Elements the Game Forum - Free Online Fantasy Card Game
Elements the Game => Game Suggestions and Feedback => Topic started by: Kuross on August 19, 2010, 01:37:00 am
-
Okay, so I apologize if this is either way off base or has been already suggested, but here's my thought.
**Create a 13th mark that works like a Quanta pillar.
**Create creatures/permanants/spells of multi elements (ex- "Sandstorm"- (Air and Earth quanta to use). Unburrows all creatures on the board and deals 1 damage to all creatures.)
The idea here would be to open up potential syngeries within specific elements by utlizing pendulums or expand on rainbow decks which would use this as a home. I was also thinking, that if this flew, the element would be based on a technological theme of some sort- science blending the elements into whatever it sees fit.
Like I said, just throwing this out there to see if there is any merit to this idea.
-
Kuross you crazy fool! You come here with your wild ideas and crazy accusations, flinging them about with no respect for our traditions and cultures!
But really, I think it's a good idea. Quite cool, and a lickle bit original. Like taking things such as Unstable Gas to the next level. I wonder what kind of environment and what sort of people you must hang out with to come up with some inspired ideas?
-
ugh, Zanzarino and Chriskang said that they would have to rewrite the entire code for dual costs. Zanz also doesn't like how rainbows have taken over has been nerfing them recently and has been trying to bring back duo/mono decks.
-
Cool beans on the Rainbow then, I can see that.
Perhaps just focus on mutli-element cards then? Or is that too much on the game engine? Never thought how much work that might entail :o
-
What element would the multi-element cards be? Also, most cards that use 2 different elements such as Anubis :time :aether, Unstable Gas :air :fire, and the pulverizer :gravity :earth already exist. They are cards that cost quanta to play and different quanta to utilize a skill. If there is a skill it would probably be made like that. If there is no skill it would probably be assigned to only a single element.
Note, however, that I am an ignorant fool and am probably completely wrong.
-
I think they refer to costs to play requiring two different elements, such as 1 :life and 2 :fire or something silly like that. Its a neat concept, and many TCGs have it, but if its a coding nightmare, don't expect to see it anytime soon.
-
love the idea :)
-
I mean what if sandstorm cost 1 :earth and 1 :air to play. What element would it go under. I know he is speaking of costs to play.
-
Yeah, I suggested the "rainbow mark" as a location for multi-elemental costing cards, but in hindsight, it probably would make more sense if they were simply added the the "Other" section in the bazaar/deck listing.
My thought on multi-elemental costs to play were something along the lines of card concepts that didn't fit in one specific element, but seemed to encompass two or more elements. For example- "Chaos Beam: A beam of light that randomly changes target creature's ability to a different one (example- changes 'Devour' to 'Dive')" Cost to play the card (spell)- x :entropy x :light, X being whatever would make the cost acceptible.
The fun part would be opening up more ideas on two and three element based decks. Decks that have access to multiple element cards without being rainbow as defined by four or more. I know I've skirted the idea of focusing on just 2-3 elements when making a deck, and I know there are many more cards coming, but it would be nice to see some bridging cards that make 2-3 element based decks more feasible than they are curently, such as the Pendulums. Don't take me the wrong way, I've been playing this game for some time and love it and I am not negatively criticizing. I'm just looking to see if maybe this is possible, and if so perhaps I'd like to explore card concepts and submit them, but if not, I would like to know so I don't pester the admins with my, sometimes blathering, requests. ;)
-
it is plausible that chaos beam could be solely entropy. I too, like this concept. But in order to implement it into the actual game the idea must be refined. I'm only challenging things in order to improve them.
-
As stated before, cards with multiple elemental costs would force a complete rework of the code to implement. Zanz won't do that. Anubis, Pest, Pulverizer and the others don't have multiple elemental costs, but rather a casting cost of one element and a skill cost of another element. Casting costs or skill costs that cost more than one element to play would be a pain to code, and will most likely never happen. However, Zanz has surprised us before, so I typically don't like to make guarantees that something will or will not ever happen. My bet is still no on this one, though.
