What the game mechanics should be

[jmizzle7]

If it's the first, this raises a second question. Could there be a way to affect Immaterial creatures? If so, what form could that take?

http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,1115.msg11953#msg11953 (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,1115.msg11953#msg11953)

There's a card in that thread called Ethereal Soul that speaks to this directly. I actually felt like the ability could probably be turned into a plague-like effect for all Immaterial creatures instead of the Thunderstorm effect. It's not a necessary card, but I like the wrinkle it could add to the game.

Also, point of inquiry: what happens to immaterial creatures when they hit a Fire Shield?

Nothing. Immaterial creatures are unaffected by active shield effects like Fire Shield and Procrastination, but are still affected by passive shield effects like Phase Shield, Skull Shield, Bone Wall, and Dusk Mantle.

[Scaredgirl]

Getting back to original topic.. I think the main problem with this poll is that different users have different motivations for choosing their vote.

Group 1
Users who vote based on what would benefit current game balance most.

Group 2
Users who vote based on what makes sense the most.


While we have these two groups, we unfortunately won't get much good data out of this poll. Original question should have had a disclaimer "do not take game balance into consideration when taking your vote", or "take your vote based on what would benefit the game balance most".

I personally belong to group 2, and I think this is how all changes should be made:

1. Change cards so that they make sense (for example nothing physical can hit immaterial creatures).
2. Buff/nerf cards so that you can correct the possible new unbalance that occurred after doing step #1.

[Scaredgirl]

Wow, awesome card. I love the simplicity. Some of the MtG cards are pretty damn cool.

Something like that could be the "Miracle" of some other element, like Death, with high cost and "lose all death quantum".

How about a Death Super Card that destroys all permanents and turns every creature to a Skeleton?

Armageddon or something?

[Scaredgirl]

And, in fighting games, when moves have some sort of priority that is regardless of the time when the hitbox comes out, does that make them turn-based?

This is a good rule of thumb:

real-time = players may act at any moment.
turn-based = players are allowed a period of analysis before committing to a game action.

See how easy it is to categorize fighting games using those rules?

And, why are we talking about turn-baseness when we have Bonewall Stackings, Spell Reflection and such crap to talk about?

I don't know. Why are you talking about turn-baseness? Nobody forced you to join that part of this discussion.

[Scaredgirl]

That is how I use those terms when talking about games.

You cannot just take words, give them your own meaning, and then claim you are right. If I take a ball in my hand and call it a horse (that's how I describe this particular round object), am I right?

You can bash Wikipedia all you want (it's the "cool" thing to do) but that doesn't change the fact that Wikipedia is right. The definition in Wikipedia is a perfect way to distinguish between real-time and turn-based games.

Using your logic all games are both real-time and turn-based.

[Scaredgirl]

Cards with no answer just aren't fun.

Yep, you clearly have this MtG way of looking at Elements.

There are many "answers" to immortal creatures.
- Kill the opponent faster than he kills you
- Shields
- Healing
- Sundial
etc.

Just because you cannot kill immortal characters doesn't mean there are no "answers" to those cards. Winner is not the player who has more creatures, winner is the player who kills the other player.

You know what I meant. So I said "problem" when I probably should have said "issue". Sue me.

Um.. actually I didn't know what you meant. I don't have supernatural powers, you know? I think anyone who reads that post will come to the same conclusion as I did. Maybe you should actually say what you mean, instead of saying something and meaning something totally different, and then getting kind of hostile when someone replies to your post.

[Scaredgirl]

M:TG is a turn-based real time game.

Man.
This is your first post here and I already love you.

What he said might sound like it makes sense but unfortunately it's false. MtG is not both turn-based and real-time. That's not how you use those terms when talking about games.

Everyone who is confused, please read this Wikipedia article on Time-keeping systems in games (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-keeping_systems_in_games).

It has very clear definitions on both real-time and turn-based.

real-time = players may act at any moment.
turn-based = players are allowed a period of analysis before committing to a game action.

Now which of these two you guys think is closer to MtG?

The fact that you can see things happening in real-time does not make the GAME SYSTEM real-time.

How a simple thing like this can lead to such a big argument is beyond me. Only on Elements the Game forums.

[Scaredgirl]

I'm talking about this:

Give it up, please. You're talking about MTG game-play and I'm talking about Magic Online's client (comparing it to Elements.) We're talking about two different things.

Something more like Magic Online has would be "real time". When someone plays a card, you should see it being played. Instead in PvP with Elements, a player does everything for their own turn, then ends the round. The server queues all of this up and then spits it out in one shot.

You might actually wanna READ my post. I know you talk about the online version but so what? It's not no more "real time" than the original MtG. They are both turn based and that fact won't change even if you keep denying it until the end of time.

