Post by: Fayceless on May 01, 2012, 03:55:15 am
I feel the mechanic of Reverse Time has a negative impact on gameplay. The only truly effective counter is to have a means of drawing extra cards: bravery or hourglass, mainly. Mechanics like these, with such limited counters, are a big reason why rainbow/nova decks are so popular, and the more interesting possibilities in decks are sidelined in favor of quirky strategies and super-rushes. There's nothing wrong with quirky strategies, that's part of the fun of Elements, but certain mechanics, like Reverse Time, can limit players' creativity in creating new decks.
The problem lies in the stall mechanics. By placing a card on top of the deck, players can endlessly stall themselves or their opponents. Both of these are detrimental to the game. It sidesteps the possibility of decking out, and can create an impossible situation for decks that cannot draw more cards. On top of that, the AI is practically unaffected by this, as they draw extra cards, plus it's even harder to counter their RT's, as a deck with 3x time and a protected Eternity can stall you forever.
My suggestion is this: change the mechanic. Instead of returning a creature to the top of the deck, I believe we can make Reverse Time a more balanced and more interesting mechanic. Rather than remove the creature, I suggest that the game return the target creature to it's original state. This prevents the stall (annoying and broken...both by players and AI) while still maintaining much of the card's functionality and purpose. Another alternative would be to put the card in the player's hand...but by adding certain exceptions I think even that can be avoided.
The following targets could be slightly different:
-Shard of Focus becomes a Black Hole
-A mutated/improved creature becomes the regular version of that creature.
-Skeletons still become random creatures.
-Possibly able to target invulnerable creatures - may or may not remove invulnerability. (probably not needed - but may be a compromise for losing stall functionality)
-Ash becomes a Phoenix?
Not sure what would be done with combination creatures(chimera, shard golem), but I feel that Reverse Time is one mechanic that is really limiting the game today. It is most certainly NOT okay the way it is, not if you want the kind of deck variety and creative thinking that this game is really capable of. I really don't get how this card slides by while much less potent cards and mechanics get people riled up. What do you guys think?
Post by: omegareaper7 on May 01, 2012, 04:07:59 am
This is not entirely accurate. Reverse time doesn't allow you to infinitely do anything, eternity does. And there is a very fine way around a protected eternity. It is also a two card combo. I'll let others address that for now.
The problem lies in the stall mechanics. By placing a card on top of the deck, players can endlessly stall themselves or their opponents. Both of these are detrimental to the game. It sidesteps the possibility of decking out, and can create an impossible situation for decks that cannot draw more cards. On top of that, the AI is practically unaffected by this, as they draw extra cards, plus it's even harder to counter their RT's, as a deck with 3x time and a protected Eternity can stall you forever.
As for the proposed nerf. That pretty much removes any usefulness it might see. What about decks that don't buff creatures? Shall it do nothing against a good portion of decks and be super situational like purify was?
Post by: AP579 on May 01, 2012, 04:15:07 am
Post by: Fayceless on May 01, 2012, 04:23:31 am
This is not entirely accurate. Reverse time doesn't allow you to infinitely do anything, eternity does. And there is a very fine way around a protected eternity. It is also a two card combo. I'll let others address that for now.
The problem lies in the stall mechanics. By placing a card on top of the deck, players can endlessly stall themselves or their opponents. Both of these are detrimental to the game. It sidesteps the possibility of decking out, and can create an impossible situation for decks that cannot draw more cards. On top of that, the AI is practically unaffected by this, as they draw extra cards, plus it's even harder to counter their RT's, as a deck with 3x time and a protected Eternity can stall you forever.
As for the proposed nerf. That pretty much removes any usefulness it might see. What about decks that don't buff creatures? Shall it do nothing against a good portion of decks and be super situational like purify was?
I don't think it's that situational. Many, many creatures change themselves or others, and my proposal would still allow for reversals on your own creatures - removing antimatter or gravity pull, freeze, or other negatives. It would be a nice counter to CC - counters that this game is rather lacking in. In any case, a cost increase would be more than welcome, in my opinion.
@AP579 - Slipped my mind, thanks! Added an "other" option.
Post by: omegareaper7 on May 01, 2012, 04:25:35 am
Post by: Fayceless on May 01, 2012, 04:33:14 am
And what about the decks that don't use creatures that change? Such as a lot of more current immo rushes or quite a number of speedbows, or the many mono/duo decks around?
I can still be used as an inefficient heal, if nothing else. Not every card can, or should, fit every situation. Nightmare can suck against quantum-heavy rainbows. Freeze is useless against many mono-aethers(even if those decks are awful, lol). Shields even become worthless against powerful momentum creatures.
But my main point is, something has to be done. The mechanic is bad for the game in it's current state. Perphaps the more simple solution of return a creature to the player's hand (or deck IF hand is full) would be best. But I'm trying to suggest something a bit more interesting, maybe not perfect, but interesting.
Post by: omegareaper7 on May 01, 2012, 04:39:14 am
Post by: Fayceless on May 01, 2012, 04:51:52 am
No one is going to pay 3 time just to heal a creature. Only use it would see is to negate buffs on opponents or debuffs on self. It would see marginal use at best. And not to mention, as is, i hardly ever see either of these two in decks. Only two decks come to mind with this, I gotp time, and ghostmare.
Negating buffs, debuffs, or changes...it has always seemed to me that's really the point of Reverse Time. It's taken on a whole other functionality, though, one which I wholly disapprove of. I don't like what it brings to the game at all. Like I said, mechanics like these are just bad for the game.
Post by: Naesala on May 01, 2012, 09:13:50 am
Zanz says no intant kill (ignoring HP) without a substantial reason:Maxwells demon requires Atk>Hp which high hp generally dont have and shockwave+freeze is a somewhat UP harder to pull of 2 card combo. This is instant death and in exchange you add 1 copy of card to deck. But, very rarely will you use every copy of a card in you deck anyways (OTK decks perhaps, but RT doesnt matter for an OTK)
Whats more, you dont gain any and all quanta/cards invested in said creature. One could argue reversing time would return all cards used on said creature to mind as well. The card makes HP meaningless and buffing a pointless endeavor. As the OP said, there is a major prevalence of cheap rush decks and fewer decks for building up giants, one reason being reverse tme doesnt affect them as much because little is invested in each card.
And you lose a turn to draw something vital.
And Eternity lets this be used on repeat, PAing it is not that hard to do, animate weapon lets you use multiple a turn
And you can use it to stall better
And its cheap (eternity is more expensive, but still fairly cheap)
And if you arent playing a deck giving tons of excess quanta (duo, trio, quartet) you refunded card is likely a dead card.
It is my most hated card(s) in the game. Assuming trials marks remain as is, this will most definately be my hated card. I've used it and fought against it and I despise it. Creature control, draw denial, quanta wasted, spells wasted all for 2 :time ? No way.
Post by: Jenkar on May 01, 2012, 12:06:41 pm
Post by: Captain Scibra on May 01, 2012, 12:19:07 pm
Post by: omegareaper7 on May 01, 2012, 01:17:18 pm
So because you don't like it, it should be nerfed?
Negating buffs, debuffs, or changes...it has always seemed to me that's really the point of Reverse Time. It's taken on a whole other functionality, though, one which I wholly disapprove of. I don't like what it brings to the game at all. Like I said, mechanics like these are just bad for the game.
Post by: freemod1espilon on May 01, 2012, 08:11:16 pm
Post by: Fayceless on May 01, 2012, 09:26:51 pm
Voted no nerf for this card. While this card is strong, it's not op, imo.
It's not so much the card itself, but the mechanic(taking Eternity into account as well). There are too many element combos and deck builds that can be completely locked out by this mechanic. I think this game needs less of that. Hard counters are boring and frustrating. This game needs to move away from them.
Post by: Laxadarap on May 01, 2012, 09:50:08 pm
Post by: Captain Scibra on May 03, 2012, 12:24:37 am
Ok, what strategy does this destroy? A deck full of forest spectres/golems? Both of these are very weak originally and any cc could take them. I would even say that congeal is worse. Same quanta, and creature is out for 4 turns, while with RT you could have it back next turn. As to the draw locking: Just don't replay the card, you'll draw more, then play multiple creatures at once. It is also not extremlely rampant in decks. I can think of a grabby deck, dune scorps, and ghostmare. (Many speedbows pack precogs for smaller decks, and many fattybows use hourglass. Even in novabows it's never an eternity, and you can only fit like 2 of them inside, plus novabow's use lots of grabbies, which conflict with the time quanta) Let me know if I'm wrong, but a card that is only prevalent in 3 types of decks (one of which is almost broken, even without RT) is not OP.
RT has 3 strengths: Undoing all that has been done to a creature, cause the player to repay for the creature, and to deny the player's draw of the should-be-next card. Seems like a lot to me, especially when these tend to fold.
I like the go back 2 turns idea If it undoes 2 turns and it's only been out for 1 turn that makes it go back to the hand or the deck?
I might go with the latter, so that Enternity loops are still possible.
Post by: Picheleiro on May 03, 2012, 11:37:53 am
Hard counters are boring and frustrating. This game needs to move away from them.
This game have insane rush decks, I mean, insane. If you soft the control cards without do anything with the rest of the cards, you are simply killing control option of the game.
Post by: bogtro on May 05, 2012, 03:12:17 am
Lightning: 2 :aether/1 :aether to, most typically, remove a creature from field. Can remove own creatures from field.
Lightning is more powerful against a low-HP creature, non-buff deck. Does well against monos/duos in general.
Reverse Time is more powerful against a high-HP creature, buff deck, or non-removal CC (Antimatter, Freeze, BB, etc.) Does better against rainbows in general.
In the 3 categories of creature removal, replacement cost, and debuff removal,
Lightning: Permanently removes creature if HP<=5, accounts for the majority of creatures. Requires opponent to pay X quanta+1 card for replacement. Can remove debuffs on own creatures permanently.
Reverse Time: Removes creature for a certain number of turns, requires opponent to pay X quanta for replacement. Own creatures with debuffs return to original state for X quanta+1 draw
Lightning and Reverse Time are more useful in varying situations, are roughly the same value.
Therefore, Reverse Time can be balanced around Lightning.
No nerf necessary.
Post by: microman362 on May 05, 2012, 09:50:00 am
Post by: Alchemist on May 05, 2012, 09:57:38 am
Post by: ARTHANASIOS on May 10, 2012, 01:50:39 pm
Post by: Aneninen on May 10, 2012, 05:33:00 pm
In some cases - especially multiple Rewinds - it can ruin your whole tactic but, in some cases it has no real use. Mostly, it hinders the opponent but not permanently since the card can be replayed. Okay, it's cheap but it can be used only once. (Eternity is a multiple version but it's expensive and there are so many ways to get rid of a weapon...)
Post by: Laxadarap on May 10, 2012, 06:16:36 pm
Post by: neuroleptics on May 10, 2012, 06:52:18 pm
Post by: mesaprotector on May 10, 2012, 07:37:50 pm
Just compare it to, oh, Silence. Would anyone really argue it's a weaker card? Draw denial and creature control is definitely too much for its cheap cost. Rage Potion is another card that has a dual purpose, and it's definitely not UP despite costing 3 :fire . If RT put the creature in your hand but not your deck, 1 :time would be a fair cost, since it would be like Lightning - situationally very good, sometimes useless. Atm it's definitely OP.
Post by: neuroleptics on May 10, 2012, 07:41:12 pm
Just a simple cost increase is needed imo - 3 :time / 2 :time should be enough.
Just compare it to, oh, Silence. Would anyone really argue it's a weaker card? Draw denial and creature control is definitely too much for its cheap cost. Rage Potion is another card that has a dual purpose, and it's definitely not UP despite costing 3 :fire . If RT put the creature in your hand but not your deck, 1 :time would be a fair cost, since it would be like Lightning - situationally very good, sometimes useless. Atm it's definitely OP.
Haha, that's a better option.
Post by: Dart on May 10, 2012, 08:01:57 pm
The reversed creature can be played the next turn in most cases.
And for the whole taking up a draw argument, it did also take a turn for the player to draw the rewind. So pretty much you both lose a draw.
Post by: ARTHANASIOS on May 10, 2012, 08:15:16 pm
I think it is strong but not op.You say it takes a turn to draw Reverse Time/Rewind. True, but this happens with every single card type, so I don't think it is a "-" for Reverse Time. And what about Eternity? This weapon always stays there and rewinds everything every turn just for 3 :time, it can be used to prevent a player from drawing new cards and either protecting him/her from a deck-out or preventing him/her from playing any creature, which is a 'game over' for too many types of decks.
The reversed creature can be played the next turn in most cases.
And for the whole taking up a draw argument, it did also take a turn for the player to draw the rewind. So pretty much you both lose a draw.
Post by: Aneninen on May 10, 2012, 09:48:29 pm
...And what about Eternity? [...]rewinds everything every turn just for 3 :time, it can be used to prevent a player from drawing new cards and either protecting him/her from a deck-out or preventing him/her from playing any creature, which is a 'game over' for too many types of decks.
Neither is true. First of all, there are plenty of cards which can provide you the possibility of drawing multiple cards. Second, whil'st a single Rewind can't be countered, an Eternity can be exploded, pulverized, stolen and 3 :time per turn for using it is not cheap (especially since :time needs for more purposes in most decks which contains Eternity/ies) If nothing works, you can still hold the rewinded creatures back and play them in the same turn...
Of course, an Eternity can shut down a Flying Weapon deck - but every deck has at least one counter, ain't they?
Post by: omegareaper7 on May 11, 2012, 01:33:27 am
I have done my fair share of playing with it reverse time. More often then not, it is really not much worse then lightning. Eternity may be an issue, 3 per turn is a lot, but very doable with right quanta balance, but unless its flying, its not to huge of an issue.
would add more, but realized i was about to go on a slight rant about eternity when its a reverse time thread.....