A 13th mark of Other? Really? That completely takes away the entire flavor of Elements. How would you justify that? Here is the breakdown of why this idea doesn't fit with Zanz's game...
We, the players, are Elementals. As such, we are marked as being affiliated with a specific element. If we wish to change marks, we must go through a process of Metamorphosis (a natural process) to become a different type of elemental. Other cards are unnatural, manufactured items or structures used to tap into raw, unrefined elemental energy. A mark of "other" as you propose would mean that we, as natural Elementals, would go through metamorphosis to come out unaffiliated with an element, and instead would be affiliated with unnatural, manufactured things. That doesn't make sense, does it?
I don't mean to sound rude but the idea just doesn't fit with Elements.
-
I think that create another mark is stupid (there are 12 kind of spells, do you think that 12 is low?), but multi-elemental spells is a fantastic idea... but:
they would have to rewrite the entire code for dual costs
:o
-
I think that create another mark is stupid (there are 12 kind of spells, do you think that 12 is low?),
I don't think you actually read/understood the idea of the Other mark.
A 13th mark of Other? Really? That completely takes away the entire flavor of Elements. How would you justify that? Here is the breakdown of why this idea doesn't fit with Zanz's game...
We, the players, are Elementals. As such, we are marked as being affiliated with a specific element. If we wish to change marks, we must go through a process of Metamorphosis (a natural process) to become a different type of elemental. Other cards are unnatural, manufactured items or structures used to tap into raw, unrefined elemental energy. A mark of "other" as you propose would mean that we, as natural Elementals, would go through metamorphosis to come out unaffiliated with an element, and instead would be affiliated with unnatural, manufactured things. That doesn't make sense, does it?
I don't mean to sound rude but the idea just doesn't fit with Elements.
I don't know anyone who's taken it as literally as that before. I've just viewed it as a card game.
But anyway doesn't that mean Rainbows are just as against the idea of Elements as well? Anything above a duo deck is really. And pendulums as well. In fact, I thought we were *playing* elements. If anything, now that I think about it, players are more abnormalities in the world of the elementals. Or we could be pink fluffy unicorns that entered a world through a portal, where we grow fingers and use cards to fight the monsters from the other dimension.
You can make any backstory you want
-
But there IS an official backstory. This does not go well with the theme of elements.
-
Hrm."Takes away from the entire flavor".... I haven't yet seen a player who thought that adding an "other" mark would destabilize and destroy the game fundamentals. Can I have some more hyperbole, plox?
It seems to me that regulars have a very different understanding of the game Elements. I guess this is understandable, as the forums help create and emphasize the "Elements" part of the game, with Elemental wars and Masters of Elements and such. Apparently there's a backstory; I've never noticed the existence of such, although I play often.
As it is, the game taken by itself is devoid of almost any such connotation, except for the name of the game. As it stands now, there is little real "theme" that would be broken by having an "other" element. Maybe if you added stronger story/content to go along with the theme - pretty it up, as it were - then jmiz's point against "Other" would make sense for everybody, not just forum regulars. But for now, there is nothing in-game that makes "other" an unnatural aberration, it seems to me.
Or perhaps my opinion is moot, as I'm not a forum regular and this game is made around forum regulars, not the other peeps who play it.
-
But there IS an official backstory. This does not go well with the theme of elements.
Okay, there is a sentence in the wiki saying You play as an Elemental. That's all there is really. Just take what I said but remove the bit about unicorns.
And the fact that it's a single line on the intro of the wiki doesn't say a lot for the strength or depth of the story
-
I apologize if I didn't understand the issue at hand for coding. I was under the impression that the coding problem was specific to the addition of a 13 element and not in general with the creation of multi-casting cost cards. If coding additional casting cost Element cards is too problematic then idea is kaput and end of discussion. Also, I only suggested "the 13 element" as a home for potential multi-casting cost cards. Perhaps a bad choice of a header for this particular discussion?
