Guest Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by a guest. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Post (41)

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1
Game Suggestions and Feedback / Re: PVP farming [exploit]
« on: October 19, 2011, 11:09:19 pm »
I've got an idea: let's makes rares only available by traveling to the home of Zanz, knocking on his door and, if he is home, he will roll a 20-sided die, giving us a rare if he hits 20 (5 Electrum if it's a 19).

I haven't exploited this, but I completely understand why others do. This game deserves to be exploited for rares considering how impossible they are to acquire, not to mention how little money is available to newer players.

2
Quote
Ultrarares: Agreed, though I think Platinum Arena would be fine. Winning 3 matches in a row is not an easy accomplishment to reach.
 

This is not true, since the same kinds of decks are being used in platinum arena over and over there have been decks created to counter 60-70% of them so that even newbs are starting to spam the arena for cards and 10X the score from grinding FGs.
Looking at the top 25 decks, I'm going to estimate that they have about a 7% loss rate, but we'll say 10% just to be safe. Scrolling down the top 250 shows that the win rate doesn't drop much. That's about a 50-60% difference from the number you threw out there. The decks under 250 will likely fall out of the league with 2 or 3 losses. Simply put, your statement has no merit.

Unless you have some data to back up those numbers, I have to assume you just pulled them out of your ass. Spreading misinformation doesn't really help people make the best decisions. It's clear that "newbs" are not farming Platinum (though feel free to link to this Platinum grinder). If they want to farm an arena league, it's far easier to farm Gold as far as electrum gain is concerned, which shows another blatantly false claim in your post.

So, I'll say it again: Platinum League special spin would be an acceptable way to reward players with Ultra-rares.

3
Uniform interaction is a good point. In that sense, it does ease the weighing process.

4
Foil Cards: Strongly oppose.

Let me start by saying that I can't stand foil cards from table CCG's. They are a marketing scheme at best. However, suggesting the introduction of aesthetic changes like this when cards don't even have contextual backgrounds sounds like bad prioritization to me. I would never want to see foil cards, but if they were done, I would hope is was well after the art for all cards was complete.

Play Mat: Me likey.

Since these will be highly visible to players, I think you want to make sure they receive the appropriate effort. They should be top quality designs, with interesting depictions similar to what you mused. Depending on how populated the community it with talented artists, you might be able to hold a competition with worthy prizes, but I'm guessing that going to a professional might be best. The mat will set the tone for new players entering the game; it will draw them in, or turn them away.

Ultrarares: Agreed, though I think Platinum Arena would be fine. Winning 3 matches in a row is not an easy accomplishment to reach.

Achievements: There is an active thread on this in the forum.

Bounty: Cool idea.

Uber-FG: Dislike. FG's already have a ridiculously low winning percentage. I don't think making them more difficult is the right direction to focus on. Instead, I'd rather see them made more interesting and fun. Personally, I like some of the ideas you mentioned (pet, permanent in play) as a replacement for the extra powers they currently have.

5
For defense against TYPE you would only need to evaluate Average Value and the Range of Value. You would not need to know the effects of the targets beyond their value for the Average and Range calculations.
We are pretty much on the exact same page, except for this statement. We may just permanently disagree here, lol. But, I think you need to know the effects, understand which will be hindered or negated, and take that into account during design/balance, which (ideally) requires both mathematical comparisons and human analysis. I believe the notion you presented could possibly be the reason why Steal and Explosion are so imbalanced, if this was the method used.

But, as we have both pointed out, this is more of a side point in the current discussion. It is food for thought, and as I peruse the forum it will definitely be something I consider. I thank you for that, and for the rest of this discussion.

6
Patch Notes and Development News / Re: Elements 1.29
« on: October 03, 2011, 04:07:22 am »
I've tried so many snova variations of dune and death scorps, I just gave up on the idea.

Quote from: RRQJ
Your argument is illogical.  Everthing you just said can be applied to momentum, with better and more consistent results.  If fact, you're basically proving my point, that dune scorpion already works with existing cards and that SoP brings nothing new, and thus, does not overpower dune scorpion.
Exactly what he said.

Not only is momentum better, since you only need 1 dune scorp and only need to attack once with it for the effect, you only need a simple buff.  Gravity mark and momentum works so well.  Plus with eternity to send their creatures back and they replay them to boost the poison further.  Dune scorps decks that don't use gravity towers will always have to wait til the 2nd turn to attack.  So, with SoPa, they would also have to wait for the 2nd turn, but at least with momentum, you can bypass shields.

