio as well as being prime target for Fractal.
Post by: laxnut90 on February 10, 2013, 01:57:58 am
I saw an interesting idea for a new ability called "Chain" http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,37282.0.html
The way this ability would work is that some other effect would come from playing two of the same spell in the same turn.
In a way, this ability already exists with the 2 Supernovas produce a Singularity effect.
I think it would be interesting if this could be used in new spells and/or added to existing ones
If I recall properly, this was also pursued by odideph.
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,42289.0.htmlHere are some ideas for cards based on this effect
Cyanide [Spell] [3 Death Quantum] : Target player gets 2 poison counters. Draw a card. Chain: Target gets an extra poison counter for each "Cyanide" played this turn.
Cascading Lava: [Spell] [5 Fire Quantum] : Target takes 3 damage for every 10 Fire Quantum you control. Chain: Target takes an extra damage per 10 Quantum for each "Cascading Lava" played this turn.
Steady Rejuvenation: [Spell] [4 Life Quantum] : Target gains 15 maximum health. Draw a card. Chain: Target gains an extra 10 maximum health for each "Steady Rejuvenation" played this turn.
Building Mass: [Spell] [4 Gravity Quantum] : Target creature gains +0/+5 and is affected by gravity pull. Chain: Target gains an extra +0/+3 for every "Building Mass" played this turn.
Worker Ant: [Creature] [2 Earth Quantum] : 2/2 Worker ant enters the battlefield burrowed. Chain: Worker Ant gets +2/+2 for every "Worker Ant" played this turn. Unburrow [1 Earth Quantum]
These may obviously need some balancing, but what do you think of the "Chain" idea itself.
Who draws the card? The affected player or the one who plays the card?
Building Mass seems to heavily overshadow Gravity Force and Basilisk Blood and their obvious combination.
Worker Ant seems to me to be the most abusable in the stat-cost ratio as well as being prime target for Fractal.
For the card Cyanide, I figured that the player who played the card should draw a card. This would add some synergy to the Chain mechanic, but drawing a card might make it too overpowered.
Now that I think about it, Building mass seems to be too overpowered especially if used with Voodoo doll.
I did consider the Fractal idea for Worker Ant and felt that having it enter the battlefield burrowed would offset this advantage. (i.e. the Fractaling player would have to wait a turn and unburrow before playing). If someone were to make a Fractal deck around it, the maximum they could possibly play in one turn is 8. This means that the largest worker ant would be an 18/18 if and only if the Fractal were played on an empty hand. Secondly, the Fractaling player would need 17 Earth Quantum (1 to unburrow and the rest to play the ants) and 9 Aether Quantum for this combo to work. Lastly, even if you managed to Fractal on an empty hand and play all the ants in the same turn, the Fractaled ants would enter burrowed, meaning that the largest of the ants (18/18) would enter as a 9/18.
I agree with you that Fractaling the ants would be a very strong combination, however I do not think it would be overpowered.
Post by: Marsu on February 17, 2013, 04:07:04 pm
How important would you say is it that new card ideas "fill a hole"/are actually needed by the Element they belong to? My personal philosophy is that it does not really matter - a new card may not be OP and should fit the games thematic background in general and that of its respective Element in particular. If that is given, it is an enrichment to the game anyway simply because it increases the options and variations of decks.
(Obivously, it is important that cards that fill a hole are also added to the game.)
I see a hint of Zanzarino maybe thinking alike in the latest patch - none of the card where actually needed. I still liked the patch.
Post by: Drake_XIV on April 19, 2013, 06:31:49 am
Post by: ZephyrPhantom on April 20, 2013, 02:14:01 am
Post by: Drake_XIV on April 20, 2013, 02:41:04 am
Alternatively, and this has been explored before with 'Blood' and similar type ideas, it would be a group dedicated to paying for cards with health instead of quanta. Mechanically, they would be cards that would deal double damage according to their costs [pay 20 health, deal 40 damage] or provide some positive effect over time [pay 10 health, put 5 purify counters on target].
However, both of these types can be fit into any of the existing elements.
Post by: traceurling on May 11, 2013, 04:45:56 pm
Post by: Drake_XIV on May 11, 2013, 06:51:08 pm
You can also look through the Crucible/Forge/Armory polls to see if there is anything similar and, if you have a good idea of what idea you want to make, search their Archives for key words, but that's a bit annoying unless there is a key word you need to see regarding a proposed mechanic. This also includes searching the name for your idea.
Post by: eaglgenes101 on May 15, 2013, 03:45:02 am
(Cost of composite card) = (Sum of costs of individual component cards) + (component cards-1)(space and time cost of having a card)
(This is the idea behind http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,39465.msg1070378.html#msg1070378 .)