Like I said, you have created your own definition of "real time gameplay" which is why this discussion is pointless.

[Scaredgirl]

Nope, you're still not getting what I mentioned earlier in this thread. The client (client-side software that talks with the server software) is "real time" in that it shows players exactly what their opponents are doing, when they're doing it. I agree, the gameplay is not "real time".

You really hate being wrong, don't you?

Generally I would have given up a long time ago, but in this case I'm not going to let you weasel out of this one on principle.

Read what you said on top of this page:

SG, have you never played MTG before? MTG is real time. There is a thing called a "stack" when players play spells (cards). This is why counter spells work in MTG. If someone plays a spell, their opponent has the opportunity to play a spell on top of that one as an "interrupt" (old-school MTG term). To do so, the spell has to be classified as an "instant". There is no such thing in Elements.

Elements PvP is currently not "real time", at least for the way that it was implemented. It could be "real time" in that whenever your opponent plays a card, you see it played on your screen. Instead it's just by turn. MTG is "real time" in that cards are NOT played only by turn no matter how much you try to argue about it. Can't debate facts. Cards can be played at any time if they are "instant", aka "interrupts".

Here you explain that MtG is "real time" because "cards are NOT played only by turn". You are clearly talking about gameplay. (this is false because MtG is turn based like I explained earlier)

Now in your last post you change tactics and make it sound like I misunderstood the whole situation and that you only meant "real time" is something that "shows players exactly what their opponents are doing, when they're doing it".

Also in your last post you said you weren't talking about gameplay, even though you were talking about about gameplay and anyone can read it, it's right there!

You know you are really owning yourself when you keep continuing this even though me and few others have already proved you wrong. This might be a good time to accept it and move on.

Admit you are wrong. You can do it. I know you can.

Then we can all have peace.

[Scaredgirl]

Whatever, SG. There are plenty of other forums for arguing purely for the sake of arguing. This is not a place for it.

I'm not arguing purely for the sake of arguing. I simply quoted you and pointed out that you were first wrong, then you refused to admit you were wrong, and in the end you totally changed your story. Unfortunately past posts are visible so you owned yourself in the process.

Now you seem to have taken this: "I'm above this conversation" stance because you "lost" and have nothing more intelligent to say about the subject. Either reply to what I said earlier (you've dodged it twice already) or except the "loss" and move one.

Perhaps it's useful to come at the Immaterial creatures question in a different way - that is, why do people want RoF to be able to hit Immaterial creatures, ignoring for now the preferred flavour of those who don't? Is it because Immaterial creatures are completely immune to everything and people want a way to damage them? Or is it because RoF not hitting a creature (regardless of what flavour spin you put on the ability) doesn't seem right? Or is it because they just disagree with the premise that immaterial creatures should be unhittable even by indiscriminate attacks?

Many players come from MtG and they see these untargetable creatures as instant win. That's why they want a counter. They don't realize that Elements is different because creatures don't block etc.

There is absolutely no logical reason why Rain of Fire should be the ONLY card/ability/spell that hits immaterial creatures when NOTHING else hits them.

If it's the first, this raises a second question. Could there be a way to affect Immaterial creatures? If so, what form could that take?

Ghostbusters!

Also, point of inquiry: what happens to immaterial creatures when they hit a Fire Shield?

Nothing.

[Scaredgirl]

I think the 'real time' some people are referring to is the client-server communication, which has nothing to do with how the game itself plays.  An example: chess is a turn based game, regarding the game mechanics.  But it can be played over the internet (on yahoo for example) which would be real time, or it can be played via e-mail which would not be real time.  Real time client-server communication and real time game play are two different things.

Thank you very much. Someone who understands my posts. SG would have us believe she knows what I was talking about better than I do, lol.

Oh, now you are just getting desperate, lol.

CB! is absolutely right, and explains the reason why you got confused. You mixed up real-time gameplay and "seeing things on screen real-time".

p.s. I'm still waiting for your reply on my previous post (you've dodged it three times now). You know, the one where you said MtG gameplay is real-time because it has "instants".

[Scaredgirl]

I was talking about the MTG client, not the gameplay. Because it has instants (interrupts) the game needs a real-time client for its online version.

You might wanna read that excellent post by Daxx (above your post). He explains the situation much better than I ever could.

But whatever, not going to bother with you anymore SG if all you want to do is argue about what I meant in my posts.

I cannot read minds so I have no idea what you "meant" in your posts. I only talked about what you "say" in your posts.

You cannot say one thing, and then later claim: "Yes, I said that.. but what I really meant was..". That's the same BS that politicians always try to do when they get caught lying or saying something they shouldn't have.

Next time try to make what you "mean" and what you "say" about the same. It's so much easier for us readers that way.