Guest posts by ScaredGirl

25

Card Ideas and Art / Re: Rice Plant | Rice Plant

« on: December 05, 2011, 05:55:24 pm »

A creature called "Rice Plant"?

Why not make it a permanent instead? It would make more sense and this already has 0 attack.

26

Card Ideas and Art / Re: Entropy Construct | Gammatron Construct

« on: December 05, 2011, 05:52:49 pm »

Are you aiming to make them properly balanced in game aswell?

Yes, of course.

Somehow I don't think 9 for a 5 attack creature is very strong. The ability is nice but pretty expensive also. It's HP is a nice bonus but doesn't make up for the high cost, does it? (Gamma Ray + Sparks would own though!)

I made it 9 because original plan was to make Gamma Ray so that it kills the target if the target is already a Monster. This would have fit the theme because too much Gamma Ray is very bad for you. However it would also mean that two Gammatron Constructs could take out one creature per round, one first transforming it to a Monster, and the other to kill it. While Constructs do break down etc. I still haven't decided if it's too powerful or not. It's so close to an instant kill that it definitely has the potential to be too powerful.

27

Forge Archive / Re: Penguin | Emperor Penguin

« on: December 05, 2011, 05:38:42 pm »

I like the simple mechanics a lot, but the theme... I don't know. Penguins? I just don't see a highly non-aggressive creature like that doing high damage. If there were Penguins, I think they should have 0 or 1 attack and an ability that has nothing to do with attack increase.

Being able to build a "Killer Penguins" deck would be funny at first but could also feel really lame. IT would feel like I kiddie game. I mean it's just one step away from having a 10|5 Fluffy Bunny or 12|3 Cute Panda.

But yea.. the mechanics are pretty cool.

28

Card Ideas and Art / Re: Entropy Construct | Gammatron Construct

« on: December 05, 2011, 05:29:21 pm »

oh no, please dont take scientific ques from the incredible hulk! stan lee is awesome but was just pulling it all out of his *hat*

It's not supposed to be actual science. Most people know Hulk is not real.

This series will have a kind of a retro/robot/60's science fiction feel, so I will probably be using some cliches of a "killer robot" or superheroes taken from comics, movies, etc.

29

Card Ideas and Art / Entropy Construct | Gammatron Construct

« on: December 05, 2011, 05:14:53 pm »

NAME: Entropy Construct ELEMENT: Entropy COST: 9 TYPE: Creature ATK|HP: 5 | 20 TEXT: : Gamma Ray Target creature transforms into a Monster. Lasts 1 turn. Passive: Construct	NAME: Gammatron Construct ELEMENT: Entropy COST: 9 TYPE: Creature ATK|HP: 6 | 20 TEXT: : Gamma Ray Target creature transforms into a Monster. Lasts 1 turn. Passive: Construct

ART: Scaredgirl (Royalty-free images + Photoshop) IDEA: Scaredgirl NOTES: This is the first card in my 13-card series called Constructs. Warning: the whole concept is still very much under development, so some numbers might not make much sense and the whole card could have some serious balance issues. Constructs Nobody knows who originally built Constructs or why their were built. There are theories that Constructs were built by some ancient civilization to protect their cities from outside invaders. Recently an expedition led by Earth Elementals discovered a secret armory deep beneath Earth's surface. This armory had millions of hibernating Constructs, which surprisingly after thousands of years, were still functioning. But being offline for so long, seems to have done some serious damage to the systems of the Constructs, although some argue that they were poorly designed in the first place, which is why that advanced ancient civilization was wiped out by attackers. Some even say that it was the Constructs that turned against their creators and ultimately led to their doom. Be as it may, Constructs are a powerful force on the battlefield, as long as they don't malfunction and attack their owner! Each card in the series will share a passive ability Construct. Each turn, Constructs have a 50% chance of something bad happening: 50% Nothing bad happens. 10% Construct overheats and does not attack during next turn. 10% Construct malfunctions and cannot use its ability during next turn. 10% Construct gets confused and will attack its owner during next turn. 10% Construct runs out of battery and must be recharged (card goes back to your hand). 10% Construct malfunctions and takes 10 damage. Ability: Gamma Ray Basic idea to this ability was taken from The Hulk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulk_(comics)), although there are some differences. Gamma Ray can be used to temporarily transform a creature into a Monster. Monsters are basically stronger versions of the host creature, but without any abilities. After 1 turn, the creature transforms back to original like nothing happened. When a creature becomes Monster, it gains +6|+6 but loses all abilities. When the creature transforms back to original, all abilities it had are reinstated and it suffers -6|-6. Gamma Ray can be used both in offense and in defense. You can use it to buff your own creatures, or you can use it to temporarily get rid of some annoying ability that one of your opponents creatures have, although it if do the latter, the trade-off is of course buffing the stats of that creature. Special: If you use Gamma Ray on a creature that is already a Monster, that creature is killed. In practice this means that two Entropy Constructs can take out one creature during one round, provided neither of them malfunctions. While in Monster form, the whole visuals of the creature will change into something like this: Related Card: Repair Droids Repair Droids are the 13th card belonging to this set. They do not have the Construct passive ability and their only purpose is to repair overheating and malfunctioning Constructs. Repair Droids can be used to decrease the effect of malfunctions, but Constructs can be used without them as well. Repair Droids will get their own dedicated topic later. SERIES: Constructs

30

Competitions / Re: Competition: Holiday Fun Redux!