Post by: OldTrees on May 15, 2013, 03:53:01 am
Am I right to suggest that this is true:
(Cost of composite card) = (Sum of costs of individual component cards) - (component cards-1)(space and time cost of having a card)
(This is the idea behind http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,39465.msg1070378.html#msg1070378 .)
Rephrase this using 3 photons as an example.
Post by: eaglgenes101 on May 15, 2013, 04:02:46 am
A better example would be a card like Owl's eye, which is a damage source and a CC stick at the same time.Am I right to suggest that this is true:
(Cost of composite card) = (Sum of costs of individual component cards) - (component cards-1)(space and time cost of having a card)
(This is the idea behind http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,39465.msg1070378.html#msg1070378 .)
Rephrase this using 3 photons as an example.
But probably this component splitting rule is best on cards that don't have one single counter that works against multiple components like certain spells.
Post by: OldTrees on May 15, 2013, 04:33:26 am
I asked for 3 photons because it would explain your equation in a manner your wording did not.A better example would be a card like Owl's eye, which is a damage source and a CC stick at the same time.Am I right to suggest that this is true:
(Cost of composite card) = (Sum of costs of individual component cards) - (component cards-1)(space and time cost of having a card)
(This is the idea behind http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,39465.msg1070378.html#msg1070378 .)
Rephrase this using 3 photons as an example.
But probably this component splitting rule is best on cards that don't have one single counter that works against multiple components like certain spells.
Post by: eaglgenes101 on May 15, 2013, 05:02:18 am
(Cost of 3 photons) = (0 + 0 + 0) - (2)(1)
That - should have been a +...
With the correction, it's now
(Cost of 3 photons) = (0+0+0) + (2)(1) = 2
Which should seem reasonable...
Post by: OldTrees on May 15, 2013, 07:05:14 am
That - should have been a +...Yes it does seem like a reasonable way to calculate a card quanta cost. However I prefer to read it in the total cost form. Just add (space and time cost of having a card) to each side.
Which should seem reasonable...
Post by: Brontos on May 15, 2013, 11:55:33 am
Post by: Rutarete on May 15, 2013, 05:12:37 pm
Post by: russianspy1234 on May 25, 2013, 06:01:13 pm
Post by: Jyiber on May 25, 2013, 10:25:37 pm
Then, feelings on card ideas where the player sacrifices their base mark card for a strong effect?
Post by: Drake_XIV on May 25, 2013, 11:01:15 pm
Do you think the game needs more solutions against Intargetable creatures?
*Immaterial
No, I do not feel it requires SOLUTIONS, but I would definitely like to see some more way to be able to interact with them in either a positive or negative effect.
Post by: Drake_XIV on May 25, 2013, 11:02:22 pm
If you were to remove a card from the game (just one) what would it be and why?
Personally, I do not feel that any card would be removed. However, if I had to, I'd probably take out Nova, since it proves to be one of the bigger issues in balancing new card ideas.
Post by: Marsu on May 25, 2013, 11:09:36 pm
Post by: Drake_XIV on May 25, 2013, 11:12:44 pm
What do you think is an appropriate cost for mill, eg how much :underworld would a spell that read "Destroy the top 3 cards of your opponents deck" cost?
I personally do no like the concept of negatively affecting an opponent's deck like that. But it's still something worth pursuing.
Currently, there isn't much to compare it to, if any at all. I'd approximate it to cost around 10 :underworld for that cost, basing it off of Shard of Bravery's forced draw. However, seeing as Elements is built around 30 card decks and 6 allowable copies, milling 3 cards per card is a bit much, so the cost would be significantly higher. To the point where I'd say it's pointless to try to gauge its cost since it wouldn't be playable.
For milling one card, which allows a maximum of 6 cards milled with the current card pool, I'd price it around 6|5 :underworld when considering the same things as above.
Post by: Drake_XIV on May 25, 2013, 11:14:22 pm
First and foremost... do you have any particular animosity towards pie?
Then, feelings on card ideas where the player sacrifices their base mark card for a strong effect?
Mm... Pie
It really depends on the effect, but I do not see any issue with indefinitely delaying your mark in exchange for another effect. I feel, however, that the effect should require some sort of constant upkeep that the mark would have otherwise been able to maintain or something to that effect.
Post by: Drake_XIV on May 25, 2013, 11:15:58 pm
What about Fractal? It's a good card in itself, but it destroys so many new ideas, including all those 'Tribal' cards I personally like very much.
Fractal would be the second non-Shard card I would remove if I had to, after Nova, for the same reasons that it does limit what kind of new ideas could be suggested. However, unlike Nova, it does come with a stiff price and drains all excess quanta, so it [sort of] fixes itself.
Post by: Rutarete on May 25, 2013, 11:23:41 pm
Is there a point when a card can have too many interactions? Would it be detrimental?