Oh, and dunescorp decks don't do that well against other players anyway.  It's too slow to get going, unless you play against a fractal deck.  Against fgs they are awesome because they draw 2 cards per turn.
~sigh~

Tired of going back and forth between this.

If you want to do a direct comparison between Dune/SoP to Dune/Momentum, of course momentum is better! However, as you are doing this, you are overlooking the tremendous differences during the deckbuilding and quanta accumulation processes. The impact of adding a quanta type during the deck building process is far greater than the casting process that you want to focus on. The consistency with which a Dune/SoP can get out is far greater than any other combination. The shields you keep wanting to introduce are by no means likely that early in the game.

There are plenty of situations in which one will be better than the other. What I'm saying is that the utility of Dune/SoP is now wide open and, when combined with the speed and consistency with which it can be utilized, it creates imbalance. On top of that, this will be the case for many other cards due to it being a generic quanta mass buff card.

@Post
Using your rough deck outline I play tested it against a Momentum variant (-5 SoP, +5 Momentum, Mark of Gravity instead of Time)

SoP + Dune Scorpion inflicts neurotoxin turn 2 for 3 :time + 1 :rainbow (4 towers)
Momentum + Dune Scorpion (using Mark of Gravity) inflicts neurotoxin turn 2 for 3 :time + 1 :gravity (2 towers + 1  :gravity mark)

Momentum Dune Scorpions is more likely to inflict neurotoxin on turn 2 because it requires only 2 towers rather than 4. It does come with side effects (+1hp, ignore shields, -1 :time per turn, effects of Momentum/SoP ing the 2nd scorpion)
This is another result of a direct comparison that doesn't take into account the metagame. See my response above.


Anyway, that's my last attempt to bring to light this issue. I'll let people continue to do the direct comparisons with buff cards, which I'm sure will follow.

The fact is, a generic quanta mass buff in a game with this few cards makes no sense, and will create a lot of challenges when designing and balancing cards in the future.

7
Patch Notes and Development News / Re: Elements 1.29
« on: October 02, 2011, 12:29:07 am »
Just a very simple deck example:

by Post
Hover over cards for details, click for permalink
Deck import code : [Select]
6rv 6rv 6rv 6rv 6rv 7n2 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q3 7q8 7q8 7q8 7qd 7qd 7qd 7qd 7qd 7qd 8ps

And a sample of the common result:

(http://www.flickr.com/photos/35359634@N03/6202112304)

8
Patch Notes and Development News / Re: Elements 1.29
« on: October 01, 2011, 11:21:58 pm »
I've said this already, but you only need one attack from one dune scorpion. after that they act like forest scorpions.  I don't see how SoP makes them overpowered.
Um, no. They may act like a Forest Scorpion afterwards, but the match itself has been changed. Can a forest scorpion continue increasing poison on the opponent after it has been killed or controlled?

Previously, Time/Death had a few elements that it had to work with to incorporate Dune Scorpions/Deathstalkers. Now, it can use them with any element, including mono, the buff card is cheaper, and can buff multiple targets instead of just 1.

Quote
Actually one more point.  To take advantage of SoP you'll need to have several scorpions on the field before playing the shard.  I would say at least three (otherwise you may as well have a couple of momentums).
Ok, it's obvious you aren't giving this the thought it deserves. You don't need several: after the first poison, the rest act like Forest Scorpions, just as you said earlier. The first attack is the key. The decks I have played in Beta, I have gotten a buffed Dune scorpion out on the first or second turn almost every time. Waiting is not a smart thing to do. Later in the match, however, you can then further buff them, and buff multiple creatures.

Quote
That being said, this is just from what I can tell.  Unfortunately, I don't have the time to test decks.  Go ahead and test such a deck and show that it is overpowered.
As you can see, I have been. Good to know that you're willing to critique my research, command me to test, but not willing to do any of it yourself.

People make too big a deal about DS's. An adrenalined forest scorpion, if left alone will do 2 psn a turn.  It isnt very often, unless facing another time deck, that you will be playing more than 1-2 cards a turn.
Unless you have the majority of your opening draw in your hand, which these changes increase the likelihood of. Edit: Also, you are ignoring the synergy with Eternity, which as I mentioned earlier is yet another mono-deck option.

Quote
Therefor a Forest Scorpion will often times do better, and are easier to mass produce. SoPs would help them a great deal as well.
Another example of my concern about the impact that a generic quanta mass buff will have on the current card designs, but not as stark or imbalanced.

