Card Concepts That Do Not Need Repeated.

[EmeraldTiger]

How would we color code the list patchx94 provided?

[OldTrees]

Change creatures position.

Why?

[eaglgenes101]

Also: Ignoring death-activated effects (such as phoenix's) and immortality.
This is more "do not use" than "already used", but is still just as unlikable.

[OldTrees]

Also: Ignoring death-activated effects (such as phoenix's) and immortality.
This is more "do not use" than "already used", but is still just as unlikable.

Please provide evidence for why abilities like Rebirth or Immateriality should not be suggested.



Sidenote: I hope I don't have to reply to each post with some variation of "Why?". Please provide reasons for why something should be added. Furthermore be ready to defend those reasons.

[Silver]

isnt the suggestion forum just for fun? most of the ideas that have "made it into the game" are, i suspect, just ideas that happen to resemble things implemented independently by zanz. with the notable exception of crusader.

[OldTrees]

isnt the suggestion forum just for fun? most of the ideas that have "made it into the game" are, i suspect, just ideas that happen to resemble things implemented independently by zanz. with the notable exception of crusader.

1) Level 4 is filled with all the sources of inspiration the forum gave Zanz. They are closer mechanically than you might think.
2) Non serious cards are put in the Humor section instead of the CIA.

So no. The suggestion forum is for the fun of contributing not just random creative fun. They are suggestions after all.

[Silver]

a grand total of seven cards, most of which are a great deal different than what actually made it into the game. ive read threads and it seems that a lot of the time it isnt zanz saying "hey man thanks for the idea", its players going out and arguing how close x idea is to new thing implemented.

on a late of game forums, suggestion forums exist only because people will feel the compulsion to post their ideas regardless of whether its welcome or not. suggestion forums basically allow devs to ignore all of the suggestions in one place as well as let players vent their creativity.

instating rules and regulations is pretty much an exercise in futility as the group of people who post stupid, redundant ideas are in almost all cases a subset of people who dont read rule threads.

but you know i definitely acknowledge your seniority here. i dont know this place as well as you do; just giving my two cents. and i dunno maybe im breaking the fourth wall a bit as well.

[Xenocidius]

a grand total of seven cards, most of which are a great deal different than what actually made it into the game. ive read threads and it seems that a lot of the time it isnt zanz saying "hey man thanks for the idea", its players going out and arguing how close x idea is to new thing implemented.

Actually, every single one of the Reliquary cards is in there because Zanzarino specifically cited them as a source of inspiration. Even if one card idea was exactly the same as one coming out in a new patch, it wouldn't be moved to the Reliquary unless Zanzarino actually got the idea from it.

[OldTrees]

Here we have split the conventional idea forum into the CIA (suggestion forum) and Humor (non suggestion cards and other stuff)

We also have the polls which gives more accurate feedback to Zanz about the community's general opinions (see parallels to the Game Suggestion and Feedback subforum).

instating rules and regulations is pretty much an exercise in futility as the group of people who post stupid, redundant ideas are in almost all cases a subset of people who dont read rule threads.

but you know i definitely acknowledge your seniority here. i dont know this place as well as you do; just giving my two cents. and i dunno maybe im breaking the fourth wall a bit as well.

You are right that most types of rules are useless or even counterproductive. I even disagree with one that was instituted. For the actual rules (of which there are few) are mostly about formatting, filtering cards through polls/levels and not stealing art. These rules can be easily enforced since cards can only move into the crucible by a curator. There is a semiformal rule against submitting something close enough to something already submitted. This is not codified fortunately/unfortunately. It would be easier if members searched first. The staff is working towards making that much easier for members.

However I should note this thread is not official nor does this list count as a rule.

Things on this list fall into 4 categories
1) Things that are vetoed by zanz/ are impossible to implement in EtG
2) Things that have been repeated excessively with almost no variance and have already made it in the polls. (Aka a creature with "steal skill" as its ability from the Armory being remade again and again in different elements.)
3) Things that a significant majority (lets say 80%) would despise seeing in the game.
4) Things that an insufficient majority would dislike seeing in the game.

Obviously 1 is valid.
2 has forum based reasons.
Ideas that fall in category 3 should bide their time till they fall in category 4 (3-12 months).
Category 4 is an invalid and unreasonable assertion. (hence my pushback on the most recent additions)

PS: I am glad you are willing to speak up despite my seniority and my staff post. Ideas and positions should be judged on their own merit not on who said them. Your critique of this thread has very important points. Thank you again for your input.

[Shylderidh]

Do you have an evidence (poll, dev quote) that say "removing immaterial" is an undesired mechanic ?
In nerf cards forum, most people in the last "nerf quintessence" thread, seem to share the opinion that quintessence shouldn't be nerfed but there should be other ways than shields to deal with immaterial creatures (including the suggestion of a materialization spell).
Same for "taking control of opponents creatures".
Considering the number of suggestions around this idea, I see that as a very desired by some but eventually overused concept, more than an undesired one (if it's not taking permanent control, at least).
(Now, if Zanz has expressed his opinion against these ideas, their eventual popularity has no importance of course.)

[OldTrees]

Note: Emerald Tiger (the OP) is going to be less active.

Do you have an evidence (poll, dev quote) that say "removing immaterial" is an undesired mechanic ?
In nerf cards forum, most people in the last "nerf quintessence" thread, seem to share the opinion that quintessence shouldn't be nerfed but there should be other ways than shields to deal with immaterial creatures (including the suggestion of a materialization spell).
Same for "taking control of opponents creatures".
Considering the number of suggestions around this idea, I see that as a very desired by some but eventually overused concept, more than an undesired one (if it's not taking permanent control, at least).
(Now, if Zanz has expressed his opinion against these ideas, their eventual popularity has no importance of course.)

No. I do not know of sufficient evidence for those.

The mechanic "Target Immaterial creature / permanent" does have problems in that it exists as a contradiction or invokes exception based rule systems. Exception based rules systems are unnecessarily hostile to new players trying to learn. This evidence is merely sufficient to suggest people use non targeting methods for "removing immaterial".

The mechanics "taking control of creatures" as well as "swapping attack and hp" are both nightmares to balance. This evidence is merely sufficient to suggest people not try these mechanics until they believe they are skilled enough to balance such nightmares.

Temporary "Steal creature" can be combined with Immolation, Catapult or Gravity Pull to make it a permanent creature removal despite the original effect being temporary. This is the root of the nightmare of balancing this effect.

Finally there was "Change creatures position". This is IMO a beneficial mechanic that would expand Air as the element of Freedom/Maneuverability. However it is always wise to refine an idea so we end up with fewer higher quality ideas.

Lets see:
"Vetos" by Zanz I can remember
[should it be on the list]the veto(notes/clarifications/qualifications)
[valid]Cards with a casting cost involving X of one element + Y of another element.
[valid]Both players making decisions during the same turn. (Multiplayer cannot support)
[?]13th element. ("Will you ever consider adding a 13th element to the game?" "No")
[invalid]Instant CC that ignores the creature's hp (Zanz mentioned he disliked this type of effect but then created Flooding and Shockwave)

[Exeneva]

I would say untargetable is pretty dumb, and there honestly needs to be more ways to deal with such creatures.