Post by: Terroking on March 05, 2012, 04:09:19 am
Discuss
[11:17:14] zanzarino: Shard of earth will combine all the shards in your hand in a shard golem
[11:17:43] zanzarino: A creature with stats and skills customized to how many/which shard was used
[11:18:04] zanzarino: But the skill cost is set to be in earth quanta
[11:19:45] zanzarino: You get a golem similar in stats to an antlion
[11:20:04] zanzarino: Using only earth shard in your hand
Ability/Stats List: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqwbWqlis8bLdERFekUyMmtFOFNFTXFNaThHWDVNT1E#gid=0
Post by: Drake_XIV on March 05, 2012, 04:10:03 am
Didn't see the stats stuff...
The art threw me off a bit for a Shard...
Post by: ZephyrPhantom on March 05, 2012, 04:10:29 am
Shard Golem? Will that be standalone or merely a result of this card?Probably a token, if Chimera's format is any indication.
Post by: Rutarete on March 05, 2012, 04:11:37 am
Post by: Muffinesque on March 05, 2012, 04:16:38 am
Post by: furballdn on March 05, 2012, 04:29:59 am
Post by: kimham8a on March 05, 2012, 04:52:17 am
Post by: zanzarino on March 05, 2012, 04:53:30 am
Unity (self explanatory)
Majesty (it commands the other shards)
Integrity (Something unbroken and complete as opposed to a shard that is partial).
Feel free to discuss which name is more fitting
Post by: UTAlan on March 05, 2012, 04:56:21 am
Post by: Skotadi Phobos on March 05, 2012, 04:57:23 am
Post by: willng3 on March 05, 2012, 04:58:19 am
I had a few other names in my head for this shard:I'd go with unity. The name as is seems more Life-ish and the other two really seem to fit a Light Shard more for me personally.
Unity (self explanatory)
Majesty (it commands the other shards)
Integrity (Something unbroken and complete as opposed to a shard that is partial).
Feel free to discuss which name is more fitting
Post by: bripod on March 05, 2012, 05:05:47 am
Post by: Drake_XIV on March 05, 2012, 05:07:40 am
Post by: zanzarino on March 05, 2012, 05:08:27 am
The art threw me off a bit for a Shard...It is shaped like an heptagon because I am planning to use its shape for the graphic animation: up to 7 shards can be added, one per side.
Post by: kimham8a on March 05, 2012, 05:10:11 am
I'd go for Integrity. Fertility sounds of :life and Unity of :light . Majesty doesn't sound right for a Shard, considering the names of the others.Thought same except Integrity and Unity switched.
Post by: eaglgenes101 on March 05, 2012, 05:10:39 am
Each shard in you hand adds more stats to this shard golem, the amount depending on the shard. An ability is picked from one of the shards in your hand.
Post by: kimham8a on March 05, 2012, 05:15:44 am
Post by: Drake_XIV on March 05, 2012, 05:20:45 am
And in this context, Integrity seems to be in terms of strength rather than honesty. As in structural integrity. So, in light of this, :light doesn't seem applicable...
Post by: kimham8a on March 05, 2012, 05:24:06 am
Post by: Drake_XIV on March 05, 2012, 05:26:42 am
Post by: Captain Scibra on March 05, 2012, 05:32:05 am
Unity sounds like Gravity, like Chimera.
Majesty sounds like Light; leadership as the main theme, monarchs tended to claim "divine right", etc.
Integrity sounds like the right one, since it matches Earth's theme of structure.
And what would the differences be between upped and unupped shards?
I meant the other shards' effects when Fertility is played. Will an upped SoR have a different effect than an unupped SoR when Shard of Fertility is played?Quite easily the stats of the Shard Golem produced.
Post by: Rutarete on March 05, 2012, 05:57:25 am
Post by: zhangvict on March 05, 2012, 06:01:30 am
What are some possible shard golem skills?
Post by: furballdn on March 05, 2012, 06:04:24 am
Post by: OldTrees on March 05, 2012, 06:05:58 am
Post by: kimham8a on March 05, 2012, 06:08:34 am
What are some possible shard golem skills?The effects of the shards it absorbs.
What would be fair stats to give the shard golem per shard?
Post by: zhangvict on March 05, 2012, 06:13:20 am
Unity. Gravity is about Order. Unity is the chief virtue related to order.Uh, not this will be a earth shard. Earth is about stability. And gravity is about focus and attraction, not order. Integrity implied stability as well as connection of parts, will fir this shard perfect.
Yes but I meant what are possible examples of absorbed skills.What are some possible shard golem skills?The effects of the shards it absorbs.
What would be fair stats to give the shard golem per shard?
E.g.
SoG = Healing
SoD = +max hp
SoB + F = Draw up to 2 cards, absord 1 :rainbow of each element per card drawn
SoSa + SoG = Suicide
stuff like that?
This will be a very complicated shard to program. Imagine the possible combinations of shards!
SoG + SoD + SoR + Sose + SoSa + SoF + SoB = ????
Post by: eaglgenes101 on March 05, 2012, 06:31:57 am
It'll probably pick it from the shard that there is the most of.Unity. Gravity is about Order. Unity is the chief virtue related to order.Uh, not this will be a earth shard. Earth is about stability. And gravity is about focus and attraction, not order. Integrity implied stability as well as connection of parts, will fir this shard perfect.Yes but I meant what are possible examples of absorbed skills.What are some possible shard golem skills?The effects of the shards it absorbs.
What would be fair stats to give the shard golem per shard?
E.g.
SoG = Healing
SoD = +max hp
SoB + F = Draw up to 2 cards, absord 1 :rainbow of each element per card drawn
SoSa + SoG = Suicide
stuff like that?
This will be a very complicated shard to program. Imagine the possible combinations of shards!
SoG + SoD + SoR + Sose + SoSa + SoF + SoB = ????
Post by: kimham8a on March 05, 2012, 06:35:52 am
Post by: OldTrees on March 05, 2012, 06:38:31 am
Reminds me to sleep before posting. I forgot the Not in front of the sentence.Not Unity. Gravity is about Order. Unity is the chief virtue related to order.Uh, not this will be a earth shard. Earth is about stability. And gravity is about focus and attraction, not order. Integrity implied stability as well as connection of parts, will fir this shard perfect.
Post by: Marvaddin on March 05, 2012, 06:41:37 am
Seriously, to compensate you use all shards in your hand, and they can be something like 4-5, for example, the creature should be ultra mega hyper powerful. I already used to think about this shard invasion as a bad thing. Soon all elements will have healing, draw acceleration, card generation, stall... and now a possibly super powerful creature you dont need to pay quanta for. Add some TU... now you can replicate the creature you just used 5 cards to create (Exodia? lol).
Lol, I can already imagine the super mono other deck. With Supernovas (not needed to chain, 1 can generate mana for lots of shards) and some elemental cards.
Edit: almost forgot, lets add permanent destruction and quanta drain to skills all elements will have soon. :) I miss those days without all these stupid new shards.
Post by: kimham8a on March 05, 2012, 06:44:15 am
Post by: OldTrees on March 05, 2012, 07:00:27 am
Seriously, to compensate you use all shards in your hand, and they can be something like 4-5, for example, the creature should be ultra mega hyper powerful. I already used to think about this shard invasion as a bad thing. Soon all elements will have healing, draw acceleration, card generation, stall... and now a possibly super powerful creature you dont need to pay quanta for. Add some TU... now you can replicate the creature you just used 5 cards to create (Exodia? lol).You overestimate the cost involved. The creature must not be "ultra mega hyper powerful"
Imagine a Chimera of 4-5 Photons.
Cost: 4-5 cards + Chimera
Consider Shard Golem
Cost: 4-5 cards + Shard of :earth
Post by: Silver on March 05, 2012, 07:04:38 am
Anyways I think the golems would need to be fairly considerable for this to be worthwhile. Considering how powerful most shards are for a fairly neglible cost under rainbow quanta engines the issue isn't whether it's balanced versus chimeraing a bunch of Photons the issue is whether it's worthwhile to use over just playing the shards.
Also, how will this benefit earth over others?
Post by: The_Mormegil on March 05, 2012, 07:11:23 am
Post by: OldTrees on March 05, 2012, 07:23:22 am
Putting something he didn't even say in quotation marks? Yowch cheap shot. I know you're paraphrasing but acting as if he said this ridiculous sounding, adjective redundant description is uncharacteristically unclassy for you from what I've seen.I used cut paste. Be careful with your accusations.
Something with almost infinite possibilities to code. A shard with different image? And will create a 'Shard Golem'? OMG, what is zanz smoking?
Seriously, to compensate you use all shards in your hand, and they can be something like 4-5, for example, the creature should be ultra mega hyper powerful. I already used to think about this shard invasion as a bad thing. Soon all elements will have healing, draw acceleration, card generation, stall... and now a possibly super powerful creature you dont need to pay quanta for. Add some TU... now you can replicate the creature you just used 5 cards to create (Exodia? lol).
Lol, I can already imagine the super mono other deck. With Supernovas (not needed to chain, 1 can generate mana for lots of shards) and some elemental cards.
Edit: almost forgot, lets add permanent destruction and quanta drain to skills all elements will have soon. :) I miss those days without all these stupid new shards.
Post by: Silver on March 05, 2012, 07:38:45 am
Post by: OldTrees on March 05, 2012, 07:42:29 am
My apologies.It was partially my fault. I accidentally cut when I meant to copy.
Post by: Sevs on March 05, 2012, 09:15:24 am
Your comparison to chimera is not totally accurate, chimera costs much more and requires you actually pay for all the cards you combine, here they are played straight from the hand.
I think we must see how this plays out before we can actually make any sort of balance comparisons. we don't even know what abilities it can get.
Post by: OldTrees on March 05, 2012, 09:23:31 am
@ old treesMy comparison was not to chimera. It was to a chimera made of 0 cost creatures. Note that 0 cost creatures cost the same amount to play as it costs to have shards in your hand.
Your comparison to chimera is not totally accurate, chimera costs much more and requires you actually pay for all the cards you combine, here they are played straight from the hand.
I think we must see how this plays out before we can actually make any sort of balance comparisons. we don't even know what abilities it can get.
However my point was that the Shard Golem should not be made ridiculously powerful because the cost involved will be too low to justify such a "ultra mega hyper powerful" card.
Post by: Marvaddin on March 05, 2012, 09:48:28 am
Post by: zhangvict on March 05, 2012, 09:56:12 am
Seriously, to compensate you use all shards in your hand, and they can be something like 4-5, for example, the creature should be ultra mega hyper powerful. I already used to think about this shard invasion as a bad thing. Soon all elements will have healing, draw acceleration, card generation, stall... and now a possibly super powerful creature you dont need to pay quanta for. Add some TU... now you can replicate the creature you just used 5 cards to create (Exodia? lol).You overestimate the cost involved. The creature must not be "ultra mega hyper powerful"
Imagine a Chimera of 4-5 Photons.
Cost: 4-5 cards + Chimera
Consider Shard Golem
Cost: 4-5 cards + Shard of :earth
Lol are you comparing 4/5 photons with 4/5 shards? Photons are infinitesimally worthless compared to the power of shards. Much better cast the shards to get their benefits than sacrificing them into some worthless creature that can be rewinded. The creature must be damm worth it for one do choose to do so. At the very least casting shard golem with 1 SoF in your hand should generate a creature of greater ability than a single SoF by itself. It must be better than something with 3 free perm destruction and a black hole.
Plus 4-5 Cards is no small cost by themselves. You see, a chimera of 5 photons is an incredibly weak chimera, with less atk than an elite charger that costs less than chimera. Sacrificing that many shards for a creature comparable to a chimera of 5 photons is UP.