Post by: Drake_XIV on May 25, 2013, 11:26:25 pm
Y u triple post? (Seriously though: Each question doesn't need it's own post - they get enough attention just being answered)
Is there a point when a card can have too many interactions? Would it be detrimental?
My computer is hating several forum options [specifically Modify and Quote] right now, so I'm trying to make due.
Well, what do you mean by having too many interactions? As in it can be used with many things or it would have a variety of effects?
Post by: Rutarete on May 25, 2013, 11:29:15 pm
Well, what do you mean by having too many interactions? As in it can be used with many things or it would have a variety of effects?Can I have your opinion on both?
Post by: Drake_XIV on May 25, 2013, 11:36:11 pm
Well, what do you mean by having too many interactions? As in it can be used with many things or it would have a variety of effects?Can I have your opinion on both?
Well, I don't see an issue with it affecting many things. In fact, that would be as expansive as any control or buff spell in the game right now, since they target a majority of the card pool with varying effects. As long as the effect is consistent, it should be fine.
I assume what you had meant was the latter, similar to, for the sake of comparison, the RtR Charms, where there are multiple effects to one card where it isn't all of them, but only one. In Elements, I don't think that would be for the best since with the current card pool, you essentially have multiple cards for one, which allows for other cards to take its place, which makes it overshadow cards with similar effects.
Of course, this can be remedied by a higher cost, but then that makes it a pointless idea since, for the sake of speed or consistency, it would be replaced by their cheaper counterparts.
My thoughts are that it's fine if it has two effects AT MOST, implemented as an IF/ELSE card [If card is Fire, +2/+0, else -3/-3]. Any more, and the design gets quickly cluttered and messy.
Post by: TheAccuso on July 19, 2013, 03:39:04 am
Post by: eaglgenes101 on December 29, 2013, 10:08:38 pm
I suspect there's a better thematic for this card. Help finding it?
Is it balanced? The uses I can think of are these:
1. On a voodoo doll for a quick pileup of poison and decent damage over 3 turns
2. On a voodoo doll that is then set to not die to make it periodically do damage and poison
3. Kill a wide variety of creatures in 3 turns
4. Healing over time for a creature that gets continually damaged
Post by: Drake_XIV on July 18, 2014, 12:50:33 am
Also, if you're asking about a specific card idea, please link it.
Post by: artimies7 on July 19, 2014, 09:18:31 pm
I apologize for taking an excessive unannounced leave from this post, but I will now go back and try to address previous inquiries. This thread is also still open to other questions.
Also, if you're asking about a specific card idea, please link it.
Drake! You're back! Yay!
But more on topic: I've been toying with a mechanic that I've thought up. When some card targets a creature, it steals the ability(s) and other effects (Adrenaline, Poison, etc) and copies the stats of that creature and shifts them over to some token spawned creature. My questions about it are: Would it be more suited to a creature or a permanent, or would that be a thematic choice? Is there some attributes that shouldn't be stolen off of the target card? Should some attributes only get stolen by the upgraded card or is that also immaterial?
Post by: Drake_XIV on July 19, 2014, 09:23:28 pm
But more on topic: I've been toying with a mechanic that I've thought up. When some card targets a creature, it steals the ability(s) and other effects (Adrenaline, Poison, etc) and copies the stats of that creature and shifts them over to some token spawned creature. My questions about it are: Would it be more suited to a creature or a permanent, or would that be a thematic choice? Is there some attributes that shouldn't be stolen off of the target card? Should some attributes only get stolen by the upgraded card or is that also immaterial?
My initial reaction would say creature. If it were a permanent, it'd have to be on a weapon, but I don't see a reason for a weapon to be stealing traits.
Immaterial off the bat, but that already is immune. Maybe airborne/ranged.
If it was limited to the upgraded, what would happen to the unupgraded?
Post by: artimies7 on July 19, 2014, 09:59:07 pm
But more on topic: I've been toying with a mechanic that I've thought up. When some card targets a creature, it steals the ability(s) and other effects (Adrenaline, Poison, etc) and copies the stats of that creature and shifts them over to some token spawned creature. My questions about it are: Would it be more suited to a creature or a permanent, or would that be a thematic choice? Is there some attributes that shouldn't be stolen off of the target card? Should some attributes only get stolen by the upgraded card or is that also immaterial?
My initial reaction would say creature. If it were a permanent, it'd have to be on a weapon, but I don't see a reason for a weapon to be stealing traits.
Immaterial off the bat, but that already is immune. Maybe airborne/ranged.
If it was limited to the upgraded, what would happen to the unupgraded?
Creature is what I also was initially thinking. Some kind of 'Mimic Spawner' or etc.
Airborne is about right, thematically. Creature has to engulf or physically drain another creature of its attributes.
