Post by: plastiqe on April 14, 2012, 03:05:44 pm
Overpowered new shard, discuss.
I'll add poll options based on good suggestions.
Post by: Darkobra on April 14, 2012, 03:12:06 pm
Post by: Jenkar on April 14, 2012, 03:18:47 pm
Do you not think you should put in your thoughts? What's there to discuss? WHY do you think it's overpowered? Putting in just "Discuss" is useless if you post a picture of a shard and just say "Discuss."Because it's permanent control on a stick at no cost with high hp? And it makes stalls, which are already highly unused decks, even less strong?
Post by: Pineapple on April 14, 2012, 03:25:18 pm
Post by: plastiqe on April 14, 2012, 03:29:09 pm
Do you not think you should put in your thoughts? What's there to discuss? WHY do you think it's overpowered? Putting in just "Discuss" is useless if you post a picture of a shard and just say "Discuss."
It's not my first rodeo. : )
I do have my own thoughts but I don't like to put them in the first post of a nerf thread because I'd rather hear what others have to say than read responses for or against my own opinions. I think it generates a better discussion.
Post by: Nepycros on April 14, 2012, 03:35:47 pm
Post by: furballdn on April 14, 2012, 08:31:52 pm
Post by: Fireleaf on April 15, 2012, 01:17:59 am
Post by: eaglgenes101 on April 15, 2012, 03:38:02 am
I'm aware that I hold an extreme view, but I dislike the idea of PC being available to all elements at a reasonable cost (3 destructions for 7/5 quanta) so much that I feel SoF should be removed from the game and replaced with something else.Or at least have an ability cost that isn't cheap.
Post by: bogtro on April 15, 2012, 04:10:20 am
Sidenote: this indirectly buffs PA/EA.
Post by: valiance on April 15, 2012, 12:33:19 pm
However 3 perms for 5 quanta does seem a lil OP. Fractal with this would be fun though lolol.
Post by: The_Mormegil on April 15, 2012, 01:12:41 pm
Post by: Jenkar on April 15, 2012, 01:13:34 pm
This is one of the shards I hate the most, both in concept and in execution. It seems like a bad excuse for the lack of Permanent Control in most elements, and I'd rather see cards such as Touch of Midas, Implosion, Rejuvenation and Dark Kraken in the game in its place.So much +1.
Post by: mega plini on April 15, 2012, 02:50:06 pm
Post by: vrt on April 17, 2012, 08:35:54 am
Post by: yaladilae on April 17, 2012, 08:48:47 am
on another note, this shard has highlighted both how strong earth is (petrify, guard, PA), and that we only really have PA to protect our permanent (whereas creatures have things like nymph / anubis)
And Jenkar is right, it's shards like this that makes stall deck boring to play and everyone is just building rushes after rushes....
Post by: mega plini on April 18, 2012, 08:21:39 pm
Shard of focus regenerates a black hole wich is a counter to the meta defining speedbow. I think this is a good thing.
But where does it go wrong?
Is it because it can destroy multiple permanents? Pulvy does that too. This is not the problem.
Is it because it nerfs speedbows? Changing the meta is a good thing (it keeps us sharp). This is not the problem.
Is it because it does all these things at the same time?
Maybe...
Look, I have absolutely no problem with powerfull cards and I believe a card that both destroys permanents and nerfs speedbows at the same time can exist.
So, as far as I'am concerned, that is no real problmem.
The real problem about shard of focus is: IT IS ALMOST INDISTRUCTIBLE.
In fact, that by itself isn't the problem eather. Armagio is almost indistructible as well. So what's the difference? Let me tel you.
Shard of Focus is a creature with an epic ability that is even harder to destroy than a Pulvy.
That is , I Think, the problem. Only a lobo effect can stop it. But these effects are not so common in the meta. Other cc can't kill it, it can only slow it down by reversing or freezing it.
That's why tyhis card is OP and should be nerfed.
A good point to star is are his hitpoints. With low Hp this creature would be more balanced. At least we could counter it.
Post by: Sinolai on April 19, 2012, 07:03:38 am
Only rainbows can use this card with out thinking about its cost and it can destroy only three permanents which is not too much in my opininon. (Pulivenizer can be used as many time as you want if you have :gravity :gravity :gravity/ :gravity :gravity) Enemy can also take a copy of this card with parallel universe (I do this a lot, although I take copies of my own shard :P)
Reverse time is also fun to play with this.