Post by: SnoWeb on March 05, 2012, 10:30:26 am
Post by: OldTrees on March 05, 2012, 10:32:52 am
Lol?Seriously, to compensate you use all shards in your hand, and they can be something like 4-5, for example, the creature should be ultra mega hyper powerful. I already used to think about this shard invasion as a bad thing. Soon all elements will have healing, draw acceleration, card generation, stall... and now a possibly super powerful creature you dont need to pay quanta for. Add some TU... now you can replicate the creature you just used 5 cards to create (Exodia? lol).You overestimate the cost involved. The creature must not be "ultra mega hyper powerful"
Imagine a Chimera of 4-5 Photons.
Cost: 4-5 cards + Chimera
Consider Shard Golem
Cost: 4-5 cards + Shard of :earth
Lol are you comparing 4/5 photons with 4/5 shards? Photons are infinitesimally worthless compared to the power of shards. Much better cast the shards to get their benefits than sacrificing them into some worthless creature that can be rewinded. The creature must be damm worth it for one do choose to do so. At the very least casting shard golem with 1 SoF in your hand should generate a creature of greater ability than a single SoF by itself. It must be better than something with 3 free perm destruction and a black hole.
Plus 4-5 Cards is no small cost by themselves. You see, a chimera of 5 photons is an incredibly weak chimera, with less atk than an elite charger that costs less than chimera. Sacrificing that many shards for a creature comparable to a chimera of 5 photons is UP.
I am comparing 5 draws to 5 draws. I am comparing 0 quanta to 0 quanta. I am comparing 5 cards to 5 cards. The value of shards is paid for with their cost. That cost is mostly bypassed with Shard of :earth. We both agree on this point that the cost of the card draws is minuscule. Hopefully we both agree that benefit should reflect cost. Therefore my conclusion that a shard Golem should not be a ridiculously powerful creature still stands. Remember the shard golem sacrifices shards in the hand not on the field. 5 cards is 5 cards is 5 cards.
I understand that a 5 photon chimera is weak. I picked it to demonstrate the correlation between cost paid (practically nothing) and benefit reaped (practically nothing).
Please reread a few times. I am willing to go into more depth but I expect you will understand once you read for comprehension.
Post by: zhangvict on March 05, 2012, 10:53:02 am
I understand now you aim to demonstrate how weak the shard golem should be in terms of cost of cards and quanta. Firstly, I have an issue with yout bias of demonstration.Lol?Seriously, to compensate you use all shards in your hand, and they can be something like 4-5, for example, the creature should be ultra mega hyper powerful. I already used to think about this shard invasion as a bad thing. Soon all elements will have healing, draw acceleration, card generation, stall... and now a possibly super powerful creature you dont need to pay quanta for. Add some TU... now you can replicate the creature you just used 5 cards to create (Exodia? lol).You overestimate the cost involved. The creature must not be "ultra mega hyper powerful"
Imagine a Chimera of 4-5 Photons.
Cost: 4-5 cards + Chimera
Consider Shard Golem
Cost: 4-5 cards + Shard of :earth
Lol are you comparing 4/5 photons with 4/5 shards? Photons are infinitesimally worthless compared to the power of shards. Much better cast the shards to get their benefits than sacrificing them into some worthless creature that can be rewinded. The creature must be damm worth it for one do choose to do so. At the very least casting shard golem with 1 SoF in your hand should generate a creature of greater ability than a single SoF by itself. It must be better than something with 3 free perm destruction and a black hole.
Plus 4-5 Cards is no small cost by themselves. You see, a chimera of 5 photons is an incredibly weak chimera, with less atk than an elite charger that costs less than chimera. Sacrificing that many shards for a creature comparable to a chimera of 5 photons is UP.
I am comparing 5 draws to 5 draws. I am comparing 0 quanta to 0 quanta. I am comparing 5 cards to 5 cards. The value of shards is paid for with their cost. That cost is mostly bypassed with Shard of :earth. We both agree on this point that the cost of the card draws is minuscule. Hopefully we both agree that benefit should reflect cost. Therefore my conclusion that a shard Golem should not be a ridiculously powerful creature still stands. Remember the shard golem sacrifices shards in the hand not on the field. 5 cards is 5 cards is 5 cards.
I understand that a 5 photon chimera is weak. I picked it to demonstrate the correlation between cost paid (practically nothing) and benefit reaped (practically nothing).
Please reread a few times. I am willing to go into more depth but I expect you will understand once you read for comprehension.
I understand your reasoning is something like this:
1. 5 photons + chimera generates a horrendously weak creature at the cost of 6 :gravity and 6 cards
2. Therefore 5 shards + golem should also generate a horrendously weak creature for 5 :rainbow and 6 cards.
My issue is that your choice of photon is a biased choice. A creature with over 4 times the attack of a 5 photon chimera can be obtained by 4 ball lightnings and 1 dameselfly + chimera. That is a 22 attack 1 health creature generates by the same cost of 6 :gravity and 6 cards. Additionally, longsword + flying weapon will generate a 6 atk creature for the cost of 2 :rainbow and 2 cards, much less than chimera + 5 photons in terms of both quanta and cards. Not to mention 3 gravity towers + titan + flying weapon generates 3 :gravity, 3 :gravity producers, and a 8 atk creature with 50 health for 1 :rainbow and 8 :gravity and only 5 cards. Just because there is an ineffective way to generate a weak creature (5 photon + chimera) does not mean that shard golem should mimic this ineffectiveness. After all, shard golem is a rare that should some better abilities than normal cards.
Secondly, your reasoning fails to address the problem of opportunity cost. Shard golem will generate a creature for 5 :rainbow AND some valuable shards. Unlike a 5 photon chimera, the resources allocated to the shard golem could have been used elsewhere for potentially a greater effect. For example, instead of using 5 :rainbow and 6 cards, I may choose to use 4 :rainbow and only 1 card to cast Shard of Focus, which is a very powerful creature by itself with 3 charges of perm destruction and a free black hole. Additionally, I can use 3 :rainbow and 1 card to cast SoSe to gain three additional cards. The utility of the shard golem generated by sacrificing 5 shards + 5 :rainbow should reflect the opportunity cost as well as the quanta and card cost.
Please explain why you still think shard golem should still generate a creature of comparable power of a 5 photon chimera.
Post by: sunyata on March 05, 2012, 11:15:08 am
Accretion refers to either (1) the process by which planets are formed from matter joining together and also (2) the increase in size of a tectonic plate by addition of material along a convergent boundary.
Both very earthy :earth and apt concepts
Post by: OldTrees on March 05, 2012, 11:19:50 am
You are closer but still arguing against a strawman.I understand now you aim to demonstrate how weak the shard golem should be in terms of cost of cards and quanta. Firstly, I have an issue with yout bias of demonstration.Lol?Seriously, to compensate you use all shards in your hand, and they can be something like 4-5, for example, the creature should be ultra mega hyper powerful. I already used to think about this shard invasion as a bad thing. Soon all elements will have healing, draw acceleration, card generation, stall... and now a possibly super powerful creature you dont need to pay quanta for. Add some TU... now you can replicate the creature you just used 5 cards to create (Exodia? lol).You overestimate the cost involved. The creature must not be "ultra mega hyper powerful"
Imagine a Chimera of 4-5 Photons.
Cost: 4-5 cards + Chimera
Consider Shard Golem
Cost: 4-5 cards + Shard of :earth
Lol are you comparing 4/5 photons with 4/5 shards? Photons are infinitesimally worthless compared to the power of shards. Much better cast the shards to get their benefits than sacrificing them into some worthless creature that can be rewinded. The creature must be damm worth it for one do choose to do so. At the very least casting shard golem with 1 SoF in your hand should generate a creature of greater ability than a single SoF by itself. It must be better than something with 3 free perm destruction and a black hole.
Plus 4-5 Cards is no small cost by themselves. You see, a chimera of 5 photons is an incredibly weak chimera, with less atk than an elite charger that costs less than chimera. Sacrificing that many shards for a creature comparable to a chimera of 5 photons is UP.
I am comparing 5 draws to 5 draws. I am comparing 0 quanta to 0 quanta. I am comparing 5 cards to 5 cards. The value of shards is paid for with their cost. That cost is mostly bypassed with Shard of :earth. We both agree on this point that the cost of the card draws is minuscule. Hopefully we both agree that benefit should reflect cost. Therefore my conclusion that a shard Golem should not be a ridiculously powerful creature still stands. Remember the shard golem sacrifices shards in the hand not on the field. 5 cards is 5 cards is 5 cards.
I understand that a 5 photon chimera is weak. I picked it to demonstrate the correlation between cost paid (practically nothing) and benefit reaped (practically nothing).
Please reread a few times. I am willing to go into more depth but I expect you will understand once you read for comprehension.
I understand your reasoning is something like this:
1. 5 photons + chimera generates a horrendously weak creature at the cost of 6 :gravity and 6 cards
2. Therefore 5 shards + golem should also generate a horrendously weak creature for 4 :rainbow and 6 cards.
My issue is that your choice of photon is a biased choice. A creature with over 4 times the attack of a 5 photon chimera can be obtained by 4 ball lightnings and 1 dameselfly + chimera. That is a 22 attack 1 health creature generates by the same cost of 6 :gravity and 6 cards. Additionally, longsword + flying weapon will generate a 6 atk creature for the cost of 2 :rainbow and 2 cards, much less than chimera + 5 photons in terms of both quanta and cards. Not to mention titan + flying weapon generates a 8 atk creature with 50 health for 1 :rainbow and 8 :gravity and 2 cards. Just because there is an ineffective way to generate a weak creature (5 photon + chimera) does not mean that shard golem should mimic this ineffectiveness. After all, shard golem is a rare that should some better abilities than normal cards.
Secondly, your reasoning fails to address the problem of opportunity cost. Shard golem will generate a creature for 4 :rainbow AND some valuable shards. Unlike a 5 photon chimera, the resources allocated to the shard golem could have been used elsewhere for potentially a greater effect. For example, instead of using 4 :rainbow and 6 cards, I may choose to use 4 :rainbow and only 1 card to cast Shard of Focus, which is a very powerful creature by itself with 3 charges of perm destruction and a free black hole. Additionally, I can use 3 :rainbow and 1 card to cast SoSe to gain three additional cards. The utility of the shard golem generated by sacrificing 5 shards + 4 :rainbow should reflect the opportunity cost as well as the quanta and card cost.
Please explain why you still think shard golem should still generate a creature of comparable power of a 5 photon chimera.
Marvaddin made the argument
1) Sacrificing 5 shards is a high cost.
2) High cost -> high benefit.
3) Shard Golem should be "ultra mega hyper powerful". (This quoted description is important. This does not merely refer to efficient. It also refers to large scale.)
I made the counterargument
1) Sacrificing 5 shards in the hand is similar in cost to sacrificing 5 0 cost creatures.
2) A chimera made from 5 0 cost creatures is not "ultra mega hyper powerful".
3) Shard Golem should not be "ultra mega hyper powerful".
You are right that a better (though more complicated example) would have been 4 sparks and 1 photon (balance starts unupped). This variation is not "ultra mega hyper powerful" either.
Opportunity cost:
1) If things are balanced there should be no significant opportunity cost difference between sacrificing different cards for 0 quanta.
2) Things should be made balanced
3) Opportunity costs should be equal
Rarity: One of the many improvements of EtG over other card games is that it does not fall for the fallacy that rare cards should be overpowered compared to common cards. Such practices in other card games result in discrimination against new players and create a pay to play atmosphere.
Remember: I am not claiming it should make something on the level of a 5 photon chimera. I merely am merely claiming it should not be "ultra mega hyper powerful" but rather should reflect the detail that sacrificing cards in the hand is a low additional cost.
