Guest posts by Reefa

13

Game Suggestions and Feedback / Re: The plea of a dying frog: "I'm not supposed to die!"

« on: April 09, 2010, 04:44:33 pm »

They can drown. Its more likely that flying creatures should survive, but then ... they can't fly high and quick enough.

Regards, Reefa.

14

Issue Archive / Re: Shields and Antimatter attacks....

« on: April 09, 2010, 08:06:14 am »

I agree. Most of my issues rotate over such simple mistakes. A single word can make a huge difference. Especially in a card game. Either change the card texts, or make a huge work on the codings.

Regards, Reefa.

15

Issue Archive / Re: Shields and Antimatter attacks....

« on: April 09, 2010, 07:11:35 am »

This is complicated, but needs to be done and explained correctly. After reading the texts of the cards a few times, this is now my version ...

Most of the shields reduce physical damage, for example the ice shield. The antimattered creature attacks, as other creatures (otherwise fix the way they are working with sundials). Then the creature inflicts heals and no damage -> the -1 damage reduction wouldn't work, fine.

But then there's a second sentence, that states: "Attacking creatures might freeze." It attacks, with heals if it reaches you. So this freeze effect may apply, although the damage reduction does not.

As a summary of the effects, a shield would have on an antimattered creature, it should look like this:

Dissipation Shield, Skull Shield, Titanium Shield, Emerald Shield, Solar Shield, Phase Shield and Procrastination wouldn't be effected, because of the physical damage component.
Gravity Shield -> prevents all 5+ defense creatures to reach you, so the antimattered can't heal.
Thorn Shield -> can poison.
Fire Shield -> can damage.
Ice Shield -> can freeze.
Fog Shield and Dusk Mantle -> can miss.

Regards, Reefa

16

Issue Archive / Re: Invisible 99 quantums card

« on: April 08, 2010, 06:49:44 pm »

Same today, but shouldn't that be avoided with the red light? Think this needs some fine tuning.

Regards, Reefa.

17

Issue Archive / Re: Shields and Antimatter attacks....

« on: April 08, 2010, 02:03:20 pm »

That's a rather phony description, because the antimattered creature attacks definitely (look at sundials, because they idle for one turn - with your description the antimattered creature must heal the opponent when a sundial is up). As a result of this upcoming attack, they inflict heals instead of damage (or at last they should be in my opinion) and this heal must be effected by the shields up.

Experienced this shield problem before ... should be fixed.

Regards, Reefa.

18

Game Suggestions and Feedback / Oracle Reset

« on: April 08, 2010, 07:12:10 am »

Not a big thing, but maybe make the oracle reset in the game itself, instead of reloading the site ever again?

Regards, Reefa.

19

Game Suggestions and Feedback / Re: Downgrading

« on: April 06, 2010, 07:03:30 pm »

Well, yes - you should gain some money (back) for downgrading. Still a good idea.

Regards, Reefa.

20

Game Suggestions and Feedback / Re: Descriptions in Need of Rewording

« on: April 06, 2010, 03:27:46 pm »

Sure, as it should be. But defense is calculated new after each turn, because defense is N and N is the number of scarabs. Otherwise there should stand a defense of 0+N (to apply buffs and debuffs more correctly). And yes, maybe I see this a little *to* accurate, but its my point of view.

Regards, Reefa.

21

Game Suggestions and Feedback / Re: Descriptions in Need of Rewording

« on: April 06, 2010, 01:16:31 pm »

Just another one from the scarab:
Defense is X, where X is the number of scarabs the owner controls and X is applied at the end of the owner's turn. Just to name the known facts.
But if a scarab devours a creature, it gets +1/+1 during the turn the devour takes place (because it's not a counter / mark / whatever stacking on the creature, like poison). So at the end of turn, when X is applied again according to the number of scarabs, the scarab must lose the one point of defense.

Regards, Reefa.

22

Game Suggestions and Feedback / Re: Descriptions in Need of Rewording

« on: April 06, 2010, 09:11:59 am »

After all I trust my eyes, so there was and now is not. Anyway, saying big creatures gaining no extra attacks is a difference to the card text that clearly indicates creatures gaining at least one extra attack "The target creature attacks multiple times per turn."

Regards, Reefa

23

Game Suggestions and Feedback / Re: Descriptions in Need of Rewording

« on: April 06, 2010, 08:33:19 am »

Maybe the adrenaline issue is fixed in the newer version of the game at the trainer.

For mutation one could write "Mutate the target creature to get a random attack, defense and the chance of a new ability. Can kill target creature."

Sure, this shouldn't stand at *every* card (f.e. creatures, because a pest doesn't have a description of burrow and it's fine) but at least on the spells.

Regards, Reefa.

24

Game Suggestions and Feedback / Re: Descriptions in Need of Rewording

« on: April 06, 2010, 06:45:11 am »

I beg your pardon? Target player? You mean I should mention that the nymph enters play under the control of the pillar's owner? Well the description doesn't say that the nymph enters play on the side of Nymph's Tears' user. It says that the pillar changes into a nymph, not that it also changes ownership.

Yes I think one should mention this (and so every little detail ...).

At 20 attack the effect already weakens to the extent that it doesn't affect the target creature at all. My description already tells you that the effect becomes weaker the stronger the target creature is, it just doesn't delve in the specifics of in what way and how much.

Thats not correct, because it affects the target creature. The target creature gains ~2 bonus attacks after all, but does the same damage with them, because the total damage of the creature is split between the attacks. So it is actually weaker against most shields (stronger against a bonewall ...) without becoming stronger (a diamond shield would absorb much more damage). And as posted above, all the specifics should be named. To search in a Wiki for a clear description of a card is a little strange in my eyes.

Regards, Reefa.