Game Mechanics (i.e. The Expanded Rules)

[jmizzle7]

No, I'm not. I'm simply applying the progression of the game's history to the argument. The terms used are as simple as can be, and are clear enough. I see no reason to change the terms.

I already told you why mummy's skill was made passive - Zanz wanted to make it lobo-proof. All skills, both active and passive, can be triggered in some form or fashion. The difference is that active skills are not innate to the creature, and can be removed by lobotomizing effects. Also, anything that requires an activation cannot function as a passive skill, while something like Airborne cannot function as an active skill. The terms are already there. Whether it is/should be active or passive is determined by three factors: how the skill functions, whether or not the skill is innate, and whether it is removable by lobotomizing effects.

I don't ignore facts to support my arguments, ever. I always include multiple concrete examples, but I feel that including everything is a bit superfluous. I'm not sure why your word selection has gone from polite to incendiary. I thought this was a civil discussion about game mechanics. Apparently not, because you have strayed away from the mechanics to take shots at me. There will be no more personal attacks, got it?

I don't tell people what something is called just because "that's the way it's always been called." I am not a traditionalist. In fact, game mechanics have maintained their simplicity despite the changes. The problems occur when people try to put new labels on old mechanics, or try to reinvent the wheel when a new skill is introduced. Every new card that comes out is perfectly usable in the Elements game engine, meaning that fundamental game mechanics will never change.

[smuglapse]

If my words seem incendiary it is because I feel like someone is wasting my time.  If you do not mean to do this then I would like to retrace how we got here.

In your first post you said,  "...If you make the wording consistent under the Creatures & Permanents section like this, new players will have a firmer grasp of creature and permanent mechanics."  So to me this means that you think wording is important and should not be confusing to newer players.  Please tell me if I was correct in thinking that.

I reply with, "The term active is misleading...Anyone taking the literal definition of passive would think that certain "active skills" are passive...Just compare the devourer passive skill with a RoL's "active" skill.  Without knowledge of the info box, one could easily make the mistake that they are both passive.  I suggest that the term active be replaced with primary.  It doesn't have the same implication on mechanics that active does..."  Here I am showing that we have the same goal: make the wording less confusing.  I am making the case that the term "active" is confusing.  In my view that is fairly obvious.  I also put forth other word changes and identified that there were differences between how different skills act.  Perhaps that is where we got off track?


I then show several examples of people being confused by the term "active skill" because it is contrary to the English language.
Direct from the dictionary:

Active –adjective
1.engaged in action; characterized by energetic work, participation, etc.; busy: an active life.
2.being in a state of existence, progress, or motion: active hostilities.
3.involving physical effort and action: active sports.

Photosynthesis is active, you have to click on it.  It involves physical effort of moving your mouse and pressing the left mouse button.

Passive –adjective
1.not reacting visibly to something that might be expected to produce manifestations of an emotion or feeling.
2.not participating readily or actively; inactive: a passive member of a committee.
3.not involving visible reaction or active participation: to play a passive role.

Earth is passive, you don't click on it.  It happens without your active participation.

Now if you don't agree with this, then the conversation must end.  Because if words don't have definitions then there is no way to communicate.

But next you do show that you have a definition for active: "They are active in the sense that they are trigger-ready, caused by an event (creature death, creature action, successful attack, etc.)."  Ok that makes sense.  They are responding to an event--I can agree that is a form of being active.  It's a weak definition, but passable.

But then in the very next sentence you say "Mummy's passive skill actually used to be an active skill".  That is a contradiction of the definition you came up with.  It reads: Mummy's skill used to respond to an event, now it does not respond to an event.

Do you see why I'm frustrated?

[jmizzle7]

You are getting frustrated because there is a breakdown in communication. I can't read your mind, and you can't read mine. All I know is that I offered a suggestion for you to change the wording, if only slightly, to adhere to the terms that are already being used. If terms are to be rehashed, this thread is not the place to do it, but rather the game.

Another reason why you are getting so frustrated is probably that you are more concerned with the name of the skill types than the actual mechanics themselves, while I have focused only on mechanics, using the terms that exist in the game currently as reference points. Yes, the line between active skills and passive skills has blurred a little. However, this does not mean that there isn't a difference between them. While there are two types of skills (active/passive), there are subtypes that do exist. Sure, it is important to note the existence of these subtypes, but the more terms used to describe subtypes when there are only two skill types will most likely confuse players that don't already have a firm grasp of the game's mechanics. Since this guide is aimed at new players, simplicity is better.

Instead of focusing on the differences between skill subsets, why don't we focus on the similarities that make those subsets part of the main set (active/passive), and what differentiates active from passive? Once this is hashed out, then names can be discussed.

[smuglapse]

Since this guide is aimed at new players, simplicity is better.

Instead of focusing on the differences between skill subsets, why don't we focus on the similarities that make those subsets part of the main set (active/passive), and what differentiates active from passive? Once this is hashed out, then names can be discussed.

This guide can be used by new players, sure, but I would rather it be a comprehensive reference to the game mechanics.  So it will include every general function that may not make sense at first glance.  I have included the basics as well, so that it can be read from any starting point--beginner to advanced.  I have tried not to include anything speculative or that can't be reproduced in-game.  None of the terms can be official because there is no already existing player's guide, besides the basic rules and level 0 popups.  The terms I use are descriptive of what actually transpires in game, and I don't expect these terms to become in-game labels.

The subset of active skills is an important distinction because of the summoning sickness effect.  Clickable skills are affected, triggered skills are not.

[jmizzle7]

Of course subsets are important, but it is also to note the difference between the two main skill types. So there are two subtypes in the active skill type, and there are maybe two different subtypes in the passive skill type. What you should include in your guide is the two main types of skills and their differentiating characteristics, followed by the subsets of each and their differentiating characteristics within the main set. As for what to call the main sets, that is now up for discussion.

[miniwally]

Surely you could just split them into active skills (or active-active) and passive-active/active-passive skills .

[jmizzle7]

I have always called the two subtypes of the active skill type "activated" and "triggered". For passive skills, it's easy to just call them all passive, but with the inclusion of Airborne, there are two different subtypes - triggered and static. Those are the names I suggest.

[Essence]

I'd like to step in here and point out that 'active' and 'passive' are game terms, not able to be meaningfully redefined by anyone except Zanz, who has already defined them via the info box: if a skill shows up in the "passive skill" side of the creature info box, it's passive.  Otherwise, it's active.  That's the absolute end of the debate.

You can argue about what to call various kinds of active skill, but those distinctions are made up in your head, and other people are perfectly right in choosing to view and label things in their own way.  'Active' and 'passive' (as used in Elements), however, are predefined by a power greater than any of us.

[smuglapse]

I have still yet to see where the term active is used in game.

[jmizzle7]

Zanz has referred to active skills in just about every single discussion that happened when he showed up in the chat room to upload a new card to the trainer for beta testing.

[miniwally]

I'd like to step in here and point out that 'active' and 'passive' are game terms, not able to be meaningfully redefined by anyone except Zanz, who has already defined them via the info box: if a skill shows up in the "passive skill" side of the creature info box, it's passive.  Otherwise, it's active.  That's the absolute end of the debate.

You can argue about what to call various kinds of active skill, but those distinctions are made up in your head, and other people are perfectly right in choosing to view and label things in their own way.  'Active' and 'passive' (as used in Elements), however, are predefined by a power greater than any of us.

We know that and it's already been pointed out but for to be able to understand each other it's easier to make our own more detailed labels for easier understanding of each other as long as it doesn't contradict stuff already in game.

[Nipuna_shinigami14]

many thanks for the post.. learnt a lot of things....