Post by: zhangvict on March 05, 2012, 12:18:36 pm
I understand now your argument was merely "Shard golem should not be ultra mega hyper powerful" instead of "shard golem should be as weak as a 5 photon chimera". Without a clear definition of "ultra mega hyper powerful", I find it hard to disagree with this proposition. My only aim is that the power of shard golem should reflect the cost, albeit I think we differ on exactly what is the cost of shard golem. I presume your view on the cost of the golem is significantly lower than mine. I think one thing we agree on is that a 5 card shard golem should be at least significantly stronger than a 5 photon chimera.You are closer but still arguing against a strawman.I understand now you aim to demonstrate how weak the shard golem should be in terms of cost of cards and quanta. Firstly, I have an issue with yout bias of demonstration.Lol?Seriously, to compensate you use all shards in your hand, and they can be something like 4-5, for example, the creature should be ultra mega hyper powerful. I already used to think about this shard invasion as a bad thing. Soon all elements will have healing, draw acceleration, card generation, stall... and now a possibly super powerful creature you dont need to pay quanta for. Add some TU... now you can replicate the creature you just used 5 cards to create (Exodia? lol).You overestimate the cost involved. The creature must not be "ultra mega hyper powerful"
Imagine a Chimera of 4-5 Photons.
Cost: 4-5 cards + Chimera
Consider Shard Golem
Cost: 4-5 cards + Shard of :earth
Lol are you comparing 4/5 photons with 4/5 shards? Photons are infinitesimally worthless compared to the power of shards. Much better cast the shards to get their benefits than sacrificing them into some worthless creature that can be rewinded. The creature must be damm worth it for one do choose to do so. At the very least casting shard golem with 1 SoF in your hand should generate a creature of greater ability than a single SoF by itself. It must be better than something with 3 free perm destruction and a black hole.
Plus 4-5 Cards is no small cost by themselves. You see, a chimera of 5 photons is an incredibly weak chimera, with less atk than an elite charger that costs less than chimera. Sacrificing that many shards for a creature comparable to a chimera of 5 photons is UP.
I am comparing 5 draws to 5 draws. I am comparing 0 quanta to 0 quanta. I am comparing 5 cards to 5 cards. The value of shards is paid for with their cost. That cost is mostly bypassed with Shard of :earth. We both agree on this point that the cost of the card draws is minuscule. Hopefully we both agree that benefit should reflect cost. Therefore my conclusion that a shard Golem should not be a ridiculously powerful creature still stands. Remember the shard golem sacrifices shards in the hand not on the field. 5 cards is 5 cards is 5 cards.
I understand that a 5 photon chimera is weak. I picked it to demonstrate the correlation between cost paid (practically nothing) and benefit reaped (practically nothing).
Please reread a few times. I am willing to go into more depth but I expect you will understand once you read for comprehension.
I understand your reasoning is something like this:
1. 5 photons + chimera generates a horrendously weak creature at the cost of 6 :gravity and 6 cards
2. Therefore 5 shards + golem should also generate a horrendously weak creature for 4 :rainbow and 6 cards.
My issue is that your choice of photon is a biased choice. A creature with over 4 times the attack of a 5 photon chimera can be obtained by 4 ball lightnings and 1 dameselfly + chimera. That is a 22 attack 1 health creature generates by the same cost of 6 :gravity and 6 cards. Additionally, longsword + flying weapon will generate a 6 atk creature for the cost of 2 :rainbow and 2 cards, much less than chimera + 5 photons in terms of both quanta and cards. Not to mention titan + flying weapon generates a 8 atk creature with 50 health for 1 :rainbow and 8 :gravity and 2 cards. Just because there is an ineffective way to generate a weak creature (5 photon + chimera) does not mean that shard golem should mimic this ineffectiveness. After all, shard golem is a rare that should some better abilities than normal cards.
Secondly, your reasoning fails to address the problem of opportunity cost. Shard golem will generate a creature for 4 :rainbow AND some valuable shards. Unlike a 5 photon chimera, the resources allocated to the shard golem could have been used elsewhere for potentially a greater effect. For example, instead of using 4 :rainbow and 6 cards, I may choose to use 4 :rainbow and only 1 card to cast Shard of Focus, which is a very powerful creature by itself with 3 charges of perm destruction and a free black hole. Additionally, I can use 3 :rainbow and 1 card to cast SoSe to gain three additional cards. The utility of the shard golem generated by sacrificing 5 shards + 4 :rainbow should reflect the opportunity cost as well as the quanta and card cost.
Please explain why you still think shard golem should still generate a creature of comparable power of a 5 photon chimera.
Marvaddin made the argument
1) Sacrificing 5 shards is a high cost.
2) High cost -> high benefit.
3) Shard Golem should be "ultra mega hyper powerful". (This quoted description is important. This does not merely refer to efficient. It also refers to large scale.)
I made the counterargument
1) Sacrificing 5 shards in the hand is similar in cost to sacrificing 5 0 cost creatures.
2) A chimera made from 5 0 cost creatures is not "ultra mega hyper powerful".
3) Shard Golem should not be "ultra mega hyper powerful".
You are right that a better (though more complicated example) would have been 4 sparks and 1 photon (balance starts unupped). This variation is not "ultra mega hyper powerful" either.
Opportunity cost:
1) If things are balanced there should be no significant opportunity cost difference between sacrificing different cards for 0 quanta.
2) Things should be made balanced
3) Opportunity costs should be equal
Rarity: One of the many improvements of EtG over other card games is that it does not fall for the fallacy that rare cards should be overpowered compared to common cards. Such practices in other card games result in discrimination against new players and create a pay to play atmosphere.
Remember: I am not claiming it should make something on the level of a 5 photon chimera. I merely am merely claiming it should not be "ultra mega hyper powerful" but rather should reflect the detail that sacrificing cards in the hand is a low additional cost.
Opportunity cost:I am not quite sure what this means. Can you please explain? I still think shard golem should be powerful enough to compensate for the loss of the abilities of the other shards used to feed it, or else it would be more worth it to simply use the other shards directly.
1) If things are balanced there should be no significant opportunity cost difference between sacrificing different cards for 0 quanta.
2) Things should be made balanced
3) Opportunity costs should be equal
Post by: Schlonz on March 05, 2012, 12:46:11 pm
- Shard of Consolidation
- Shard of Amalgamation
- Shard of Coalescing
Post by: OldTrees on March 05, 2012, 01:32:04 pm
-snip-A shard of gratitude has a cost 1 draw + 5 :rainbow quanta.
I understand now your argument was merely "Shard golem should not be ultra mega hyper powerful" instead of "shard golem should be as weak as a 5 photon chimera". Without a clear definition of "ultra mega hyper powerful", I find it hard to disagree with this proposition. My only aim is that the power of shard golem should reflect the cost, albeit I think we differ on exactly what is the cost of shard golem. I presume your view on the cost of the golem is significantly lower than mine. I think one thing we agree on is that a 5 card shard golem should be at least significantly stronger than a 5 photon chimera.Opportunity cost:I am not quite sure what this means. Can you please explain? I still think shard golem should be powerful enough to compensate for the loss of the abilities of the other shards used to feed it, or else it would be more worth it to simply use the other shards directly.
1) If things are balanced there should be no significant opportunity cost difference between sacrificing different cards for 0 quanta.
2) Things should be made balanced
3) Opportunity costs should be equal
A photon has a cost 1 draw + 0 quanta.
A shard of gratitude in the hand has cost 1 draw + 0 quanta.
The difference in benefit of a shard of gratitude and a photon should be on par with the difference in cost (5 :rainbow).
If both photon and shard of gratitude were perfectly balanced then the cost/benefit ratio of both would be equal.
Since all cards should ideally have equal cost/benefit ratios (when all costs are considered), then equal benefit should be gained for equal cost.
Drawing a shard and drawing a photon have the same cost (1 draw).
Having a card in the hand to sacrifice should have equal benefit for the equal cost (1 draw).
The opportunity of having drawn a shard should be of equal cost/benefit as the opportunity of any card.
Shard Golem should be compensated for the opportunity cost of not getting to use the shard for other purposes. (benefit gained for cost incurred)
This opportunity cost per shard should be equivalent to the generic opportunity cost incurred if a card in the hand were sacrificed.
This should achieve the point of balance that the player is ambivalent between using a shard or combining it in their shard golem.
I view the cost of the Golem as follows:
A shard golem of X shards costs 5 :rainbow + 1 card + X cards ~= 3+X cost units ~= a creature that cost 1 card + 2+X :earth. (a 2 shard golem has a cost equivalent to a Hematite Golem)
Post by: zhangvict on March 05, 2012, 01:39:21 pm
A shard of gratitude has a cost 1 draw + 5 :rainbow quanta.Ahh, that arguement follows the assumption that all cards are absolutely equal in terms of opportunity cost. In the current metagame, I doubt they are. Since shards right now probably have higher opportunity costs than photons, it is highly unlikely that anybody will think it is worth it to use shard golem. Therefore for people to use shard golem, the resulting creature must give benifits greater than that of some photons.
A photon has a cost 1 draw + 0 quanta.
A shard of gratitude in the hand has cost 1 draw + 0 quanta.
The difference in benefit of a shard of gratitude and a photon should be on par with the difference in cost (5 :rainbow).
If both photon and shard of gratitude were perfectly balanced then the cost/benefit ratio of both would be equal.
Since all cards should ideally have equal cost/benefit ratios (when all costs are considered), then equal benefit should be gained for equal cost.
Drawing a shard and drawing a photon have the same cost (1 draw).
Having a card in the hand to sacrifice should have equal benefit for the equal cost (1 draw).
The opportunity of having drawn a shard should be of equal cost/benefit as the opportunity of any card.
Shard Golem should be compensated for the opportunity cost of not getting to use the shard for other purposes. (benefit gained for cost incurred)
This opportunity cost per shard should be equivalent to the generic opportunity cost incurred if a card in the hand were sacrificed.
This should achieve the point of balance that the player is ambivalent between using a shard or combining it in their shard golem.
I view the cost of the Golem as follows:
A shard golem of X shards costs 5 :rainbow + 1 card + X cards ~= 3+X cost units ~= a creature that cost 1 card + 2+X :earth. (a 2 shard golem has a cost equivalent to a Hematite Golem)
Post by: OldTrees on March 05, 2012, 01:50:23 pm
The argument follows the assumption that all significant imbalances should be fixed. I think we can all agreed that certain Shards should be nerfed. We should want the Shard Golem to still be balanced even after the broken shards are balanced. The last thing we want is to require Shard Golem to be broken just to give reason to sacrifice the 2 broken shards.A shard of gratitude has a cost 1 draw + 5 :rainbow quanta.Ahh, that arguement follows the assumption that all cards are absolutely equal in terms of opportunity cost. In the current metagame, I doubt they are. Since shards right now probably have higher opportunity costs than photons, it is highly unlikely that anybody will think it is worth it to use shard golem. Therefore for people to use shard golem, the resulting creature must give benifits greater than that of some photons.
A photon has a cost 1 draw + 0 quanta.
A shard of gratitude in the hand has cost 1 draw + 0 quanta.
The difference in benefit of a shard of gratitude and a photon should be on par with the difference in cost (5 :rainbow).
If both photon and shard of gratitude were perfectly balanced then the cost/benefit ratio of both would be equal.
Since all cards should ideally have equal cost/benefit ratios (when all costs are considered), then equal benefit should be gained for equal cost.
Drawing a shard and drawing a photon have the same cost (1 draw).
Having a card in the hand to sacrifice should have equal benefit for the equal cost (1 draw).
The opportunity of having drawn a shard should be of equal cost/benefit as the opportunity of any card.
Shard Golem should be compensated for the opportunity cost of not getting to use the shard for other purposes. (benefit gained for cost incurred)
This opportunity cost per shard should be equivalent to the generic opportunity cost incurred if a card in the hand were sacrificed.
This should achieve the point of balance that the player is ambivalent between using a shard or combining it in their shard golem.
I view the cost of the Golem as follows:
A shard golem of X shards costs 5 :rainbow + 1 card + X cards ~= 3+X cost units ~= a creature that cost 1 card + 2+X :earth. (a 2 shard golem has a cost equivalent to a Hematite Golem)
Post by: Jenkar on March 05, 2012, 02:35:52 pm
I had a few other names in my head for this shard:None of those really fit earth in my mind. I like the current name.
Unity (self explanatory)
Majesty (it commands the other shards)
Integrity (Something unbroken and complete as opposed to a shard that is partial).