« on: December 05, 2011, 02:06:41 pm »

If there are no prizes involved (reward icon), then rules can of course be much more flexible in terms of how many cards people can submit or what the cards are about. If fact, we could almost forget the rules altogether and see what craziness people come up with. I personally am not a big fan of those kinds of competitions but maybe others like the freedom.

My personal philosophy is that even though a competition is about fun, that does not mean we should automatically throw out the rules. Having no rules does not equal fun and creativity, and vice versa. For some people, like myself, the fun part comes from being able to cope with the restrictions and still produce something fun. That is what real creativity is all about.

It's like comparing deckbuilding competitions where one has specific rules and restrictions, while the other has none. Latter is not that fun or creative because you can submit whatever and there's no real "point" in building those decks. Instead of having a deckbuilding competition called "Build a Deck", there should be a specific theme, and all submissions should follow that theme.
 

I really should have made one card that was "12 Days of Christmas" but that wouldn't have been as cool. :/

Of course. I think we can all agree that the idea was cool and fit perfectly because of the 12 elements. However the point is that if the rule part "one submission" means only one card like it usually does, then submitting multiple cards should not be possible under any circumstances. In other words, even though you have a cool idea, you still need to follow the rules like everyone else. That's only fair, right?

But like I said earlier, if there are no rewards, then the competition is more about the whole process, not really who wins and who loses. In a situation like that, bending the rules is not a big deal, but I think the first post should be edited a bit to make sure that everyone knows what the deal is.


I think that in the future, we need to make a more clear distinction between..

A) "serious" competitions
B) fun competitions with clear rules
C) fun competitions where anything goes

31

War Archive / Re: War #4 - Feedback

« on: December 05, 2011, 01:49:26 pm »

Substituting like this (or the popular "strategic substitution") is a perfect example of having a good set of rules that the teams then choose to exploit, forcing us to change that good set of rules into something that will most likely be worse. Kind of like we had to do with War Auction roles because of the shady backroom deals that some Generals made.

Substitutions were added to help teams finish their matches if one or more players are inactive. Substitutions were not supposed to be about influencing your Vault totals or getting past the fact that a player is missing some cards. Actions like that are the definition of exploiting because it is using the rules for something they were not meant to be used.

For War 5 we definitely need new substitution rules.

32

Forum News and Announcements / Re: Apply for a job: Brawlmaster (2)

« on: December 04, 2011, 10:04:21 pm »

Thank you everyone who applied. I will pass on the applications to the Council who will pick the 2 Brawlmasters. Once the decision has been made, it will be announced in this topic.

33

Pre-Smithy Ideas / Re: Constructs are Coming!

« on: December 04, 2011, 07:59:09 pm »

I am not sure about the construct mechanic...
I just don't like percentage based skills, it makes the game feels more dependent on luck than it should

I mean, all card games are dependent on luck to some extinct, but EtG has been one of the few CCG I can find that doesn't depend too much on luck, more percentage-based skills doesn't seem to be what the game needs...

maybe have it like a pendulum, one turn on, one turn off?

While that effect is simpler (I suggested something similar early on), it's also a lot less unpredictable and fun for design purposes, IMO. Realistically, these massive machines full of program bugs and defects aren't going to have a problem as simple as "Delay 1 turn, attack the next."

Yep. I agree that percentage based skills is something that should be avoided if possible, but sometimes they are pretty much unavoidable because of the theme. The whole point of these constructs is that they might break down. They are like that crappy car that makes all kinds of weird noises, and every time you drive the highway, you pray that it won't break down. Without any randomness, the whole idea of Constructs would be just very different and pretty lame imo.

Also SG, where are you getting these robots from? They'd be awesome for any machine-type idea.

(If you made them yourself, then my hat's off to you.)

They were not drawn by me. It's a combination of two images: robot and the background, both with some extra stuff added to them and finally ran through a couple of Photoshop filters to produce that "illustration" look. Here's a before/after image of the same method in action.



Final result quality is heavily based on the source material quality, and the biggest challenge is of course to find royalty-free images you can manipulate freely.

I will later post more robot images for public use, which will be available here (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,34339.0.html), but not before I get my own set of 13 out of the way first, so that people don't "steal" and ninja post the look I'm going for with these constructs.

34

Pre-Smithy Ideas / Re: Robots are coming!

« on: December 04, 2011, 06:08:59 pm »

I made some changes to the master plan.

CONSTRUCT PASSIVE ABILITY:
50% Construct works 100%
10% Construct overheats and does not attack during next turn.
10% Construct malfunctions and cannot use its ability during next turn.
10% Construct gets confused and will attack its owner during next turn.
10% Construct runs out of battery and must be recharged (card goes back to your hand).
10% Construct suffers a serious malfunction and takes 10 damage.


