[Community Project] Implementing Field Manipulation series into Cygnia

[Espithel]

This should be simple to make in Cygnia. I still have problems understanding how this is problematic in EtG unless the whole code looks like spaghetti.

The whole code looks like spaghetti.

EDIT FOR BELOW: Simple spaghetti is still spaghetti.

[ZephyrPhantom]

Also: creature and permanent order in Cygnia are (at the moment) different than in Elements. So either you need to take this into account when making these cards, or you need to recode the placement. (The order is simply: Start at the top-left corner, fill the field left-to-right, top-to-bottom)

Given that Meteorite is in Advent, we're going to have to address this issue anyway; chances are we'll be doing it the latter way since Cygnia's objective is to stay faithful to EtG.

Re:Double targeting - I can see how it'd be simple or complex but that ultimately depends on the game logic as Fippe said so I'll poke serprex about it.

This should be simple to make in Cygnia. I still have problems understanding how this is problematic in EtG unless the whole code looks like spaghetti.

The whole code looks like spaghetti.

IMHO certain parts of it are actually pretty simple once you figure out their functions, but that's just me.

[OldTrees]

This should be simple to make in Cygnia. I still have problems understanding how this is problematic in EtG unless the whole code looks like spaghetti.

History lesson. Once upon a time, there was a Bug/Exploit in EtG:
Normal: If you clicked a targeted spell, you could click on a target or you could click "cancel".
Exploit: It was possible to click both options before the game prevented the "cancel" option from working.
Thus you could cast Lightning as often as you had the quanta for it.

EtG's solution IIRC: was to shorten this window of opportunity until it was no longer possible to pull off.

Multitargeting is a simplified name for saying: Do not recreate this effect & cancel exploit. Few card designers actually understood the underlying exploit so designers were encouraged to avoid multiple targets in order to avoid recreating the exploit out of ignorance.


Meteorite (deal 3 damage to target and 2 neighbors, deaths leave craters[terrain-unpassable]) being in Advent does calibrate our Field Manipulation set.
Q: But is Meteorite weak enough to be fair to existing creatures compared to existing CC?
Q: Given a theoretical balanced Meteorite(may or may not look like the current Meteorite), how much should a "activated ability to move 1" creature cost?

[ZephyrPhantom]

Q: But is Meteorite weak enough to be fair to existing creatures compared to existing CC?

Assuming Cygnia will gain EtG's placement method, Meteorite will typically be a 4 for 3 damage against decks with few creatures - more aggressive decks should compare it to Rain of Fire instead. Rain of Fire can wipe out 1-23 creatures at 3 HP for 7 | 5 , whereas Meteor can wipe out 1-3 creatures at 3 HP for 4 | 3 - the crater really only affects Fractal decks until we start building in more position-based cards. Is the larger potential in RoF worth 3 more , or is Meteor too efficient?

(Note: Once the mechanic of the card is coded into the game tweaking the card's cost will be a minimal issue.)

Q: Given a theoretical balanced Meteorite(may or may not look like the current Meteorite), how much should a "activated ability to move 1" creature cost?

I presume at least 1-3 (leaning 2-3 , since this is shaping up to be a form of CC protection) but not greater than that per use - the player in question is loosing at least 1 creature in the right context and movement responses from the other player should only minimize card advantage loss, so 4 just to avoid some possible CC in the hypothetical Cygnia meta seems silly.

[OldTrees]

Q: But is Meteorite weak enough to be fair to existing creatures compared to existing CC?

Assuming Cygnia will gain EtG's placement method, Meteorite will typically be a 4 for 3 damage against decks with few creatures - more aggressive decks should compare it to Rain of Fire instead. Rain of Fire can wipe out 1-23 creatures at 3 HP for 7 | 5 , whereas Meteor can wipe out 1-3 creatures at 3 HP for 4 | 3 - the crater really only affects Fractal decks until we start building in more position-based cards. Is the larger potential in RoF worth 3 more , or is Meteor too efficient?

(Note: Once the mechanic of the card is coded into the game tweaking the card's cost will be a minimal issue.)

I was more looking into the effect than the cost/damage ratio (although card economy and quanta economy damage/cost ratios should be examined and tweaked via playtesting).
Meteorite and Flooding being the first of a handful of these cards, we would do well to seriously consider their interaction.

Q: Given a theoretical balanced Meteorite(may or may not look like the current Meteorite), how much should a "activated ability to move 1" creature cost?

I presume at least 1-3 (leaning 2-3 , since this is shaping up to be a form of CC protection) but not greater than that per use - the player in question is loosing at least 1 creature in the right context and movement responses from the other player should only minimize card advantage loss, so 4 just to avoid some possible CC in the hypothetical Cygnia meta seems silly.

I did not understand this. Were you listing both the casting and activation costs for such a creature?(if so I couldn't tell which was which)
Personally I would suggest 1 activation cost for self move 1 and 2-3 activation cost for target creature moves(high cost due to presumed synergy with target). The question then becomes what would the casting costs be?

[ZephyrPhantom]

My apologies for being unclear, I was listing activation only. Aside from scaling up the casting cost to match the vehicle, I'm not certain about those at the moment. Turquoise Nymph implies possibly +0 or +1 to casting cost since this is an anti-CC method that will (in theory) protect against less cards than Turquoise Nymph.