9
Patch Notes and Development News / Re: Elements 1.29
« on: October 01, 2011, 08:47:22 pm »
1) I don't agree that squids + SoP would be better than scorpion + SoP, particularly early on. The amount of damage that would add up from an early scorpion is far greater than a squid, with only 1 real counter (Purify). Add in the synergy with Eternity, while still being mono, and I would chose the latter every time. A squid is subjected to CC for the rest of the game, while removing the scorpion after it's first attack does little to counter the damage it has done.

2) Current Time decks do not use Pharaohs. Now, I don't necessarily know if there will be some shift in 1.29, but my point was the added utility in a mono deck. This goes with two shards, not just 1.

3) Since you want to do a direct comparison, all those SoP Squids can simply be hit by Rewind. You also used two shards, where Time is using one.

4) I agree Deathstalkers need attention as well, as I mentioned originally. They don't benefit more, but I could see this being true in certain scenarios.

5) In the end, SoP may be better for water. This isn't my major concern. The greater concern is the game as a whole, and I am simply using Time as the clearest example. At the very least, I think Dune Scorpion and Deathstalker need balance, but I'd much rather see a change to the generic ability considering this is a generic quanta card.

10
Those follow. :o) Where I begin to disagree with you is:

Quote
Therefore defenses against permanents will care very little about the varying effects of the permanent and will care about the value (average and range) of permanents.
For the sake of efficiency and consistency, there is a strong desire to use the value. For the sake of balance, you need to consider the range of effects that will be impacted by targeting that type. How much weight you put on those two is another question, but probably best left for another thread. ;o)

On the example of damage, I feel this is one of the easiest effects to balance in a game as it is very precisely measured. Damage, along with its healing counterpart, are such basic game elements that I really don't consider them effects, but a mechanic (which I say only to give you an idea of my perspective, not to counter you, since the difference isn't consequential). The remaining effects are far more limited in range, and generally more abstract in use, thereby justifying further human intervention over mathematical representations.

Quote
Therefore defenses against effects will take longer to balance based on the number of things they defend against while defenses against types will not to the same extent.
So, following what I said above, I see the range of permanents being a significant problem during design. Determining which takes longer will depend on the cards/effects being considered. Right now, due to the small number of cards per effect in this game, I think defenses against effects would be easier to design than anything that targets a type other than a pillar, weapon, or shield, which is why the additional subdivisions will ease design burden (if we are following the rule of human intervention).  Explosion essentially nullifies a wide range of effects, but the value of this impact was clearly not taken into account during design. This is related to why I favor removing the destruction of weapons/shields, as they have the most powerful effects in the game, and instead focusing on controlling their use/effect.

By the way, I forgot to ask: what is the CIA?

11
Patch Notes and Development News / Re: Elements 1.29
« on: October 01, 2011, 07:00:18 pm »
I know it's good. I didn't say that was the problem. What I am saying is that is disturbs the balance of the game, especially for Time.

Water gets a bigger atk/hp buff, but water doesn't have creature generation, nor a card like Dune Scorpion. With just 4 mono-quanta and 2 cards, I can have one out on my first turn, creating a mass accumulation of Poison if you can't specifically stop it on your first turn, and chances are you can't. That's only one scenario out of many. I'll take that over the 2/2 bonus for costly water creatures, hence making it better for Time than Water.

However, the bigger problem is the far-reaching effects it has on card design and balancing elements. Initially, I liked the concept a lot. However, I have changed my mind after giving it some thought and testing.

12
Patch Notes and Development News / Re: Elements 1.29
« on: October 01, 2011, 06:37:56 pm »
I do not agree that the one-turn delay makes up for the removal of duo-dependency.

Removing duo affects your entire deck, not just the cards being played. Now, you have complete freedom on deck design with the introduction of SoP, and at the measly cost of 1 generic quanta. Add to that the ability to buff multiple scorpions in a single turn, with only 1 card (Fire Storm) in the game that can efficiently counter it on the following turn (which is when it must happen). Further, Time already has the potential for mass creature generation, more so with the SoR allowing for two immediate Pharaoh Scarabs in its current version, proving a large amount of utility with a single card, all within a single element that isn't even SoP's primary element. I'd venture to say that SoP is stronger for Time than it is for Water.

Mass effect cards quickly change the face of the game. Generally, a generic cost card is not a good idea for a mass effect, especially when it's cost is as low as it is for SoP. Dune Scorpion definitely needs its cost increased, though after writing this, I'm wondering if there is a better effect that the +1/0 for all. I'm really concerned about the long term effect it will have on the game. A mass creature buff would be better suited to a specific element.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
anything
blarg: Post