Feel free to discuss which name is more fitting
Post by: Kuroaitou on March 05, 2012, 03:16:12 pm
I had a few other names in my head for this shard:I say Integrity is the best bet; Fertility again feels to much connected to Life and breeding new things (which is kind of weird), whereas this shard is more of a 'ground' combination of all of the shards in one's hand. Unity is too basic of a name (and pretty boring... SoU?"), Majesty sounds pretentious, but Integrity seems much more accurate to Earth, as all of their cards have this type of 'perseverance' and dedication to do things the right way and with apt skill.
Unity (self explanatory)
Majesty (it commands the other shards)
Integrity (Something unbroken and complete as opposed to a shard that is partial).
Feel free to discuss which name is more fitting
Post by: EmeraldTiger on March 05, 2012, 03:18:23 pm
Golem of Shards = GoS
Post by: Avenger on March 05, 2012, 03:57:29 pm
Shard of Integrity is a good name for this shard.
Fertility is totally :life related.
Post by: SnoWeb on March 05, 2012, 04:16:06 pm
- Firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values : incorruptibility
- An unimpaired condition : soundness
- the quality or state of being complete or undivided : completeness
Crystal Golem is a good name for the product.Yeah, a shard is small fragment (of a broken vessel for example). Crystal is something of the earth that might shatter. However, the golem part bothers me more. I would see it more as a permanent ... like a "crystal of integrity".
Post by: ~Napalm on March 05, 2012, 04:35:23 pm
What about Shard of Harmony? Could be a fitting name for Earth.
Post by: burpcow on March 05, 2012, 04:41:46 pm
Post by: SnoWeb on March 05, 2012, 05:07:06 pm
What about Shard of Harmony? Could be a fitting name for Earth.Absolutely. Great name. Fitting the element and the effect. Better than the other terms for sure.
Post by: corky on March 05, 2012, 06:51:41 pm
Post by: Jenkar on March 05, 2012, 06:58:24 pm
+1 to this.What about Shard of Harmony? Could be a fitting name for Earth.Absolutely. Great name. Fitting the element and the effect. Better than the other terms for sure.
Post by: Schlonz on March 05, 2012, 07:30:42 pm
Harmony:
Quote
A pleasing combination of elements in a whole: color harmony; the order and harmony of the universefrom http://www.thefreedictionary.com/harmony
Sounds good .. at first. But who says that the result will be a pleasing combination. I still see contradictions between the shard types not leading to harmony but maybe also to very strange combinations (SoG+SoD+SoSac). Furthermore, Harmony sounds very :life :life :life :life
So I still like Shard of Consolidation or Shard of Amalgamation better.
Post by: tims100 on March 05, 2012, 08:24:33 pm
Post by: RRQJ on March 05, 2012, 08:44:25 pm
-1 from me for Harmony.shards are named after virtues. Your preferences, while more accurate in terms of what exactly is happening, are not virtues.
Harmony:QuoteA pleasing combination of elements in a whole: color harmony; the order and harmony of the universefrom http://www.thefreedictionary.com/harmony
Sounds good .. at first. But who says that the result will be a pleasing combination. I still see contradictions between the shard types not leading to harmony but maybe also to very strange combinations (SoG+SoD+SoSac). Furthermore, Harmony sounds very :life :life :life :life
So I still like Shard of Consolidation or Shard of Amalgamation better.
...Although, is 'void' a virtue?
Post by: Schlonz on March 05, 2012, 09:16:28 pm
Thanks for clarification.
However, when I think about it: Harmony & Fertility are also not a virtue.
7 Virtues are: Faith, Hope, Charity, Fortitude, Justice, Prudence and Temperance (or Chastity, Temperance, Charity, Diligence, Patience, Kindness, Humility)
Theological Virtues: Love, Hope and Faith
Cardinal Virtues: Prudence, Temperance, Courage and Justice
Heavenly Virtues: Faith, Hope, Charity, Fortitude, Justice, Temperance, Prudence
Bushido Virtues: Right decisions, Valor, Benevolence, Respect, Honesty, Honor, and Loyalty
So what fits best from this list?
Mabe Charity in the sense of self-sacrificial unlimited loving, held to be the ultimate perfection of the human spirit. But nooooo, that is too much :light :light :light :light
Post by: RRQJ on March 05, 2012, 09:32:05 pm
Edit:
here we go: http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,28847.0.html
and void isn't on there, so I guess the shards are no longer following the virtue naming scheme?
Post by: Nepycros on March 05, 2012, 10:06:59 pm
SoB adds +3|+1 and a weaksauce ability
SoX adds -2|-2 and a more powerful ability
SoG adds +2|+2 and an average healing ability
SoP adds +1|+4, and so on...
Since the stats are based on the underlying shards themselves, the calculations for what the Shard Golem will have isn't so much a 'broad range of coding' but more of simple addition/subtraction.
Post by: sunyata on March 05, 2012, 10:29:20 pm
Another thought on the name: How about "shard of accretion".OK I didn't realise about the need for a 'virtuous' name when I posted this suggestion. Virtues that involve bringing together would include cooperation, congeniality, camaraderie and benevolence.
Accretion refers to either (1) the process by which planets are formed from matter joining together and also (2) the increase in size of a tectonic plate by addition of material along a convergent boundary.
Both very earthy :earth and apt concepts
As has been mentioned,void has already stretched this rule to breaking point so maybe could also consider a 'dis-virtue' that suggests accumulating the skills from other shards. Shard of avarice comes to mind, though surely there are many other possibilities.
A poll on names would be fun. Any chance the OP will add one to this thread?
Post by: Marvaddin on March 06, 2012, 03:07:24 am
1 shard in hand and 1 photon in hand dont have the same benefit or opportunity cost. This is the ideal situation, you are talking about perfect balance, with equal cost / benefit ratio. If we expand the idea, any deck with, lets say, 30 cards, should have equal efficiency, which we know its not true. Cards are used to create decks, that have strategies, that may or may not work vs the opponent. Are there decks that photons are more useful than Shards? Sure, cremation decks, for example, or RoL Hope. But this is not a rule.
Photons = pathetic free creatures. If there is a Photon Golem card, that gives you a 5/5 creature for removing your 5 photons in hand, you may think its ok, although it would need a plus for the 6th card + cost.
Random cards = anything. If there is a Random Golem card, that gives you a creature for removing 5 random cards from your hand, what would it be to be playable? This could include 5 photons, or a bunch of cheap spells you could use for great benefit (lets say, SuperNova, Explosion, Heal, Rewind and Thunderbolt), or 5 dragons (you may or may not have the quanta to play for them). Would the 5/5 creature with a small plus be enough? Maybe for you, in your perfectly balanced situation, but in practice it wouldnt be played.
Now a Shard Golem. By Shard we mean cards that have powerful effects, arent expensive and can use any quanta, being extremely easy pay for them, with a SuperNova, or even 1-2 Quanta Towers. I have a way to draw 2 more cards, create 3 random cards, heal 16, have 3 permanent destruction and a BH, and stall for 2 turns, getting healing for damage. Will I spend all these and a 6th card, and pay quanta, just to have a 5/5 creature? If I wanted a Charger, for example, I would put a Charger card. This one and some quanta sources would be better, less unstable, and I would still have 1 card or 2 in hand.
I understand, quanta cost is to play the card, not a cost to have it in hand. If it was a Dragon Golem, I could even put a Silurian Dragon in the deck, while having no way to produce time quanta. The same does not apply to shards, they are cheap and paid with generic quanta.
Seriously, how would you balance this Shard Golem? 2 Shards for an Hematite Golem? Lol, who would use it? I cant think a good way to balance it, maybe you can help. I think, if for each shard I add a good value due to the shard opportunity cost, with 5 shards it would be monstrous, maybe a 20/20 with momentum and rage potion as bonus skill. But this would be abused, because its too cheap, in terms of quanta, and still can be TUed. If we stop adding value to each shard, lets say, beyond 2, this would still be a just ok creature with a 3 (or more) cards cost, which makes me remember, why not just add Destroyer (or anything good and cheap enough)? If we consider this can 'absorb' any number of shards 1-7, theres no way to balance, it will be broken, or just a dead card.
Again, just to say my very own opinion, this shard invasion is the worst thing that could happen to Elements. But this idea, in particular, is so bad that I really cant understand why zanz is even considering it.
Post by: ZephyrPhantom on March 06, 2012, 03:19:54 am
(Note : Balance is not always perfect, and in theory it's unlikely to have a permanent 'perfect' balance for all cards as long as new factors are being introduced in the game - new cards will interact with each other in different ways. Instosis is a good example of this.)
Quote
Again, just to say my very own opinion, this shard invasion is the worst thing that could happen to Elements. But this idea, in particular, is so bad that I really cant understand why zanz is even considering it.I disagree. Shards do have their good points (such as being the 'mutable' archetype of other, expanding other's depth and theme, and representing the ability for Elementals to use generic items but responding more accurately to ones attuned to them.) but Zanz's attempt to complete the 12 shards suffered from bad execution and design. I'd like to linkthis post here (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,35191.msg496850#msg496850).
Quote
Overall, shard design seems to have suffered badly from the same reason you can't simply create a 12-card idea series without taking your time or being dedicated to the mechanics - some ideas in the series are inevitably lower quality than the best ideas in the series, and as a result drag the group down as a whole since people generally seem to judge the quality of such cards based on how well the series as a whole does or just ignore the series expecting 12 carbon copies of the same thing. (Both views are generally inaccurate and more common than some may think. It seems Zanz tried to avoid the second problem but forgot to avoid the first one. From what I've seen in card design, it usually a lot better to release series cards gradually so each develop their own mechanic and 'taste' of sorts, so to speak.)Just my 2 :electrum .
Post by: dragonsdemesne on March 06, 2012, 03:25:49 am
1) What about Shard of Might for a name? Earth is strong and... mighty? Shard of fortitude or strength could also work.
2) If you cast twin universe on a shard golem, it wouldn't be the same size, would it? It should check the shards you have in your hand again and size itself based on that, in exactly the same way that twinning a chimera doesn't give you a second giant chimera.
Post by: Marvaddin on March 06, 2012, 04:20:23 am
2) If you cast twin universe on a shard golem, it wouldn't be the same size, would it? It should check the shards you have in your hand again and size itself based on that, in exactly the same way that twinning a chimera doesn't give you a second giant chimera.Not really. This happens to Chimera because, when it comes to play, it absorbs all your current creatures, including the old Chimera. At this point, shard golem could be TUed normally.
"representing the ability for Elementals to use generic items but responding more accurately to ones attuned to them" - well, I once was told that shards would have a small advantage to their elements, I guess that absorbing all quanta from other elements and none from the related element is a small advantage. Look at the water shard, its complete useless to other elements.
I agree, Zblader that this COULD be a good idea if it had a good execution. The way it is, to me its the worst thing that could happen. People used to complain about SoGs, imagine when things like SoB and SoF are real. Shardless decks wont be able to compete, possibly, because shards are better than the elemental cards. Poor HG and Explosion... these cards were nerfed just to see shards destroying the metagame.
About the shard golem itself, it wont be a hard situation having 5+ shards in hand. Play SN, play 1-2 Precogs and SoBs, maybe Sundials. Get lots of shards in hand. Play Golem. Not OP? Ok, then who will play it?
Post by: dragonsdemesne on March 06, 2012, 04:22:50 am
Post by: Absol on March 06, 2012, 05:31:39 am
A nice alternative name would be Shard of Integrity. Or just Shard Golem. (Crystal Golem?)
Do we have a list of possible effects available?
Post by: OldTrees on March 06, 2012, 05:46:59 am
Oldtrees,Slight nitpick: I am talking about balance within the margin of 1 quanta (not perfect balance). Most of Elements operates very close to this ideal. It is a goal to continue to advocate for (rather then advocate for multiple tiers of cards).
1 shard in hand and 1 photon in hand dont have the same benefit or opportunity cost. This is the ideal situation, you are talking about perfect balance, with equal cost / benefit ratio. If we expand the idea, any deck with, lets say, 30 cards, should have equal efficiency, which we know its not true. Cards are used to create decks, that have strategies, that may or may not work vs the opponent. Are there decks that photons are more useful than Shards? Sure, cremation decks, for example, or RoL Hope. But this is not a rule.