If you really want to nerf if, maybe its starting hp could be dropped to 5.
Post by: Atico on April 19, 2012, 07:42:30 am
I always hated PC in game, because it is too easy to destroy some kind of stuff. Now PC is easier. I prefer some kind of "soft PC" like SoW or SoFr - avoid shield or Rejuvenation.
I agree that SoF should be removed from game and Rejuvenation (as PC for Life) and other cards should come in 1.31.
Post by: RRQJ on April 19, 2012, 04:10:20 pm
One big problem (among others) is that, especially if you can control the HP, it is almost always beneficial to use the effect on pillars. Every other form of PC is generally saved for other permanents (besides earthquake for obvious reasons) because the cost of using the PC is more than the benefit you gain from destroying a pillar. Thanks to it's zero skill cost and ease of getting multiple shards onto the field, that's not the case for this.
And even if you don't have a way to control hp, 6 shards=18 permanents. There's only a handful of decks that have more than 18 permanents (including pillars), and they are likely to be heavily reliant on hourglasses, which you can likely destroy when it comes out even if you were extremely aggressive with destroying permanents.
At a minimum, I think this needs a skill cost or a clause that prevents destroying pillars.
Post by: Atico on April 19, 2012, 05:57:44 pm
SoSa and Sof should be nerfed, changed or removed from game.
Post by: mega plini on April 19, 2012, 06:23:59 pm
Let it delay permanents for 2 turns and it might be a little balanced.Actulaly that is a great Idea! delaying permanents for soft permanent control.
But then again, it can't get any worse than it already is, can it?
Post by: Zso_Zso on April 19, 2012, 06:54:17 pm
I played against the same deck ;) FireNymph+RageElixir+BlackHole+SoF, fine combo.
That's my deck -- unless somebody else made the same too. :o
I also thought this shard was OP, but the performance of my deck in the arena actually demonstrates that it is not
This deck went 4-2 so far and is almost out of the league due to strong negative rating. When I submit a speedbow, that easily gets 10-1 win-loss results.
Which means a deck built around SoF is still significantly weaker than a speedbow.
Post by: Glitch on April 19, 2012, 06:58:46 pm
I'd have to play around with it though.
Post by: RRQJ on April 19, 2012, 07:23:37 pm
I played against the same deck ;) FireNymph+RageElixir+BlackHole+SoF, fine combo.
That's my deck -- unless somebody else made the same too. :o
I also thought this shard was OP, but the performance of my deck in the arena actually demonstrates that it is not
This deck went 4-2 so far and is almost out of the league due to strong negative rating. When I submit a speedbow, that easily gets 10-1 win-loss results.
Which means a deck built around SoF is still significantly weaker than a speedbow.
the deck I played was monofire. No blackholes. It just focused on SoF and raging it while destroying permanents. If I remember correctly, it was 10-0 when I played it.
Post by: Atico on April 19, 2012, 07:29:48 pm
I played against the same deck ;) FireNymph+RageElixir+BlackHole+SoF, fine combo.
That's my deck -- unless somebody else made the same too. :o
I also thought this shard was OP, but the performance of my deck in the arena actually demonstrates that it is not
This deck went 4-2 so far and is almost out of the league due to strong negative rating. When I submit a speedbow, that easily gets 10-1 win-loss results.
Which means a deck built around SoF is still significantly weaker than a speedbow.
Yes, it was Your deck. I beat Your deck because AI was "stupid" in this game, he didn't use skill every turn and You didn't draw BH so early ;) But concept is fantastic.
I saw that we have in Platinum more decks with quantum or pillars destroy. A lot of Pests, Quicksands, BH is in 20-30% decks, Discord and SoF. Add Explosions and Steals. Sorry, but it is too much.
This game lose a lot of fun in 1.30 when opponent can easily clean Your quantum. I want to PLAY this game, PLAY with more strategies, more tactics. All cards which I mentioned destroy sense of this game especially when are playing in duo-trio, like Pest+Quicksand, Discord+BH, BH+Quicksand etc... What is the sense of game when I haven't got any chance to produce a quantum? Sorry, but it is stupid. Only bad hand gives a chance to win against this decks. So when coin toss or lucky will be the most important things in game then we will have a problem...
PS. Sanctuary didn't solve the problem. It is card for only one element, which cost 3, so often You haven't got any chance to play it. What is more SoF+BH or Pest+Steal laughs at Sanctuary.