Post by: neuroleptics on May 11, 2012, 02:00:05 am
Post by: Aneninen on May 11, 2012, 09:54:41 am
One should notice the difference between
(1) a card is overpowered and
(2) a card counters one's deck.
Eg. Plague seriously ruins a RayOfLight/Fractal/Hope deck. (Multiple) Antimatter is a pain for a Crusader/Vampire Dagger deck. However, Antimatter has a little to no effect on the first deck and Plague has a small impact over the latter one.
Reverse Time can indeed shut down certain decks but against many other decks it has almost no use. It is not overpowered.
"Feelings" about cards doesn't really count too. I personally hate Ghostmare decks because they're boring and I don't like the concept of that combo at all. Still, Sanctuary counters Ghostmare decks and beside that there are many ways to beat it. (Eg. sap away quanta fast, or hold back a few playable cards as you notice that the opponent collects :time / :darkness quanta...)
(/Semi-off)
Post by: ARTHANASIOS on May 11, 2012, 11:00:40 am
Uses of reverse time:
* Against Mutation, it makes the mutated creature to be sent back to the owner's hand and the owner will be possibly unable to play it.
* Against powerful expensive creatures (dragons).
* It completely ruins Chimera.
* Ruining the buff of a buffed creature.
* You can even save a poisoned/damaged/antimattered creature of yours and play it again unharmed.
* Draw denial (already mentioned).
* Preventing deckout (already mentioned).
I think both Reverse Time/Rewind and Eternity must become 1 :time quantum more expensive.
Post by: Aneninen on May 11, 2012, 11:52:11 am
...There aren't any cards which allow you to draw more cards, except for :time cards and the neutral SoBravery...
Upgraded Sundial doesn't need :time
Mindgate and Shard of Serendipity also give you additional cards, even if they're not from your deck, used well both of them are powerful.
For the others:
A single Reverse Time can get rid of one mutant, and a Mutation Deck (most probably) has many. For Eternity: one mutant with steal or destroy and bye-bye!
Decks including powerful expensive creatures usually have a large amount of pillars, sometimes backed with other quantum generators. Reverse time doesn't solve anything in most cases.
Chimera: my experiences shows that in the moment I can see the opponent's Chimera I'm dead lololol
Buffed creatures: in most cases it only slows the things down. Eg. Rewind my Forest Spectre at 8|9, fine - I'll grow it up again. Rewind a Blessed/Momentumed/etc. creature - most probably there will be more Blessing/Momentum/etc. in that deck...
Save your own poisoned/etc. creature - that's true but you had to waste the card for that instead of using it for any of the above ^_^
Draw denial - I simply don't replay the rewinded card instantly. Or multiple cards with Hourglass/Mindgate/etc. Or I can even provoke the AIs Rewinds by re-playing a cheap creature over and over. (Saved my a** many times.)
Preventing deckout - with Reverse Times alone? You can win 6 turns tops... An Eternity does the trick but that needs 3 :time per turn and the opponent can still Steal/Destroy it unless you protect it.
I still think, Reverse Time is a pain for a Flying Weapon deck but, in most cases it doesn't ruin a deck alone. For example, mutating every opponent creature and rewind them afterwards can indeed counter many decks, but foth this combo you need Mutation or Elf/Druid and it's complex to perform...
Post by: Alchemist on May 12, 2012, 12:53:04 pm
There are much more counters to RT than negative RT effects. In most annoying strategies like Gostmare, RT is actually a support spell. On the other hand, EQ has 2 :earth cost, and kills up to 3 pillars. Silence - 2 :aether , BH - 3 :gravity, Nightmare - 1 :darkness !! and all those cards have only 1 counter - Sanctuary. Which btw, usually requires a PA as well, so you need 2 cards to counter 1 card and more than 1 quantum type. If 2 :earth is enough for EQ, than 1 :time is more than enough for Rewind. If we lower effects of RT, things like Chimera lose their best counter in game. I guess that every strategy needs a counter-strategy. Besides, main reason I hate to put Eternity in any rainbow is that it has high cost and cast cost already, so making it cost more would make it usable only for mono :time decks and that way it would be underplayed.
Post by: ARTHANASIOS on May 12, 2012, 01:55:52 pm
Is RT really that strong?
There are much more counters to RT than negative RT effects. In most annoying strategies like Gostmare, RT is actually a support spell. On the other hand, EQ has 2 :earth cost, and kills up to 3 pillars. Silence - 2 :aether , BH - 3 :gravity, Nightmare - 1 :darkness !! and all those cards have only 1 counter - Sanctuary. Which btw, usually requires a PA as well, so you need 2 cards to counter 1 card and more than 1 quantum type. If 2 :earth is enough for EQ, than 1 :time is more than enough for Rewind. If we lower effects of RT, things like Chimera lose their best counter in game. I guess that every strategy needs a counter-strategy. Besides, main reason I hate to put Eternity in any rainbow is that it has high cost and cast cost already, so making it cost more would make it usable only for mono :time decks and that way it would be underplayed.
Very good points, however Eternity has a soo badly needed effect (preventing your own deckout) whick makes it a must-have in many decks. Anyway, I still think that Reverse Time should either cost 1 :time more or returning the creature in your hand (not the top of your deck). Earthquake, Silence, Basilisk Blood etc. are not as drastic and versatile as Reverse Time IMO, and Chimera costs 6 or 7 :gravity and it is not used often, so it won't hurt to increase its counter cost by 1.
Post by: Aneninen on May 12, 2012, 02:37:13 pm
Very good points, however Eternity has a soo badly needed effect (preventing your own deckout) whick makes it a must-have in many decks. Anyway, I still think that Reverse Time should either cost 1 :time more or returning the creature in your hand (not the top of your deck).
Sorry, still disagree. First of all, preventing deckout is not "so badly needed" in my opinion. My experience: even using a slim deck deckout rarely occurs compared to other things which lead to a loss.
In my opinion, returning a creature not on the top of the opponent's deck makes Rewind even stronger. You don't only lose a creature but also no idea when will it ever get back...
Most cards mentioned by Alchemist are more powerful than Rewind, but they're also situational or "evadable" without their direct counter (Sanctuary). Silence - in most cases only hurts in early game and if played many of them -- Black Hole - no real use against a Mono/Duo deck (unless backed with a Discord) -- Earthquake - Protected Pillars or multiple Pillar/Pendulum sets, plus ineffective against eg. an Immolation deck, not too effective in mid/late game -- Nightmare - even with Ghosts can be "fooled" more or less if you have 1-2 card which you hold back in your hand... Plus, don't forget: all of these cards produce one effect. For multiple effects you need multiple cards. Same goes for Reverse Time in all aspects.
Post by: ARTHANASIOS on May 12, 2012, 02:57:13 pm
preventing deckout is not "so badly needed" in my opinion. My experience: even using a slim deck deckout rarely occurs compared to other things which lead to a loss.
In my opinion, returning a creature not on the top of the opponent's deck makes Rewind even stronger. You don't only lose a creature but also no idea when will it ever get back...
Preventing deckout is needed when you face a fat deck with lots of hitpoints and if both opponents cannot harm each other (both have continous healing or hope decks) and it is also a must in a deck full of card-drawing effects (Golden Hourglass etc.). I have lost countless times due to deckout when facing, for example, Half-Bloods or Gold-league decks. Deckout Preventing is IMO a powerful mechanic and it is widely abused by Eternity users. And something else, I haven't said to put the creature in a random place in your deck, I suggested to be returned on your hand (with that way it would be used only as CC and not as draw-denial), which also appears as the third option of the poll.
Post by: Alchemist on May 13, 2012, 12:12:20 am
+1 cost seems much more reasonable since returning card in players hand instead of top of his deck doesn't prevent deckout.[/spoiler]Is RT really that strong?
There are much more counters to RT than negative RT effects. In most annoying strategies like Gostmare, RT is actually a support spell. On the other hand, EQ has 2 :earth cost, and kills up to 3 pillars. Silence - 2 :aether , BH - 3 :gravity, Nightmare - 1 :darkness !! and all those cards have only 1 counter - Sanctuary. Which btw, usually requires a PA as well, so you need 2 cards to counter 1 card and more than 1 quantum type. If 2 :earth is enough for EQ, than 1 :time is more than enough for Rewind. If we lower effects of RT, things like Chimera lose their best counter in game. I guess that every strategy needs a counter-strategy. Besides, main reason I hate to put Eternity in any rainbow is that it has high cost and cast cost already, so making it cost more would make it usable only for mono :time decks and that way it would be underplayed.
Very good points, however Eternity has a soo badly needed effect (preventing your own deckout) whick makes it a must-have in many decks. Anyway, I still think that Reverse Time should either cost 1 :time more or returning the creature in your hand (not the top of your deck). Earthquake, Silence, Basilisk Blood etc. are not as drastic and versatile as Reverse Time IMO, and Chimera costs 6 or 7 :gravity and it is not used often, so it won't hurt to increase its counter cost by 1.
Post by: AquaticImpalement on May 13, 2012, 05:18:09 am
While it can be used mindlessly, Reverse time can be used with strategy. Just because a card sometimes isn't, doesn't mean it can't.
I do, however, think that a cost increase would at the very least not be a negative thing. 3 cost for reverse time, 4 if it's from eternity.
Just, getting my thoughts out there!
Post by: Alchemist on May 13, 2012, 01:42:41 pm
4 if it's from eternity.You are aware that Poseidon has 2 :earth cost for Tsunami (EQ), and Pulverizer has 2 :gravity cost Destroy, Shard of Focus has 0 cost on destroy, and RT on Eternity needs a cost of 4? So for 3 :water and 4 :earth you get to destroy 6 pillars, and for 5 :time + 4 :time I get the honor to rewind one of your creatures? And Poseidon, SoF, even Pulvy fit nicely in any rainbow deck, while you're lucky if you manage to bring Eternity into game and cast RT once with most of the rainbows. You're basicaly saying "only mono or duo time decks should be able to play Eternity"
Post by: Picheleiro on May 14, 2012, 08:15:16 am
You're basicaly saying "only mono or duo time decks should be able to play Eternity"
In fact, Eternity can only be played properly in mono/duo decks already.
Post by: omegareaper7 on May 14, 2012, 01:46:06 pm
Not true, can be played in immo rushes and rainbows just fine as well.You're basicaly saying "only mono or duo time decks should be able to play Eternity"
In fact, Eternity can only be played properly in mono/duo decks already.
Post by: bogtro on May 14, 2012, 10:17:45 pm
Post by: omegareaper7 on May 14, 2012, 10:29:13 pm
Trolling or stupid?Who?
Post by: OldTrees on May 14, 2012, 11:08:28 pm
Lightning
- Removes a creature with 5hp or less (vast majority)
- Delay a creature for 6 turns (could be the rest of the game)
- Cost the opponent a draw
- Delays the creature until the casting cost is repaid (could be as little as 0 turns or forever)
1 valuable creature control vs 1 draw denial + 1 worthless creature control
If the creature is replayed then RT acts like Basilisk Blood. In this case the delay from the RT is usually very short.
Delay valuable creature 6 turns vs 1 draw denial + delay valuable creature 1 turn +quanta drain equal to casting cost.
Now I have not mentioned things like removing buffs. Frankly these high tier CC cards don't have much respect for buffs in the first place. Buffs don't matter when dead or delayed 6 turns. Why would they matter when RT'd?
Edit: I meant to but forgot to put the quanta drain in the 2nd orange equation.
Post by: Chapuz on May 14, 2012, 11:20:46 pm
Have you ever posted a non-wise post?Reverse Time is currently placed on par with the other 2 Kings of CC (Lightning and Basilisk Blood). This may or may not be accurate but lets look at the situation.
LightningBasalisk Blood
- Removes a creature with 5hp or less (vast majority)
Reverse Time
- Delay a creature for 6 turns (could be the rest of the game)
If the creature is never replayed then RT acts like Lightning. However the target must be worthless otherwise it would eventually be replayed. So this comparison is best summed up as:
- Cost the opponent a draw
- Delays the creature until the casting cost is repaid (could be as little as 0 turns or forever)
1 valuable creature control vs 1 draw denial + 1 worthless creature control
If the creature is replayed then RT acts like Basilisk Blood. In this case the delay from the RT is usually very short.
Delay valuable creature 6 turns vs 1 draw denial + delay valuable creature 1 turn.
Now I have not mentioned things like removing buffs. Frankly these high tier CC cards don't have much respect for buffs in the first place. Buffs don't matter when dead or delayed 6 turns. Why would they matter when RT'd?
Post by: Naesala on May 14, 2012, 11:30:30 pm
Now I have not mentioned things like removing buffs. Frankly these high tier CC cards don't have much respect for buffs in the first place. Buffs don't matter when dead or delayed 6 turns. Why would they matter when RT'd?if you are using buff cards, you likely have a non rush deck, probably a stall or big deck. In such a case, 6 turns likely can be waited out. Additionally, many buff cards give more HP, so they prevent the creature from becoming dead. You also ignored the quanta cost having to be repaid to resummon the creature. Add in we have no multiuse lightning card, and the multiuse BB card is a very rare nymph. multiuse RT, eternity, is a regular rare weapon.
I still stand by my opinion that this is an automatic kill of a creature ignoring HP, buffs, and anything else in exchange for an extra copy of the card when you likely had extras anyways.
Post by: OldTrees on May 14, 2012, 11:43:53 pm
Yes. However I try to learn from each of my posts.
Snipe is similar to multiuse lightning.Now I have not mentioned things like removing buffs. Frankly these high tier CC cards don't have much respect for buffs in the first place. Buffs don't matter when dead or delayed 6 turns. Why would they matter when RT'd?if you are using buff cards, you likely have a non rush deck, probably a stall or big deck. In such a case, 6 turns likely can be waited out. Additionally, many buff cards give more HP, so they prevent the creature from becoming dead. You also ignored the quanta cost having to be repaid to resummon the creature. Add in we have no multiuse lightning card, and the multiuse BB card is a very rare nymph. multiuse RT, eternity, is a regular rare weapon.