Photons = pathetic free creatures. If there is a Photon Golem card, that gives you a 5/5 creature for removing your 5 photons in hand, you may think its ok, although it would need a plus for the 6th card + cost.
Random cards = anything. If there is a Random Golem card, that gives you a creature for removing 5 random cards from your hand, what would it be to be playable? This could include 5 photons, or a bunch of cheap spells you could use for great benefit (lets say, SuperNova, Explosion, Heal, Rewind and Thunderbolt), or 5 dragons (you may or may not have the quanta to play for them). Would the 5/5 creature with a small plus be enough? Maybe for you, in your perfectly balanced situation, but in practice it wouldnt be played.
Now a Shard Golem. By Shard we mean cards that have powerful effects, arent expensive and can use any quanta, being extremely easy pay for them, with a SuperNova, or even 1-2 Quanta Towers. I have a way to draw 2 more cards, create 3 random cards, heal 16, have 3 permanent destruction and a BH, and stall for 2 turns, getting healing for damage. Will I spend all these and a 6th card, and pay quanta, just to have a 5/5 creature? If I wanted a Charger, for example, I would put a Charger card. This one and some quanta sources would be better, less unstable, and I would still have 1 card or 2 in hand.
I understand, quanta cost is to play the card, not a cost to have it in hand. If it was a Dragon Golem, I could even put a Silurian Dragon in the deck, while having no way to produce time quanta. The same does not apply to shards, they are cheap and paid with generic quanta.
Seriously, how would you balance this Shard Golem? 2 Shards for an Hematite Golem? Lol, who would use it? I cant think a good way to balance it, maybe you can help. I think, if for each shard I add a good value due to the shard opportunity cost, with 5 shards it would be monstrous, maybe a 20/20 with momentum and rage potion as bonus skill. But this would be abused, because its too cheap, in terms of quanta, and still can be TUed. If we stop adding value to each shard, lets say, beyond 2, this would still be a just ok creature with a 3 (or more) cards cost, which makes me remember, why not just add Destroyer (or anything good and cheap enough)? If we consider this can 'absorb' any number of shards 1-7, theres no way to balance, it will be broken, or just a dead card.
Again, just to say my very own opinion, this shard invasion is the worst thing that could happen to Elements. But this idea, in particular, is so bad that I really cant understand why zanz is even considering it.
The photon golem (say 7|5 momentum unupped for 2 :gravity+6 cards) would give a cheap creature for the cost of card disadvantage which would allow the rest of the deck to use higher cost cards. It is not as bad as one might think.
I am going to skip over the random card section because we were talking about generic card not random cards. Random cards have uncertainty which is a cost multiplier.
Quote
I have a way to draw 2 more cards, create 3 random cards, heal 16, have 3 permanent destruction and a BH, and stall for 2 turns, getting healing for damage. Will I spend all these and a 6th card, and pay quanta, just to have a 5/5 creature?No. Neither would I. The 5|5 body is merely worth the 5 cards discarded. The 6th card and quanta (5 :rainbow ~= 2 :underworld) are worth at least 3 more attack. However I would find a 8|5 body bland. I would rather get a creature that is worth 7 :underworld+1card from sacrificing the 5 shards and the Shard of :earth. Why I do believe that is just slightly less than what a Nymph is.
Next you agree that the quanta cost of a dragon is not relevant until played. However you then claim the quanta cost of a shard is relevant before it is played. I hold that costs only deserve to generate benefit if those costs are paid.
Quote
Seriously, how would you balance this Shard Golem? 2 Shards for an Hematite Golem?No. I would balance it such that 5 :rainbow+3cards ~= 4 :earth+1card. I used the golem as a marker not as an example. The actual Shard Golem would have lower stats (more resilience) and possess a potent skill for a reasonable activation cost. Say 2|8 with :earth: Controller gains 5 max hp. Would that be worth 2 SoDs, a Shard of Earth + 5 :rainbow to you?
Note my method for balancing would not leave it "too cheap, in terms of quanta" and the detail that it "still can be TUed" would be an option (at 3+ shards) but not a balance issue.
In conclusion:
You feel that all shard need to be balanced relative to non shard to maintain the competence of shardless decks. My method for balancing Shard of Earth would balance it relative to non shards as a step towards that goal. Certain shards are already there (SoD, SoG, SoV) while others need balancing (SoSac, SoF).
Post by: Marvaddin on March 06, 2012, 06:18:32 am
No. I would balance it such that 5 :rainbow+3cards ~= 4 :earth+1card. I used the golem as a marker not as an example. The actual Shard Golem would have lower stats (more resilience) and possess a potent skill for a reasonable activation cost. Say 2|8 with :earth: Controller gains 5 max hp. Would that be worth 2 SoDs, a Shard of Earth + 5 :rainbow to you?Yes, it makes sense, but then 5 :rainbow + 8 cards would have a value like, hmmm, 20 :earth +1 card, no? This is what I was talking about from start, something really very powerfull. Cheap, in terms of quanta? Yes, you are paying 5 :rainbow for it, and the rest is paid in cards. You can have this 5 :rainbow in 2nd turn, if you play a quanta tower. Possible to TU? Yes, and its broken, you are paying 6 + 1 card for something that should cost 20 quanta or 8 cards.
Note my method for balancing would not leave it "too cheap, in terms of quanta" and the detail that it "still can be TUed" would be an option (at 3+ shards) but not a balance issue.
In conclusion:
You feel that all shard need to be balanced relative to non shard to maintain the competence of shardless decks. My method for balancing Shard of Earth would balance it relative to non shards as a step towards that goal. Certain shards are already there (SoD, SoG, SoV) while others need balancing (SoSac, SoF).
About the dragon - shard cost, you didnt get the point. If there is a spell that uses dragons in your hand, you dont even need quanta to play them. In case of shards, you always can play them. If I have 5 shards in my hand and the value increment is not good enough when using this golem, I can use the shards until the point I feel it compensates the shards powers. Look at the card image, if zanz really intends someone playing this with a lot of shards, I can just really assume it will be mega hyper powerful.
I liked our little exercise. What would you suggest for a Golem created by Fertility + 7 other shards?
Post by: OldTrees on March 06, 2012, 06:34:42 am
5 :rainbow -> 2 :underworldNo. I would balance it such that 5 :rainbow+3cards ~= 4 :earth+1card. I used the golem as a marker not as an example. The actual Shard Golem would have lower stats (more resilience) and possess a potent skill for a reasonable activation cost. Say 2|8 with :earth: Controller gains 5 max hp. Would that be worth 2 SoDs, a Shard of Earth + 5 :rainbow to you?Yes, it makes sense, but then 5 :rainbow + 8 cards would have a value like, hmmm, 20 :earth +1 card, no? This is what I was talking about from start, something really very powerfull. Cheap, in terms of quanta? Yes, you are paying 5 :rainbow for it, and the rest is paid in cards. You can have this 5 :rainbow in 2nd turn, if you play a quanta tower. Possible to TU? Yes, and its broken, you are paying 6 + 1 card for something that should cost 20 quanta or 8 cards.
Note my method for balancing would not leave it "too cheap, in terms of quanta" and the detail that it "still can be TUed" would be an option (at 3+ shards) but not a balance issue.
In conclusion:
You feel that all shard need to be balanced relative to non shard to maintain the competence of shardless decks. My method for balancing Shard of Earth would balance it relative to non shards as a step towards that goal. Certain shards are already there (SoD, SoG, SoV) while others need balancing (SoSac, SoF).
About the dragon - shard cost, you didnt get the point. If there is a spell that uses dragons in your hand, you dont even need quanta to play them. In case of shards, you always can play them. If I have 5 shards in my hand and the value increment is not good enough when using this golem, I can use the shards until the point I feel it compensates the shards powers. Look at the card image, if zanz really intends someone playing this with a lot of shards, I can just really assume it will be mega hyper powerful.
I liked our little exercise. What would you suggest for a Golem created by Fertility + 7 other shards?
X cards -> X :underworld
5 :rainbow + 8 cards (full hand) -> 10 :underworld -> 9 :underworld+1card -> Nymph level
Twin Universe is already used on Nymphs without balance issues.
Golem for a full shard hand? Hmm. It depends a bit on the composition. The vast majority of the card value would go into the skill, then the resilience, then the activation cost and finally the attack (attack would probably cap at 3 for Adrenaline synergy).
Lets stick with 2 types of shards (SoG and SoD)
I would put it somewhere around this
3|15 with Regenerate 10 (controller heals 10per turn) and :earth: Controller gains 5 max hp
About the dragons.
So your point can be compared to the following:
If I cannot play dragons then a Dragon Golem should cost X
If I can play dragons then a Dragon Golem should cost less because I am forgoing casting the Dragon.
However in both cases you are forgoing including and casting another card. Therefore the Dragon Golem should always cost less.
All cards come at the cost of forgoing including another card. This cost is why cards give net benefits. This is no reason to favor chimera cards over other cards.
Post by: Marvaddin on March 06, 2012, 07:14:45 am
If this is really going to be like this, dead card, I would say, at least for a high number of shards. But this is my opinion, maybe someone would sacrifice 8 cards for a nymph like. Dunno.
Post by: OldTrees on March 06, 2012, 07:54:08 am
Hmmmmm... if this is what I get for 8 cards, I wont even consider to play it. For 8 cards I would expect something really decisive. 9 quanta + 1 card is less than a dragon cost. A Nymph could be obtained by 2 cards (Pillar + Tears) and 6 quanta. In the other 6 cards, you could count, lets say, 2 quanta sources (for Tears) and a SoR (yeah the combo would be a bit more quanta expensive), and could still have 3 other cards.For 8 cards and almost no quanta you expect to much. This is mostly due to your aesthetic bias towards card advantage and quanta disadvantage. Not everyone shares this bias and some have the reversed bias (card disadvantage and quanta advantage). If we balance a inherently card disadvantaging card based on the audience least likely to use it in the first place then we will suffer massive imbalance. (Set the price of vanilla based on those that prefer vanilla not those that prefer chocolate) This is not for the people that like Hourglass and Mindgate. It is for the people that like Chimera and Immolation.
If this is really going to be like this, dead card, I would say, at least for a high number of shards. But this is my opinion, maybe someone would sacrifice 8 cards for a nymph like. Dunno.
2 SoGs in play, 1 SoD cast per 4 :earth and 3 attack is a fair deal for 5 :rainbow + 1 hand IMO.
PS: Your credibility dipped slightly when it sounded like you were brushing off the relevant quanta and turn costs involved in your combo.
1 pillar:
1 card + X turns -> X quanta
Post by: Marvaddin on March 06, 2012, 10:42:59 am
I cant understand your point about credibility. But I will try. Of course I know that changing cards and getting a nymph by another way has a cost involved in turns, even as we need turns to generate quanta. If its more expensive, it takes more turns. But also takes less cards. Whats better? Dunno. You can play the nymph instantly by using the 8 cards combo. And then, how many turns to get the other cards?
Post by: OldTrees on March 06, 2012, 11:24:29 am
Card disadvantage and quanta advantage, you say. Whats the purpose of the quanta? Lol, I assume that people that take this to the max play with a 30 pillar deck. Quanta is to play cards. If I play a Nova and a Photon / Cremation, Im using cards to generate quanta, but whats the point? A quick and not unstable way to have enough quanta to play my Destroyer, Lycanthrope, Forest Spirit and Arsenic. If there was a Giant Frog in my hand, would play it too. Whats the card disadvantage? Now, if it was important to my deck, I could sacrifice, yes, some cards to play a nymph. How many? 8? Surely no. What the point of getting the quanta advantage if I have nothing left to play?Energy + Spells -> Benefits
I cant understand your point about credibility. But I will try. Of course I know that changing cards and getting a nymph by another way has a cost involved in turns, even as we need turns to generate quanta. If its more expensive, it takes more turns. But also takes less cards. Whats better? Dunno. You can play the nymph instantly by using the 8 cards combo. And then, how many turns to get the other cards?