I have no idea what we should do, but something in this game goes wrong.
Post by: Korugar on April 19, 2012, 07:47:18 pm
First, the only major synergy with this card and Gravity is gravity pull (acceleration removes its focus, and if you go there you might as well use something that starts with a higher attack, like the dragon, or is cheaper, like armagio) and that's cheap enough that a rainbow can easily use it, while taking advantage of the higher quanta production. Thus, this is a true "other" card, in that it is much better within a rainbow than its intended elemental preference.
To build on that, let's approach this thematically. Entropy has always been more directly connected to rainbows, what with nova and supernova, along with improved mutating (this is much more useful if you can take advantage of the skills of said mutants). So it seems as though it's natural opposite, Gravity, should be more naturally opposed to rainbows, which is also evident from the cards. Black hole is, of course, the most obvious example, only useful vs. rainbows (and immolation decks), but there's more. While in the unupped environment, Gravity is one of the weakest elements, I do believe it holds its own in upped situations. However, as opposed to the other elements that get cheaper when upgraded, Gravity creatures usually get stronger instead. This presents a unique situation, in which it becomes very difficult to splash most Gravity creatures in other decks, making it a preferred mono, or perhaps duo element. So, connecting the element to rainbows in any way seems counter productive thematically.
I would suggest a modification or selective nerf to this card, but not a general nerf. The current cost makes it acceptable within a mono environment (in my opinion), but not rainbow, and even if one were to narrow it down to mono, it should still have a slant toward Gravity that is currently lacking.
As such, I think the following addition should be made to the text: "Accretion: Destroy a permanent and gain +0/+15. Turn into black hole if HP>50 and mark is gravity. If not, then when HP>30."
I think the text becomes too long in this case, but you get the idea.
Post by: Captain Scibra on April 20, 2012, 12:10:20 pm
Also, I have a general notion that PC in itself is somewhat imbalanced, but let's leave that alone for the time being...
Post by: SnoWeb on April 20, 2012, 12:18:32 pm
This is one of the shards I hate the most, both in concept and in execution. It seems like a bad excuse for the lack of Permanent Control in most elements, and I'd rather see cards such as Touch of Midas, Implosion, Rejuvenation and Dark Kraken in the game in its place.I agree fully.
Post by: Bonestorm on April 21, 2012, 06:10:56 am
This is one of the shards I hate the most, both in concept and in execution. It seems like a bad excuse for the lack of Permanent Control in most elements, and I'd rather see cards such as Touch of Midas, Implosion, Rejuvenation and Dark Kraken in the game in its place.I agree fully.
+1 for more varied in game PC, this card needs a complete effect change IMO.
Post by: Pwnator on April 22, 2012, 07:06:37 am
I hate this card more than I hate SoSa. >.<
Post by: Mathematistic on April 22, 2012, 01:23:41 pm
Well, first of all, is eating 3 permanents then die really that OP? While pulvy is long lasting, this shard implodes automatically. As opposed to pulvy, it has no attack as well, and provides wee rushing and stalling power. Its sloe use is to destroy permanents, which is like an insurance. If your opponent doesn't play any perms at all or does not rely on them (or have so many pillars that SoFo can't do much), it's basically a dead card. If you use it outside of gravity, it is even more dead-the BH go waste (side note, upped SoFo gives unupped BH, intended?). It is only powerful in the sense that it helps breaking stalls by smashing perms. For the pillar smashing part, looks at EQ... it is way more versatile but fail to perform specific duties. Once again, it's an insurance in case you see mono-aether or other perm-heavy deck types (including stalls, which would have included PA for important perms anyways). Other than reducing the power of perms (which is quite high now IMO, or else why do we need all those pulvies in non-DBH speedbows, steals in rainbow DBH, explosions in immorush etc?), which is completely fine to me, it only provide a BH with 3 turn delay... (sounds so much like event horizon to me XD) OP or not?