I still stand by my opinion that this is an automatic kill of a creature ignoring HP, buffs, and anything else in exchange for an extra copy of the card when you likely had extras anyways.
Rarity is irrelevant.
Thanks for catching the typo about casting cost.
Buffs are used in Stall decks? I would have though it to fit the fast but fragile rush theme. Aka Chaos Ball Lightning or Adrenal Frogs.
Why would you have extras of a card? Multiple copies usually have the quanta available for each. Any additions are extras but the deck does not bring extras.
Your opinion is accurate but balance is relative not objective. Hence I use comparisons. Thanks for helping make the comparisons more accurate.
Post by: ARTHANASIOS on May 15, 2012, 10:47:26 am
About Reverse Time, buff and nerf effects matter in this case because RT can remove all positive or negative effects from a target by returning the creature to the top of the owner's deck. That includes Basilisk Blood, Freeze, Poison, Blessing, Chaos Power, SoP's buff, Butterfly effect, etc. You can also use RT to 'refresh' your Shard of Focus or your Armagio. And we shouldn't forget the pretty nasty combo of Mutation + Rewind...
Anyway, I think RT does a lot of different things pretty well for a pretty low price. A +1 :time to the cost is a very good balance IMO.
As for Lightning, it is effective only against creatures with 5 or less hp and it needs combos in order to slain creatures with 6 or more hp. Rewind is effective against every non-Immortal creature.
Post by: omegareaper7 on May 15, 2012, 12:53:16 pm
^ Rarity in definitely not irrelevant. If it is, then why are we tremendously happy if we get a new Nymph from the Oracle? ]Rarity is irrelevant when balancing cards. I'm pretty sure thats what OldTrees meant.
Post by: OldTrees on May 15, 2012, 10:37:22 pm
^ Rarity in definitely not irrelevant. If it is, then why are we tremendously happy if we get a new Nymph from the Oracle? Why we farm Arena in order to get upped/unupped Shards or Rare Weapons? And if rarity is irrelevant, then why rare cards are usually much stronger than the common cards?Let me clarify:
Rare cards are under additional design restrictions.
1) Rare cards are meant to be more balanced than common cards. Imbalance causes more harm if the source is rare.
2) Rare cards are less frequent than common cards. Thus they are designed to be useful in low or high quantities. This leads to more powerful and more expensive cards (Nymphs and Weapons).
Quote
About Reverse Time, buff and nerf effects matter in this case because RT can remove all positive or negative effects from a target by returning the creature to the top of the owner's deck. That includes Basilisk Blood, Freeze, Poison, Blessing, Chaos Power, SoP's buff, Butterfly effect, etc. You can also use RT to 'refresh' your Shard of Focus or your Armagio. And we shouldn't forget the pretty nasty combo of Mutation + Rewind...Reverse Time, Basilisk Blood and Lightning can all neutralize positive effects on the target creature.
Anyway, I think RT does a lot of different things pretty well for a pretty low price. A +1 :time to the cost is a very good balance IMO.
As for Lightning, it is effective only against creatures with 5 or less hp and it needs combos in order to slain creatures with 6 or more hp. Rewind is effective against every non-Immortal creature.
If the creature in question has more than 5hp then it is likely going to be replayed. In this case the Basilisk Blood is the appropriate comparison.
Post by: Fayceless on May 15, 2012, 11:17:56 pm
The CC can be considered balanced, sure, but it's the added stall component that makes it OP. Simply placing the card back in the hand first, deck second (if hand is full) makes RT much more balanced overall. Ghostmare wouldn't be affected much. (more in arena because AI is dumb with card play order - knowing the AI it'd play RT first then nightmare ::)) And self-stalls would still be possible, just more difficult to pull off. (this would be a good thing!)
As it stands, RT simply does too much. It just needs to be toned down a bit. What it does to a creature is okay. What it does to a deck at the same time, is where the problem lies.
Another possible suggestion: Delay creature 1 turn, then return to hand. Loses no CC functionality(in some cases it's better), loses the stall (usually)
Post by: Naesala on May 16, 2012, 01:49:17 am
Another possible suggestion: Delay creature 1 turn, then return to hand. Loses no CC functionality(in some cases it's better), loses the stall (usually)
I really like this, great idea
Post by: Atico on May 18, 2012, 08:06:15 am
Is RT really that strong?
There are much more counters to RT than negative RT effects. In most annoying strategies like Gostmare, RT is actually a support spell. On the other hand, EQ has 2 :earth cost, and kills up to 3 pillars. Silence - 2 :aether , BH - 3 :gravity, Nightmare - 1 :darkness !! and all those cards have only 1 counter - Sanctuary. Which btw, usually requires a PA as well, so you need 2 cards to counter 1 card and more than 1 quantum type. If 2 :earth is enough for EQ, than 1 :time is more than enough for Rewind. If we lower effects of RT, things like Chimera lose their best counter in game. I guess that every strategy needs a counter-strategy. Besides, main reason I hate to put Eternity in any rainbow is that it has high cost and cast cost already, so making it cost more would make it usable only for mono :time decks and that way it would be underplayed.
This is the best post here. I also don't understand why a lot of Players want to nerf RT and they are quiet when we talk about QS, BH, Nightmare, Lighting etc.
RT is very powerful card, but ALL spells which destroy opponent field are very powerful. A lot of this cards laugh at Sanctuary, especially SoF (turned into BH) or Pests with Steal. Not RT is unbalanced, but game mechanism is unbalanced. When card which cost 1 :aether can destroy Dragon for 12 quantum then someting goes wrong. We allowed to create duos like Discord+BH, QS+BH, Pests + QS etc and we didn't give mechanism to defend against it. Talking about ReverseTime should be a discuss about all game mechanism. Why we produce a lot of cards for 1-3 quantum which can be used on opponent? Touching opponent creatures, permaments, quantum should be difficult. For me CC should be from shields, weapons - not from spells which cost 1-3. Destroying pillars from Trident - it is ok. From QS = OP. Destroying permaments from Pulvy - it is ok. From Explosion, Steal = OP.
Post by: Picheleiro on May 18, 2012, 08:41:16 am
And again: We have very fast and strong rush and permanents out there. A upped frog deals 5 points of damage for 2 :life and a Lava golem or a Forest Spirit can become impossible to deal with if you dont kill them fast. Pulvy, the air bow and SoF can shut you down if you dont have tools to destroy them. The spells named -except EQ maybe, but I have some personal with it-. aren´t real problems. Kill one use spells will be a bad idea.
Post by: OldTrees on May 18, 2012, 04:02:53 pm
Talking about ReverseTime should be a discuss about all game mechanism. Why we produce a lot of cards for 1-3 quantum which can be used on opponent? Touching opponent creatures, permaments, quantum should be difficult. For me CC should be from shields, weapons - not from spells which cost 1-3. Destroying pillars from Trident - it is ok. From QS = OP. Destroying permaments from Pulvy - it is ok. From Explosion, Steal = OP.Lava Golem is 1 card that can win a game given enough quanta.
Owl's Eye is slower, can deal with Lava Golem and can still win a game given enough quanta.
Lightning can deal with Lava Golem but cannot win a game.
Costs are based off value
Lava Golem: Value of LG win condition
Owl's Eye: Value of OE win condition + Value of Snipe CC
Lightning: Value of Lightning CC
In a 1v1 between 6 Lava Golems and 6 Lightnings, neither player would win but Lava Golem would be further towards victory (100hp vs 70hp). Hence the value of LG win condition is greater than the value of Lightning CC. Value is paid with a cost. Lava Golem must cost more than Lightning.
Post by: Atico on May 19, 2012, 03:03:50 pm
Your counting is wrong. When I destroy Golem or Dragon I gain +N HP, where N is attack destroyed creature. So when I destroy Dragon 10|5 then Lighting give me 10HP per turn. It is 2x more than SoG which cost 3 and it is easy to destroy/steal. It is incredibly unbalanced.
But... I don't believe that can be ever changed.
Post by: Picheleiro on May 19, 2012, 03:24:33 pm
I don't understand this logic. Pawn in chess can't destroy Queen so easy. It is really bad that we allowed on this in Elements.
Your counting is wrong. When I destroy Golem or Dragon I gain +N HP, where N is attack destroyed creature. So when I destroy Dragon 10|5 then Lighting give me 10HP per turn. It is 2x more than SoG which cost 3 and it is easy to destroy/steal. It is incredibly unbalanced.
But... I don't believe that can be ever changed.
(http://i.imgur.com/73R1c.jpg)
Post by: Atico on May 19, 2012, 05:53:52 pm
Your post will make this game better...
Post by: OldTrees on May 19, 2012, 06:40:30 pm
I don't understand this logic. Pawn in chess can't destroy Queen so easy. It is really bad that we allowed on this in Elements.Comparing 1 Lighting to 1 Lava Golem:
Your counting is wrong. When I destroy Golem or Dragon I gain +N HP, where N is attack destroyed creature. So when I destroy Dragon 10|5 then Lighting give me 10HP per turn. It is 2x more than SoG which cost 3 and it is easy to destroy/steal. It is incredibly unbalanced.
But... I don't believe that can be ever changed.
Lightning does not heal. It prevents further damage.
Lava Golem does 5 damage + 5 damage per turn not removed + growth if not removed
Lightning can either deal 5 damage or remove Lava Golem
If Lightning deals 5 damage then Lava Golem will deal a minimum of 10 damage. (5<10)
If Lightning removes Lava Golem then it does 0 damage to the Lava Golem's 5. (0<5)
Since 5<10 and 0<5, Lightning should cost less than Lava Golem.
1 Lightning does not completely negate 1 Lava Golem. Therefore it must be cheaper. (Aka a Knight taking a Queen after the Queen took 2 Rooks)
Post by: Picheleiro on May 19, 2012, 06:41:17 pm
A creature like a Dragon 10/5 "gives you +10Hp/turn" of advantage. It has Airbone and 5Hp too but that it´s more to combo and defense capacities. And that´s all normally. It´s a very simple card, even more alone. Straight.
A card like Lighting is more complicate.
Alone, Lighting do 5 damage to a player. Only one turn. So it is not a real choice to win the game by the normal way. Even in groups. Horned frog cost only one more and do Lighting damage every turn. But Lighting can be use to damage a creature too. In the best case you get rid off it, and gain quantum advantage or in very special cases, card advantage. But there cases where you dont kill the creature, you just low its Hp. And that is very expensive at the cost of one card and one quantum.
I can kill 6 Lava Golem with a Lightning Storm, but the card it isn´t OP because it´s not insured. I cant follow your thoughts well, sorry.
Post by: Atico on May 19, 2012, 07:48:36 pm
When Lighting destroy creature like Dragon 10|5 I "gain" 10 HP per turn because opponent didn't put damage for me. It isn't heal, but it gives me 10 HP more in next turn. SoG gives me only 3 (5) HP, it is easy to destroy, have advantage only when creature's HP >5 and cost 3x more.
CC/PC from spells are too powerful. It is too easy in this game to hit opponent's cards and too difficult to prevent this. How can I prevent my creature against Lighting, Rewind or BB? Only by Quint for... 3 (!) :aether, so 3x more than all those cards cost.
So not Rewind is OP, but all cards like Lighting, Rewind, BB, also BlackHole, Quicksand (QS especially) etc...
Post by: Picheleiro on May 19, 2012, 08:06:10 pm
SoG doesnt need creatures without quint, burrow, low Hp etc, etc. In fact only needs that you dont be with full HP, so works fine against all but OTK and deckout decks. And even if the opponent has creatures, and that creatures can attack this doesnt mean those creatures needs to deal more than 5 points of damage per turn.
I dont think RT is OP, but Im not 100% sure. But Im sure Lighting isn´t OP. That is ridiculous.
Post by: Atico on May 19, 2012, 08:44:46 pm
I want to open Your eyes and show few things which aren't balanced here.
How we can change it? I have no good idea (except making Marks better, which I wrote in other topic) but something should be done. Situation when cards like Lighting, Rewind, BB, QS etc. can be used in a lot of games with succesfull is bad.
Post by: Laxadarap on May 19, 2012, 09:03:00 pm
SoG needs deck without PC. Lighting needs creature wiithout Quint. Which situation is often in game?
I want to open Your eyes and show few things which aren't balanced here.
How we can change it? I have no good idea (except making Marks better, which I wrote in other topic) but something should be done. Situation when cards like Lighting, Rewind, BB, QS etc. can be used in 95% games with succesfull is bad.
I kind of get your reasoning, but completely disagree. Say you pack 6 lightnings, your opponent has to have 6 creatures with under 5 defense. Almost all decks have more than that. You are sacrificing a space in your deck to take out a creature. If their other creatures are stronger than the little you can stuff in your deck, then it means that they will win. Take grabbies. They do 2 damage a turn burrowed. Say that you draw 6 lightning and I draw 6 grabbies, in those 6 turns, you could do 30 damage to my health vs. their 42 damage, not even counting the fact that you can unborrow them for the extra 6 damage on the final turn, or an additionaly 24 onto that 42. That is basically game. You say that it denies damage and thus consitutes as healing, it can only "grant" so much healing, and generally on weaker creatures. Using lightning to "grant you healing", you also forsake a damage card, meaning that You "give" them healing too. Lightning is completely balanced, and your argument is basically invalid, mostly because lightning takes up a card space.
EDIT: This is also not the place to talk about lightning, however since your calling for a nerf (or ban?) on all CC spells, I used lightning as an example
Post by: OldTrees on May 19, 2012, 09:39:02 pm
Why You compare Dragon (creatures) with counters like Lighting? It is stupid, all we know that I need attack to win. When You want compare counters/defend, lets compare Lighting with SoG.Preventing damage and healing damage are different. Please be specific/accurate with your language.
