Guest posts by Astaroth

97

Competitions / Re: Competition: Best Weapon Idea

« on: March 16, 2010, 05:43:44 pm »

My Entry an Other Weapon - Pseudocaster | Metacaster

*****************************************************************************************
 Name         : Pseudocaster | Metacaster
 Card Element : Other
 Idea by      : Kael Hate
 
 Level        : Basic
 Summon Cost  : 7
 Type D|L     : Weapon 0|7 Immaterial.
 Text         : Weapon. Immaterial. 7: Add a Random Spell or Creature Card to Hand
 
 Level        : Upgraded
 Summon Cost  : 7
 Type D|L     : Weapon 0|7 Immaterial.
 Text         : Weapon. Immaterial. 7: Add a Random Spell or Creature Card of a favoured element to Hand
 
 History      : This is one of the weapons my Elements Character uses. He is an Unaligned Elemental and draws from all Element types. He is Known for his toolbox of options and ability to use animate weapon at Will.

 Notes        : In the basic version the ability simply chooses a card from the card library that has a type Spell or Creature. You have to hope its useful to you or even castable. In the Upgraded version it checks to see what elements you have most of and also add the condition that the card chosen is of that element. If no element is the highest of all elements then the card chosen will have an element type matching your mark.

 Link         :  http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,4032.msg44198.html#msg44198

*****************************************************************************************

I commented on this in the linked topic, but it seems more like an idea for a spell that was thrown into a weapon card. Don't get me wrong, I really like the idea, but since it does 0 damage, is it a weapon?

What do others think?

98

Crucible Archive / Re: Pseudocaster | Metacaster

« on: March 16, 2010, 05:39:27 pm »

Seems like a decent card. Although, can it be called a weapon if it does no damage? It looks more like a permanent since it does no damage. You could easily make it do 1 damage per turn.

Also, and I correct everyone on this, the wording of the upgraded version seems vague. Why not just make it say "Add a Random Spell or Creature Card of an Element that matches your mark." I know you want it to search your entire deck for the different elements and count them up individually, THEN choose the highest element, but that seems like a lot (especially to code!).

99

Competitions / Re: Voting: MS Paint Cards

« on: March 16, 2010, 05:09:13 pm »

Mine is the best one that you should have no doubt was completed in under 5 minutes (#10)... #14? Maybe. #15? No way.

Those were the two that I was skeptical on. To me, #14 cuts it close because of the detailed line-stops (where shadow lines meet nearly perfectly with the lines of the Pegasus). It had to cut close if it wasn't over 5 minutes. #15 needs no explanation.

100

Patch Notes and Development News / Re: Tracking Changes

« on: March 16, 2010, 04:15:26 pm »

Thanks for putting this together CB. Overall, I think these changes needed to be made.

101

Trio & Quartet / Re: Hope + Unupgraded FFQ

« on: March 16, 2010, 04:56:32 am »

Are the Rustlers (and your mark) enough to get you your Life quanta? Only four of your cards generate Life quanta, yet more than half of your deck (18/30) uses it. 

Even then, after playing Rustler, you have to wait until your FFQ generates a FF. It just seems like you're "going around your elbow to get to your butthole" to generate quanta. I guess it all comes down to how fast you get that first Queen out and generate a FF.

102

Water / Re: Permafrost Math

« on: March 16, 2010, 04:04:24 am »

Except at turn 1, 100% goes through. Also, it's not 30% of the critters getting frozen, it's a 30% chance for each critter to get frozen.

From a per creature perspective: on average, 3 of 10 attacks will leave the critter frozen for 3 turns. Hence, on average, for 10 successful attacks there's 9 turns of frost.
10 of 19 turns worth of attacks = 47% blocked.

One of us is obviously not quite right. If you can spot anything wrong with my arguing, please point it out.

Wait. I can't remember. When a creature freezes, does his attack go through THEN he freezes? If so, then Delreich is onto it I think. Although his wording kind of confused me, I finally got what he was trying to say. This is how I interpreted it, so correct me if I'm wrong.

Hence, on average, for 10 successful attacks there's 9 turns of frost. This really confused me at first, but I finally got it. Out of ten non-consecutive, arbitrary attacks from a single creature, it will spend 9 turns frozen.

10 of 19 turns worth of attacks = 47% blocked This also confused me, but I think I got it too. 9 of those 19 turns (I assume 20 isn't accounted for since ALL attacks go through before freezing occurs) are going to block the attack completely via freeze. 9/19 = 47.36 or 47%.

Whew. And this doesn't account for the -2 reduction on successful hits. I think we could go even further with this and find the average attack of ALL creatures and plug the percentage of that reduction somewhere up in that mess.

103

Water / Re: Permafrost Math

« on: March 16, 2010, 03:26:52 am »

Ah, very nice math Essence. Master of my favorite element AND good at statistics? Will you adopt me?

104

Competitions / Re: Competition: Produce Your Own Elements Video

« on: March 16, 2010, 02:54:03 am »

Ooohhh, I just thought of an easy, funny video to make. I'll do that tomorrow...

105

Card Ideas and Art / Re: Weapon Competition Entry: Hidden Dagger

« on: March 16, 2010, 01:39:51 am »

I like the idea, I just don't like the wording/definition of "attacking creatures." When first reading the card, I don't know what exactly that means.

Perhaps it could say "...where N equals the number of enemy creatures that can harm you." "Harm" can be replaced by other words, like "damage," or the phrase "can currently reduce your HP" can be used.

106

Light / Re: Hope / Hope

« on: March 15, 2010, 11:08:56 pm »

Yes Xinef, you're right, but what I've been trying to say is that it's not terribly OP.

So you're saying that it's OP, but not "terribly OP?" I know you kind of have a bias with it being your element and all, but... well, look at Glitch's screenshot. 

107

Light / Re: Hope

« on: March 15, 2010, 06:53:19 pm »

ehh? OP? did you try to make a deck based on this? It's not too easy to get SO many cards on the field that generate light AND also deal good damage. Anyways, light really needed a boost.

I have added it to my current deck and it has surpassed Diamond Shield and Emerald shield by leaps and bounds. Its not that it is an auto-win card, just that it is much more powerful when compared to other cards that fill the same job.

That's what I was trying to say. I don't think it's auto-win either.

108

Light / Re: Hope

« on: March 15, 2010, 05:27:09 pm »

ehh? OP? did you try to make a deck based on this? It's not too easy to get SO many cards on the field that generate light AND also deal good damage. Anyways, light really needed a boost.

Can't you just toss in a few Light Dragons or Morning Glory for damage? Save them until you've got that almighty shield up and generating tons of quanta and you should be fine...