Secondly, you know, most of you think that it provides a cheap way out for all elements to have PC, but... no. Remember it's 7/5 in cost. It's either nova+SoFo or SoFo consumes effective quanta. The former one is a 2-card combo, and deserves to be more powerful than a single pulvy (2 card combos like oty+quint could have won you a game, for comparison). The latter one uses up your quanta which could have used for summoning mid-rangers that could deal 20+ damage (for instance, GotP, costing 6 :time unupped, deal 28. the value is underestimated due to potential CC.) while SoFo is active, assuming SoFo really destroy 1 perm each turn. By using up a card slot in your deck for SoFo, you essentially gave your opponent a heal. Let's compare this to upped oty. For around the same quanta cost (and slightly higher activation cost of oty ability), oty guarantees death of all your opponent's creatures which are not protected and has lower than 5 hp (and more due to growth of oty, underestimated again), but for a cost slightly lower cost you can smash 3 perms. OMG! 3 perms! It can occasionally win you a game, but never as frequent as oty. Sure, oty is for gravity only, but other elements have similar cards that uses quanta way more efficiently than SoFo. Putting a pair of SoFo in every deck actually impedes the speed, while "smart" novas waste card space or conflict with other uses of your :rainbow quanta.
Thirdly, it enriches the metagame. GP+SoFo, another 2 card combo, is a very effective synergy. The BH is situational, but nonetheless, powerful. Instead of turning it into a BH, you could have catapulted it for massive damage or accelerate it to bring doom slowly. It even encourages the use of mono-gravity, which increases the variety of the metagame. It also enables a lot of fun synergies by compensating their lack of PC, compromised by deck speed, which is a fairly fair trade. It gives rise to alternative ways of deck building, which adds to the fun of the game (and more topdecking chaos!). It has good enough reasons to stay the way as it is.
One might argue that SoFo is OP by comparing it to BE and/or pulvy. Yes, it's much better than BE, so what? SoFo is something between instant PC and chronic PC. It does not give as much guarantee to the complete obliteration of stalls than pulvy/BE, and usually needs multiple copies to work. However, in comparison, drawing 1 BE/pulvy is enough to break lots of stalls given enough quanta is produced (by proper deckbuilding skills of course). They are not exactly of the same genre, and so, arguing that SoFo is not element specific but cost roughly the same (or even less) to destroy perms is not valid, as the perm destroying power is much weaker unless multiple copies are used, which, again, is related to card advantage, and let me remind use all once, 2 card combos deserve to be better than single cards. Well, but, BE is a 2 card combo too. However, BE is better in terms of PC for mono-entropy, and is more of a guarantee, as said above. Overall, SoFo is not much better than BE and is comparable to pulvy, and it's BE that needs a buff IMO, not SoFo needs a nerf.
In conclusion, SoFo is not OP, but just quite powerful. It weakens perms, which changes the metagame in a good way, and balances the nerf to rushes by nerfing SN. It is a semi-sustainable form of PC only, is is powerful, but not OP. I know this is against the general consensus, but ah well...
*Gets ready to be decapitated*
Post by: mega plini on April 22, 2012, 02:02:26 pm
The fact that it cannot be removed is in my eyes the OPness. you might also notice that you need only 5 quana (7 unupped) to destroy 3permanets. Compare this to any other form of Permanent control and dare to say this card is not OP. It uses :rainbow, any quanta will do! You are not restricted to a color.
Of course that was the point of :rainbow Permanent Control, but would't you expect that it's flexibility comes at a cost? No! They instead made it better than any other form of Pc!
I can understand you disagree about this (actualy I can't but I respect your oppinion)
But now... Prepare to be slaugthered!!!!
There is one part in your argumentation that makes no sense at all! You claim that This card would enrich the metagame!
You dish up some story of a synergy with gravity pull, failing to see the bigger picture! How can a card that destroy's Dozens of achtypes (basicly anything that relies on permanents) because of it's OPness enrich the metagame?
Not only it makes decks relying on permanents impossible, it also nerfs the rainbow decks.
So basicly it destroyed more than it ever can contribute.
Post by: Mathematistic on April 22, 2012, 05:11:25 pm
Once again, perm heavy decks always have excess perms that could only be obliterated by chronic PC, as well as PA on important perms, so you argue that they are "destroyed", pulvy has "destroyed" them anyways.
... and it at least gives some chances (usually small) for non-PC decks to win vs perm heavy stall, and gives flexibility to the decks not to contain pulvies/BE/other PC. This helps reducing the Rock-Paper-Scissor situation in games and enables 80% Rock and 20% Scissors in case Paper is encountered. Simple RPS is way too primitive... card games can do much better than that.
Rainbows (but not SN, at least not as much as singularity) deserve a nerf in order to encourage the use of monos and duos in the metagame, which is a form of enrichment.