When Lighting destroy creature like Dragon 10|5 I "gain" 10 HP per turn because opponent didn't put damage for me. It isn't heal, but it gives me 10 HP more in next turn. SoG gives me only 3 (5) HP, it is easy to destroy, have advantage only when creature's HP >5 and cost 3x more.
CC/PC from spells are too powerful. It is too easy in this game to hit opponent's cards and too difficult to prevent this. How can I prevent my creature against Lighting, Rewind or BB? Only by Quint for... 3 (!) :aether, so 3x more than all those cards cost.
So not Rewind is OP, but all cards like Lighting, Rewind, BB, also BlackHole, Quicksand (QS especially) etc...
Why do I make the comparision between Win Conditions (Lava Golem), Counters (Lightning) and Cards that are both Win Conditions and Counters (Owl's Eye)?
1) To highlight the Fact that Win Conditions are more valuable than Answers and thus must cost more than Answers.
2) To explain the difference in cost between Lightning and Owl's Eye
I want to compare Win Conditions with Counters because that was the topic we were discussing.
If you want to discuss various forms of Counters (Lightning, Shard of Gratitude, etc) that is a different matter and can be discussed. However you should note that all Counters (including SoG) need to be cheaper than the Win conditions they counter unless they have additional benefits (like Owl's Eye).
PS: Where did you get the idea that SoG costs ~3x as much as Lightning? Even in the extreme case of using the upgraded costs and ignoring the upgrade cost AND ignoring the card cost, it is only 3 :rainbow vs 1 :aether. 3 :rainbow << 3 :aether.
Post by: Atico on May 19, 2012, 11:04:10 pm
Destroying opponent cards should be difficult. Today it is easier to destroy opponent's creature than heal Yourself...
Post by: OldTrees on May 19, 2012, 11:16:37 pm
Talking like "I have 6 creatures, You have 6 Lighting" is stupid... All we know that deck with 6 SoG, 6 CC, 6 PC, 12 Towers can't win. If we want to talk seriously we should see how it looks when Player1 has got 6 creatures and Player2 has got 4 the same creatures + 2 Lighting. Who win this match? In most games winner will be Player2 and he will do it with using less quantum than opponent. And this is fact. And this is bad situation (in my opinion).Let us assume for a moment that Lightning and Lava Golem were of equal value (aka equal cost). We can test a deck of Pillars + 6 Lava Golems vs a deck of 4 Lava Golem + 2 Lightnings. We would quickly observe that the deck with the 2 5 :aether+1card cost Lightnings would lose more often. If Lightning and Lava Golem were of equal value then both of these decks should have roughly equal chances if both cards had equal costs. Obviously this hypothetical test proves that Lightning would be UP relative to Lava Golem IF it cost the same as Lava Golem. Therefore Lightning must cost less than Lava Golem.
Destroying opponent cards should be difficult.
Conclusion: Lightning would be UP if it cost the same as Lava Golem therefore it must cost less than Lava Golem.
Quote
Today it is easier destroy opponent's creature than heal Yourself...Shard of Gratitude costs about the same as Lightning. One works better against behemoths the other against swarms.
Post by: Laxadarap on May 20, 2012, 12:26:04 am
Talking like "I have 6 creatures, You have 6 Lighting" is stupid... All we know that deck with 6 SoG, 6 CC, 6 PC, 12 Towers can't win. If we want to talk seriously we should see how it looks when Player1 has got 6 creatures and Player2 has got 4 the same creatures + 2 Lighting. Who win this match? In most games winner will be Player2 and he will do it with using less quantum than opponent. And this is fact.
Destroying opponent cards should be difficult. Today it is easier to destroy opponent's creature than heal Yourself...
How do you get this math? Its wrong. 4 creatures +4 creatures is equal. However, when you waste 2 lighhtning, you are sacrificing potential damage. When you enemy plays a creature, they get the initial damage as well, and that means that the person with the lightnings will be at a disadvantage. Take for example ruby dragons. 6 ruby dragons is 90 damage, if they all die on first turn. With your 4 rubies and a lightning, it is 60 + 10?. In no world does it make sense that player 2 would win. I'm sorry, but you really don't have a legitamate argument, I can' help but think your trolling. This also only applies as long as the creature has 5 or less hp. If its 6 abyss crawlers vs 4 crawlers + lightning, then it means that the person keeps an extra crawler than you, 5>4. (simple math).
Post by: Atico on May 20, 2012, 10:53:16 am
Problem is bigger when I have something like QS. Then You can never (or it is very difficult) put next big creature.
Why people think that Rewind is too powerful? Because it can hit all creatures and You lose one draw. They don't know that Lighting or BB effect is the same powerful as Rewind.
But... People like this. People like destroying. They don't like tactic, strategy. Only fast hit, big damage for opponent and win.
It is funny when I see that they want to nerf SoW, which gives +4/0 (because then can't do what they like - destroy it without shield), but they didn't see problem with 0/-5 card ;) It is funny when it is easier to destroy opponent creature than protect Yourself.
I understand Your opinions. But please try understand also me. CC, PC are very powerful, not all elements has got it. People didn't play the most Fire or Darkness only because they like red or black colour. They didn't play Rainbows only because they didn't know which elements choose. All we know how strength is PC and CC. Why people didn't use Shockwave as often as Lighting? Because it is huge difference between -4 and -5 attack. Why RoF is popular card but Thunderstorm no? It shows which cards are too powerful (maybe not OP as one card, but OP with duo/trio/rainbows - especially QS).
Post by: ARTHANASIOS on May 20, 2012, 11:38:58 am
Post by: memimemi on May 20, 2012, 11:51:34 am
Guys, no offense, but this is Reverse Time/Rewind thread and I feel you've gone out of topic and you discuss about CC and PC in general but you don't even mention RT anymore. So, please, return back to RT discussion...
^^^ This. Awesome discussion, especially appreciate OldTrees' points on cost/benefit of win conditions vs. counters. Is there another thread to link to?
Topic:
Not sure if it's a nerf for RT, or a buff to Voodoo Doll and Reflecting/Emerald Shield, but why not just make RT vulnerable to those effects? Say, if it's reflected/Voodooed, your weapon (Eternity nerf, ahoy!) is returned to your hand, or you have to skip a turn?
Post by: OldTrees on May 20, 2012, 01:33:26 pm
@another threadGuys, no offense, but this is Reverse Time/Rewind thread and I feel you've gone out of topic and you discuss about CC and PC in general but you don't even mention RT anymore. So, please, return back to RT discussion...
^^^ This. Awesome discussion, especially appreciate OldTrees' points on cost/benefit of win conditions vs. counters. Is there another thread to link to?
Topic:
Not sure if it's a nerf for RT, or a buff to Voodoo Doll and Reflecting/Emerald Shield, but why not just make RT vulnerable to those effects? Say, if it's reflected/Voodooed, your weapon (Eternity nerf, ahoy!) is returned to your hand, or you have to skip a turn?
No. This is a point Atico continues to raise on CC threads (because it is relevant). I have tried to persuade him that he is being too harsh on CC (obviously not convincingly yet). The summary of the argument is:
Atico: CC is too cheap / easy. It should be harder.
OT: CC is less valuable than Win Conditions and must cost less than Win Conditions.
Obviously either or both of us could be correct.
@your suggestion
RT rewinding a weapon when targeting VD would be a buff to VD + RT. (It might be a good idea but would not be a nerf.)
RT does not target the opponent and thus would not be reflected.
Post by: Atico on May 20, 2012, 02:22:40 pm
In my opinion people see how OP these spells are only in Rewind, because they think that they must pay twice for the same card. They didn't see that Lighting/BB didn't give any chance to survive for 80-90% creatures. It is psychological thing probably, because Player didn't see that it is much better to have rewinded creature than destroyed (of course sometimes Rewind is annyoying, for example with Nightmare in Arena).
So Rewind in compare with Lighting, BB, QS etc. is balanced.
But (in my opinion) all spells which destroy opponent creatures/permaments/pillars/quantum and cost 1-3 are too powerful. Rewind shows You that it isn't fair when You put big creature and opponent can easily rewind it. Especially Dragons should survive all CC which are used once.
Post by: OldTrees on May 20, 2012, 03:52:31 pm
We discuss about CC in overall because when we compare RT with other spells for 1 :quantum then this card is balanced. But I admit that mechanism of all cards like Lighting, BB, Rewind is OP.Please start using 2 :time|1 :time for the cost rather than 1 :time. It is imprecise to say the upgraded rewind costs 1 :time+1card when it costs 1 :time+1card+1upgrade. Hence using the unupped cost is usually more precise.
Post by: ARTHANASIOS on May 20, 2012, 04:51:55 pm
We discuss about CC in overall because when we compare RT with other spells for 1 :quantum then this card is balanced. But I admit that mechanism of all cards like Lighting, BB, Rewind is OP.
In my opinion people see how OP these spells are only in Rewind, because they think that they must pay twice for the same card. They didn't see that Lighting/BB didn't give any chance to survive for 80-90% creatures. It is psychological thing probably, because Player didn't see that it is much better to have rewinded creature than destroyed (of course sometimes Rewind is annyoying, for example with Nightmare in Arena).
So Rewind in compare with Lighting, BB, QS etc. is balanced.
But (in my opinion) all spells which destroy opponent creatures/permaments/pillars/quantum and cost 1-3 are too powerful. Rewind shows You that it isn't fair when You put big creature and opponent can easily rewind it. Especially Dragons should survive all CC which are used once.
We must also see how effective the card is in its element (mono-deck) and how cheap is to fit into any element (rainbow-deck). Lighning is really good for a rainbow deck (5 damage CC for 2 :aether|1 :aether) but it is not a really great card in mono- :aether decks (cards like Twin Universe or Dimensional Shield work better there IMO). On the other hand, Reverse Time is cheap enough to fit into a rainbow easily (though it is not the most preferred rainbow CC card) but it also rules in mono- :time or in duo- :time decks. Since Time has so many card-drawing effects, it can easily use RT both as a CC/draw-denial card and a "healing" card for an allied creature which is heavily damaged, poisoned etc. I personally view RT as powerful as Silence, so I think RT should have Silence's cost.
Post by: OldTrees on May 20, 2012, 05:09:41 pm
I personally view RT as powerful as Silence, so I think RT should have Silence's cost.Silence 3 :aether|2 :aether + 1 card
Lightning 2 :aether|1 :aether + 1 card
Reverse Time 2 :time|1 :time + 1 card
Edit: I had the unupped cost wrong.
Post by: furballdn on May 20, 2012, 06:06:46 pm
Post by: Laxadarap on May 20, 2012, 06:42:58 pm
Yours arguments are good only in situation, when I can put all cards on field in one time. In normal game You put 1st creature, I kill it and put my 1st creature. You need probably few turns to put next creature (1-3 turns) and it is time when I have advantage. You put next creature and I kill it/use Rewind/use BB etc and put my 2nd creature. In first part of game I have 1-2 creatures more than You. It is big advantage. So please don't say that Lighting gives 5 damage for HP Status. It is only very situational skill. Lighting kills creatures - it is the main skill. When Lighting will hit only HP status then You will be right.
Problem is bigger when I have something like QS. Then You can never (or it is very difficult) put next big creature.
Why people think that Rewind is too powerful? Because it can hit all creatures and You lose one draw. They don't know that Lighting or BB effect is the same powerful as Rewind.
But... People like this. People like destroying. They don't like tactic, strategy. Only fast hit, big damage for opponent and win.
It is funny when I see that they want to nerf SoW, which gives +4/0 (because then can't do what they like - destroy it without shield), but they didn't see problem with 0/-5 card ;) It is funny when it is easier to destroy opponent creature than protect Yourself.
I understand Your opinions. But please try understand also me. CC, PC are very powerful, not all elements has got it. People didn't play the most Fire or Darkness only because they like red or black colour. They didn't play Rainbows only because they didn't know which elements choose. All we know how strength is PC and CC. Why people didn't use Shockwave as often as Lighting? Because it is huge difference between -4 and -5 attack. Why RoF is popular card but Thunderstorm no? It shows which cards are too powerful (maybe not OP as one card, but OP with duo/trio/rainbows - especially QS).
You still have a huge whole in your logic. LIGHTNING TAKES UP A CARD SPACE, PROBABLY A CREATURE SPACE. You say that I play a card and it gets lightninged, and you play your creature. IF YOU DRAW A LIGHTNING, YOU ARE NOT DRAWING A CREATURE. It takes up the space. So we would still be even, except I have allready done more damage to you. If you are saying that it takes a lot of time to play the creature again, so you have time to draw one of yous, generally cheap creatures are the ones with the lower hp. The "balance formua" for deciding cost gives an extra cost if the defense is over 5 (presumably for lightning/RP) so theoretically, cheap creatures have low hp, and its not hard to play one the next turn.
Post by: ARTHANASIOS on May 20, 2012, 08:31:32 pm
I personally view RT as powerful as Silence, so I think RT should have Silence's cost.Silence 3 :aether|2 :aether + 1 card
Lightning 2 :aether|1 :aether + 1 card
Reverse Time 3 :time|1 :time + 1 card
When I write RT I also refet to Rewind, which is cheaper than upped Silence, so I think it must costs 2 :time instead of 1 :time. Also, Reverse Time (unupped) costs 2 :time and not 3 :time. I think Reverse Time/Rewind should cost 3 :time|2 :time and I would consider it balanced, nothing more nothing less. I also think Eternity should cost 7 :time|6 :time and not 6 :time|5 :time (too cheap in my opinion, after all it can infinitely prevent deckout, which is a lost condition).
Post by: mega plini on May 20, 2012, 09:25:26 pm
Anyone else notice that RT has become a lot less common after the speedbow nerf?Actualy I did.
And why would anyone want to compare RT to Silence?! That doen't make any sense at all!