Quanta + Cards -> Benefits
Quanta is not there to play cards. Cards are not there to shape quanta. They are 2 of the 3 primary currencies (the third is time) to pay for Field Advantage in the process of completing a Win Condition. Some prefer to pay primarily in Quanta, others prefer to pay primarily is Cards. Each of these deviations from the norm is a strategy to generate an advantage in one resource at the expense of another resource.
You see Quanta as subservient to Cards. This puts you in the category that prefers expends more quanta to obtain more cards than the norm. This indicates that you value the resource of cards more than normal. This means cards that fit the opposite mindset will appear less efficient to you.
Sidenote: My point about credibility was you were quantifying cards but did not include values for turn costs. This might have confused people into thinking that you did not consider those costs. Though inability to compare 2 of the 3 resources makes me doubt your value estimate between the other pairs.
Post by: Nepycros on March 06, 2012, 01:50:39 pm
Post by: Marvaddin on March 06, 2012, 03:25:49 pm
Quanta is not there to play cards. Cards are not there to shape quanta. They are 2 of the 3 primary currencies (the third is time) to pay for Field Advantage in the process of completing a Win Condition. Some prefer to pay primarily in Quanta, others prefer to pay primarily is Cards. Each of these deviations from the norm is a strategy to generate an advantage in one resource at the expense of another resource.At last now I know why you are called idea guru, lol. Of course your ability to compare the 3 resources is the most accurate possible. Ok, you won, let the total shard golem be a nymph like, I really hope it gets played, I will have a Rewind waiting ;)
Post by: SnoWeb on March 06, 2012, 03:34:52 pm
I will have a Rewind waiting ;)That is pretty much what I fear with this card: A big investment for a card castle ...
Post by: OldTrees on March 06, 2012, 05:56:07 pm
That was a well thought through argument you were using. It is always important to judge concepts and theories on their own merits an not the merits of their hosts. Thank you for the debate. +70repQuanta is not there to play cards. Cards are not there to shape quanta. They are 2 of the 3 primary currencies (the third is time) to pay for Field Advantage in the process of completing a Win Condition. Some prefer to pay primarily in Quanta, others prefer to pay primarily is Cards. Each of these deviations from the norm is a strategy to generate an advantage in one resource at the expense of another resource.At last now I know why you are called idea guru, lol. Of course your ability to compare the 3 resources is the most accurate possible. Ok, you won, let the total shard golem be a nymph like, I really hope it gets played, I will have a Rewind waiting ;)
@RT:
I usually think the diversification strategy works well against most opponents. Using each resource in roughly equal manner tends to be the most consistent long term strategy. 2 Quantum Pillars, Play 2 Shards and use 3 Shards with Shard of Earth. Resilient vs CC, PC and Quanta denial.
Post by: RavingRabbid on March 06, 2012, 06:30:07 pm
Post by: ~Napalm on March 06, 2012, 07:19:19 pm
Post by: Sevs on March 06, 2012, 08:33:00 pm
I believe you were looking for Reliability. (Close enough ;) ) I'm still partial to Harmony though. It sounds nice, it seems to fit reasonably well, and I just like it. ::)
And live in harmony harmony OH love!
Everytime i hear harmony i think this (
)
Post by: moomoose on March 07, 2012, 05:05:20 am
seriously though, i think integrity would be better than unity, it just feels more earthy and structural. to me unity feels more of a homogenized vibe than integrity.
Post by: RavingRabbid on March 07, 2012, 12:38:19 pm
not sure if it was mentioned in the previous pages- but it could be "The One Shard" : one shard to rule them all...The One Shard has a nice ring on it.
seriously though, i think integrity would be better than unity, it just feels more earthy and structural. to me unity feels more of a homogenized vibe than integrity.
Post by: zhangvict on March 07, 2012, 01:31:30 pm
The One Shard has a nice ring on it.
Post by: Naesala on March 07, 2012, 04:52:07 pm
Post by: ~Napalm on March 07, 2012, 04:55:41 pm
Post by: Jangoo on March 07, 2012, 05:55:22 pm
Ahahahaha ... poor you.I believe you were looking for Reliability. (Close enough ;) ) I'm still partial to Harmony though. It sounds nice, it seems to fit reasonably well, and I just like it. ::)
And live in harmony harmony OH love!
Everytime i hear harmony i think this ()
Post by: Naesala on March 07, 2012, 06:58:24 pm
Aww what are you worrying about. Didn't you know using the Aether shard will make it Immaterial ;)I wasnt aware we knew the buffs yet o.O and if thats the case then...wow. Im really looking forward to. Seeing zanz try to make this balanced
Post by: Acsabi44 on March 07, 2012, 07:20:24 pm
I need 'em all
Post by: petersenk on March 07, 2012, 10:30:04 pm
He has always been?
Post by: Aves on March 07, 2012, 10:34:49 pm
I wonder what each shard will do... I can imagine a 48 shard deck, 4 of each shard when they all come out.
Post by: ddevans96 on March 07, 2012, 10:43:52 pm
I need to get out more...
Post by: moomoose on March 09, 2012, 03:08:30 pm
Post by: pie on March 09, 2012, 04:54:39 pm
i keep hoping this thing will go into the trainer soon... and hoping it wont all be destroyed by reverse time.Idea: If the golem gets rewound , All the shards that were added to it go back to owners
EDIT: With my idea TU+Rewound golem grants the user additional shards :o .... good or bad ?
Post by: furballdn on March 10, 2012, 10:04:38 pm
No shards seems to give a 1|4 or 1|5 creature with 1 :earth burrow.
Each SoP seems to add 2 atk and 1-2 defense.
I've observed abilities on the golem such as momentum, dead and alive ( :earth), steam ( :earth :earth)
Post by: AnnaMall on March 10, 2012, 10:16:19 pm
Need to build a large table for that....*elaborating master plan*
Post by: Shantu on March 10, 2012, 10:17:05 pm
Integrity + Integrity: :earth stone form
Integrity + Sacrifice: :earth infection
Integrity + 2-3 Sacrifice: scavenger
Integrity + 4 Sacrifice: venom
Integrity + 5 Sacrifice: :earth :earth aflatoxin
Integrity + 6 Sacrifice: deadly venom
Justice seems to be bugged, giving air abilities instead of aether (assuming it's the aether shard)
Post by: Jenkar on March 10, 2012, 10:18:53 pm
Post by: AnnaMall on March 10, 2012, 10:28:19 pm
Post by: Kuroaitou on March 10, 2012, 11:10:34 pm
i keep hoping this thing will go into the trainer soon... and hoping it wont all be destroyed by reverse time.It doesn't. In fact, rewinding a Shard golem outputs the SAME abilities when you play that specific golem from your hand. >.>
Post by: moomoose on March 10, 2012, 11:20:53 pm
Post by: Drake_XIV on March 10, 2012, 11:24:55 pm
Post by: moomoose on March 10, 2012, 11:31:16 pm
Post by: pie on March 10, 2012, 11:32:32 pm
1 x Int + 2 SoR = Golem with Scarab ( Spawn Scarabs just like Pharaoh )
1 x Int + 3 SoR = Golem with Dejavu
1 x Int + 4 SoR = Golem with Neurotoxin
1 x Int + 5 SoR = Golem with Neurotoxin
1 x Int + 6 SoR = Golem with Precogniton
Post by: Kuroaitou on March 10, 2012, 11:34:01 pm
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqwbWqlis8bLdERFekUyMmtFOFNFTXFNaThHWDVNT1E#gid=0
Post by: moomoose on March 10, 2012, 11:47:17 pm
2 :earth 2 :life 4 :fire = 26|20 fiery adrenaline golem
Post by: eaglgenes101 on March 11, 2012, 12:25:14 am
Post by: teffy on March 11, 2012, 12:35:45 am
Please (again) use THIS SPREADSHEET for figuring out the shard combinations/dominant abilities are:Do I have a google doc account ? No.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqwbWqlis8bLdERFekUyMmtFOFNFTXFNaThHWDVNT1E#gid=0
Am I going to have one ? No.
Post by: furballdn on March 11, 2012, 12:36:11 am
I wonder if "other" will be an official type. I'd really like to see an other team in war.team underworld? I don't think you can make a nearly mono other deck besides SoV+SoSa stall and shard golems.
Post by: Drake_XIV on March 11, 2012, 12:37:48 am
Post by: Kuroaitou on March 11, 2012, 12:46:17 am
You don't need to log into google to see the spreadsheet. But if you can't access the spreadsheets due to some configuration problem, the tables should be posted relatively soon (...assuming the table-making process doesn't kill us first :P).Please (again) use THIS SPREADSHEET for figuring out the shard combinations/dominant abilities are:Do I have a google doc account ? No.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqwbWqlis8bLdERFekUyMmtFOFNFTXFNaThHWDVNT1E#gid=0
Am I going to have one ? No.
Post by: eaglgenes101 on March 11, 2012, 01:57:30 am
Don't forget that war allows for a good number of off-element cards. A well-designed dragonbow would also be a valid deck type for a hypothetical mono-other war team.I wonder if "other" will be an official type. I'd really like to see an other team in war.team underworld? I don't think you can make a nearly mono other deck besides SoV+SoSa stall and shard golems.
Post by: sunyata on March 11, 2012, 02:10:17 am
I wonder if "other" will be an official type. I'd really like to see an other team in war.
Post by: Silver on March 11, 2012, 02:33:52 am
Post by: furballdn on March 11, 2012, 02:44:02 am
Other has rushing, stalling, healing, PC, draw acceleration, and denial. It's more complete than most of the actual elements.Rushing- I fail to see how you can really rush with other
Stalling- I'll give this to you. SoSa. Nuff said.
Healing- SoSa, SoD, SoG
PC- SoF
Draw acceleration- SoBe
denial- SoF, SoJ
Mono other is missing out on creatures and actual offense, unless you plan to rely on SoSe.
Post by: Naesala on March 11, 2012, 02:54:03 am
Other has rushing, stalling, healing, PC, draw acceleration, and denial. It's more complete than most of the actual elements.And this makes me hurt inside.
Post by: Silver on March 11, 2012, 02:58:47 am
Rushing- I fail to see how you can really rush with otherShard Golems (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,37363.msg501225.html#new) I consider having a 20 damage creature with Dive out on the first turn to be rushing.
@Naesala: Me too. :(
Post by: Jenkar on March 11, 2012, 02:59:01 am
SoV + sword.Other has rushing, stalling, healing, PC, draw acceleration, and denial. It's more complete than most of the actual elements.Rushing- I fail to see how you can really rush with other
Stalling- I'll give this to you. SoSa. Nuff said.
Healing- SoSa, SoD, SoG
PC- SoF
Draw acceleration- SoBe
denial- SoF, SoJ
Mono other is missing out on creatures and actual offense, unless you plan to rely on SoSe.
