Guest posts by Jumbalumba

265

Duo-Decks / Re: Vampire Dagger versus Morning Glory

« on: February 17, 2010, 10:32:09 pm »

I admit I have not tested this deck but I cannot see how you can "consistently" beat Divine Glory.

First of all, it has 200 HP while you have 100 HP. As you clearly mentioned in your earlier example, if you both had the same amount of attacking creatures/weapons you would both get damaged at the same rate (not counting eclipses). You would have to have double its weapons to kill it at the same rate it is killing you. I recognise that this can very well happen because you have 12/30 chance of drawing a damage-dealing-thing while Divine Glory has a 12/72 chance which is less than half of 12/30 but I would think the chance is too close for any consistency.

Secondly, you state your creatures are cheaper but you don't see that the double draw and the 3* mark makes that point moot. Divine Glory makes more quanta and can also destroy your Towers so it doesn't matter that you get cheaper creatures.

Thirdly, it has Miracles. The only way to consistently avoid Miracles is if you save cards in your hand (which would be at least 2 creatures/weapons or just an eclipse). Now as I mentioned earlier, you have to have double the amount of damage dealing things to actually kill it faster than it kills you. That's more improbable because you need to save cards to avoid it using Miracle.

You stated that Vampire Dagger beats Divine Glory with apparently the same theme. That is entirely incorrect. Firstly, you are really comparing Vampire Daggers + Vampires against Morning Glories only. Secondly, it is hardly the same theme as the entire point of Divine Glory is to kill you with creatures that you can hardly do anything about. Any sort of creature control totally destroys a Vampire deck.

One last point: you are fighting the AI which uses a predetermined deck. Unlike yourself, Divine Glory is far from using the optimal deck. You can see it always has a tonne of Light quanta. It can easily fit in some Light Dragons and/or some Holy Flash. You may think Light Dragons would go against its theme but I consider Light Dragons to be something that you can hardly do anything about. I don't see Light Dragons making this deck worse in virtually any case.

266

General Discussion / Re: Why this game is going to end up inaccessable to new people.

« on: February 17, 2010, 01:19:14 pm »

if you have to perform the same exact task 25 times in a game and still aren't anywhere near being able to improve, the game is doing something wrong.

This game isn't like many other flash games which are meant to be finished. As a result of that, it is meant to be grindy.

I agree with almost all of what Silkenfist has said and would like to add that if one can get upgraded cards from spins from wins against Top 50 players then there would be no point to False Gods or Half-bloods. Winning against Top 50 is not as hard as you seem to make it out to be. In fact, I would say it is possible to make a deck (fully unupgraded) that could beat Top 50 regularly within a few hours of starting the game.

267

Duo-Decks / Re: Gravity/Earth Denial

« on: February 15, 2010, 11:51:43 pm »

This 'overpowered'-ness is justified in my opinion. Rainbow is far and away too popular.

Earth/Gravity is good against most other decks but there are a lot more counters to it than there are to rainbow.

268

General Discussion / Re: Rainbows and sundials!

« on: February 15, 2010, 12:12:45 am »

The simple fact is most of the time your creatures are inferior. Sundials don't slow your deck down at all because you use it to draw a card. In effect they act just as filler cards but with the added goodness of stalling. Since you rely on healing, one turn of not getting hit means 1 more turn of healing. Surely that's a good thing?

269

General Discussion / Re: Elements Statistics

« on: February 15, 2010, 12:05:36 am »

Statistics should average out in the long run anyway, i.e., it'll be that all gods are played equally if it is entirely random. There is no practical point in assuming all gods are played the same amount. Statistics from a small sample size are flawed anyway.

They may be a point to having both % wins though to really see the divergence.

270

Issue Archive / Re: Shield effect Bug

« on: February 14, 2010, 07:55:52 am »

It's not a bug. The game was changed (quite a while ago now) to make all shields affect all (attacking) creatures.

271

Trio & Quartet / Re: Nymphomania (anti-FG) + stats

« on: February 14, 2010, 07:23:29 am »

If FGs are dealing a lot of damage then you die before you deck out. So what's the problem with 30 card decks?

272

Trio & Quartet / Re: Nymphomania (anti-FG) + stats

« on: February 14, 2010, 07:16:53 am »

its too short of a deck to be used effectivly against the fgs, it may be good against the hbs

What? You think 30 card decks can't take on FGs? I, for one, know of 30 card decks that give you greater electrum gain (considering the value of spin wins) when taking on FGs than Half-bloods.

273

Water / Re: Toadfish / Puffer Fish

« on: February 14, 2010, 07:14:20 am »

I recall it does (to the enemy of the Puffer fish to be sure) even though the enemy of the puffer fish does not receive the damage.

274

Game Suggestions and Feedback / Re: 6 Hours gameplay lost

« on: February 13, 2010, 07:49:55 am »

While I agree there is some unclear wording there, I also find your assumption, which is that the game saved, unreasonable. The saving messages, if everything is right, would go through "Saving...", "Confirming", and "Confirmed". That should give you a clue as to what "Disconnected" really meant, i.e., the saving was not confirmed. The fact that "Connected" is not a message is also a clue as to what "Disconnected" did not necessarily mean.

Nevertheless, your suggestion that things should be made clearer is valid.

I would suggest things to make your journey easier but you "will not be playing again" so that's too bad. Let's just hope you have learnt your lesson and progress things with caution in the future. This may mean asking on forums or chat both of which are available for this game.

275

Card Ideas and Art / Re: A new death shield

« on: February 13, 2010, 07:30:55 am »

Considering there is currently no way to get rid of creature poisoning this shield is highly overpowered. You only have to compare it to Fire Shield:

This is 5 to play unupugraded. Fire shield is 6 to play unupgraded.This blocks 1 damage (per attack). Fire shield blocks nothing.This deals 1 poison per attack. Fire shield deals 1 damage per attack. Poison while has a deferred effect for 1 turn, has a cumulative effect which means the damage that is a result of this shield grows higher and higher.Poison on creatures is a permanent ailment. This shield only has to be on the field for 1 turn (it can then be destroyed) for any creatures affected to continually suffer damage as if it were attacking a Fire shield for all turns.

276

General Discussion / Re: Explain the Points / Ranking System?

« on: February 12, 2010, 10:40:27 pm »

You are not getting it. It's not meant to be the Top 50 decks. That would be impossible to judge anyhow. The list is the 50 people with the highest points who have logged in in the last week (so only the weekly list in the Highscores matter; it's not exactly a last-seven-days kind of thing but rather it is reset every week at a certain time so if you check the day after it resets it would be like a daily list) . It's their (the Top 50's) prerogative to play whatever deck they wish.

The Top 50 also do not PVP each other to gain points quickly. Random PVP is mostly the realm of people who can't take on FGs. Top 50 people would not gain good points there. PVP duel has no rewards. PVP is also so slow it is not worth playing unless you have low points and can beat people with higher points.

Points = electrum won/lost
(this does not include any cards won and/or subsequently sold to get more electrum)