Post by: OldTrees on May 20, 2012, 09:45:41 pm
Thanks for the correction. I don't know why I had the unupped cost wrong. (yet another reminder to double check everything)I personally view RT as powerful as Silence, so I think RT should have Silence's cost.Silence 3 :aether|2 :aether + 1 card
Lightning 2 :aether|1 :aether + 1 card
Reverse Time 3 :time|1 :time + 1 card
When I write RT I also refet to Rewind, which is cheaper than upped Silence, so I think it must costs 2 :time instead of 1 :time. Also, Reverse Time (unupped) costs 2 :time and not 3 :time. I think Reverse Time/Rewind should cost 3 :time|2 :time and I would consider it balanced, nothing more nothing less. I also think Eternity should cost 7 :time|6 :time and not 6 :time|5 :time (too cheap in my opinion, after all it can infinitely prevent deckout, which is a lost condition).
Post by: Atico on May 27, 2012, 06:16:12 pm
At start You have 7 cards in hand, to put big creature You need next 3-4 turns (=10 cards in hand/field). It is highly probable that You will have 2 creatures in hand and I will have 1 creature + 1 Lighting/BB/Rewind/etc. So I can easy destroy Your creature and put my own dragon in the same turn.Yours arguments are good only in situation, when I can put all cards on field in one time. In normal game You put 1st creature, I kill it and put my 1st creature. You need probably few turns to put next creature (1-3 turns) and it is time when I have advantage. You put next creature and I kill it/use Rewind/use BB etc and put my 2nd creature. In first part of game I have 1-2 creatures more than You. It is big advantage. So please don't say that Lighting gives 5 damage for HP Status. It is only very situational skill. Lighting kills creatures - it is the main skill. When Lighting will hit only HP status then You will be right.
Problem is bigger when I have something like QS. Then You can never (or it is very difficult) put next big creature.
Why people think that Rewind is too powerful? Because it can hit all creatures and You lose one draw. They don't know that Lighting or BB effect is the same powerful as Rewind.
But... People like this. People like destroying. They don't like tactic, strategy. Only fast hit, big damage for opponent and win.
It is funny when I see that they want to nerf SoW, which gives +4/0 (because then can't do what they like - destroy it without shield), but they didn't see problem with 0/-5 card ;) It is funny when it is easier to destroy opponent creature than protect Yourself.
I understand Your opinions. But please try understand also me. CC, PC are very powerful, not all elements has got it. People didn't play the most Fire or Darkness only because they like red or black colour. They didn't play Rainbows only because they didn't know which elements choose. All we know how strength is PC and CC. Why people didn't use Shockwave as often as Lighting? Because it is huge difference between -4 and -5 attack. Why RoF is popular card but Thunderstorm no? It shows which cards are too powerful (maybe not OP as one card, but OP with duo/trio/rainbows - especially QS).
You still have a huge whole in your logic. LIGHTNING TAKES UP A CARD SPACE, PROBABLY A CREATURE SPACE. You say that I play a card and it gets lightninged, and you play your creature. IF YOU DRAW A LIGHTNING, YOU ARE NOT DRAWING A CREATURE. It takes up the space. So we would still be even, except I have allready done more damage to you. If you are saying that it takes a lot of time to play the creature again, so you have time to draw one of yous, generally cheap creatures are the ones with the lower hp. The "balance formua" for deciding cost gives an extra cost if the defense is over 5 (presumably for lightning/RP) so theoretically, cheap creatures have low hp, and its not hard to play one the next turn.
Of course all depends on lucky and draw.
Post by: OldTrees on May 27, 2012, 06:58:54 pm
This is only true if removal costs significantly less than the creature removed (Crimson Dragon). This would be false if the removal cost only slightly less than the creature removed (Lava Golem). It would be demonstrably UP if the removal cost the same as the creature removed(5 :aether).At start You have 7 cards in hand, to put big creature You need next 3-4 turns (=10 cards in hand/field). It is highly probable that You will have 2 creatures in hand and I will have 1 creature + 1 Lighting/BB/Rewind/etc. So I can easy destroy Your creature and put my own dragon in the same turn.Yours arguments are good only in situation, when I can put all cards on field in one time. In normal game You put 1st creature, I kill it and put my 1st creature. You need probably few turns to put next creature (1-3 turns) and it is time when I have advantage. You put next creature and I kill it/use Rewind/use BB etc and put my 2nd creature. In first part of game I have 1-2 creatures more than You. It is big advantage. So please don't say that Lighting gives 5 damage for HP Status. It is only very situational skill. Lighting kills creatures - it is the main skill. When Lighting will hit only HP status then You will be right.
Problem is bigger when I have something like QS. Then You can never (or it is very difficult) put next big creature.
Why people think that Rewind is too powerful? Because it can hit all creatures and You lose one draw. They don't know that Lighting or BB effect is the same powerful as Rewind.
But... People like this. People like destroying. They don't like tactic, strategy. Only fast hit, big damage for opponent and win.
It is funny when I see that they want to nerf SoW, which gives +4/0 (because then can't do what they like - destroy it without shield), but they didn't see problem with 0/-5 card ;) It is funny when it is easier to destroy opponent creature than protect Yourself.
I understand Your opinions. But please try understand also me. CC, PC are very powerful, not all elements has got it. People didn't play the most Fire or Darkness only because they like red or black colour. They didn't play Rainbows only because they didn't know which elements choose. All we know how strength is PC and CC. Why people didn't use Shockwave as often as Lighting? Because it is huge difference between -4 and -5 attack. Why RoF is popular card but Thunderstorm no? It shows which cards are too powerful (maybe not OP as one card, but OP with duo/trio/rainbows - especially QS).
You still have a huge whole in your logic. LIGHTNING TAKES UP A CARD SPACE, PROBABLY A CREATURE SPACE. You say that I play a card and it gets lightninged, and you play your creature. IF YOU DRAW A LIGHTNING, YOU ARE NOT DRAWING A CREATURE. It takes up the space. So we would still be even, except I have allready done more damage to you. If you are saying that it takes a lot of time to play the creature again, so you have time to draw one of yous, generally cheap creatures are the ones with the lower hp. The "balance formua" for deciding cost gives an extra cost if the defense is over 5 (presumably for lightning/RP) so theoretically, cheap creatures have low hp, and its not hard to play one the next turn.
Of course all depends on lucky and draw.
Post by: eaglgenes101 on May 29, 2012, 02:28:40 am
And if you're playing against an archetypical mono aether, good luck making use of the lightning.This is only true if removal costs significantly less than the creature removed (Crimson Dragon). This would be false if the removal cost only slightly less than the creature removed (Lava Golem). It would be demonstrably UP if the removal cost the same as the creature removed(5 :aether).At start You have 7 cards in hand, to put big creature You need next 3-4 turns (=10 cards in hand/field). It is highly probable that You will have 2 creatures in hand and I will have 1 creature + 1 Lighting/BB/Rewind/etc. So I can easy destroy Your creature and put my own dragon in the same turn.Yours arguments are good only in situation, when I can put all cards on field in one time. In normal game You put 1st creature, I kill it and put my 1st creature. You need probably few turns to put next creature (1-3 turns) and it is time when I have advantage. You put next creature and I kill it/use Rewind/use BB etc and put my 2nd creature. In first part of game I have 1-2 creatures more than You. It is big advantage. So please don't say that Lighting gives 5 damage for HP Status. It is only very situational skill. Lighting kills creatures - it is the main skill. When Lighting will hit only HP status then You will be right.
Problem is bigger when I have something like QS. Then You can never (or it is very difficult) put next big creature.
Why people think that Rewind is too powerful? Because it can hit all creatures and You lose one draw. They don't know that Lighting or BB effect is the same powerful as Rewind.
But... People like this. People like destroying. They don't like tactic, strategy. Only fast hit, big damage for opponent and win.
It is funny when I see that they want to nerf SoW, which gives +4/0 (because then can't do what they like - destroy it without shield), but they didn't see problem with 0/-5 card ;) It is funny when it is easier to destroy opponent creature than protect Yourself.
I understand Your opinions. But please try understand also me. CC, PC are very powerful, not all elements has got it. People didn't play the most Fire or Darkness only because they like red or black colour. They didn't play Rainbows only because they didn't know which elements choose. All we know how strength is PC and CC. Why people didn't use Shockwave as often as Lighting? Because it is huge difference between -4 and -5 attack. Why RoF is popular card but Thunderstorm no? It shows which cards are too powerful (maybe not OP as one card, but OP with duo/trio/rainbows - especially QS).
You still have a huge whole in your logic. LIGHTNING TAKES UP A CARD SPACE, PROBABLY A CREATURE SPACE. You say that I play a card and it gets lightninged, and you play your creature. IF YOU DRAW A LIGHTNING, YOU ARE NOT DRAWING A CREATURE. It takes up the space. So we would still be even, except I have allready done more damage to you. If you are saying that it takes a lot of time to play the creature again, so you have time to draw one of yous, generally cheap creatures are the ones with the lower hp. The "balance formua" for deciding cost gives an extra cost if the defense is over 5 (presumably for lightning/RP) so theoretically, cheap creatures have low hp, and its not hard to play one the next turn.
Of course all depends on lucky and draw.
Post by: DarkBaron12390 on June 06, 2012, 02:24:51 am
Rewind costs 2|1. Eternity is 3|3. What's the odd ball in this game? Eternity is not going down in cost, so I motion to you that rewind should cost, at least 4|3! In the interest of fairness for the game, Eternity's cost was driven to 3|3 for its powerful effect. Name one other card in the game where the card's activated ability cost more than the card itself (i'll grant light nymph, but face it, luciferin is a low tier ability, versus high tiered ability). The entire point of the activated ability is that you can play the card continuously. Why? The card with the ability can be destroyed; the card itself you activate directly from your hand as a spell and cannot be countered by offence (only by defence). think about it a little bit. Rewind has a powerful mechanic, but I'm arguing from the mechanics of the game here. Justify what makes Rewind so special (we know it's powerful) that it gets to deny the game's balancing mechanic?
Rewind's mechanic won't change - nor will the game's. Assimilate rewind to the game's mechanic. Rewind should cost 4|3, and that will break its abuse.
Post by: Cheesy111 on June 06, 2012, 02:37:55 am
I read some interesting analyses, but I think you guys are forgetting some very important things: RT acts as a +1 draw to you. It functions as a procrastination via creature control. Now, Tsunami's EQ costs 3|2. EQ (the card) costs 3|2. Gravity Nymph's ability costs 3|3. Black Hole costs 4|3. Purple Nymph's ability costs 4|4. Antimatter costs 7|6. Pulverizer's ability costs 3|2. Steal costs 4|3 and explosion costs 3|2 (Explosion is the analog to destroy). Blue Nymph's ability costs 3|3. Unstable Gas costs 6|5. Gray NYmph's ability costs 1|1. Aflatoxin costs 6|5. Life Nymph's ability costs iirc, 2|2? Adrenaline is 4|3. We can ignore the nymphs if you want - this is all to draw one thing to your attention: A pattern. The card itself always, always, ALWAYS, costs AT LEAST the amount of the card's analog activated ability.
Rewind costs 2|1. Eternity is 3|3. What's the odd ball in this game? Eternity is not going down in cost, so I motion to you that rewind should cost, at least 4|3! In the interest of fairness for the game, Eternity's cost was driven to 3|3 for its powerful effect. Name one other card in the game where the card's activated ability cost more than the card itself (i'll grant light nymph, but face it, luciferin is a low tier ability, versus high tiered ability). The entire point of the activated ability is that you can play the card continuously. Why? The card with the ability can be destroyed; the card itself you activate directly from your hand as a spell and cannot be countered by offence (only by defence). think about it a little bit. Rewind has a powerful mechanic, but I'm arguing from the mechanics of the game here. Justify what makes Rewind so special (we know it's powerful) that it gets to deny the game's balancing mechanic?
Rewind's mechanic won't change - nor will the game's. Assimilate rewind to the game's mechanic. Rewind should cost 4|3, and that will break its abuse.
Rewind for 4 | 3 will not only break its abuse, it will break its use. Rewind also does NOT function as a +1 card for you. You seem to forget that Rewind also takes up a card slot, the same as whatever card it is rewinding. Without rewind in the deck, you would have drawn the next card in the deck, therefore the sides are evened up. Rewind functions as light creature control that punishes quanta-light decks and buff decks, especially nova-based ones.
Consider your theoretical Rewind/Eternity example with rewind at 4 | 3. Would you honestly rather pay 4 for a single rewind than pay 6 and be able to rewind for less than the cost of a normal rewind infinitely while also doing damage each turn?
Post by: DarkBaron12390 on June 06, 2012, 02:48:59 am
Post by: Cheesy111 on June 06, 2012, 04:20:09 am
Don't blame me, blame the game. If you change the game mechanics to revolve around a card, perhaps the problem is the card itself. Opponent gets -1 card draw, thus, +1 net card for you. Whatever that card is, procrastination or w/e that gives a draw, net +1 draw for you. Only this time, you're doing it the other way. The weapon can be destroyed. Don't forget that. I laid out the game mechanics and the one (two) exception that matters to the game. Address that and then get back to me.
I don't understand your don't blame me, blame the game comment. Hopefully you can clear that up for me.
Restating for clarity:
Rewind also does NOT function as a +1 card for you. You seem to forget that Rewind also takes up a card slot, the same as whatever card it is rewinding. Without rewind in the deck, you would have drawn the next card in the deck, therefore the sides are evened up.
You say that the card itself always costs at least the amount of the card's analog activated ability. I posit that this is better considered on an individual level than on a group level. Consider that Pulverizer is balanced in a repeatable destruction ability only because it requires multiple elements and costs 3 | 2. The same effect is observable in Trident. Multiple elements are required because a repeating ability, even with the possibility of PC, is more powerful than a one-use spell. Eternity's mono effect is balanced in this arena by having a higher base cost and a weaker effect. There is no rule that just because many activated abilities cost equal to or less than the one-time use abilities that all abilities must follow this rule. Abilities and spells need to be considered on their own merits in the metagame and how they interact with other cards. Nerfing RT based on Eternity if both are balanced as separate cards is just silly.
