An Interview With A Former Elements Player

[Exeneva]

OldTrees, I would say your post is the most insightful one here in regards to responses. Do you mind posting this as a response to the interview on the blog itself?

[suxerz]

Hmm.. Firstly, I feel that the interview was somewhat geared towards "exaggerating" the flaw of Elements. Then, by sharing it here on the Elements official forum, it's pretty reasonable and definitely obvious you will get negative responses about this. Therefore, I'm questioning the real purpose of this thread. What sort of discussion are you hoping to come out from this?

But what bothered me the most is that this is done by someone who advertised his own game in his signature; and what you do know, it's an online card game too!


_{p/s: I might be wrong about this, but I think the "advertisement" in your sig is not allowed here in the forum. You might want to check with Higurashi.}

[OldTrees]

OldTrees, I would say your post is the most insightful one here in regards to responses. Do you mind posting this as a response to the interview on the blog itself?

Posted a version.

Hmm.. Firstly, I feel that the interview was somewhat geared towards "exaggerating" the flaw of Elements. Then, by sharing it here on the Elements official forum, it's pretty reasonable and definitely obvious you will get negative responses about this. Therefore, I'm questioning the real purpose of this thread. What sort of discussion are you hoping to come out from this?

But what bothered me the most is that this is done by someone who advertised his own game in his signature; and what you do know, it's an online card game too!

I challenge everyone to start ignoring what the source was and instead address the question of these criticisms in an honest manner. Try to understand what the interviewee meant despite the conciseness and oversimplification of their views that results from the medium of an interview.

[majofa]

I think it would be best if you interviewed someone else. Maybe someone who played and understood the game better, and more importantly, still plays the game.

I'd be willing to give an unbiased interview. I could also do it for Clash of the Dragons (<-- this game will make you appreciate Elements more).

Also, we're in the midst of creating our own Online Card game, so you can ask about some of the problems we've encountered and how we're learning from other card games.

[Exeneva]

I challenge everyone to start ignoring what the source was and instead address the question of these criticisms in an honest manner. Try to understand what the interviewee meant despite the conciseness and oversimplification of their views that results from the medium of an interview.

Thanks OldTrees, I didn't expect to get respectable responses from anyone here who still plays Elements, but you've proven to be quite the exception.

I think it would be best if you interviewed someone else. Maybe someone who played and understood the game better, and more importantly, still plays the game.

I'd be willing to give an unbiased interview. I could also do it for Clash of the Dragons (<-- this game will make you appreciate Elements more).

Also, we're in the midst of creating our own Online Card game, so you can ask about some of the problems we've encountered and how we're learning from other card games.

I don't think Jeff failed to understand the game. Sure, some of the points he made may have been oversimplifications (which are also the only things people seem to be poking at), but for the most part I don't see any reason to discredit everything he said just for that reason.

I've never heard of Clash of the Dragons, but I will check it out and consider that as the next game for player interview.

Best of luck on your card game. We've been working on Zems since 2010, and part of these interviews is to learn what makes other card games fun and exciting, and to build upon lessons from them. I've actually done an intense case study on Richard Garfield (not just Magic, but almost every game he's made), and you can read about it in my 'Game Design of Zems' post on our blog.

[mega plini]

I think he has a point when he says that creatures are hard to kill. Anything with more than 6 hp often needs more than one removal spell. But on the other hand, creatures can be frozen or delayed or gravitypulled or rewound. It doesn't kill them (gravity pull does and is an awesome card because of that) but makes them useless, at least for a while.
Considdering the meta: we now have duo decks!!!! thanks to the pendulums; But unfortunately that's not enough. By far not. Trios and 4some's should be made viable. having a good new quanta source can solve this problem. BUT MORE IMPORTANT: it can enable other decks to splash all sorts of pc and cc and therefor ballance the meta.

[OldTrees]

I think he has a point when he says that creatures are hard to kill. Anything with more than 6 hp often needs more than one removal spell. But on the other hand, creatures can be frozen or delayed or gravitypulled or rewound. It doesn't kill them (gravity pull does and is an awesome card because of that) but makes them useless, at least for a while.
Considdering the meta: we now have duo decks!!!! thanks to the pendulums; But unfortunately that's not enough. By far not. Trios and 4some's should be made viable. having a good new quanta source can solve this problem. BUT MORE IMPORTANT: it can enable other decks to splash all sorts of pc and cc and therefor ballance the meta.

I still need to read up more on Richard Garfield but I disagree with the excessive removal solution to balancing the meta without balancing the cards. Some creatures should be moderately difficult to kill so EtG retains the feel of 2 elementals building up their position until the end. We want to bias creation over destruction. This comes with the cost that individual card balance is more important.

Trios are not categorically viable but they are viable using just pendulums. I agree about Quarts and Quints (going to love the confusion that will bring  ) Eventually mono decks of all elements should have a sufficient buffet of answers to choose from. However most of those answers should not be removal(destruction) but rather be indirect like Shard of Gratitude.

[Exeneva]

Agreed.

