Guest posts by Exeneva

25

General Discussion / Re: An Interview With A Former Elements Player

« on: February 07, 2012, 06:14:25 am »

mmm I somewhat agree and somewhat disagree. I liked the interview, but it seems like the person interviewed doesn't have the greatest understanding of the game. and having only 60 upgrades sort of shows that.

Agree that weapons are strong but they have plenty of weakness's with only 1 spot available for them.

I however disagree with the elements description about hourglasses and the meta.

Well he didn't say he only had 60 upgrades, he said he was able to upgrade his entire deck. I found it doubtful that a player would never change cards in his/her deck and therefore only have 60 upgraded cards.

In regards to the meta, you have to remember he quit playing about 8 months ago, so what he said about the meta is no longer valid.

Basically once a player got more Hourglasses, you could pretty much tell who was going to win from there.

lol

I believe what he was trying to say is that once a player got card advantage, it was clear who was going to win from there. Taken at surface level, then getting more hourglasses as an equation to winning is laughable indeed.

26

General Discussion / An Interview With A Former Elements Player

« on: February 07, 2012, 05:47:55 am »

Done as both part of my school thesis and also as research for the project I'm working on.

http://www.zems.com/blog/interviews/interview-with-a-former-elements-player/

27

Design Theory / Re: Card Concepts That Do Not Need Repeated.

« on: February 06, 2012, 11:49:40 pm »

What I'm saying is the latter is more fun. Sure, preventing a creature from taking damage may be more useful in this instance, that doesn't mean it's more fun or more enjoyable.

In fact, any card effect that is very direct or specific often has limited flexibility and becomes less fun to use.

28

Design Theory / Re: Card Concepts That Do Not Need Repeated.

« on: February 06, 2012, 09:35:14 pm »

I believe it's dumb because it's simply not fun. To some extent, it's fun for the player using an untargetable creature, but for the sake of the game, permanent untargetable isn't really exciting.

I'm not saying there aren't ways to deal with it, but the ways that do deal with it are pretty direct and not really fun. Say one of your creatures is about to die. Would it be more fun if you had a spell card that prevented it from taking damage this turn, or a spell card that took the creature off the field and put it back on the next turn? Obviously, the latter is much more exciting and is more useful.

29

Design Theory / Re: Card Concepts That Do Not Need Repeated.

« on: February 06, 2012, 11:12:44 am »

I would say untargetable is pretty dumb, and there honestly needs to be more ways to deal with such creatures.

30

Visual Arts / Merfolk Artwork

« on: February 06, 2012, 11:10:33 am »

Originally posted to Reddit, so I'll link you there: http://www.reddit.com/r/Illustration/comments/pcg14/do_you_like_merfolk_heres_some_beautiful_merfolk/

Enjoy!

31

General Discussion / Re: [Poll]How do you define a "deck" ?

« on: February 06, 2012, 11:06:48 am »

To be honest, I feel like a lot of the options are very similar, so it's hard to differentiate some of the options.

Lots of aspects are important in making up a deck, but at its core it would be the cards having synergy to execute a strategy that will win you the game.

32

Introduce Yourself / Hi Everyone!

« on: February 06, 2012, 11:03:20 am »

I'm new to the forums but I've given Elements a few playthroughs.