Post by: OldTrees on March 11, 2012, 04:11:42 am
| Element | Stats | Skills | ||||||||
| Unupped | Upgraded | 1copy | 2copies | 3copies | 4copies | 5copies | 6copies | 7copies | 8copies | |
| :aether | +2|+2 | +3|+3 | :earth: Burrow | :earth: Burrow Immaterial | :earth :earth: Lobotomize Immaterial | :earth :earth: Lobotomize Immaterial | :earth :earth: Lobotomize Immaterial | :earth :earth: Immortal (no effect) Immaterial | :earth :earth: Immortal (no effect) Immaterial | |
| :air | +2|+2 | +3|+3 | :earth: Burrow Airborne | :earth :earth: Queen Airborne | :earth :earth: Snipe Airborne | :earth :earth: Dive Airborne | :earth :earth: Dive Airborne | :earth :earth: Unstable Gas Airborne | :earth :earth: Unstable Gas Airborne | |
| :darkness | +2|+2 | +3|+3 | :earth: Burrow Devourer | :earth: Burrow Voodoo | Vampire Voodoo | Vampire Voodoo | :earth :earth: Liquid Shadow Voodoo | :earth :earth :earth: Steal Voodoo | :earth :earth :earth: Steal Voodoo | |
| :death | +2|+2 | +3|+3 | :earth: Infection | Scavenger | Scavenger | Venom | :earth :earth: Alfatoxin | Deadly Venom | Deadly Venom | |
| :earth | +1|+4 | +3|+3 | :earth: Burrow | :earth: Stone Form | :earth: Stone Form | :earth: Guard | :earth: Guard | :earth :earth: Petrify | :earth :earth: Petrify | :earth :earth: Petrify |
| :entropy | +2|+2 | +3|+3 | :earth: Dead and Alive | :earth :earth: Mutation | :earth :earth: Paradox | :earth :earth: Improved Mutation | Scramble | :earth :earth :earth :earth: Antimatter | :earth :earth :earth :earth: Antimatter | |
| :fire | +3|+0 | +4|+1 | :earth: Burrow | :earth: Ablaze | Fiery | Fiery | :earth :earth :earth: Destroy | :earth :earth: Rage | :earth :earth: Rage | |
| :gravity | +0|+6 | +1|+7 | :earth: Burrow Momentum | :earth: Burrow Momentum | :earth: Burrow Momentum | :earth: Burrow Momentum | :earth :earth :earth: Devour Momentum | :earth :earth :earth :earth: Black Hole Momentum | :earth :earth :earth :earth: Black Hole Momentum | |
| :life | +2|+2 | +3|+3 | :earth :earth: Growth | :earth :earth: Growth Adrenaline | :earth :earth: Growth Adrenaline | :earth :earth: Growth Adrenaline | :earth :earth: Adrenaline Adrenaline | :earth :earth: Mitosis Adrenaline | :earth :earth: Mitosis Adrenaline | |
| :light | +2|+2 | +3|+3 | :earth: Heal | :earth: Heal | :earth :earth: Endow | :earth :earth: Endow | :earth :earth: Endow | :earth :earth :earth :earth: Luciferin | :earth :earth :earth :earth: Luciferin | |
| :time | +2|+2 | +3|+3 | :earth: Burrow | :earth :earth: Scarab | :earth :earth :earth :earth: Deja Vu | Neurotoxin | Neurotoxin | :earth :earth: Precognition | :earth :earth: Precognition | |
| :water | +2|+2 | +3|+3 | :earth: Burrow | :earth :earth: Steam | :earth :earth: Steam | :earth :earth :earth: Freeze | :earth :earth :earth: Freeze | :earth :earth :earth :earth: Nymph | :earth :earth :earth :earth: Nymph |
Post by: kimham8a on March 11, 2012, 04:30:57 am
Post by: OldTrees on March 11, 2012, 04:35:03 am
so the golem can have multiple abilitiies?1 activated ability
as many passive abilities and status effects as it wants
Post by: Rutarete on March 11, 2012, 04:35:33 am
so the golem can have multiple abilitiies?At most, 1 active and 1 passive, Ex. Momentum + Airborne
Post by: Drake_XIV on March 11, 2012, 04:36:11 am
Post by: Absol on March 11, 2012, 05:03:48 am
I've once gotten a voodoo airborne golem with one active ability, but forgot which active.so the golem can have multiple abilitiies?At most, 1 active and 1 passive, Ex. Momentum + Airborne
You can get airborne overlapped with another passive, as in the case of Scarab.
Post by: moomoose on March 11, 2012, 05:47:03 am
Post by: OldTrees on March 11, 2012, 06:30:38 am
the chart is of mono-only, if you mix shards which have passives/statuses, you can get multiple statuses/passives in addition to a single active.Adding on
I think the active is determined by which element or elements are dominant. Hence the skill tiers [1-6 + secret tiers of 7&8].
Post by: Xenocidius on March 11, 2012, 06:35:09 am
Post by: zhangvict on March 11, 2012, 06:54:15 am
Post by: OldTrees on March 11, 2012, 07:04:04 am
I've detailed that stuff here (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,37359.msg501213#msg501213). The active skill is determined by primarily the shard with the highest frequency in the golem. Other than that, there each shard has a precedence, and there are some other bits and pieces.Shard Golem predicting tool by Xenocidius (http://xenocidius.allalla.com/shardgolem/)
Post by: Mathematistic on March 11, 2012, 07:18:16 am
Shard Golem is OP. With 6 novas, 6 golems, and 18 random shards, you can get a 20 atk creature first turn for 5 :rainbow.Cremation decks also have potential to get out 20 damage in the first turn.
Post by: Absol on March 11, 2012, 08:04:34 am
But for less quanta.Shard Golem is OP. With 6 novas, 6 golems, and 18 random shards, you can get a 20 atk creature first turn for 5 :rainbow.Cremation decks also have potential to get out 20 damage in the first turn.
Anyway, it's called trading hand advantage to gain field advantage. It's perfectly fair, you might as well play the shard by itself for specific effect.
Post by: Silver on March 11, 2012, 08:57:22 am
Playing around with it I don't think it's that OP. I think probably the best application is getting those first turn golems out, and even then it's not that powerful. Not unusable but not the fastest. A somewhat viable alternative to other rush decks. Maybe someone will come up with something wacky but for now I would put this around SoV in terms of power.
Post by: Marvaddin on March 11, 2012, 09:51:15 pm
Me too. To me, all these shards are ruining the elements theme. No more need to use time to get draw acceleration, for example, or Fire / Darkness / Earth - Gravity duo to remove permanents. Worst thing that ever happened to EtG. I feel that in some time we can even rename the game to Shards the Game.Other has rushing, stalling, healing, PC, draw acceleration, and denial. It's more complete than most of the actual elements.And this makes me hurt inside.
When I think about how all this effort could be used to develop interesting cards to the elements, argh, Im sick.
Post by: Hisar on March 11, 2012, 09:58:27 pm
To get precog, you have to use 6 SoR. SIX. Getting that first turn is pretty much impossible.Me too. To me, all these shards are ruining the elements theme. No more need to use time to get draw acceleration, for example, or Fire / Darkness / Earth - Gravity duo to remove permanents. Worst thing that ever happened to EtG. I feel that in some time we can even rename the game to Shards the Game.Other has rushing, stalling, healing, PC, draw acceleration, and denial. It's more complete than most of the actual elements.And this makes me hurt inside.
When I think about how all this effort could be used to develop interesting cards to the elements, argh, Im sick.
SoB is a huge double edged sword. Yeah, your deck is built around draw acceleration, but your opponent gets just as many cards as you do.
Post by: Drake_XIV on March 11, 2012, 10:53:42 pm
I agree. Sadly, we are the minority. So, in order to cope, we just have to beat them down without their shards.Me too. To me, all these shards are ruining the elements theme. No more need to use time to get draw acceleration, for example, or Fire / Darkness / Earth - Gravity duo to remove permanents. Worst thing that ever happened to EtG. I feel that in some time we can even rename the game to Shards the Game.Other has rushing, stalling, healing, PC, draw acceleration, and denial. It's more complete than most of the actual elements.And this makes me hurt inside.
When I think about how all this effort could be used to develop interesting cards to the elements, argh, Im sick.
Post by: Absol on March 12, 2012, 05:34:31 am
Post by: kimham8a on March 12, 2012, 10:58:36 pm
Post by: OldTrees on March 13, 2012, 12:04:29 am
Is there any commonly known reason/pro for making all the shards in the other element?1) There was more room remaining under the Other tag than under each other element. (There is finite room)
Post by: Marvaddin on March 13, 2012, 12:38:08 am
Other is not an element, its there, I think, just to include some cards like QT, that dont really belong to any element. Why should it have the same amount of cards of the actual elements? Its goal shouldnt be like count as an extra element, nor having cards that are better than the elemental cards. My 2 cents.
Post by: OldTrees on March 13, 2012, 12:53:23 am
This is what I call a bad reason, lol.Why does it have the same amount of cards slots in the card database as actual elements? Because it has a separate section in the Bazaar.
Other is not an element, its there, I think, just to include some cards like QT, that dont really belong to any element. Why should it have the same amount of cards of the actual elements? Its goal shouldnt be like count as an extra element, nor having cards that are better than the elemental cards. My 2 cents.
Why does it have a separate section in the Bazaar? So new players would understand :rainbow quicker.
Why does :rainbow exist? One of the reasons it exists is to condense the number of cards needed in the card pool to represent the same idea. We would rather 1 Longsword costing :rainbow than have 12 Longswords. It also allows for random quanta manipulation like QT or Devourer.
Why do Shards cost :rainbow? :rainbow can produce generic effects. One of the three themes that arises from this mechanic is having a base effect that grows if the correct element is used. This is the predicted rational behind shards.
Post by: Marvaddin on March 13, 2012, 01:34:47 am
I also dont feel that these shard effects are generic. The small effect related to an element can be generic. But we are adding a bigger effect that is not, or at least was not generic until now. Draw acceleration, for example, was not a generic effect.
Post by: Silver on March 13, 2012, 03:36:43 am
Post by: OldTrees on March 13, 2012, 11:30:58 am
Edit: maybe Im misunderstanding you, are you talking about cards SLOTS? Other can have card slots, but we dont need all these filled, right? At this point, not adding cards to the elements cannot be justified by lack of card slots. If the space is even going to be completely filled (like 20 years from now), something else can be done, like remove useless cards, reedit them, add more space.A detailed examination of card codes (those used in the import deck function) reveals a system used to assign codes to cards. This is why the :rainbow costing shards were put in Other rather than in each element but still costing :rainbow. (<--This was the question I was answering. I was not defending specific effects being on :rainbow costing shards nor defending specific effects not costing elemental quanta.)
I also dont feel that these shard effects are generic. The small effect related to an element can be generic. But we are adding a bigger effect that is not, or at least was not generic until now. Draw acceleration, for example, was not a generic effect.
Post by: sunyata on March 13, 2012, 08:11:07 pm
They should just scrap the whole element idea and put everything in the same section. The best decks are rainbows anyways so it's not like anyone will notice the differenceNonsense. A few minutes playing ETG should be enough to convince anyone that there are many great mono/duo decks. There was probably a point in history when rainbows ruled the roost but they suffered enormously when sundial got nerfed. Fat rainbows are now rarely fast enough to succeed against the really fast decks that mostly dominate PvP & arena. Speedbows are also in for a serious nerf pretty soon when Singularity makes it out of development.
Post by: furballdn on March 14, 2012, 12:32:00 am
They should just scrap the whole element idea and put everything in the same section. The best decks are rainbows anyways so it's not like anyone will notice the differenceHaha. You're funny.
Post by: Marvaddin on March 14, 2012, 02:30:38 am
I feel he was being sarcastic.They should just scrap the whole element idea and put everything in the same section. The best decks are rainbows anyways so it's not like anyone will notice the differenceNonsense. A few minutes playing ETG should be enough to convince anyone that there are many great mono/duo decks. There was probably a point in history when rainbows ruled the roost but they suffered enormously when sundial got nerfed. Fat rainbows are now rarely fast enough to succeed against the really fast decks that mostly dominate PvP & arena. Speedbows are also in for a serious nerf pretty soon when Singularity makes it out of development.
Post by: Drake_XIV on March 14, 2012, 03:34:03 am
The scary part is if he wasn't...I feel he was being sarcastic.They should just scrap the whole element idea and put everything in the same section. The best decks are rainbows anyways so it's not like anyone will notice the differenceNonsense. A few minutes playing ETG should be enough to convince anyone that there are many great mono/duo decks. There was probably a point in history when rainbows ruled the roost but they suffered enormously when sundial got nerfed. Fat rainbows are now rarely fast enough to succeed against the really fast decks that mostly dominate PvP & arena. Speedbows are also in for a serious nerf pretty soon when Singularity makes it out of development.