Removal is quite specific in what it does, but that doesn't necessarily make the game fun. The goal is to create creative card effects that can be used in a variety ways to handle multiple situations.

Take Zems as an example. We have an invocation (spell card) that moves a creature on the field. Say your opponent has a powerful double attack hitting your front? Just use this invocation to move the most threatening creature and suddenly you have two single attacks that can be dealt with. However, that same card can be used to your advantage as well. Supposing you used up all your movement points that turn, this invocation would get you an additional move, so you can move one more creature than normally allowed during your turn. It can also move an opponent's creature that you want to kill into a zone where it can be directly (or indirectly) attacked. So basically this ability that moves a creature on the field is very simple in design, but amazingly complex in the number of ways it can be used.

[Exeneva]

If you can't agree with many of his points, then I would be interested in what parts you disagree with. You may even consider posting your disagreements as a comment to the blog itself.

As for me, I haven't played Elements very much. In fact, my goal isn't to play Elements, which is the whole reason why I am doing interviews.

[mega plini]

I just wonder, If you don't want destruction spells but more "creative" solutions like shards. How are you going to stop a firefly queen from spawning flies if you can't kill it? Or how do you get true a gravitypulled voodoo doll, if you can't rewind it? I'dd say a good removal spell can be flexible enough because it solves a lot of problems instead of one specific problem otherwise solved by a (probably situational) card. I'm not saying that we need to create an "uber-spell" wich can get rid of just anything. No, i'm just saying that it's realy sad that the big hitters (like upped dragons) are too difficult to deal with.

What do you all think about his statement about the hourglases ?

About one thing he's right: the game is user friendly and yet challenging. That's a big pro! We should keep it simple. (I'm against complicated cards that move creatures to different spots on the field)

[teffy]

I can´t agree to many of the points Jeff brought up in this interview.
I agree in the positive points of Elements as presented in the interview, and that rainbow decks were dominating.
It somehow looks as if our developer were dumb:
-He creates weapons without good ways to remove them
- One color can do everything (rainbow) , but there are still mono decks, looks like an unreasonable decision
-Creatures can´t be controlled if needed

That’s another problem – there is no removal, at least none that would adequately deal with the main threats you would face

Sorry, I find Yu-Gi OH cards like Sakretsu Armor uncreative cards (it´s a trap card btw)
Activate only when an opponent's monster declares an attack. Destroy the attacking monster.

I can also disagree in the point that the ways of MtG to generate quanta would be the better way to create quanta for Elements : Lands produce mana and mana is removed when your turn ends. For Elements, the current way is better. That´s a reason why:

Producing mana in the way of MtG means: cheap cards can be played early and late, but expensive cards can only played late. For MtG, this can be good, when the strength of cards increases to the end, for Elements - well, I think it´s bad. Some card examples:

- Dragons: often played as first cards, although expensive. MtG way of quanta generation means, that these cards would be played late.
- Fractal : Expensive, but you need one quite early, or it´s useless
- SoSac: Very cheap, but a card for lategame.
- Nymphs: Normally not a card played late... but an expensive card.
We could also forget many cards like: Discord (which mana/quanta can it scamble?, Or OP), Devourer (same),Diss Shield (too low mana stacks),BH, Quantum Towers (too low production ?) ...

Another often neglected difference between MtG and Elements is: Creatures don´t block.

@mega plini

against FFQ: Lobotomizer/Mind Flayer, Titanium Shield, Liquid Shadow, Drain life quanta, rewind and rewind, mutate , mass control against fireflies, chaos seed, Basilisk Blood, Freeze (with Squid = "permanently frozen"...), Vanadium warden...
against Voodoo Doll: Mutate, momentum/poison , Healing cards and not too much damage, rewind (you mentioned it), second grav pull on another creature (if possible), weapon damage (e.g. Fahrenheit)

Really more ways to get rid of the queen /doll other than "kill it".

P.S. I have much game experience with Elements, but for MtG - only from reading about it.

[Exeneva]

I just wonder, If you don't want destruction spells but more "creative" solutions like shards. How are you going to stop a firefly queen from spawning flies if you can't kill it? Or how do you get true a gravitypulled voodoo doll, if you can't rewind it? I'dd say a good removal spell can be flexible enough because it solves a lot of problems instead of one specific problem otherwise solved by a (probably situational) card. I'm not saying that we need to create an "uber-spell" wich can get rid of just anything. No, i'm just saying that it's realy sad that the big hitters (like upped dragons) are too difficult to deal with.

What do you all think about his statement about the hourglases ?

About one thing he's right: the game is user friendly and yet challenging. That's a big pro! We should keep it simple. (I'm against complicated cards that move creatures to different spots on the field)

I'm not saying removal is bad, I'm just saying that ideally you want more creative solutions to solve problems as that makes the game more fun. There are creative removal cards that can be created.

As for complicated cards to move creatures to different spots on the field - that's not really complicated at all since all the card is doing is moving a creature to a different position. That being said, you haven't played Zems (only developers have access to the closed testing version at the moment) so I don't believe you are qualified to make such a claim.