[andretimpa]

EtG's solution IIRC: was to shorten this window of opportunity until it was no longer possible to pull off.

Which is quite sloppy if you consider that you could just add an identification to the effect (queue of effects in case of multitargetting) and deny canceling an effect whose identification is no longer valid (for no longer being pending).

[Espithel]

EtG's solution IIRC: was to shorten this window of opportunity until it was no longer possible to pull off.

Which is quite sloppy if you consider that you could just add an identification to the effect (queue of effects in case of multitargetting) and deny canceling an effect whose identification is no longer valid (for no longer being pending).

Also I'm pretty sure the solution was to drain quanta on activation and not give it back on cancel.
This is interesting, though.

[AD TienzuStorm]

EtG's solution IIRC: was to shorten this window of opportunity until it was no longer possible to pull off.

Which is quite sloppy if you consider that you could just add an identification to the effect (queue of effects in case of multitargetting) and deny canceling an effect whose identification is no longer valid (for no longer being pending).

Also I'm pretty sure the solution was to drain quanta on activation and not give it back on cancel.
This is interesting, though.

Wasn't that to solve a separate exploit where you would quickly click then cancel spells to gain the quanta infinitely?

[OldTrees]

My apologies for being unclear, I was listing activation only. Aside from scaling up the casting cost to match the vehicle, I'm not certain about those at the moment. Turquoise Nymph implies possibly +0 or +1 to casting cost since this is an anti-CC method that will (in theory) protect against less cards than Turquoise Nymph.

You are correct that the casting cost hike would be vehicle dependent. For simplicity sake let us talk about these examples(vehicles choices via instinct)

S1) 4|5  : Move to target adjacent tile.
S2) 2|8  : Move target creature to target adjacent tile
S3) Permanent  : Move target creature to target adjacent tile
S4) Permanent  : Move target creature to target tile within 3.

EtG's solution IIRC: was to shorten this window of opportunity until it was no longer possible to pull off.

Which is quite sloppy if you consider that you could just add an identification to the effect (queue of effects in case of multitargetting) and deny canceling an effect whose identification is no longer valid (for no longer being pending).

Real-time and client-server programming makes that a lot harder. But you are correct that there is a better way(I am not deep enough into those two areas to know if an ID would be sufficient to remove the exploit by itself).

EtG's solution IIRC: was to shorten this window of opportunity until it was no longer possible to pull off.

Which is quite sloppy if you consider that you could just add an identification to the effect (queue of effects in case of multitargetting) and deny canceling an effect whose identification is no longer valid (for no longer being pending).

Also I'm pretty sure the solution was to drain quanta on activation and not give it back on cancel.
This is interesting, though.

Wasn't that to solve a separate exploit where you would quickly click then cancel spells to gain the quanta infinitely?

Drain quanta on activation still turns one use spells into Eternal spells.

I do not recall any increasing quanta exploits.

[andretimpa]

EtG's solution IIRC: was to shorten this window of opportunity until it was no longer possible to pull off.

Which is quite sloppy if you consider that you could just add an identification to the effect (queue of effects in case of multitargetting) and deny canceling an effect whose identification is no longer valid (for no longer being pending).

Also I'm pretty sure the solution was to drain quanta on activation and not give it back on cancel.
This is interesting, though.

Wasn't that to solve a separate exploit where you would quickly click then cancel spells to gain the quanta infinitely?

These sound all like the same bug. Anyway I'm sure serprex is handling this differently in the oetg code (we can cancel and rapid clicking doesn't happen), so that the problem is already inexistent in cygnia.


@OT If we suppose that there is a thread trying to run a method to play the card (cause all of its effects) and another one trying to run a method to cancel (return the card to hand and return the quanta) then the ideal way would be for one thread to lock the object becore it starts running its method so that other threads can't interfere. I'm not sure if that's possible in flash (it is in java and C++) but you can still make something rudimentary defining 2 boolean variables 'playing' and 'canceling' that are set to false when you play the card and get prompted to target. The beggining of the play method could go like

playing=True
if cancelling==True:
   playing=False
   return
<code to play>

and the beggining of the cancel method would be

cancelling=True
if playing==True
   cancelling=False
   return
<code to cancel>

there's still a chance that the threads execute their statements in a way that both enter the ifs. In this case, depending on how the rest is programmed, either the prompt for the user to do something would remain or the card would be wasted (in which case you shouldn't be trying to rapid click)

[OldTrees]

Things slowed down again. Here are some more ideas.


Terrain:Beneficial:High Ground
Terrain:Beneficial:Bunker

Creature Aura:Stat Boosts
Creature Aura:DR
Creature Aura:Adjacent allies increase potency of activated ability

AoE:Radius 1:Damage up to N targets
AoE:Radius 1:Hamper(delay, freeze, burrow, -X Attack, ...)

Creature:Activated ability:Move 1
Permanent: Activated ability:Move target creature 1

That should be a start(let's stick to for now, we can assign elements later even if it is obvious now).


@andretimpa
Seems like you know you know a good way to handle it.