As for the metamorphosis part, I don't understand how this works since my understanding is that it no longer applies given one can simply change their mark. It can be argued that if one can change their mark at will, the inclusion of multi-casting cards is also possible, from a back-story point of view. We may still be "Elementals" but we are now given the ability to draw upon, manipulate, convert, or otherwise arbitrarily change the element we are controlling.
I guess, for the sake of discussion, one simple post from the scripters would shoot this down or make it possible to continue on this tract. I am just a bit new to this and am not sure whom I'd ask, or direct this question toward, else I would save the community from publically pursuing this line of thought. But, I will say, at least to me, the idea of multi-casting cards is very intriguing to me.
-
You can make any backstory you want
It's not a backstory, it's the truth.
About the opening line of the wiki... It wasn't made up by somebody just for kicks, it is exactly what Zanzarino had in mind with the creation of this game:
(http://a.imageshack.us/img826/5130/aetherbegin.jpg)
As you can see, the element itself is the force at work, and the Elemental is the player. Metamorphosis is, literally, the changing of one elemental affiliation to another. I didn't make this stuff up, Zanzarino did.
(http://a.imageshack.us/img840/8163/metamorphosisy.jpg)
-
Um, I think you ignored the post after that where I admitted there was a backstory.
But there IS an official backstory. This does not go well with the theme of elements.
Okay, there is a sentence in the wiki saying You play as an Elemental. That's all there is really. Just take what I said but remove the bit about unicorns.
And the fact that it's a single line on the intro of the wiki doesn't say a lot for the strength or depth of the story
-
Elements is an free online fantasy card game in which each player embodies an elemental – a spirit composed of an element. Elements are the fundamental building blocks of nature and express skills (unique to each element) that can be used in duels against another elemental.
http://elementswiki.co.cc/basics/introduction/
It can easily be argued we aren't "Elementals" but hosts, or Channelers, of the elements we embody. That being the case, is it too much of a stretch to say onecan embody more than one element within their being?
-
That quote comes from the MAIN PAGE of elements, it was just copied into the wiki.
Yes, I think it is too much of a stretch.
EDIT: Multiple casting costs are currently impossible.
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,1129.msg12154#msg12154
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,1329.msg14888#msg14888
-
Having read through that interesting debate between ScaredGirl and cipher_nemo, it seemed very plausible, as described in that thread, to in fact incorporate multi-casting cards in the game. Most of the discussion on the above linked threads (with one leading into the other) was about rainbow's power and that this is not MtG (which I think we all can easily agree on).
I did run into another interesting point in this conversation that I have yet been unable to pursue. What and where is the official Elements storyline? I've read a few player suggested ones, both here and Kong, but I can't seem to track one down on this forum. On the wiki, this is all I've been able to find, short of the opening paragraph on intro to basics and the one-liners for each element:
http://elementsthegame.wikia.com/wiki/Fan_Based_Storyline
I assume since it's a fan-based story it's not official, but even if it was, it doesn't explain how we, the individual players, develop, control, maintain, or otherwise manipulate or become the elements. Why do we use pillars? How can we use other elements that aren't ours, ex- Fractal Pest: Aether/Dark- Am I able to channel Aether being a Darkness elemental or vice versa?
I don't mean to nitpick and I am not trying to be difficult. If my suggestion doesn't fall within the established storyline, point me to it, I'll take the time to read it and forfeit my suggestion should it be clear it doesn't fit. But if there is no defined storyline, please don't use the storyline argument to shoot down suggestions. I've mod'ed/admin'ed on RP servers in the past where I've written/read hundreds of pages of storyline related ideas in an effort to maintain and keep a healthy storyline active and moving forward and I know what it takes to make it all work. But if the storyline is not somewhat fluid to allow the multitude of individual ideas and suggestions to keep it relative, the storyline will become stagnant, potentially killing ideas before they even come to light. However, not to sound harsh, the storyline on a game like this is mainly for flavor, with the side benefit of generating ideas for cards. I have to believe that the majority of Elements players pay very little attention to any storyline and only log in to play a really cool card game.
