Guest posts by the Sage

13

Game Suggestions and Feedback / Re: Changing ultimate spells

« on: August 24, 2010, 10:17:38 pm »

After all, if people don't like this idea, they could always create a card idea that is "drain 499 aether quanta" instead of "drain all aether quanta" so it's no longer an 'ultimate' spell.. which is silly but it just goes to show - rather than trying to make a systematic change, this should just be 2 posts in "Nerf This Card!" and then replies in the card idea section.

Yeah, it may apply more to some ultimate card ideas than others. You could make some drain all, and others drain all of one type. But isn't everyone an OCD-nut who needs to have the same system card for all quanta? I can hardly stand the fact that only  and  have them as is!

14

Card Ideas and Art / Re: Corruption | Corruption

« on: August 24, 2010, 10:08:47 pm »

I don't like the second half of the mechanic (where you become corrupted). The notion of dealing damage as poison for one turn is nice. Rainbows will have ways to abuse this, but they always do.

15

Crucible Archive / Re: Yin yang talisman | Yin yang talisman

« on: August 24, 2010, 10:03:11 pm »

And the different effect depending on target is there too: the light heal will damage death or darkness creatures.
Also nice concept, and I like the balance of making it a neutral (other) card.

Maybe you could make it have one of three effects, depending on your quantum pools (to reflect the notion of balance between yin and yang)

1. Generate 1 and 1 when you have the same size  and  pools
2. Heal yourself for one amount when you have more 
3. Damage the enemy for an amount when you have more 

That way you would have to play cards costing  and  in order to tip the balance from one to the other, and if you find balance, this will grant you power (but using that power will unbalance again). My only worry is card space and description size.

16

Crucible Archive / Re: Yin | Yin (Elite)

« on: August 24, 2010, 09:50:11 pm »

I like the concept of a creature flipping sides like that. Also, damage and healing; cool.

However, the mechanic doesn't work (as is): You turn Yin over to your opponent's Yang on your turn. Your turn ends. It doesn't do damage. Your opponent turns his Yang back over to your Yin on his turn. His turn ends. It doesn't heal you.

I guess what you could do, is make Yin's ability free, whereas Yang caries an (other) cost. That way it makes some more sense in terms of mechanics.

17

Game Suggestions and Feedback / Re: Changing ultimate spells

« on: August 23, 2010, 04:25:53 pm »

This nerf to ultimate spells would make fractal completely unviable. Thus, it wouldn't be an ultimate spell at all. It would be the spell nobody uses. Miracle would be less affected, I think, but I dislike the idea simply because it goes too far with fractal.

Hmmm, I hadn't considered that using fractal would leave you unable to play the creatures you just took into your hand. You're right that that would be overnerfing fractal (even though it could do with some). Can we find a way to make this work?

Wait wait, you're linking to your OWN card idea to show why rainbows need to be nerfed?
Uhhh, sorry, no, that just means your card idea IS A CRAPPY UNBALANCED CARD IDEA.
Sorry, I'm not going to bother making a card that uses 60 of each quanta type and then say "see? rainbows are underpowered, they can't even use that card easily!"

I can see your point about referring to my own ideas, but you're taking it a bit too far. Aside from commenting on your poor forum etiquette, I would like to invite you to provide your first valid argument against Bomb|Doomsday (but please do so in the appropriate thread)

My point here (the validity of which does not rely on the example I used) is that a lot of ideas for ultimate spells would be more interesting/balanced, if it weren't for the fact that rainbows can use them all (on the same turn) with actually lower cost than monos. As I expect we will see more such cards, I used an idea for one as an example.
I used my own idea at the time, because it was while writing that card idea that I came up with this point; realizing that draining all quanta would be better balance for both this card idea and several others. It was therefore the first such idea that came to my mind. The same goes for other drain all ideas:

http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,6613.0.html
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,9282.0.html
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,10236.html
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,4424.html
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,5659.html
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,5669.html
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,5219.html

(Note: though I agree that referring to my own example was sub-optimal, allow me to point out that your hypothetical '60 of each quantum type' is easier for a rainbow than for a non-rainbow)

18

Card Ideas and Art / Re: Best Weapon Idea Contest Entry - Mind Spike

« on: August 23, 2010, 04:17:50 pm »

The cost is still low. Mono dark can build quanta quickly enough to fully deny the opponent. Make it 3 and destroy 1 random for each 10 you own. 1 turn 1 cast of course

I'd make it 1 random for every 10 you own passive (no cast cost). Synergizes well (but not too well) with devourers, and parallels fahrenheit.
At least this makes more denial possible without needing fractal.

19

Card Ideas and Art / Re: Lucifer | Lucifer

« on: August 23, 2010, 04:03:34 pm »

lucifer bering the devil needs fire or take away the horns and make it more of an angel being before he was currupted because he was gods most beautiful angel then he became evil so think about your choice of quanta and oicture

Honestly, I think darkness fits falling from grace much more than fire does.

20

Card Ideas and Art / Re: Giant Theft | Grand Larceny

« on: August 23, 2010, 03:55:30 pm »

Would this target each pillar stack once, or each pillar in the stack?

21

Crucible Archive / Re: Spontaneous Combustion | Spontaneous Combustion

« on: August 23, 2010, 03:50:39 pm »

I like the concept, but what I don't like is that where the unupped is a typical fire card, the upped becomes an OP rainbow card.

i dont think its OP for rainbow deck, lets see why... first, it costs 10    , so rainbow deckers have to wait quite long for that 10 . second, it consumes all  , so rainbow decks cannot use so often .. also, they wont have more than 1-2 copies....

I disagree. Thing is: Fire decks have almost no permanents that aren't pillars, meaning that at double the cost the upgraded does little more damage.
Mono-fires will probably be using the unupped, not the upped.

Rainbows spam permanents left and right: steals, empathic bonds, shards, hourglasses: you name it, they got it. And of course the upped version also counts all the quantum pillars, meaning that you don't need fire at all.
Last: ultimate spells cost rainbow decks LESS, not more than monos! Losing all your  is expensive for a mono-fire, but it's meh for a rainbow, who still has 11 other options open (see discussion here: http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,11363.0.html )
Rainbows often stall, which means they can wait until they get their at some point.

You might make the upped do 1.5 * fire pillars, or 1* all non-quantum pillars.

22

Forge Archive / Re: Altar | Altar

« on: August 23, 2010, 03:28:22 pm »

Why not add a death cultist as well? =D

5
0|3
2  : Abduction.
For this turn only, target altar may sacrifice opponent creatures.

Note: because you need to target the altar, it can't be PA'd
It's powerful, but requires 2 cards and 2 quantum types. Is vulnerable to both CC and PC.

23

Forge Archive / Re: Altar | Altar

« on: August 23, 2010, 03:20:45 pm »

I would say it does activate boneyard, but that sacrificing undead doesn't work. So you cannot sacrifice skeletons, vampires, or mummies. That would make it not stack too much with producing skeletons (since like you said, being able to sacrifice your own creatures is quite something already.

How about it generates  (and hp in the upped version) equal to the quantum cost of the sacrificed creature? Maybe even make it so the sacrificed creature must be non non-neutral?
This makes the sacrifice an actual sacrifice, and leads to much more balanced play (it still allows you to convert all sorts to  ).

24

Crucible Archive / Re: Assassin | Master Assassin

« on: August 23, 2010, 03:02:43 pm »

How about an assassinate ability that works as follows:

When using assassinate, the assassin has an 80% chance to kill target creature, and a 33% chance to die.
Whole different card concept, but it has the feel of chancy dark ops.