Post by: DarkBaron12390 on June 06, 2012, 11:33:10 am
Yes, RT does function as a +1card for you. Stop thinking of it as in a positive gain for you, but rather see it as a negative denial for the opponent. In terms of draw power, you get +1 net card. I.e. You get to draw while preventing your opponent a draw.
Post by: omegareaper7 on June 06, 2012, 01:22:00 pm
I'm not saying many obey this rule; I am saying all cards follow this rule, barring the anomalous white nymph and luciferin. And that is what I mean by game mechanics. The current game mechanics dictate that the card always costs at least as much as the ability. Not to do this indicates that the card is either underpowered or overpowered. RT is certainly not underpowered... In fact, any card not obeying the structured system reveals an issue with the card itself. For instance, Destroy costs 3|2, explosion used to cost 2|1. What happened? Nerf to explosion. Aflatoxin is strange in that it costs 6|5 but the effect is 1|1. This analysis of the game reveals problems with luciferin, aflatoxin, and RT. Now i haven't browsed the forums on the metagame much, but if I am correct that there are balance issues with aflatoxin and luciferin (either UP or OP), then I suggest looking at RT in the same light. I.e. in need of change.
Yes, RT does function as a +1card for you. Stop thinking of it as in a positive gain for you, but rather see it as a negative denial for the opponent. In terms of draw power, you get +1 net card. I.e. You get to draw while preventing your opponent a draw.
Before anything, i would recommend comparing it to lightning first, as that is the best comparison.
Post by: Chapuz on June 06, 2012, 02:43:26 pm
It has been done... and some ppl still say it's OP, dunno why.I'm not saying many obey this rule; I am saying all cards follow this rule, barring the anomalous white nymph and luciferin. And that is what I mean by game mechanics. The current game mechanics dictate that the card always costs at least as much as the ability. Not to do this indicates that the card is either underpowered or overpowered. RT is certainly not underpowered... In fact, any card not obeying the structured system reveals an issue with the card itself. For instance, Destroy costs 3|2, explosion used to cost 2|1. What happened? Nerf to explosion. Aflatoxin is strange in that it costs 6|5 but the effect is 1|1. This analysis of the game reveals problems with luciferin, aflatoxin, and RT. Now i haven't browsed the forums on the metagame much, but if I am correct that there are balance issues with aflatoxin and luciferin (either UP or OP), then I suggest looking at RT in the same light. I.e. in need of change.
Yes, RT does function as a +1card for you. Stop thinking of it as in a positive gain for you, but rather see it as a negative denial for the opponent. In terms of draw power, you get +1 net card. I.e. You get to draw while preventing your opponent a draw.
Before anything, i would recommend comparing it to lightning first, as that is the best comparison.
Post by: OldTrees on June 06, 2012, 03:01:51 pm
I read some interesting analyses, but I think you guys are forgetting some very important things: RT acts as a +1 draw to you. It functions as a procrastination via creature control. Now, Tsunami's EQ costs 3|2. EQ (the card) costs 3|2. Gravity Nymph's ability costs 3|3. Black Hole costs 4|3. Purple Nymph's ability costs 4|4. Antimatter costs 7|6. Pulverizer's ability costs 3|2. Steal costs 4|3 and explosion costs 3|2 (Explosion is the analog to destroy). Blue Nymph's ability costs 3|3. Unstable Gas costs 6|5. Gray NYmph's ability costs 1|1. Aflatoxin costs 6|5. Life Nymph's ability costs iirc, 2|2? Adrenaline is 4|3. We can ignore the nymphs if you want - this is all to draw one thing to your attention: A pattern. The card itself always, always, ALWAYS, costs AT LEAST the amount of the card's analog activated ability.Good try at a balance model. It is one that seems intuitive at the first glance. However it seems to break down when looking at weapons.
Rewind costs 2|1. Eternity is 3|3. What's the odd ball in this game? Eternity is not going down in cost, so I motion to you that rewind should cost, at least 4|3! In the interest of fairness for the game, Eternity's cost was driven to 3|3 for its powerful effect. Name one other card in the game where the card's activated ability cost more than the card itself (i'll grant light nymph, but face it, luciferin is a low tier ability, versus high tiered ability). The entire point of the activated ability is that you can play the card continuously. Why? The card with the ability can be destroyed; the card itself you activate directly from your hand as a spell and cannot be countered by offence (only by defence). think about it a little bit. Rewind has a powerful mechanic, but I'm arguing from the mechanics of the game here. Justify what makes Rewind so special (we know it's powerful) that it gets to deny the game's balancing mechanic?
Rewind's mechanic won't change - nor will the game's. Assimilate rewind to the game's mechanic. Rewind should cost 4|3, and that will break its abuse.
I think you missed the difference between the casting costs and the attacks not to mention the difference between mono and duo activation costs.
Earthquake: 3|2 + 1 card casting cost
Trident: 3|3 + weapon + 1 card casting cost + 3|2 activation cost (duo) -> 4 attack + Earthquake ability
Reverse Time: 2|1 + 1 card casting cost
Eternity: 6|5 + weapon + 1card casting cost + 3|3 activation cost (mono) -> 4 attack + Reverse Time ability
Deflagration: 3|2 + 1card casting cost
Pulverizer: 4|4 + weapon + 1 card casting cost + 3|2 activation cost (duo) -> 5 attack + Deflagration ability
Note that the activation cost is always greater in these direct weapon comparisons.
Activation Costs
Earthquake: 3|2 duo > 3|2 mono
Reverse Time: 3|3* mono > 2|1 mono
Deflagration: 3|2 duo > 3|2 mono
*Eternity could have had a -1activation cost upgrade rather than the atypical -1 casting cost upgrade
As for the +1 card:
It either functions as "+1 net card and destroy x quanta" (if the creature is worth replaying) or as kill target creature (if the creature is not worth replaying)
PS: White Nymph can be explained by the difference in value between healing and regeneration.
Post by: Jenkar on June 06, 2012, 03:15:04 pm
This, imo, is because some skills, when repeated, gain far more advantage than when not repeated. And vice versa. Alfatoxin's small cost as a skill is because it's a spell that's useful one time then serves nearly no purpose, for example.
Post by: Anarook on June 20, 2012, 05:47:52 pm
Did anyone stop to think that PC is currently underused? That several elements don't have PC? That many deck types don't run any PC?
I know this is the wrong place for it, this is a discussion on rewind, but it's directly related to eternity so >:(
Now let's continue, the eternity/rewind is OP for 2 key reasons:
1) Forced draw denial
2) It ignores creature HP - a point zanz was very adamant about
Sure eternity can be destoryed by PC, but ooh say what if you didn't have any PC in your hand or on the field - not an uncommon situation. Perhaps you have one somehwere else in your deck, but alas you'll probably never draw it because your opponent is going to continue to rewind again and again and again.
CC is creature control, not deck control, see where I'm going here?
Post by: omegareaper7 on June 20, 2012, 05:54:34 pm
I'm too busy laughing at the "eternity is balanced becasue it can be destroyed with PC arguement.With the addition of shard of focus, just about every deck is able to run permanent control. Not to mention there is burst damage, creature less decks, immortal creatures, other methods of permanent control, poison could also be used. And on top of all that, eternity won't see a ton of use unless the deck is built around it.
Did anyone stop to think that PC is currently underused? That several elements don't have PC? That many deck types don't run any PC?
I know this is the wrong place for it, this is a discussion on rewind, but it's directly related to eternity so >:(
Now let's continue, the eternity/rewind is OP for 2 key reasons:
1) Forced draw denial
2) It ignores creature HP - a point zanz was very adamant about
Sure eternity can be destoryed by PC, but ooh say what if you didn't have any PC in your hand or on the field - not an uncommon situation. Perhaps you have one somehwere else in your deck, but alas you'll probably never draw it because your opponent is going to continue to rewind again and again and again.
CC is creature control, not deck control, see where I'm going here?
Now pray tell, is there a deck that is currently doing really well that is based around eternity? Not ghostmare, that is a combo deck that doesn't specify that but nightmare as well.
Post by: OldTrees on June 20, 2012, 06:36:05 pm
I'm too busy laughing at the "eternity is balanced becasue it can be destroyed with PC arguement.I agree that being able to be destroyed is an incomplete picture (effect xor cost). Incomplete pictures are worthless for balance discussions.
Did anyone stop to think that PC is currently underused? That several elements don't have PC? That many deck types don't run any PC?
I know this is the wrong place for it, this is a discussion on rewind, but it's directly related to eternity so >:(
Now let's continue, the eternity/rewind is OP for 2 key reasons:1) Incomplete picture. There is a price for which forced draw denial would be balanced.
1) Forced draw denial
2) It ignores creature HP - a point zanz was very adamant about
2) Zanz disliked hard CC that ignored creature hp. Reverse Time is reversible and thus not hard CC.
Post by: KeY533 on June 22, 2012, 12:44:11 am
Post by: Picheleiro on June 22, 2012, 09:23:04 am
I think reverse time is pretty strong but a nerf on the mana cost to 3 unupped, 2 upped would be enough.
:D
Post by: mesaprotector on June 23, 2012, 12:01:00 am
Reverse Time:
*denies opponent a draw for 1 turn
*can be used to help prevent deckout
*denies all drawing when chained (assuming no counter)
*removes creature buffs and forces opponent to repay the cost of the creature
*can be chained indefinitely by using Eternity
*works well with Nightmare
Silence:
*prevents opponent from playing cards for 1 turn
*can be used to prevent Miracle, Fractal, etc.
*prevents opponent from playing anything when chained (assuming no counter)
*works well with Nightmare
Since Silence costs 3 :aether / 2 :aether, we should either buff it or nerf Reverse Time.
Post by: OldTrees on June 23, 2012, 03:24:01 am
You have convinced me. 3 :time|2 :time + 1 card
Post by: Arum on July 18, 2012, 11:07:21 am
Aye, but the Eternity has an ability, and coupled with PA and 6 rewinds, you're anti-deckout. Decks that don't buff creatures can easily use this to undo momentum, mitosis, BE, or whatever. Also, there is an interesting mechanic with this, called a false buff. Buff the enemy creatures, whittle them down to the amount the buff is, and then rewind, which will undo the buff, and therefor undo the extra health, effectively killing enemies without direct CC. Also, this doesn't trigger death effect because the creature is already dead.This is not entirely accurate. Reverse time doesn't allow you to infinitely do anything, eternity does. And there is a very fine way around a protected eternity. It is also a two card combo. I'll let others address that for now.
The problem lies in the stall mechanics. By placing a card on top of the deck, players can endlessly stall themselves or their opponents. Both of these are detrimental to the game. It sidesteps the possibility of decking out, and can create an impossible situation for decks that cannot draw more cards. On top of that, the AI is practically unaffected by this, as they draw extra cards, plus it's even harder to counter their RT's, as a deck with 3x time and a protected Eternity can stall you forever.
As for the proposed nerf. That pretty much removes any usefulness it might see. What about decks that don't buff creatures? Shall it do nothing against a good portion of decks and be super situational like purify was?
I'd suggest have it undo two turns (maybe one turn that upgrades into two turns) that a creature has gone through. I think that having the same mechanic, but limiting the potential, is the way to go.That would be the way to go for the upgrade, with 3 :time cost.
Post by: Cheesy111 on July 18, 2012, 12:00:46 pm
Aye, but the Eternity has an ability, and coupled with PA and 6 rewinds, you're anti-deckout. Decks that don't buff creatures can easily use this to undo momentum, mitosis, BE, or whatever. Also, there is an interesting mechanic with this, called a false buff. Buff the enemy creatures, whittle them down to the amount the buff is, and then rewind, which will undo the buff, and therefor undo the extra health, effectively killing enemies without direct CC. Also, this doesn't trigger death effect because the creature is already dead.This is not entirely accurate. Reverse time doesn't allow you to infinitely do anything, eternity does. And there is a very fine way around a protected eternity. It is also a two card combo. I'll let others address that for now.
The problem lies in the stall mechanics. By placing a card on top of the deck, players can endlessly stall themselves or their opponents. Both of these are detrimental to the game. It sidesteps the possibility of decking out, and can create an impossible situation for decks that cannot draw more cards. On top of that, the AI is practically unaffected by this, as they draw extra cards, plus it's even harder to counter their RT's, as a deck with 3x time and a protected Eternity can stall you forever.
As for the proposed nerf. That pretty much removes any usefulness it might see. What about decks that don't buff creatures? Shall it do nothing against a good portion of decks and be super situational like purify was?I'd suggest have it undo two turns (maybe one turn that upgrades into two turns) that a creature has gone through. I think that having the same mechanic, but limiting the potential, is the way to go.That would be the way to go for the upgrade, with 3 :time cost.
The heck are you talking about. PA'd Eternity and 6 RTs can be decked out. Yes, RT undoes mitosis or BE.
So let me get this straight. You use Blessing on an enemy Photon, and then whittle down its HP with.....what exactly? Stuff that does damage IS HARD CC. And even if, for some reason, you decided to Bless an enemy Photon, take it down one HP to 3 with a Thunderstorm, and then RT it, why the heck didn't you just thunderstorm it in the first place?
Undoing one/two turns makes it a 'hate card' much like purify. Hate cards are bad, mkay. They make cards too situational, and I do NOT want that happening to RT as well.
Also, note for Fayceless: Double draw without two or more eternities (needs flying weapon..) means FGs/Platinum decks will deck out without purposefully hand crowding.
I've been posting a lot in this thread, but: Reverse Time is similar in strength, effect, and versatility to Silence.