One side note, BH is more powerful vs duos than it seems. It is a great push factor for people to use it with gravity, or at least, splash in gravity and gravity cards.
Post by: BluePriest on April 22, 2012, 05:50:03 pm
Post by: eaglgenes101 on April 22, 2012, 06:19:12 pm
Post by: pulli23 on April 23, 2012, 09:06:01 am
Post by: Atico on April 23, 2012, 09:17:37 am
For me it is stupid when we create next "destroy card". I like cards like SoWisdom or Rejuvenation which allows use for me new tactics. Now this game looks like - who destroy more is winner. Destroy quantum, destroy pillars, destroy permaments, destroy creatures. All can be easily destroyed for 1-3 quantum. But the best thing is that You can also easily destroy counter for this cards like Sanctuary.
Of course I want to see more PC (especially for Life), but it must be "soft PC" like Rejuvenation, not destroy.
Post by: Toxx on April 25, 2012, 10:39:32 pm
Post by: Kardo on April 26, 2012, 01:52:20 am
I'm not sure if this has been suggested (haven't read the whole thread) but what if the mechanic worked in reverse. Instead of increasing in HP as permanents are destroyed, Shard of Focus starts at a higher HP (0/35 for example) and decreases for every Permanent killed. This allows the Shard to be used with Overdrive and Catapult more easily and makes it increasingly vulnerable to CC as it destroys. With Angels it could destroy more than it is capable of now.
Another possible solution would be to tie HP gain/loss to the player who's permanent is destroyed. +15 HP when your own permanent is destroyed, -15 HP when your opponent's is destroyed. In order to destroy multiple opposing permanents you would also have to destroy some of your own to keep the HP high enough (may need to increase base HP in this case).
Post by: Blue101 on April 27, 2012, 05:08:34 am
Frankly that is broken.
it needs to cost more AND do less not one or the other. if you could only use it twice and it cost nothing it's still be OP. make it cost 6 to play and 4 to use and only be useable twice.
or make it not RARE so I can exploit it's OPness.
Post by: tyranim on April 27, 2012, 05:16:28 am
scenarios:
accelerate it: lobotomizes it first, so buhby PC
grav pull it: how easy is it for a rush to take out a 45 hp creature pretty quick? not that hard
grav pull it AND accelerate it: good luck with that
fractal it: "dead" monsters (once you CAN fractal it, your opponent will have plenty reserve quanta)
eternity it: meh, i cant think of a reason this is bad, but its not great enough for nerf
catapult it: buhby PC
i guess MAYBE increase cost to 6, but that might stretch it a bit
Post by: Alchemist on April 27, 2012, 07:05:31 am
Now, recently the same story was with Shards of sacrifice. They were way much too strong for the rest of the game. So something had to be done, and purify got buffed. This is the new "Shard of sacrifice", a card that disbalanced the game, and in the next version it will get nerfed, or some other card will get buffed....
Post by: Pwnator on April 27, 2012, 09:00:54 am
i feel that this card doesnt need a nerf.
scenarios:
accelerate it: lobotomizes it first, so buhby PC seems to be just as bad, actually
grav pull it: how easy is it for a rush to take out a 45 hp creature pretty quick? not that hard how easy is it for a deck that doesn't rely on permanents to take out a deck full of SoFs? And if it's not a rush, you've dug yourself a deeper hole because now it can destroy even more permanents
grav pull it AND accelerate it: good luck with that BB does a better job than that :P
fractal it: "dead" monsters (once you CAN fractal it, your opponent will have plenty reserve quanta) I don't get what you're going with here. Fractal it, you have a field full of attackless creatures unless you have SoP (but then you're better off fractalling damsies or gemfinders anyway)
eternity it: meh, i cant think of a reason this is bad, but its not great enough for nerf you get stronger PC with this combo, but not really a proper reason for a nerf
catapult it: buhby PC they can target creatures now? I haven't encountered one recently to actually check hahahaha
i guess MAYBE increase cost to 6, but that might stretch it a bit I doubt this would help. Provided you have 2 QTs in hand you can still throw one out in the first turn
It's not really the fact that it barely has any counters makes it OP. It's OP because it grants PC to elements that don't have it, without the cost of splashing another element in. Now you see dimstalls with SoFs, SPlat splashed with SoFs, even random :life decks with SoFs.
Actually, I couldn't think of a way to fix this without making it feel too similar to the other PC cards we have right now. I guess the ability should just be scrapped in favor of more unique ideas like Ricochet or Magnet/Lodestone.
