Guest posts by KeeperofDreams

1

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

« on: February 10, 2012, 06:48:46 pm »

OldTrees, you have been the voice of reason throughout most of this thread.

However, I also disagree with you.
Duos and Trios are still infant, most still rely on rainbow support or stall to get a win going because of the extended build out time.  The problem comes from the quanta system itself that you agreed with is broken.
The quanta system is what's needed to support the duos and trios efficiently pendulums are rather inefficient.
Also some weapons are overpowered, too many games I've played are won or lost on the play of discord alone, it will devastate any duo or trio attempt, early enough can crush mono too...  I've won many of games on just having a discord out.  As for wrong fight of giants versus war of attrition, I remember a lot of that when I started out.  Mono unupped a year ago played a lot like that.


My view point can be summed simply by:
This game to become a really good game is:
A.) A completely reworked quanta system and card cost system, something like, No more nova/cremation, quantum tower can stay though, but allow pillars to produce 2 of quanta, and have dual pillars that produce 1 of each, and totally shift the card costs.  Don't allow a person to save onto more than 10 quanta of each element.  Have cards, that require dual or random element cost casts as well.
B.) A good two thousand more cards, or 5 times the amount we have right now, about 200 per element with a large variety of abilities and every element having some sort of way of handling core concepts.  Develop subcatagories.
C.) Reconcept the FGs a bit and have each FG have at least one card you can't purchase, get rid of spins except for FG, get rid of upgraded cards, those upgraded that do something radically different should just be regular cards, make cards more expensive in the shop, and introduce bundling of random cards in the shop.  So for 5000 Electrum I could buy two dragons and a shard that I want for a deck idea or I could by 30 random cards that I have no idea what I'm getting, but I need to quickly expand my options.   
 
Examples for B.)
Perms: Electrum Hour Glass could be considered a Time/Perm/Machine so time might have a perm counter like rust where the effect would say put a time bubble around target machine that accelerates time around it, in two turns target machine is turned to dust/destroyed.  Aether might have a phase perm spell, that all perms in place phase out of play for one turn.  And thing's like Feral Bond might be Life/Perm/Bonded,  and so steal might not be able to steal a bonded perm but other perms but sanctuaries and sundials, those are fair game.  Light could for example have a blinding light spell that blinds the other player for one turn, preventing them from being able use their weapon or shield, etc...

Sadly I don't think either of these will happen, it's a lot of coding and art work, etc... and for one developer it'll take 5 years...

Other concepts,
You mentioned field control, more abilities, like light, might have a guard of some sort where any cards to the side of the guard gain unable to target status, forcing people to have to destroy the guard first.  Field control is a very interesting and allows for a very complex dynamic that could be played up more.  Imagine how useful flooding would be, if you could choose where you place your water creatures.  Etc...
We also only have a couple deck manipulation cards, more of these would be good too.

2

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

« on: February 10, 2012, 06:43:49 am »

I'm going to jump in now.
Background with CCGs:  I was old school MtG, boy has that game changed through the years: But I was Revised to Ice Age player.  At 4th edition I had a nice I'm stealing your deck and taking it home deck, because we all still played anti:  Playing a Vesuvan Doppelganger on a Tempest Efreet and then tapping that token picking a card saying this is now mine and the token is now yours forever, thank you, was quite evil.  I've also played the Mechwarrior, Star Trek, Vampire, Rage, and have a very evil Doom Trooper deck somewhere around too.  Background with EtG, one year.  But all this really does not matter because I've come to say this:

HOW DARE YOU ATTACK JEFF WHEN YOU KNOW HE IS MOSTLY RIGHT!!!
Most of us have complained or pointed out in the forums some place about balance issues, every time a new card or two comes out something becomes totally out of balance, or is everyone forgetting about SoSa's now?  Are the many threads revolving about what to do with Graboid/Shrieker my imagination?  Oh, Oh, here's a point he makes, duos and trios aren't that viable...  wait, I remember several discussions on wishing to make that happen....   all of a sudden somebody points that out and there is a problem?  Seriously?  Cognitive dissidence getting in the way?

There are only a few hundred cards for this game, (no upgrades don't count for most, with the exception of those that radically do something else) for 12 elements. It's far from mature, nor the maturity that you would expect for being around for years now.  There is a reason for it, it's a pet project by one developer that he does on the side funded only by donations who does not want to make it into anything bigger and so does not want help, it's zanz's creation and that's the way it is.  It's not yours, it's not this communities, it's zanz's.

With that said, is it still one of the best if not the best FREE ONLINE CCG?  I think it is, but let's not forget what it is.

3

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

« on: February 05, 2012, 09:50:46 pm »

For this game almost but not quite the first option.  One card difference can have a huge impact in the odds.  Also this game has rainbows in which the choice of one or two cards can have a dramatic effect on the capabilities of the deck.  For this a deck is almost the full card list.  However, if a take Instosis for example, and use unupped instead of upped sundials and add a tower, it's still in effect Instosis main concept is what defines it.  This odd almost contradictory state, shows the lack of robustness in the cards and their capabilities, ultimately the immaturity of this game.  (The game is still great despite it's relative immaturity for a ccg in general; for the free online ones, it's one of the best don't get me wrong.) 

So at this time, I would say one distinct card changes per ten cards regardless of it's concept, is a different deck, and assuming the concept is already defined it can be called a variant of a main concept deck.

4

Politics / Re: Political Orientation

« on: February 04, 2012, 10:44:03 pm »

I found that test insulting at best.
It was clearly made from current political questions, not actual values and philosophical questions as to how a government and economy should be.  Almost none of these questions are questions that I base my political leanings on.  But then again, our entire system seems out of wack and ridiculous.  It's funny how the last half dozen questions are basically the same question at the root of it, do you believe in sexual freedom or should a church or government control you sexually.  Completely biased test.

5

Science / Re: a solution to the time travel paradox

« on: February 04, 2012, 10:12:34 pm »

Correct.
  The reason why they published it, was because they wanted to know what they did wrong and wanted the community to act quickly, the math shows it shouldn't happen and so some additional variable was not accounted for.  And it means tests at that level needs those variables identified. 

They have ran the test twice, in one direction, the 2nd was after some calibration values were found off, they need to run it in at least 2 more directions to establish and another team needs to run it at least once before they are willing to accept the possibility for real, there are at least half a dozen other things not accounted for that have come from the community that they are now aware of.

I predict that the neutrino faster than light will fall

- Mark/Ozzy

6

General Discussion / Re: A study on 100 random unupped pvp games

« on: February 03, 2012, 08:43:14 pm »

This is not the kind of game you can spend ten minutes of your break every day playing. To get anywhere in this game, you have to slog through hours, days, and weeks of grinding; only serious players are willing to play, and PVP reflects this.

Unfortunately, this is not me, only 3 or 4 days have I had time to really play this game, I've spent more time on the forum actually.
Most days it's about 30 minutes, or about a half dozen games. 
But after a year, here are my stats:
1631 Cards
96 Upgraded Cards
18 Shards
43 Rare Weapons
8 Rare Pharaohs 4/4 Upped/Unupped
4 Rare Miracles All Upped
7 Nymphs
Score 64841 Level 56 Gold
Wins 1632 Losses 862
I play a bit of everything to keep my interest
Plat/Gold/Silver/Bronze/FG/AI4/PVP/PVP2
Average games per day of 6.8 Games
Average Wins per day 4.46
Average Time per day 20.4 Minutes
Average card/electrum value gained per day 650e
Average gained per hour < 2000e

So their you have it...  it still can be done...  but for a year, most I think have a good 1000 upgraded cards, and complete shard and weapon set.

7

Science / Re: a solution to the time travel paradox

« on: January 31, 2012, 10:44:50 pm »

We are basically talking about quantum physics here, which means Newton's laws like F=m*a do not apply here
True...  still roughly holds...  but your right it does have it's breakdown points.

Sorry, about the imaginary versus negative mass deal, I read m = -1 not m^2 = -1.
If bosonic string theory holds, you did answer one of the possible ways as to transferring information back in time... SO AWESOME
Definitely what I was going for... But, a caution, things like Tachyons, even those among quantum field theory, postulate would be too unstable to be considered existing.

However, if ST holds, what are your thoughts on Entanglement?

8

Science / Re: Determinism

« on: January 31, 2012, 06:52:47 pm »

That's pretty much my point.  Although it may be provable or unprovable through other methods, it depends on how incomplete or incorrect our models are at the very very small and a few other things.

I am just an Engineer and my understanding Quantum Mechanics is on a more applied methods, so there are many gaps in my knowledge and understanding.  However, I can usually understand what the Theoretical Physicists are doing, and I have befriended one who has a very very interesting body of work that he is publishing in three journals soon.  He promised me a copy of it.

But from what I have read of it, it appears he has a new model of applied calculus that looks at the potential and not the kinect side of physics.  It from what I have seen of the equations, many of the unknowns drop away...  Image when applying to very small scales the integration does not come up with a + some unknown value.  I am really really really curious to see the whole thing to see if what I think that means is true, and if many of these odd little paradoxes drop away or not once applied to some thought processes.  I know many of the recent discoveries has delayed the publishing, as things like the evidence and proof that the universe is accelerating he had to verify his model still held and do the proof which he said it still does.  It also needs all the peer review, etc, etc...  I am almost vibrating at the implications and I think my imagination has carried me off to impossibilities... 

9

Science / Re: Determinism

« on: January 31, 2012, 03:16:34 pm »

<quote>Lets take the cat experiment again. I have a box with a cat inside. We do not know if this cat is alive or dead. The moment I open the box we receive an output from this unique event even if it is only unique in it time-space coordinates. Repeating the experiment next Tuesday would not be the same event. We observe the cat is alive. How could we ever rule out the possibility that for the same variables (both know and unknown) the cat could have been but was not dead?

Reality as a unit* acts like a function in math. We cannot learn from observing a single function whether or not their exists another function that could have but did not occur.</quote>

The cat experiment represents a paradox for measuring things.
The cat in the box represents information, it has a potential of two states, dead or alive.  To actually PROVE the cat is dead or alive, we must lift the box and interact with the cat knowing immediate the state and immediately destroying the potential of the other state.

A similar problem exists in quantum physics, there is a slight difference, but effect is the same
In quantum physics, if have a particle somewhere is particle p, it has a potential of two potential states location and/or direction in a given location of space/time (the difference here is the and/or being it might not have direction, but most likely does).  If you "open the box" and get the location, the direction is immediately changed thus the potential of the other state has been changed or destroyed.  How can you know what the direction?

Granted slightly differences, but you see the point.

Their is a chance, this paradox can be resolved, most likely not, but the FDR Paradox is one example, where on the quantum mechanical level it could be solved.

10

Science / Re: a solution to the time travel paradox

« on: January 31, 2012, 06:33:46 am »

To KiLLjoY:
Except Negative mass is impossible as it would violate many energy conditions, etc...  Even Anti-Matter has had a positive mass calculated.

To russianspy1234:
"you dont need infinite mass, infinite acceleration will do as well."
Huh?  the problem is you become infinitely more massive as your velocity increases, not that we need it.
You run into basically the same problem with infinite acceleration, although slightly different.
The problem is F = m * a and E = m c^2.  V = a * t
So speed of light is the velocity = acceleration * t
Infinite acceleration means infinitely smaller amount of time, but you never beats out the time barrier in of itself, it is bound to it.
Also Infinite acceleration also means infinitely smaller mass, you can never get there either.
That is in both cases unless you are a photon, or light itself.  The only way to beat that out, is to have negative mass, which runs into problems.

"as to information, there are many ways to answer that.  if you can have zero mass information, you dont need energy to send it back in time.  also, an interesting question was once posed to me "why can we remember the past, but cant remember the future?" because in the scheme of the universe, they are the same thing, time is a dimension no different than updown or leftright, it all exists at the same... for lack of a better word... time."
Unfortunately, the question has some false assumptions.

First time is not just a dimension or for lack of a better word time...  Time is specifically how much movement, relative to other things.  If you move the clock hand back 15 minutes did the hand move in negative time, nope, it moved in a negative direction relative to some things and a positive direction relative to some other things.  Next, our memory is built out a GABA, a very large carbon based structure, to remember the future means means to have a a structure exist in your brain before the movement of the structure occurred, which is clearly a paradox.

11

Science / Re: Determinism

« on: January 31, 2012, 05:23:57 am »

Oops, misread your statement, Causal as Casual, heh,

Ok, let me try again, because that changes the terming a bit.

Right now, in quantum mechanics the math works at that [A,B] and [A,C] are Causal (working them both out is mutually exclusive as you point out.)

However, there is some evidence this may not be true.  That it in fact could be calculated out as pointed out by the EPR paradox.  Bohm's Theory also points out potential areas where it could also be figured out, and he postulated the Universe is a Hologram.  Not that I fully believe these postulations as far as the fun thoughts that can form it's interesting to entertain.

Because if [A,B] and [A,C] were not Causal, then taking this out to trying to calculate everything that will happen in the universe, and thus proving Free Will does not exist could be done.

12

General Discussion / Re: Worst luck in game ?

« on: January 31, 2012, 03:51:48 am »

One that isn't in the game, but is apart of the game, I think I have the worst spin luck in the world.
There have been two times, I have nearly given up on this game because of them, currently going through the thought process right now matter of fact:

First, was farming Arena for Shards, time and time again the special spin, was a no-win spin, or once and a while gave me a weapon, not a Shard in site. 
And of course Arena law is, half the time you will lose to the last deck.   So after a few hundred games, I thought, that I was never going to get my 4th SoR for Instosis...  It finally gave it too me.

The second was over this weekend, I don't normally get to play more than 3 to 6 rounds a day...  This weekend, I had a whole day to play...  So I spent a good amount of time grinding false gods.  Won 50 games out of 80 or so; but not a single spin gave me a card.  The entire day I did not win one upped card, it really makes me question the cost benefit analysis of playing this game...  I sat down tonight, played against Hecate, won, still no card...  came here...  don't know how much longer I'm willing to stay.