Reverse Time:
*denies opponent a draw for 1 turn
*can be used to help prevent deckout
*denies all drawing when chained (assuming no counter)
*removes creature buffs and forces opponent to repay the cost of the creature
*can be chained indefinitely by using Eternity
*works well with Nightmare
Silence:
*prevents opponent from playing cards for 1 turn
*can be used to prevent Miracle, Fractal, etc.
*prevents opponent from playing anything when chained (assuming no counter)
*works well with Nightmare
Since Silence costs 3 :aether / 2 :aether, we should either buff it or nerf Reverse Time.
RT is nowhere close to being as versatile as Silence. RT only affects non-immortal non-burrowed creature decks. Silence affects all non-sanctuary decks that use cards. RT cannot be chained indefinitely, it can only be chained for as long as the opponent has creatures on the field.
Post by: Jenkar on July 18, 2012, 12:21:19 pm
You are required to speak intelligible english on forums :vAye, but the Eternity has an ability, and coupled with PA and 6 rewinds, you're anti-deckout. Decks that don't buff creatures can easily use this to undo momentum, mitosis, BE, or whatever. Also, there is an interesting mechanic with this, called a false buff. Buff the enemy creatures, whittle them down to the amount the buff is, and then rewind, which will undo the buff, and therefor undo the extra health, effectively killing enemies without direct CC. Also, this doesn't trigger death effect because the creature is already dead.This is not entirely accurate. Reverse time doesn't allow you to infinitely do anything, eternity does. And there is a very fine way around a protected eternity. It is also a two card combo. I'll let others address that for now.
The problem lies in the stall mechanics. By placing a card on top of the deck, players can endlessly stall themselves or their opponents. Both of these are detrimental to the game. It sidesteps the possibility of decking out, and can create an impossible situation for decks that cannot draw more cards. On top of that, the AI is practically unaffected by this, as they draw extra cards, plus it's even harder to counter their RT's, as a deck with 3x time and a protected Eternity can stall you forever.
As for the proposed nerf. That pretty much removes any usefulness it might see. What about decks that don't buff creatures? Shall it do nothing against a good portion of decks and be super situational like purify was?
Post by: Higurashi on July 18, 2012, 12:41:38 pm
Also, there is an interesting mechanic with this, called a false buff. Buff the enemy creatures, whittle them down to the amount the buff is, and then rewind, which will undo the buff, and therefor undo the extra health, effectively killing enemies without direct CC. Also, this doesn't trigger death effect because the creature is already dead.That's not how RT works at all. When you Rewind a creature, the owner gets the original copy of the card in his hand. Any HP alteration is completely undone. There's no way to kill without direct CC. While on that topic, direct CC is, as Cheesy has mentioned, direct damage. In other words, you can't whittle down HP without direct CC.
Do you play this game at all? It's pretty irresponsible to spout complete misinformation about the basic mechanics of the game.
As for the poll, I see I voted for a cost increase when it was made. I can see how I was thinking. A +1 cost to both would reflect how many things this single card does and wouldn't hurt the decks that use it too badly.
Post by: shileka on July 18, 2012, 12:44:27 pm
Also, there is an interesting mechanic with this, called a false buff. Buff the enemy creatures, whittle them down to the amount the buff is, and then rewind, which will undo the buff, and therefor undo the extra health, effectively killing enemies without direct CC. Also, this doesn't trigger death effect because the creature is already dead.That's not how RT works at all. When you Rewind a creature, the owner gets the original copy of the card in his hand. Any HP alteration is completely undone. There's no way to kill without direct CC. While on that topic, direct CC is, as Cheesy has mentioned, direct damage. In other words, you can't whittle down HP without direct CC.
Do you play this game at all? It's pretty irresponsible to spout complete misinformation about the basic mechanics of the game.
As for the poll, I see I voted for a cost increase when it was made. I can see how I was thinking. A +1 cost to both would reflect how many things this single card does and wouldn't hurt the decks that use it too badly.
didn't RT put the creature at the top of the oponents deck?
Post by: Arum on July 18, 2012, 12:47:47 pm
Uh, what? I was talking about the nerf version, where it undoes status effects, so yeah. Think before you post, mistress.Also, there is an interesting mechanic with this, called a false buff. Buff the enemy creatures, whittle them down to the amount the buff is, and then rewind, which will undo the buff, and therefor undo the extra health, effectively killing enemies without direct CC. Also, this doesn't trigger death effect because the creature is already dead.That's not how RT works at all. When you Rewind a creature, the owner gets the original copy of the card in his hand. Any HP alteration is completely undone. There's no way to kill without direct CC. While on that topic, direct CC is, as Cheesy has mentioned, direct damage. In other words, you can't whittle down HP without direct CC.
Do you play this game at all? It's pretty irresponsible to spout complete misinformation about the basic mechanics of the game.
As for the poll, I see I voted for a cost increase when it was made. I can see how I was thinking. A +1 cost to both would reflect how many things this single card does and wouldn't hurt the decks that use it too badly.
Post by: Higurashi on July 18, 2012, 12:56:29 pm
Don't tell people what to do if you don't know what's going on. It's pretty rude.
didn't RT put the creature at the top of the oponents deck?Yes, I was referring to the status of the card once it's in your hand.
Post by: Arum on July 18, 2012, 03:48:28 pm
I always think, and I read your post. Hope you start doing it too. You don't mention it's about any other version. Maybe the amount of posts after yours that call you out is a hint?
Don't tell people what to do if you don't know what's going on. It's pretty rude.
I think it's pretty clear that I was talking about the nerf, since it doesn't apply to the original. Like seriously, (http://i.imgur.com/E7tg0.png) Honestly, if you actually read and comprehend, like you say you do, then this wouldn't be happening.
Also, Jenkar didn't make sense, and Cheesy just reclarified.
P.S. I do play the game, and always can look it up. I'm not mentally challenged you know.
Post by: Cheesy111 on July 18, 2012, 04:18:22 pm
I always think, and I read your post. Hope you start doing it too. You don't mention it's about any other version. Maybe the amount of posts after yours that call you out is a hint?
Don't tell people what to do if you don't know what's going on. It's pretty rude.
I think it's pretty clear that I was talking about the nerf, since it doesn't apply to the original. Like seriously, (http://i.imgur.com/E7tg0.png) Honestly, if you actually read and comprehend, like you say you do, then this wouldn't be happening.
Also, Jenkar didn't make sense, and Cheesy just reclarified.
P.S. I do play the game, and always can look it up. I'm not mentally challenged you know.
I did not just reclarify. My post was meant to point out the large flaws in what you said and also the ridiculous nature of your tangent. Jenkar noted that much of your first paragraph seems to attempt to be incomprehensible - 'anti-deckout' means what exactly when a deck with a PA'd Eternity and Rewinds can be decked out? 'The eternity has an ability' is not an argument or even relevant without further arguments or discussion and momentum -is- a buff. A new player reading your post would be more confused than enlightened.
Post by: Dm on July 18, 2012, 04:24:23 pm
. I'm not mentally challenged you know.
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/007/508/watch-out-we-got-a-badass-over-here-meme.png)
Seriously, no need for the argument.
(I also find you're making less sense than them, and as such that the point higs/jenkar are making makes more sense ATM but hey..)
[And always, always mention what you're talking about. It gets pretty hard to understand if you don't.]
Post by: Jenkar on July 18, 2012, 04:25:12 pm
Nope. It was as clear as marshwater in which someone just poured tons of dirt.I always think, and I read your post. Hope you start doing it too. You don't mention it's about any other version. Maybe the amount of posts after yours that call you out is a hint?
Don't tell people what to do if you don't know what's going on. It's pretty rude.
I think it's pretty clear that I was talking about the nerf
Also, Jenkar didn't make senseAlso, i was saying that what you said had the syntax of this sentence put under a 1.
Post by: Zergva on July 18, 2012, 04:31:24 pm
Post by: Dm on July 18, 2012, 04:35:55 pm
i don't think, the Reverse Time (or how I see, the Eternity) needs nerf, but I find a great idea for the rewinded Ash becomes Phoenix again :D That's the creative way to think about...
Hrmm, sounds like a buff to me. Phoenix are mostly used with cremations. I add in a RT and use it in a phoenix I cremated and I save myself one fire quanta.
Post by: Naesala on July 18, 2012, 04:53:23 pm
Post by: Thurhame on July 18, 2012, 05:43:04 pm
To return to the Thread Topic, I do not think Reverse Time / Rewind is in need of either a nerf or a change in dynamics. Against a normal rush, it's a little weaker than comparable hard CC; in exchange, it becomes stronger against buffs and counters some combos.
Eternity is another matter. When RT becomes spammable, the weakness declines and and the strengths increase. However, it pays for that - literally, with the highest non-nymph ability cost in the game. It's damage is also weak when compared to the other spammable CC weapon, Eagle's Eye. I don't think it needs to be changed.
Post by: Cheesy111 on July 18, 2012, 05:56:17 pm
i don't think, the Reverse Time (or how I see, the Eternity) needs nerf, but I find a great idea for the rewinded Ash becomes Phoenix again :D That's the creative way to think about...
Hrmm, sounds like a buff to me. Phoenix are mostly used with cremations. I add in a RT and use it in a phoenix I cremated and I save myself one fire quanta.
Rewind probably wouldn't be worth any major deckspace in an immorush for a save of one quanta and 7 damage. This would probably be a small but thematic nerf, my only issue with it is that phoenix is already nigh-impossible to kill and RT is 'rewarded' for being nonlethal CC against phoenix.
Post by: OldTrees on July 18, 2012, 06:07:44 pm
If I failed to understand something while reading it, do you think Higurashi would have understood if she had read it? If Higurashi would not have understood by reading it then on what are you basing the assumption that she didn't read it? From previous experience with Higurashi, I would expect that she did read every word of your post.
Finally I was disappointed in the level of discourse both of you used.
Post by: Higurashi on July 18, 2012, 06:54:24 pm
Regardless, I've removed comments that break forum rules, and offenders have been dealt with. That's the end of this topic. Any further comments on it will be deleted. Back to the thread topic at hand.
Post by: ZephyrPhantom on July 18, 2012, 07:11:46 pm
Lightning
Deals 5 damage to target.
Cards denied : 1 Card Destroyed. (Usually)
2 :time | 1 :time
Reverse Time
Sends target creature back to the top of the deck.
Cards denied : 1 Card Draw Denied, 1 Temporary Card + X Amount of Quantum.
3 :aether | 2 :aether
Silence
Opponent can't play cards for 1 tunr.
Cards denied : 1-8 cards in hand/drawn. (On average you'll deny 4-5 cards)
Instead of +1 to cost, how about having Reverse Time refund the owner of the target the card's cost? (For example - I rewind a Shrieker controlled by Player2, Player2 gets 8 :earth ) This allows the opponent to play their card back much quicker, and if not can spend the refunded quantum on other cards, increasing the risk factor while keeping the speed.
Post by: memimemi on July 18, 2012, 07:18:45 pm
Instead of +1 to cost, how about having Reverse Time refund the owner of the target the card's cost? (For example - I rewind a Shrieker controlled by Player2, Player2 gets 8 :earth ) This allows the opponent to play their card back much quicker, and if not can spend the refunded quantum on other cards, increasing the risk factor while keeping the speed.
Though I like the idea, I would think that a percentage of the casting cost's quanta is a more fair refund. Your Shrieker example is a great case in point: Turn 1 Tower/Nova/Nova/Graboid; Turn 2 (Evolve)/RT/Graboid/Graboid/Quicksand. Though it requires lucky draws, i still don't think that the potential quanta acceleration is anything short of OP. However, at 1/2 cost refunded (rounded down), it would be an interesting berf (worse to use on your opponent's creatures, better to use on your own).
Post by: Cannibal7 on July 21, 2012, 10:00:40 am
Post by: rosutosefi on July 21, 2012, 10:31:43 am
i would prefer RT and eternity to put creature on bottom of the deck instead of top so it will count as CC but not as card denial. also the effect (same from eternity) should be restricted in 1 every 2 turns 2 avoid ppl use it as stall. this way imo the card would be still good but more balanced.That's nice, it solves the draw lock problem while still being effective as CC. But there's a problem: It turns in to the strongest CC ever in the game. Cost increase will be needed for this. I just realized this moments ago, my bwain is working! :P
Post by: OldTrees on July 21, 2012, 06:11:14 pm
Post by: Ilias22 on August 11, 2012, 08:45:14 am
Post by: Vangelios on August 11, 2012, 04:29:52 pm
fact go on to the deck instead of the hand, perhaps because of the mechanics of the game. if hand of you opponent is full
there would be no room for the reverse time.
Post by: OldTrees on August 11, 2012, 06:51:57 pm
This card no need of nerf, because is possible put the creature in game again, I think this card are very well elaborate.The ability to put the creature in game again is relevant but is not an argument. A 20 turn freeze would be OP and a 1 turn freeze would be UP. Being Soft CC does not inherently imply it is balanced.
fact go on to the deck instead of the hand, perhaps because of the mechanics of the game. if hand of you opponent is full
there would be no room for the reverse time.
Post by: eaglgenes101 on August 11, 2012, 07:18:28 pm
How long can a deck prevent a player from playing a card?
Post by: Spidder on May 14, 2013, 06:21:46 pm
My suggestion: keep it as is, but once used, you can't use it again in this turn OR the following turn. So basically you can use it every other turn, otherwise something horrible happens, nova-style. It's only fair and fits thematicaly in that you just shouldn't mess with the time/space continuum too much or bad things happen :-X
Post by: OldTrees on May 14, 2013, 07:09:26 pm
This card, while not clearly op, is extremely annoying to play against and counters a lot of decks it honestly shouldn't...You provided evidence that you get annoyed playing against it.
You have not yet supplied evidence that it counters decks it shouldn't.