If there is a storyline, even though it may not be extremely relevant to the masses, an easier way to find and read it should be made available. I have tried for a couple of hours to find one and have been unsuccessful. If it does exist, it is buried deep within the community of Elements.
That all said, barring a storyline, the original question still seems valid. Would incorporating multi-casting cards be something Elements might be willing to do?
On a side note, I have had the pleasure of writing many a story in my day (is old fart) and it might be fun to refine some of the posted storylines into one consistent and accepted story, barring approval from the Elements community. This is assuming there is no established story. If there is, disregard this offer and I look forward to reading it!
-
It's totally plausible to do multi casting cost cards. All you need to do is rewrite half the game's engine from scratch.
I find all the stories and storylines currently in existence garbage, but that's me. The only offical canon is that everyone playing is an elemental, that fights for some reason. Probably personal power, given the rewards method.
Obviously Elementals can handle and control other elements. They ARE only one element. Their mark. It represents an innate power in them. What an elemental does with that power, and what other power it summons, is irrelevant.
-
jmizzle7 said: Anubis, Pest, Pulverizer and the others don't have multiple elemental costs, but rather a casting cost of one element and a skill cost of another element.
Sorry, I don't know how to quote.
In response to that, I did mention that it cost something to play and something else to utilize a skill, I didn't say it had multi-elemental cost to play. I'm just saying that they are similar and in addition to being a pain to implement it would also be just a minor variation.
I also agree with kuross, game play is far more important than a storyline. If anything should be changed or not implemented because of the other it should be the story.
-
I can answer the storyline issue for all of you: there is no official storyline or backstory. There never has been, and there isn't one now. There may be in the future, but that is for another discussion.
I addressed the question earlier of whether we, the players, are elementals. Zanz answers that definitively in the description of each element, that [element type] Elementals can [do something innate to said element]. Marks are the ties that we have to elemental energy. To change marks, we have to go through metamorphosis. A mark that is random or otherwise not one of the 12 element types would be artificial, mechanical, or unnatural, and doesn't make sense as an Elemental Mark type.
-
What I am trying to do here is simply explore ideas of multiple casting cost cards. If the mechanics don't allow for it, or aren't in the future of the game, so be it. I get that the Mark is set and there are 12, I be cool wit dat. Was only suggesting a place for multi-cost cards was all (notes change to header).
What about single Element cards with multiple usage elements within them? Ex- Swamp Monster: 3/4 :life creature with two abilites, :water Drown- target creature -2 HPs, :air Swamp Gas- Target creature gains wings for 2 turns. End of second turn, creature dies.
I'm only using this as an example (most of the time this stuff is off the top of my head, so I apologize) but the point I am trying to make is there seems to be precedent to have costs with costs (Pegasus or Lava Destroyer) so it seems logical to assume one can have more than one cost on a card.
-
What I am trying to do here is simply explore ideas of multiple casting cost cards. If the mechanics don't allow for it, or aren't in the future of the game, so be it. I get that the Mark is set and there are 12, I be cool wit dat. Was only suggesting a place for multi-cost cards was all (notes change to header).
What about single Element cards with multiple usage elements within them? Ex- Swamp Monster: 3/4 :life creature with two abilites, :water Drown- target creature -2 HPs, :air Swamp Gas- Target creature gains wings for 2 turns. End of second turn, creature dies.
I'm only using this as an example (most of the time this stuff is off the top of my head, so I apologize) but the point I am trying to make is there seems to be precedent to have costs with costs (Pegasus or Lava Destroyer) so it seems logical to assume one can have more than one cost on a card.