First of all, I think that there should be a 50% chance of something bad happening because I like the 50/50 thing. I think that there should be 4-5 possible bad things, each with the same chance of happening. I chose 5 and 10% for now.

I tried to make the effects as simple as possible. I changed the "switch sides" to "attacks owner". I changed the destruction thing to taking damage. The amount of damage taken will probably match with the HP that the Constructs will have. This way it will destroy the Construct IF you have not buffed it.

I also don't like the sole destruction mechanic, so I came up with this: 'Construct is destroyed and generates Scraps.' Scraps could be a permanent that is useless, or does something minor.

I like the scraps thing a lot. It would open some very interesting possibilities BUT I think it would also make things way too complex. This whole construct thing is already complicated, and adding Scrap mechanic, might take it over the edge.

As for the Repair Droid, I had this idea: 'Repair: Lower the chance for Constructs to become defective each turn. Turn all Scraps into a random Construct.' The chance for all defects would be lowered by 1%, and the chance for no defect would then be raised by 5%.

Here's the first draft of Repair Droids that I made.

Repair Droids. Special cards whose only purpose is to repair broken down Constructs.


This "Lower the chance for Constructs to become defective each turn" could me a mechanic that upped Repair Droids did (rename it to Improvement Droids), but I fear it could once again make things too complex. I don't think there should be any nerfed Constructive passive abilities. Only way it could work is if those Droids removed the passive ability altogether. But even that, like I said, would probably make things too complex, I don't know..

I agree that a random effect could be intresting. How about the following:

Construct / Fixer

At the start of each turn, every creature is checked for the active "Fixer". A variable stores the number of creatures with "Fixer" in play.
At the start of each turn, every creature is checked for the passive "Construct": if the creature is a construct then a random number between 00 and 99 is generated, plus another number for every "Fixer" in play. The highest number is kept. Then, this sound effect is played (http://www.pacdv.com/sounds/mechanical_sound_effects/spring_3.wav) (it's free to use) and an effect is cast upon the construct, depending on the number:

00 - 04: the construct stops working an falls into pieces. It is destroyed.
05 - 09: the construct's systems stop working. It is lobotomized.
10 - 19: the construct's battery runs dry: it is frozen for 3 turns (frozen creatures' passives do not work, so there won't be any additional damage).
20 - 34: the construct's power core has a short circuit. It takes 5 damages.
35 - 49: the construct overheats. It takes 3 damages.
50 - 89: nothing happens.
90 - 94: the construct repairs itself. He is healed by 5 hp.
95 - 99: the construct regains part of its lost efficiency. It gains a variable +1/+5 to both attack and hp.



This system is re-using parts of the game to reproduce effects in as clean and simple a way as possible. Also, I think the "Fixer" thing is pretty nice and balanced this way.

EDIT: some notes on balancing. Constructs should have (also thematically) high hps, somewhere between 6 and 10. That way there is a pretty small chance that they will die after only one attack, but it will be pretty sure they won't stick around for more than 7-8 attacks without help. Which is plenty in the current metagame. I therefore think the passive is worth a -1 cost reduction, and no more than that.

I don't know.. it definitely makes sense, but once again, it's pretty complex imo. Too many effects and percentages change too much for my liking. But I'll have to think about it some more.

The sound effect thing is a pretty cool touch. I'll have to remember to add sound effects for flavor to each card topic when I start posting them.

35

Competitions / Re: Competition: Holiday Fun Redux!

« on: December 04, 2011, 04:43:00 pm »

Interesting concept but even though this is a fun competition, submissions are usually limited to one card idea (plus maybe in certain cases a secondary card generated by the first card). The rules talk about "one submission", which doesn't specifically say anything about the maximum amount of cards, but we've always had the "one card per submission, one submission per person" rule.

The problem with posting multiple cards is of course the fact that you might get unfair advantage because some people prefer sets over individual cards because they are "bigger". Adding those 12 card images would also clutter the voting post.

Tip for everyone: If you are participating in a competition and your submission idea is somehow different or outside-the-box, it's a good idea to get a confirmation from the organizer that you are in fact allowed to submit that idea. This could save you a lot of time. Competition rules do not always specifically mention all the possible scenarios, which is why when doing something different, you should make sure there are no unwritten rules that you are not aware of.

36

Card Ideas and Art / Re: Trace | Trace

« on: December 04, 2011, 04:20:23 pm »

I'm going to spitball some opinions and ideas without thinking it too much.

- Overall I like the idea. It's simple and opens up many possibilities.
- Theme is a bit ambiguous but it works pretty well I think
- Art fits very nicely so no need to request new one imo
- card does something that is so close to copying that could be a better option for element
- I think that you should be able to target ANY creature, not just enemy ones. I like the idea of playing one expensive creature and then tracing that to pay for the rest
- Main issue: unupped and upped are way too different. Upped version should be just slighty better/different, not completely different, and definitely not much worse in some cases.

The way I see it, we have two cards here. First one is and second one is . I would dump the upped version and go with the unupped mechanics, making card cost the only difference between the two. As an card, it would have some fun synergy with cards like Mindgate and Fractal, as long as it could be made not too OP. already has Nova so I think this should go to some other element.

But yea, definitely an interesting idea.