Post by: TheAccuso on April 27, 2012, 09:41:34 am
Post by: Manatuner on April 27, 2012, 10:25:03 pm
Post by: Fayceless on April 27, 2012, 10:35:37 pm
Post by: 17927.2brainz on April 27, 2012, 10:47:24 pm
Post by: kimham8a on April 28, 2012, 02:52:42 am
Post by: Fireleaf on April 30, 2012, 08:31:51 pm
Post by: Atico on May 01, 2012, 05:04:48 pm
2. Overdrive instead BlackHole (good synergy with SoF)
Post by: RRQJ on May 01, 2012, 07:04:43 pm
1. Destroy non-pillar permament
2. Overdrive instead BlackHole (good synergy with SoF)
2 would not only not make sense thematically, but it would also make this even stronger (unless the SoF still gets sacrificed, in which case the synergy is bad, not good).
Post by: Atico on May 01, 2012, 08:13:36 pm
Today we situation, when I can destroy Your pillars by SoF and I have in hand BlackHole to destroy quantum which You gain until I destroy Your pillars. Add Pests, Steals (for faster destroy pillars) and You can see how OP this Shard is.
So I think that my idea is much better than this what he have today. Personally I didn't like idea of giving PC for all, but when zanz wants this then I can only talk about making it more balanced. When it would depend on me - I would change SoF completly. What is more, I prefer idea when Permaments from the same element as mark are untargetable. Poweful concept, maybe few permaments should then cost more but it is neccesary. Yesterday AI used 7 or 8 PC in a row against me (Steals and Explosion). Funny? Now SoF destroys all (it is fine to see 4 SoF in field :D). Do we really need this in game? Don't You think that it is stupid? The biggest joke is with Sanctuary. Protect against Pests? Steal it, heal +4HP and laugh at opponent. Defend against BlackHole? SoF destroy all You Sanctuaries and gives You next BH. Discord? All depends on coin toss, You have 50% chance to be faster than Discord ;) It is only counter against Silence.
It is very bad when counters are weaker than cards/abilities it counter. When Permaments the same as Mark would be untargetable, then Sanctuary will be real counter. Then having permaments would have sense. It would be good buff for monos-duos and nerf for rainbows. One simple decision and game is much better and fair. PC would be still important because the most of decks are rainbows (Entropy Mark).
Post by: RRQJ on May 01, 2012, 09:09:06 pm
Post by: Laxadarap on May 01, 2012, 09:29:38 pm
I think the big problem with SoF is that it's way too good in a rainbow deck. If it's meant to be a "gravity" shard, it shouldn't work so well...so perfectly well... in a rainbow deck. I think it would make sense, in the context of gravity (and other shards like SoSa) for SoF to absorb 1 of each non- :gravity quanta from the owner and gain 1 hp per quanta absorbed every turn.
My problem as well. It fits too well in rainbows. Sose is acceptable because Entropy is the "rainbow" element.
However, your fix also only helps rainbows. For it to drain all non-gravy quanta, it would only heal you if you had other quanta, which sucks in monos, duos, and frankly, anything less than a mono.
Post by: Fayceless on May 01, 2012, 09:57:32 pm
Post by: OldTrees on May 01, 2012, 10:46:24 pm
it may have a growing gravity cost to it's ability everytime it destryos something.Change that to :rainbow cost and I am on board.
Post by: justaburd on May 01, 2012, 10:53:28 pm
Post by: FIQ on May 01, 2012, 11:56:42 pm
I would like to reduce the HP to 10 and up HP by 5 each turn and restrict it to hp<25. This makes it easier to counter, the main problem IMO is the huge amount of HP
Post by: OldTrees on May 02, 2012, 12:18:10 am
The reason for why this is OP is *mostly* because Elements in general lack PC.I think you mean:
I would like to reduce the HP to 10 and up HP by 5 each turn and restrict it to hp<25. This makes it easier to counter, the main problem IMO is the huge amount of HP
1) SoF is cheaper than the current recently nerfed PC. An activation cost of 2-3 is required to come close.
or
2) Elements general lack of anti-PC like Protect Artifact.