Post by: kimham8a on March 14, 2012, 04:00:30 pm
You know what's scarier? I actually don't understand the sarcasm here. Which part were you guys saying was sarcastic?The scary part is if he wasn't...I feel he was being sarcastic.They should just scrap the whole element idea and put everything in the same section. The best decks are rainbows anyways so it's not like anyone will notice the differenceNonsense. A few minutes playing ETG should be enough to convince anyone that there are many great mono/duo decks. There was probably a point in history when rainbows ruled the roost but they suffered enormously when sundial got nerfed. Fat rainbows are now rarely fast enough to succeed against the really fast decks that mostly dominate PvP & arena. Speedbows are also in for a serious nerf pretty soon when Singularity makes it out of development.
Post by: Avenger on March 19, 2012, 10:19:54 pm
scrapping the "element idea" in a game called 'elements the game'.You know what's scarier? I actually don't understand the sarcasm here. Which part were you guys saying was sarcastic?The scary part is if he wasn't...I feel he was being sarcastic.They should just scrap the whole element idea and put everything in the same section. The best decks are rainbows anyways so it's not like anyone will notice the differenceNonsense. A few minutes playing ETG should be enough to convince anyone that there are many great mono/duo decks. There was probably a point in history when rainbows ruled the roost but they suffered enormously when sundial got nerfed. Fat rainbows are now rarely fast enough to succeed against the really fast decks that mostly dominate PvP & arena. Speedbows are also in for a serious nerf pretty soon when Singularity makes it out of development.
Post by: ~Napalm on March 20, 2012, 01:20:04 pm
Post by: Cunning_Wish on April 03, 2012, 06:35:15 pm
cost all of you shard in hand to bring you a big creature,but than without hand card ,how to face forzen ,rewind, antimatter....and so on
howerer,if other cards fill your deck, the shard golem is not as strong as you think.
Post by: Nepycros on April 09, 2012, 07:47:21 pm
i think this shard is not very useful
cost all of you shard in hand to bring you a big creature,but than without hand card ,how to face forzen ,rewind, antimatter....and so on
howerer,if other cards fill your deck, the shard golem is not as strong as you think.
Shard Golem copies last Shard Golem played, so it automatically counters Rewind. Antimatter... it still has an effect. Frozen, it'll get out eventually.
All the shards in your hand (possibly 8), can give you a golem with 20+|20+ stats. That's not useless. This one card along with having 7 others in your hand can create a creature stronger than any other card.
If other cards fill your deck, you're being smart. Strategies shouldn't resolve around one creature. You're not saying anything new.
Post by: The_Tao on April 19, 2012, 01:16:25 pm
Post by: SnoWeb on April 19, 2012, 01:32:53 pm
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I also find that the investment does not worth it. I would increase the attractiveness of the different skills. For water for example I would see something like that:
| Patience | 1: grow | 2: steam | 1: poison | 3: freeze | 4: nymph | 2: purify |
Being able to access something you cannot have in another manner would increase greatly its interest. Repetitive steal in darkness, purify in water, TU or fractal in Aether - That would clearly worth it!
Also if you already have (a) golem(s) in play, it would be great to be able to add shards on it.
Post by: OldTrees on April 19, 2012, 04:15:16 pm
I also find that the investment does not worth it. I would increase the attractiveness of the different skills. For water for example I would see something like that:I think Shard of Integrity should have gaps in its skills because they cannot be played individually without taking all the shards with them. Gaps give SoI golems more consistency. However all other shards should have full skill sets since the extra shards can be played to achieve the desired level.
Patience 1: grow 2: steam 1: poison 3: freeze 4: nymph 2: purify
Being able to access something you cannot have in another manner would increase greatly its interest. Repetitive steal in darkness, purify in water, TU or fractal in Aether - That would clearly worse it!
Also if you already have (a) golem(s) in play, it would be great to be able to add shards on it.
I too would like to see skills beyond the nymph level. However the current cost would not justify such power.
Adding shards to golems would be nice. Do you have a good way to implement it?
Post by: SnoWeb on April 19, 2012, 04:26:48 pm
Adding shards to golems would be nice. Do you have a good way to implement it?If at least a golem is in play (in one side or the other) every shard could generate a targeting process instead of being played right away. If you target yourself you play the shard in it's normal way, if you target a Golem with less than 7 shards than said shard adds to the existing golem... Quite simple I would say.
I too would like to see skills beyond the nymph level. However the current cost would not justify such power.I think it justifies it. Remember, you need to pay 7 cards + quanta cost at once to reach a level a nymph (see steal in the table above).
Post by: OldTrees on April 19, 2012, 05:29:47 pm
Currently for 7 cards +5 :rainbow you get a nymph with 13|16 statsAdding shards to golems would be nice. Do you have a good way to implement it?If at least a golem is in play (in one side or the other) every shard could generate a targeting process instead of being played right away. If you target yourself you play the shard in it's normal way, if you target a Golem with less than 7 shards than said shard adds to the existing golem... Quite simple I would say.I too would like to see skills beyond the nymph level. However the current cost would not justify such power.I think it justifies it. Remember, you need to pay 7 cards + quanta cost at once to reach a level a nymph (see steal in the table above).
Purple Nymph costs 1 card +9 :entropy and has 3|1 stats
The +10|+15 is worth ~+13 casting cost
Is 7 cards (6 of a kind) +5 :rainbow ~= 1 card + 22 :entropy?
For skills beyond nymph level 7 cards (6 of a kind) +5 :rainbow would have to be greater than 1 card + 22 :entropy.
Personally, I think it would be better if the stats were lowered to +1|+2, +2|+0, +0|+6.
Post by: AP579 on April 20, 2012, 05:05:02 am
How does Mitosis work? Is it basically PUing itself? If it is, that's only 5 :earth for a 13 |17 Creature.
Post by: OldTrees on April 20, 2012, 05:08:06 am
How would an arena deck with 2x Draw work with this? Are there any additional skills past 6? What about Fractal SoF? Any additional skills?I have tested a full hand of 1 SoI + 7x Shard of X (or 8 SoI).
How does Mitosis work? Is it basically PUing itself?
There are no additional skills past 6 of a kind.
Post by: Newbiecake on April 20, 2012, 05:11:24 am
Post by: SnoWeb on April 20, 2012, 06:30:25 am
- What happen when you fractal or Nightmare a golem?
- If you have the same number of 2 types of shards (e.g. 3 divinity + 3 Freedom) how is the skill selected?
- If you have 2 golem in play (one huge with 6 shards in and a mini with only one). You rewind the mini and then the big, hourglass twice and play the golems back. Will you have the same 2 golems as before or two big or two mini or else?
Post by: Absol on April 20, 2012, 06:42:47 am
Questions:Fractal golem will summon the last golem assembled. That is, if you have the quanta to do it.
- What happen when you fractal or Nightmare a golem?
- If you have the same number of 2 types of shards (e.g. 3 divinity + 3 Freedom) how is the skill selected?
- If you have 2 golem in play (one huge with 6 shards in and a mini with only one). You rewind the mini and then the big, hourglass twice and play the golems back. Will you have the same 2 golems as before or two big or two mini or else?
Nightmare Golem will make opponent summon his last assembled golem. If he haven't summon any, it will fail (maybe)
The skill is selected by a certain priority (forgot how, but it's somewhere in this thread)
2 golem and both rewinded and redrawn and replayed. They will both summon the last golem assembled. (if you summon big golem first then small golem, then both will be small golem. And vice versa.)
Post by: SnoWeb on April 20, 2012, 06:57:37 am
Post by: Absol on April 20, 2012, 07:04:59 am
If you can somehow do the mentioned scenario, you will gain big card advantage.
Post by: SnoWeb on April 20, 2012, 07:36:09 am
Post by: mega plini on April 25, 2012, 04:22:28 pm
Post by: Drake_XIV on April 25, 2012, 04:25:23 pm
Post by: mega plini on April 25, 2012, 04:28:54 pm
They do. Upped shards give and additional +1|+1 each as compared to their unupgraded formes.that explains a lot :)
Post by: Hedless on July 13, 2012, 09:07:06 am
If using a upgraded Shard (of readiness say) the stats of the Golem are affected... I also believe if using a Upgraded Shard of Integrity, the skills that Golem possesses should be that of upgraded quality too, so Deja Vu would summon an exact copy, mutation would be improved mutation etc etc.
It's a underused deck but it really could make it
Post by: OldTrees on July 13, 2012, 09:13:22 am
When you combine the Shard with x3 Shard of Readiness you get the skill Deja-Vu, As mentioned in previous posts, having upgraded cards should feature upgraded skills, when using Deja-Vu, I've noticed the clone isn't airborne whereas the original version does.1) I have no idea why Deja-Vu did not copy airborne. The skill should do so.
If using a upgraded Shard (of readiness say) the stats of the Golem are affected... I also believe if using a Upgraded Shard of Integrity, the skills that Golem possesses should be that of upgraded quality too, so Deja Vu would summon an exact copy, mutation would be improved mutation etc etc.
It's a underused deck but it really could make it
2) Upped shards already provide higher stats as their upgrade bonus. (Even Shard of Integrity)
3) Having the skills also be upgraded would either unbalance the card or require the removal of an existing upgrade bonus. Would you rather upgraded skills or the +X|+X resulting from upgrades?
Post by: Hedless on July 16, 2012, 12:49:19 pm
When you combine the Shard with x3 Shard of Readiness you get the skill Deja-Vu, As mentioned in previous posts, having upgraded cards should feature upgraded skills, when using Deja-Vu, I've noticed the clone isn't airborne whereas the original version does.1) I have no idea why Deja-Vu did not copy airborne. The skill should do so.
If using a upgraded Shard (of readiness say) the stats of the Golem are affected... I also believe if using a Upgraded Shard of Integrity, the skills that Golem possesses should be that of upgraded quality too, so Deja Vu would summon an exact copy, mutation would be improved mutation etc etc.
It's a underused deck but it really could make it
2) Upped shards already provide higher stats as their upgrade bonus. (Even Shard of Integrity)
3) Having the skills also be upgraded would either unbalance the card or require the removal of an existing upgrade bonus. Would you rather upgraded skills or the +X|+X resulting from upgrades?
Well, i'm 100% certain airborne was not copied, and about unbalancing, I'm not too sure, it's a underpowered deck and rarely used, certain skills would make a very powerful Golem, but you need to draw the shards to make that skill too
Post by: drolly on July 16, 2012, 10:34:04 pm
Sounds like the bug with the Deja Vu card (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,14127.0.html). If a previously webbed Deja Vu uses its skill, its copy will be airborne again. It looks like the engine doesn't duplicate the airborne status and resets it to the standard value for the respective card instead (Deja Vu = airborne, Shard Golem = not airborne). That's certainly not a feature.1) I have no idea why Deja-Vu did not copy airborne. The skill should do so.
Well, i'm 100% certain airborne was not copied
Post by: sieglsiegl on August 04, 2012, 08:14:51 pm
Post by: OldTrees on August 04, 2012, 08:18:03 pm
Does the shard gain the abilities of the shards, as in when SoFo is played, can you sacrafice a permanent for the +0/+15?No. Instead the Shard Golem gains abilities based on the shards used to create it. See the link in the opening post.
Post by: willng3 on December 31, 2012, 08:20:07 pm
Discuss.
Post by: dragonsdemesne on December 31, 2012, 08:37:29 pm
Post by: TribalTrouble on February 15, 2013, 09:08:52 pm
...and as it is now, the shards it combines with aren't all that useful (Life, Light, for 2 prime examples, are really bad with Golem. Some shards need more copies than another for an effective effect, and overall, it needs some buffs to the shards that aren't usually used with SoI)
Post by: UndeadSpider1990 on January 23, 2014, 03:28:23 am
Not that hard to make either, using Bravery. But you have to have exactly 2 Wisdoms, or you might give it Lobotomize. Worse yet you'll have 3 Integrities, and it gains Stone Skin :D
*Note if you use Wisdom on the beast, it will stop healing you via Vampire.
Post by: Bluie Gamer on April 28, 2014, 06:58:37 am
Post by: UndeadSpider1990 on August 09, 2015, 04:05:44 am