Post by: Spidder on May 14, 2013, 07:34:40 pm
This card, while not clearly op, is extremely annoying to play against and counters a lot of decks it honestly shouldn't...You provided evidence that you get annoyed playing against it.
You have not yet supplied evidence that it counters decks it shouldn't.
It counters all slow, non-rush decks: by sending your creature back to your deck it controls your creatures, card drawing, AND quanta (gotta spend it to get that creature back on the field) all with one cheap, spammable card. It's too much.
Post by: Cheesy111 on May 14, 2013, 07:57:24 pm
This card, while not clearly op, is extremely annoying to play against and counters a lot of decks it honestly shouldn't...You provided evidence that you get annoyed playing against it.
You have not yet supplied evidence that it counters decks it shouldn't.
It counters all slow, non-rush decks: by sending your creature back to your deck it controls your creatures, card drawing, AND quanta (gotta spend it to get that creature back on the field) all with one cheap, spammable card. It's too much.
It does not counter all non-rush decks.
It does not counter, for example, any kind of stall. It does not counter immaterial creatures. It does not efficiently counter Mummy or Skeleton. It does not counter any sort of bolt deck. It does not counter any sort of SoV deck.
Compared to Lightning and Basilisk Blood, Reverse Time is reasonable. Lightning offers permanent CC at the cost of requiring a creature to have 5 or less HP. Basilisk blood does not care about HP, but only delays the creature instead of killing it. Reverse Time removes the creature from the battlefield, but -probably- improves your next draw significantly and does not permanently take care of the creature.
Post by: eaglgenes101 on May 15, 2013, 01:30:47 am
1. Cancel the opponent's next draw if they have a targetable creature.
2. Reset target creature to its original state.
3. Disable target creature until the opponent has its cost in his/her quanta pool.
4. Generate a dummy card with the same cost as the target creature's cost in the opponent's hand.
Just getting it out there as disassembling the parts of this card might help show where exactly its balance lies.
Post by: Cheesy111 on May 15, 2013, 01:44:03 am
How much would each of these hypothetical cards cost in quanta?
1. Cancel the opponent's next draw if they have a targetable creature. Worth less than the card slot it would take up - conditional draw denial is not worth a card.
2. Reset target creature to its original state. Worth very very little. Perhaps .5 :underworld at most.
3. Disable target creature until the opponent has its cost in his/her quanta pool. Although an important part is left out here (the quanta cost has to be paid and not just exist in the quanta pool) this is where I feel the majority of Reverse Time's value comes into play.
4. Generate a dummy card with the same cost as the target creature's cost in the opponent's hand. A negative effect. Not sure how to classify this in terms of quanta.
Just getting it out there as disassembling the parts of this card might help show where exactly its balance lies.
Post by: mesaprotector on May 15, 2013, 02:12:14 am
Post by: OldTrees on May 15, 2013, 03:37:43 am
How much would each of these hypothetical cards cost in quanta?You are counting some things twice. Either it makes the next draw less valuable or it makes the next draw more valuable. The more valuable the disable effect, the more valuable the free card quality we give the opponent.
1. Cancel the opponent's next draw if they have a targetable creature.
2. Reset target creature to its original state.
3. Disable target creature until the opponent has its cost in his/her quanta pool.
4. Generate a dummy card with the same cost as the target creature's cost in the opponent's hand.
Just getting it out there as disassembling the parts of this card might help show where exactly its balance lies.
Post by: eaglgenes101 on May 15, 2013, 03:49:48 am
Chances are you're RTing whatever creature there is in play. You're usually not waiting for a better-to-RT creature to come in. It's you trying to pick the best time and creature to RT vs your opponent trying to determine if and how to play RT-resistantly. I think these factors cancel out and therefore you can assume that you're not changing how good or bad the next draw is.How much would each of these hypothetical cards cost in quanta?You are counting some things twice. Either it makes the next draw less valuable or it makes the next draw more valuable. The more valuable the disable effect, the more valuable the free card quality we give the opponent.
1. Cancel the opponent's next draw if they have a targetable creature.
2. Reset target creature to its original state.
3. Disable target creature until the opponent has its cost in his/her quanta pool.
4. Generate a dummy card with the same cost as the target creature's cost in the opponent's hand.
Just getting it out there as disassembling the parts of this card might help show where exactly its balance lies.
Post by: OldTrees on May 15, 2013, 03:56:04 am
I agree that they work against each other and thus 1 value should be calculated for their total. I do not know if it cancels out to 0.Chances are you're RTing whatever creature there is in play. You're usually not waiting for a better-to-RT creature to come in. It's you trying to pick the best time and creature to RT vs your opponent trying to determine if and how to play RT-resistantly. I think these factors cancel out and therefore you can assume that you're not changing how good or bad the next draw is.How much would each of these hypothetical cards cost in quanta?You are counting some things twice. Either it makes the next draw less valuable or it makes the next draw more valuable. The more valuable the disable effect, the more valuable the free card quality we give the opponent.
1. Cancel the opponent's next draw if they have a targetable creature.
2. Reset target creature to its original state.
3. Disable target creature until the opponent has its cost in his/her quanta pool.
4. Generate a dummy card with the same cost as the target creature's cost in the opponent's hand.
Just getting it out there as disassembling the parts of this card might help show where exactly its balance lies.
Post by: Jyiber on May 15, 2013, 11:23:14 pm
Post by: Cheesy111 on May 16, 2013, 03:20:56 am
A suggested counter is a small change to Sanctuary's effect. If you have an RT'd creature it goes back to hand instead of deck.
How does this work thematically?
Sanctuary protects your hand and quanta from disruption, and should not be used as a catch-all for "protection" effects.
Post by: Jyiber on May 16, 2013, 03:40:12 pm
You don't even really need an elaborate explanation. Small suggestion anyway.
Post by: Zso_Zso on May 16, 2013, 05:56:09 pm
It would also remove the infinite-stall feature of RT and it would no longer block the drawing of the opponent. It would continue to act as soft CC, but without the draw-power denial and super-stall effects.
Post by: omegareaper7 on May 16, 2013, 06:06:31 pm
Going with the 3rd option in the poll: RT returning the creature to hand instead of deck -- that would make sanctuary automatically countering it.Compare to basilisk blood and lightning. That would make reverse time a ton weaker then either of those most likely.
It would also remove the infinite-stall feature of RT and it would no longer block the drawing of the opponent. It would continue to act as soft CC, but without the draw-power denial and super-stall effects.
Post by: Acsabi44 on May 17, 2013, 01:51:35 pm
It would also remove the infinite-stall feature of RTI think that having the option of decking out the opponent by infinitely drawing is an important factor to the game as a whole (even if nobody uses it)
Post by: lordwok on August 18, 2013, 07:54:03 am
forget about the fact that you now have to redraw the same card next turn or that you have to pay the quanta cost again to play that creature
being able to kill a creature in one shot for 2 quanta is silly
Post by: jawdirk on August 18, 2013, 08:48:31 am
a one shot kill for 2 quanta is so OP
forget about the fact that you now have to redraw the same card next turn or that you have to pay the quanta cost again to play that creature
being able to kill a creature in one shot for 2 quanta is silly
If creatures did no damage the turn they came into play, reverse time would be very OP. As it is, it is almost balanced. It doesn't slow the damage of the enemy. It trades 2 :time for whatever it costs to recast the creature. However, it does nothing to defend against the creature. It may prevent the enemy from putting more cards into play, but casting reverse time also prevents you from putting another card into play. The dominant strategy in Elements is rush, and reverse time doesn't help against rush.
Post by: noneshallpass on August 19, 2013, 08:16:15 pm
I voted for "put it on owners hand" though. Reason:
Reverse Time is not OP but it's getting boring when you're facing a Reverse Time spam because you like always see the same card.
So why not putting it back into owners hand? It would be "nice" when the owner has a full hand and then has to get rid of a card.
Post by: omegareaper7 on August 19, 2013, 10:28:56 pm
I am not very scared of reverse time. In my eyes it's a balanced card and doesn't have much impact on the game because the creature is not neutralized but only "delayed".If its not overpowered, there is no reason to nerf. Especially a nerf like that. That would ruin a lot of decks outs, and have to redo game mechanic (what does it do when there hand is full).
I voted for "put it on owners hand" though. Reason:
Reverse Time is not OP but it's getting boring when you're facing a Reverse Time spam because you like always see the same card.
So why not putting it back into owners hand? It would be "nice" when the owner has a full hand and then has to get rid of a card.
Post by: jawdirk on August 19, 2013, 10:54:36 pm
Post by: rob77dp on August 20, 2013, 12:06:41 am
a one shot kill for 2 quanta is so OP
forget about the fact that you now have to redraw the same card next turn or that you have to pay the quanta cost again to play that creature
being able to kill a creature in one shot for 2 quanta is silly
1st - Reverse Time | Rewind does not "kill" any creatures.
2nd - RT is devastating against small-quanta-margin deck types or super combo's (Adrenaline'd Flying Momentum Druidic Staff for example) but try stopping anything+Fractal with RT or simple vanilla-creature spam with RT. Hint: the latter is quite ineffective.
Summary - RT is not overpowered right now and it does not kill.
Post by: Naesala on August 20, 2013, 04:19:45 am
Would it not be considered killing if I had a card that was essentially reverse time but put it on the bottom of the deck? The player would never get that creature back (unless they were against a deck out) and would lose all investment in it.
I continue to feel that RT is overpowered because of how much it shut down. People keep claiming "card advantage!" but what you have right now is a 2quanta 1 card cost card that gives 1 turn draw denial (meaning our card advantage is equal), X quanta denial (cost of the card reversed), X turns of "delaying" the creature (however long before it can be played again), and it eliminates the benefit of every card used to buff (Quanta and card advantage). It can slow rushes enough to set up a solid defense. Only decks that produce much excess quanta and draw power can effectively deal with it. What I would like to see is a counter to it just like there is a counter to other creature control cards, the Heavy mechanic I've seen in particular appeals. This would allow combo decks to risk having some other buffs in favor of being able to avoid it and perhaps give some options in Semi-vanilla creatures to buff or use against it.
Post by: Chapuz on August 20, 2013, 04:24:00 am
Post by: jawdirk on August 20, 2013, 06:13:23 am
I still think creatures should be RTd with the same stats and abilities it had before. No, it's not only because of Voodoos... Maybe... Probably... Who knows...
If you reverse time a voodoo doll everything you did in your last turn should be undone, of course. ;)
Post by: andretimpa on August 20, 2013, 01:18:45 pm
Post by: lordwok on August 26, 2013, 01:55:44 pm
I still think creatures should be RTd with the same stats and abilities it had before. No, it's not only because of Voodoos... Maybe... Probably... Who knows...
^ this
you are basically killing the creature and making the next card in your opponents deck a "new" copy of that creature
all quanta investments, buffs etc are gone and on top of that you have to pay the quanta cost to field the creature again
i dont know for 2 quanta being able to do that seems like its a bit cheap no?
Post by: jawdirk on August 27, 2013, 03:43:33 am
you are basically killing the creature and making the next card in your opponents deck a "new" copy of that creature
all quanta investments, buffs etc are gone and on top of that you have to pay the quanta cost to field the creature again
i dont know for 2 quanta being able to do that seems like its a bit cheap no?
I have to agree that it is a bit cheap. RT is probably mostly responsible for making buff-based strategies unviable. However, RT is also pretty useless against a lot of mono rush decks (aether of course, but also fire, air, and darkness).
Post by: andretimpa on August 27, 2013, 08:17:41 am
you are basically killing the creature and making the next card in your opponents deck a "new" copy of that creature
all quanta investments, buffs etc are gone and on top of that you have to pay the quanta cost to field the creature again
i dont know for 2 quanta being able to do that seems like its a bit cheap no?
I have to agree that it is a bit cheap. RT is probably mostly responsible for making buff-based strategies unviable. However, RT is also pretty useless against a lot of mono rush decks (aether of course, but also fire, air, and darkness).
It's not useless at all against a rush. You delay your opponents creatures a lot and it is sometimes all the advantage you need to beat your opponent. Not to mention you prevent your opponent's draw which is vital in rushes.
Post by: jawdirk on August 29, 2013, 12:00:18 am
you are basically killing the creature and making the next card in your opponents deck a "new" copy of that creature
all quanta investments, buffs etc are gone and on top of that you have to pay the quanta cost to field the creature again
i dont know for 2 quanta being able to do that seems like its a bit cheap no?
I have to agree that it is a bit cheap. RT is probably mostly responsible for making buff-based strategies unviable. However, RT is also pretty useless against a lot of mono rush decks (aether of course, but also fire, air, and darkness).
It's not useless at all against a rush. You delay your opponents creatures a lot and it is sometimes all the advantage you need to beat your opponent. Not to mention you prevent your opponent's draw which is vital in rushes.
Yes, not entirely useless, but:
1. You do not delay your opponent's creatures as long as they have the quanta. Mono decks commonly have extra quanta, particularly in the mid-to-late game. An exception is cremation-based decks, which RT is effective against.
2. The opening hand is more vital than draw in rushes. Conversely, draw is more vital than opening hand in control. Control decks are the ones that need the draws so that they can set up a way to maintain card advantage before they die from the rush's opening hand. RT is better in rushes than in control decks for this reason.
Post by: Acsabi44 on August 30, 2013, 08:26:45 am
Post by: jawdirk on August 30, 2013, 06:26:49 pm
I think it is true. The control version of the RT is Eternity as it yields card advantage. (or does it? Is it card advantage if the opponent keeps drawing the same card? Technically not, but you keep drawing options and he does not draw additional threats. Good question.)
Eternity does indeed yield card advantage if it is used. Every time it is used, it costs no cards, and removes an enemy card from play.
Another way to look at it: Putting an enemy card in play on the top of the enemy's deck is equivalent to putting the card in the enemy's hand (no card advantage) plus depriving the enemy of their next draw (1 card advantage).