Post by: Atico on May 02, 2012, 08:07:06 am
Interferencion on my field should be difficult, nearly impossible. In this game it is too easy. Opponent should blocked my by shields or cards ability, but no by tones of PC or CC. What we have today? I can kill 90% creatures for 1 quantum or delay for 6 turns. I can kill all Yours permaments very easily. I can destroy Your quantum. I can destroy Your counters. And all cost 1-3 quantum. Put Dragon for 10-12 quantum and kill by 1. We have 12 elements and no one didn't get for me defending against opponent CC and PC. I must always playing against CC, PC etc.
But people like this. In 1.31 topic they talk about... next PC, for water. Yes, please give next PC and next CC. Having permaments today is very problematic, after this shard problem is higher. Only Rejuvenation idea shows how PC or CC should work. Not kill/destroy but turning into other skill.
Protect permaments by mark (when they are from the same element as mark) didn't solve this problem, but can help. I am waiting for card "leave me alone" which allow for me playing normal this game.
I didn't want to say that we should have CC and PC in game. Of course we need this. But it should be difficult to use - for example weapons or expensive creatures.
Post by: Alchemist on May 02, 2012, 08:25:57 am
Post by: OldTrees on May 02, 2012, 08:54:39 am
PC are always OP. Earlier it was frustrating for me, when I had 2 HG and GoP/Nightmare deck stole always both. I spent 8 :time and have nothing. He spent 6 :darkness and have 2 HG. Fantastic... Now it is funny for me, that we allow on this.Control needs to cost less than the thing it removes / mitigates. Otherwise it would be useless. If Explosion cost 4 :fire then Hourglasses would never explode. SoF is too cheap even taking this detail into account.
You believe that interference should be more difficult. I have a more complex view. I see the ideal case being where players have the option to increase speed at the cost of certainty (protection from interference) or to increase certainty at the cost of speed. We need more PC but we also need to add more anti-PC.
Post by: Atico on May 02, 2012, 09:44:53 am
PC are always OP. Earlier it was frustrating for me, when I had 2 HG and GoP/Nightmare deck stole always both. I spent 8 :time and have nothing. He spent 6 :darkness and have 2 HG. Fantastic... Now it is funny for me, that we allow on this.Control needs to cost less than the thing it removes / mitigates. Otherwise it would be useless. If Explosion cost 4 :fire then Hourglasses would never explode. SoF is too cheap even taking this detail into account.
You believe that interference should be more difficult. I have a more complex view. I see the ideal case being where players have the option to increase speed at the cost of certainty (protection from interference) or to increase certainty at the cost of speed. We need more PC but we also need to add more anti-PC.
Sorry, but I can't agree with You. Sometimes PC can be profitable also when it will cost 5, 8 or 10 quantum. Destroying Eternity, DimShield etc often determines result of the game. Cost of playing Eternity or Dim Shield hasn't got any significance to cost PC. It is always worth to destroy it also when Explosion will cost 5 :fire.
So You want PC for all (or for the most) elements. Great. So You want to see situation, when putting shield on a field without protecting = always destroying? More PC = more difficult to use permaments. Sorry, but it is stupid when game force me to playing permaments only in duo - permament+anti PC. I have better idea - remove permaments instead of giving new PC, result is the same but less frustrating ;)
Post by: Mathematistic on May 02, 2012, 11:24:13 am
PC are always OP. Earlier it was frustrating for me, when I had 2 HG and GoP/Nightmare deck stole always both. I spent 8 :time and have nothing. He spent 6 :darkness and have 2 HG. Fantastic... Now it is funny for me, that we allow on this.Control needs to cost less than the thing it removes / mitigates. Otherwise it would be useless. If Explosion cost 4 :fire then Hourglasses would never explode. SoF is too cheap even taking this detail into account.
You believe that interference should be more difficult. I have a more complex view. I see the ideal case being where players have the option to increase speed at the cost of certainty (protection from interference) or to increase certainty at the cost of speed. We need more PC but we also need to add more anti-PC.
Sorry, but I can't agree with You. Sometimes PC can be profitable also when it will cost 5, 8 or 10 quantum. Destroying Eternity, DimShield etc often determines result of the game. Cost of playing Eternity or Dim Shield hasn't got any significance to cost PC. It is always worth to destroy it also when Explosion will cost 5 :fire.
So You want PC for all (or for the most) elements. Great. So You want to see situation, when putting shield on a field without protecting = always destroying? More PC = more difficult to use permaments. Sorry, but it is stupid when game force me to playing permaments only in duo - permament+anti PC. I have better idea - remove permaments instead of giving new PC, result is the same but less frustrating ;)
It is the lack of anti-PC that is the problem.