I believe, after some thought, that limiting the ATK | DEF copying to the upped version and leaving the unupped version as a 0 | 2 or similar would make for a nice increase. I toyed with not stealing effects such as Adrenaline or Purify, but I couldn't think of a reason to make that variable. Either it does or it doesn't.
Post by: OldTrees on July 20, 2014, 04:55:37 am
I am not sure. Since the stolen abilities are not applied to the creature/permanent but rather are applied to a spawned creature, I do not think the card type is determined by the ability.But more on topic: I've been toying with a mechanic that I've thought up. When some card targets a creature, it steals the ability(s) and other effects (Adrenaline, Poison, etc) and copies the stats of that creature and shifts them over to some token spawned creature. My questions about it are: Would it be more suited to a creature or a permanent, or would that be a thematic choice? Is there some attributes that shouldn't be stolen off of the target card? Should some attributes only get stolen by the upgraded card or is that also immaterial?
My initial reaction would say creature. If it were a permanent, it'd have to be on a weapon, but I don't see a reason for a weapon to be stealing traits.
Immaterial off the bat, but that already is immune. Maybe airborne/ranged.
If it was limited to the upgraded, what would happen to the unupgraded?
I think creature is a better choice for balance reasons because then the source of the ability and the product of the ability are vulnerable to the same threats. The ability is fairly versatile and has a big impact. Thus it should generally be less resilient than normal.
Post by: artimies7 on July 20, 2014, 06:21:00 pm
I am not sure. Since the stolen abilities are not applied to the creature/permanent but rather are applied to a spawned creature, I do not think the card type is determined by the ability.But more on topic: I've been toying with a mechanic that I've thought up. When some card targets a creature, it steals the ability(s) and other effects (Adrenaline, Poison, etc) and copies the stats of that creature and shifts them over to some token spawned creature. My questions about it are: Would it be more suited to a creature or a permanent, or would that be a thematic choice? Is there some attributes that shouldn't be stolen off of the target card? Should some attributes only get stolen by the upgraded card or is that also immaterial?
My initial reaction would say creature. If it were a permanent, it'd have to be on a weapon, but I don't see a reason for a weapon to be stealing traits.
Immaterial off the bat, but that already is immune. Maybe airborne/ranged.
If it was limited to the upgraded, what would happen to the unupgraded?
I think creature is a better choice for balance reasons because then the source of the ability and the product of the ability are vulnerable to the same threats. The ability is fairly versatile and has a big impact. Thus it should generally be less resilient than normal.
Creature it is then. Off I go to work it as a card. I'll update this post with the thread.
EDIT: Haw haw! Here it is! Mimic Spawner | Mimic Hatcher! (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/card-ideas-and-art/mimic-spawner-mimic-hatcher/) I hadn't even thought if it had been done before! Oh well! It's a cool idea anyway!
Post by: Drake_XIV on September 01, 2014, 03:33:26 am
Post by: montrossen on November 22, 2014, 11:01:07 am
Post by: OldTrees on November 22, 2014, 06:26:30 pm
I recently discovered that the site I used for getting images for my cards was not actually a public domain art site (I really thought it was, I checked it once, but apparently I misunderstood it somehow ?_?). I know I should probably remove all the images from the cards, but I though I would ask you first just in case.Yeah that site requires you to pay before an image will be Royalty Free for you. So yes, you should remove those images and find replacements. It was good that you discovered that and responded quickly.
Post by: OdinVanguard on September 11, 2015, 02:53:32 pm
Specifically, the Adrenaline Attack Calculation formula. E.g. does anyone know the formula that gets used to calculate the number of bonus attacks provided by adrenaline?
My card idea is this:
(http://i.imgur.com/KHFRUtl.png)
Basically, it is a stackable permanent that makes the creatures you play have a '1 turn' adrenaline like buff.
Knowing the adrenaline calculation would help in figuring how to handle the scaling of the number of bonus attacks so I can balance card cost properly.
I could probably fit it from data if need be, but it would be nice to have the actual formula that is used by the game engine (assuming there is one).
Post by: Basman-1453 on September 11, 2015, 02:56:15 pm
Post by: OdinVanguard on September 11, 2015, 02:58:45 pm
Adrenaline, naa? (http://elementscommunity.org/wiki/Adrenaline)I was trying to find out if there is actually a formula in the game engine that calculates this or if it is just a tabulated thing.
Post by: Basman-1453 on September 11, 2015, 03:03:13 pm
Adrenaline, naa? (http://elementscommunity.org/wiki/Adrenaline)I was trying to find out if there is actually a formula in the game engine that calculates this or if it is just a tabulated thing.
Personally, I suspect that there's some formula involved that involves square roots and ceilings. (For instance, note that 3, 8, and 15 are respectively (2^2) - 1, (3^2) - 1, and (4^2) - 1.)
I don't have the requisite skills to peek into the game's codes, though :/