Creatures cannot have more than one active skill. They can, however, have up to two passive skills. The active skill can either be a triggered effect (Phoenix, Scramble, etc.), or it can be an activated skill with a cost (Queen, Dive, Devour, Sniper, etc.). The cost must be of a single element, and can vary from zero to four quanta of that element. The element type of the skill does not need to match the element type of the creature.
-
Ohh... so, the option to explore passive/active ability combos is open?
Before I go into hiatus and come out to bounce 34,654 thousand random ideas off the E community, are coming up with new active and passive skills fair game? Ex- "Link: (activate) Every time creature successfully deals damage to a player, that damage, rounded down, is applied to linked creature." In other words, have a creature with "Link" target a creature on the field, then apply damage as described until it is dead. Then the player controling the creature with "Link" can target another creature, but not until the link is broken with the previous creature (i.e.- dead or removed from play).
Stuff like that is what I'd explore, then maybe come up with other skils that would mesh on one creature. Using the above example, a creature with Link (active) and Vampirism (passive) could go on the same creature. Am I getting this right as far as passive/active?
-
Absolutely. There is a section of the forums completely dedicated to new card ideas. You should check it out. There are rules regarding posting card ideas, which you should read first.
Actually, Vampire is an active skill. Any text you see below a creature while it is in play represents its active skill. The text that appears on the right half of the mouse-over box represents the two passive skills. Below is an example of a flying Arsenic. Its active skill is venom (the skill that applies poison on a successful attack), and the two passive skills are poisonous and airborne.
(http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/4661/activepassive.jpg)
-
Gotcha, vampirism is active. -edited stoopid typo demon mischief- Got a bitty mixed up on active/passive; assumed active was something that could only be activated and passive was always on. *palms forehead*
Okay, so then the next question is- are there limits on what can be a passive skill? Airbourne certainly doesn't seem harmful, 'till you play "Wings" then you start to care. ;) Also, are certain passive skills locked into specific elements? Air seems to have cornered the market on all things "Airbourne"-ish, with a few exceptions. Maybe a better question- is there a referrence manual for what can and can't be on a card?
-
There is no reference manual, so to speak. Also, again, the Vampire skill is active, not passive.
You can make any card do whatever you want. Just know that you can only have one active skill (this skill will appear as text below the card icon) and two passive skills.
-
As stated before, cards with multiple elemental costs would force a complete rework of the code to implement. Zanz won't do that. Anubis, Pest, Pulverizer and the others don't have multiple elemental costs, but rather a casting cost of one element and a skill cost of another element. Casting costs or skill costs that cost more than one element to play would be a pain to code, and will most likely never happen. However, Zanz has surprised us before, so I typically don't like to make guarantees that something will or will not ever happen. My bet is still no on this one, though.
Actually, I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one.
Sandstorm :air :air
Duo: 2 :earth. Unburrow all creatures.
The duo mechanic works like this. When you play the card, you also pay the Duo cost, otherwise the card does nothing.
-
I think its a great idea if they can code it right
-
As stated before, cards with multiple elemental costs would force a complete rework of the code to implement. Zanz won't do that. Anubis, Pest, Pulverizer and the others don't have multiple elemental costs, but rather a casting cost of one element and a skill cost of another element. Casting costs or skill costs that cost more than one element to play would be a pain to code, and will most likely never happen. However, Zanz has surprised us before, so I typically don't like to make guarantees that something will or will not ever happen. My bet is still no on this one, though.
Actually, I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one.
Sandstorm :air :air
Duo: 2 :earth. Unburrow all creatures.
The duo mechanic works like this. When you play the card, you also pay the Duo cost, otherwise the card does nothing.
Looks like you read only part of my post.
-
Also, again, the Vampire skill is active, not passive.
Oh bloody hell, I hate typo demons and other nasty, annoying creatures lurking amongst my keyoard! I meant active, not passive. *beats keyboard*
You know, that duo idea with Sandstorm might actually be feasible in this given environment. It could act like a Sundial. Cost x :air to play, then x :earth to active. Yes, no?
I ask because that also would open some possiblities for card ideas.
blarg: