Guest posts by Midnar

25

Design Theory / Re: Card Design: An attempt at a comprehensive guide (A community effort I hope)

« on: March 09, 2011, 10:22:21 am »

According my previous formula, a vanilla 0|499 is worth 0. This is wrong, because the usefulness of a creature is determined not only by its attack and skill, but also by it's hps: Acceleration, Chimera and Catapult will make good use of a creature's hps. I found that adding hp/50 to (attack + skill value) is a good approximation for that. It can be ignored for creatures with hp<15, because it wouldn't make any difference anyway. Since all cards making use of hp are in Gravity, a non-Gravity creature with high-hp is like a creature with a duo-skill.

So far, here's what I came up with:
Creature Value = Usefulness * Resilience
Usefulness = Attack + Skill Value (+ hp value if high-hp)
Resilience = (log5(hp)+1)/2 + resilience added by skills
Skill Use = Skill Power * Skill Usability
Skill Usability is 1 (maximum) for a free skill that doesn't require any conditions. It is lowered by any cost or condition in a way that is still to be determined (a duo-cost will of course reduce it more than a mono-cost).

Since Attack is pretty well defined and hp-value rather unimportant, the notions that should be studied further are Resilience, Skill Power and Skill Usability. The deepest one is Skill Power, because there are so many different skills that all have to be studied individually.

26

Design Theory / Re: Constructed Design Theory [Part 1:Resilience]

« on: March 08, 2011, 10:46:08 pm »

Wow, my first point of karma ! I'm grateful 
I said I was going to work on the upgraded formula, but finally I didn't because the lack of any response kinda demoralized me. Now I'm really motivated, but tired (it's quarter to midnight in France). I'll work on this tomorrow, promise !

27

Design Theory / Re: Constructed Design Theory [Part 1:Resilience]

« on: March 08, 2011, 09:07:10 pm »

At this point I start wondering if anybody read this (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,16655.msg294132#msg294132). I added the big part in an edit a week ago, so it may have gone unnoticed. The formula I suggest is based on logarithm (sorry for the complicated math). Since it fits this topic better, I'll just copy-paste it:

I tried a formula and was amazed by how well it works with every vanilla creature ! First, the ideas behind the formula:
- The more HP a creature has, the less important it is to give it more hp. Therefore, resilience is not a linear function of hp's, but rather a logarithmic one.
- Many vanilla creatures are X/5 with a cost of X quantas, suggesting that resilience of 5hps creatures is 1. I thus tried the base-5 logarithm, but it was no good. This is because...
- All creatures (except 0hp creatures) have a "base resilience", because it's possible that the opponent will not have any creature control, making hp's uninmportant.
- In other words, resilience = (chance to survive despite CC) + (chance to survive because the opponent lacks CC) = logarithmic part + static part

And now, the (temporary) formula:
Resilience = (log₅(hp)+1) / 2
With only one adjustment to make: Life creatures get one free hp.

Here are the theoretical costs of all unupped vanilla creatures, using this formula:
Abomination: 5
Purple dragon: 10
Flesh Spider: 2.52, rounds up to 3 (not taking Web into account)
Mummy: 4.27, rounds to 4 (not taking it's passive into account)
Bone dragon: 10
Skeleton: .5, rounds to 1 (version 1.27 will boost it with a new ability, making it less UP)
Graviton mercenary: 3 =/= 4
Colossal dragon: 9.39, rounds to 10
Hematite golem: 4.23, rounds to 4
Gnome rider: .72, rounds to 1 (this one will generate quanta with next update)
Horned Frog: 2.15, rounds to 2
Cockatrice: 3.37, rounds to 3
Emerald Dragon: 10
Ash Eater: 1
Crimson Dragon: 10.10, rounds to 10
Blue Crawler: 2.52, rounds to 3
Ice Dragon: 9.51, rounds to 10
Photon: .5, rounds to 0
Golden Dragon: 12.15, rounds to 12
Dragonfly: 0.72, rounds to 1 (same as Gnome Rider)
Azure Dragon: 9.51, rounds to 10
Devonian Dragon: 10
Black Dragon: 10
Phase Spider: 2.86, rounds to 3 (not taking Web into account)
There's only one discrepancy : Graviton Mercenary. Now just look at card usage statistics: Graviton Mercenary is underused. Meaning that it is probably UP, which is what the formula suggests. The only non-rare creatures used less than Graviton Mercenary are Blue Crawler (also slightly UP according to the formula) and Hematite Golem (balanced, but overshadowed by the OP Graboid).

About upgraded creatures: using either -1 or -2 depending what we need to match the actual card cost isn't the good way to do. We could take inspiration from spells. Low-cost spells get a 1-quantum reduction to their cost when upgraded. High-cost spell get a 2-quanta reduction. I'll work on this later, time for dinner now 

28

Card Ideas and Art / Re: Holy Blacksmith | Steel Enchanter

« on: March 08, 2011, 05:41:39 pm »

Paying or makes an HUGE difference (which in one of the reasons why it's so incredibly imbalanced). Earth and light are two elements which don't mix. To be able to use Holy Blacksmith's ability, you need eiter an duo or a rainbow. Steel Enchanter on the other hand is completely capable of doing this mono (or duo with an non-earth element).

Example: would you rather have the Graboid's evolve ability cost or ? The fact it costs it one of the few things that balances it.

Do you really think I didn't know that a same-element ability is more useful than a cross-element ability? That's precisely what makes the upgrade worth it. If the Steel Enchanter's ability cost was , it would be hardly as good as the Holy Blacksmith. These 6 attack point and these 2 hp DO make a difference.
And your argumentation makes absolutely no sense. It's like saying that Maxwell's Demon is OP just because it's ability is mono-element. Other factors have to be taken into account. Once you have 1 (or maybe 2) Steel Enchanters out, any new one is a dead card: there isn't enough permanents to protect, and the 0 attack won't help you much. Running 6 of these, you would end up with dead cards more often than not, and running fewer than 6 you may not get it early enough to protect your vital permanents. And unless you quint it, it may be killed, leaving your permanents vulnerable. As an example, 6 Phase Shields + 6 EA sounds much better to me than either 6 PS + 6 SE or 6 PS + 3 SE + 3 Quint.

29

Forge Archive / Re: Glass | Glass

« on: March 08, 2011, 04:59:55 pm »

Rename it to bulletproof glass <_< OP in my opinion.

Aether already has a shield that blocks all damage, so such shield should be reserved to another element.

Thought of , but light already have 3 shields. Some ideas?

Glass is made of silicate. I suggest earth.

30

Rainbow Decks / Re: Shak'ars Revenge (FG-Voodoo)

« on: March 08, 2011, 01:19:25 pm »

Yup, the AI change ruined this fantastic deck. A winrate of 33% was really good, considering the speed of the deck; now it's around 20-25%, I think. Combined to some bad luck on the rolls, I'm actually loosing electrum when using this deck, now.

31

Design Theory / Re: Card Idea Engine (Communal Card Creation)

« on: March 08, 2011, 12:31:37 pm »

Here's my entry:
New Birth (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,22580.0.html)
 

32

Card Ideas and Art / New Birth | New Birth

« on: March 08, 2011, 12:29:52 pm »

NAME: New Birth ELEMENT: Time COST: 4 TYPE: Spell ATK|HP: TEXT: All creatures are reverted to their original form and delayed for 1 turn.	NAME: New Birth ELEMENT: Time COST: 3 TYPE: Spell ATK|HP: TEXT: All creatures are reverted to their original form and delayed for 1 turn.

ART: None IDEA: Midnar NOTES: Reverting a creature to it's original form means replacing it by the creature shown on the card, i.e. cancelling any modification to it's stats, skill and statuses. Shriekers are turned into Graboids (upped->upped, unupped->unupped), even if they have been played directly. Maybe should it turn mutants into other mutants with the same base creatures, what do you think? SERIES:

This is my CCC entry for a new mechanic for time. The main idea behind the card is obviously the "revert" effect. It cancels soft CC (lobo, poison, delay, freeze) and buffs, as well as wrecking Graboid rushes, but is useless if your opponent doesn't play any of these. I followed the example of Zanz: cards that are too situational are buffed by a non-situational side effect (Luciferase, Nightmare, Sanctuary). I hesitated between draw, stasis and delay, and finally decided that delay fits better thematically.

As always, any art suggestion or feedback would be greatly appreciated !

33

Forge Archive / Re: Glass | Glass

« on: March 08, 2011, 09:56:25 am »

I agree with Stickmasterluke: momentum should break it. However, "Shield: All damage is blocked. Any creature or weapon with 8 or more attack or momentum destroys this shield when attacking." is way too complicated. You could rephrase it:
"Shield: reduce damage by 7. Breaks whenever you are dealt physical damage"
Since damage is reduced by 7, only a creature (or weapon) with 8 or more attack (or momentum) can break the shield. The only difference being that a creature with 7+n attack will deal n damage instead of 0 when breaking the shield.

I also agree with Rutarete: 8|9 damage to break the shield is way too much, you should lower it to 6|7 (or, with the wording I suggested, damage reduction of 5|6).

34

Card Ideas and Art / Re: Dimensionless Spirit(voted for further development in the aether/life challange)

« on: March 07, 2011, 09:28:22 pm »

This is very Graboid-like. It costs 3 quanta, has 2 attack, is untargetable, and may turn into a stronger creature at the cost of one cross-element quantum.
Unupped, the main difference is that the new creature is 5|4 instead of being 8|3, meaning that Dimensionless Spirit is very weak compared to Graboid. A difference of 1 or 2 attack would be acceptable, since Graboid is slightly OP imo, but a difference of 3 is too much.
Elite Vitalis can deal 8 damage a turn by spawning sparks, which is inferior to Elite Graboid's 10 damage, and requires 1 a turn. But at least, it has some interesting synergies: boost the sparks or use them as Cremation/Mutation fodder.

These synergies are what I really like with this card, so instead of boosting it's attack to make it more Graboid-like and less original, I suggest to focus more on this aspect, by giving normal Vitalis the ability to summon Sparks, and elite Vitalis the ability to summon Ball Lightnings. And then increase the cost of standalone Vitalis to 6|6.

35

Card Ideas and Art / Re: Lungfish | Lungfish

« on: March 07, 2011, 08:58:07 pm »

Really great idea, but this is unusable. Without a creature generator, you need a 9 card combo to make this work: Lungfish + Flooding + 7 other creatures (otherwise Lungwish would be in the middle row). Even playing a deck centered on this combo (i.e. 2 Lungfishes, 14 other creatures, 2 Flooding, 2 tsunami and 10 pillars) you would need to draw on average half your deck to pull the combo out. All that for what? A 7 (or 9) attack creature without an useful ability, that is vulnerable to both CC and PC. Adding a creature generator would only make things worse, as you would need at least 3 elements (there isn't any creature generator amongst Water and Earth cards). Just compare this with Graboid, which has +1 cost and +1 attack (once evolved), only requires 2 elements, and does not depend on a specific combo to be effective.

In short, I suggest a massive buff to this card. Either give it another way to be un-delayed, or make Estivation passive, and give it a powerful active ability. Then adjust the cost and stats depending on the ability.

36

Card Ideas and Art / Re: Holy Blacksmith | Steel Enchanter

« on: March 07, 2011, 12:15:52 pm »

The gap between upgraded an unupgraded is way too big.

Unupgraded costs you an expensive 8 quanta, while upgraded is practically free 1 quantum.
Unupgraded is duo with an element that diesn't mix at all, upgraded it mono.
We don't care about those six attack points (which you use to justify the differences); if we use that card, whe want to protect our pernaments, not to benefit from it's horrible cost/damage ratio.

In short:
+ Unupgraded is useless;
+ Upgraded is epic;

Remove the attack from the unupgraded version and reduce it's cost.

Have you read my first post? The huge difference between unupped and upped is intented. Of course, it makes the upgraded better, but that's what the upgrades are for.
Horrible cost/damage ratio? Well, the cost/damage ratio of this card is nearly equal to the one of the light dragon : .75 for this card, .83 for the light dragon. And the powerful ability of Holy Blacksmith largely accounts for this small difference.
Unupgraded is useless? No, definitely no. Compare it to Anubis: this is slightly better, imo.
Upgraded is epic? Well, I guess you're right. I'll decrease it's hp from 4 to 2. Less epic now?