Post by: Atico on May 02, 2012, 01:42:04 pm
PC and CC should be rare. PC maybe very rare. PC and CC should be difficult to use - only by weapons, maybe shields, big creatures. Cards like Lighting, Explosion, Steal, Rewind, Quicksand (!!), BlackHole should be never in this game! I know that now it is impossible to do because a lot of players will be protesting. Simple raising cost of Explosion make frustration in "fire fans" but they know that Explosion for 4 :fire will be still powerful and useful card.
CC from Eternity, EE, Lobo, Skull Buckler - good and acceptable.
PC from Trident, Pulvy - good and acceptable.
CC and PC from easy to play cards (1-3 quantum cost) are bad and this destroy game. Maybe in Elements 2.0 we will see more tactic, less destroying...
Post by: BluePriest on May 02, 2012, 03:51:01 pm
Currently in trainer.
....
Shard of focus HP reduced to 1
Shard of focus turns into a black hole when HP>45
Upgraded shard of focus cost increased to 6
Upgraded shard of focus generates upgraded black holes
Bug fix:
....
- Shard of focus turns into a black hole only when the accretion skill is activated
....
Post by: OldTrees on May 02, 2012, 05:57:11 pm
If Deflag cost more than DimShield, people would play DimShield to counter DimShield rather than play Deflag to counter DimShield. Replace DimShield with the permanent of your choice.PC are always OP. Earlier it was frustrating for me, when I had 2 HG and GoP/Nightmare deck stole always both. I spent 8 :time and have nothing. He spent 6 :darkness and have 2 HG. Fantastic... Now it is funny for me, that we allow on this.Control needs to cost less than the thing it removes / mitigates. Otherwise it would be useless. If Explosion cost 4 :fire then Hourglasses would never explode. SoF is too cheap even taking this detail into account.
You believe that interference should be more difficult. I have a more complex view. I see the ideal case being where players have the option to increase speed at the cost of certainty (protection from interference) or to increase certainty at the cost of speed. We need more PC but we also need to add more anti-PC.
Sorry, but I can't agree with You. Sometimes PC can be profitable also when it will cost 5, 8 or 10 quantum. Destroying Eternity, DimShield etc often determines result of the game. Cost of playing Eternity or Dim Shield hasn't got any significance to cost PC. It is always worth to destroy it also when Explosion will cost 5 :fire.
So You want PC for all (or for the most) elements. Great. So You want to see situation, when putting shield on a field without protecting = always destroying? More PC = more difficult to use permaments. Sorry, but it is stupid when game force me to playing permaments only in duo - permament+anti PC. I have better idea - remove permaments instead of giving new PC, result is the same but less frustrating ;)
People do not Lightning Bolt Damselflys.
I favor soft PC (non removal) over hard PC (removal). I doubt you would be so frustrated about a card that delayed target single permanent for 1 turn for 1-2 :time.
I also favor the existence of anti-PC (in all elements). This lets players choose how risky they want their deck to be.
I think your prediction is inaccurate. Consider the relationship of Creatures, CC and anti CC. Creatures are still played and players enjoy the freedom to choose how much risk to take. This choice is part of strategy. It may not be tactics but it is close.
Post by: Atico on May 02, 2012, 07:49:32 pm
Very easy test - Add for Life card like Explosion which will cost 4 :life. I guarantee that it wouldn't be underused card.
I know that today I can't choose between "less and difficult PC" or "more anti PC". Zanz can't throw out few cards so I must support option "more anti PC". And I give easy change - Mark determines protecting permaments. Good change, maybe few cards needs nerf (like DimShield) but overall I like this concept. Giving new cards of course also help, but it is difficult to win game using only defending (protecting) cards. I have only 30 cards in deck, about 10 are Pillars. Packing anti PC, anti CC didn't solve a problem. The best example is with Sanctuary. This card is fine, but it didn't protect as should. It is really stupid when deck which Sanctuary counter can steal or destroy it ;)
Maybe it will be good change (as rewards in Trails) to giving Sanctuary at the start (as bonus) for Player which use Light Mark. Of course other elements should give other bonus - like Time and extra draw or seeing next five cards, Life and +20 HP etc. There are a lot of ideas how solve this problem. Adding next ProtectArtifact is the worst way.
Post by: Laxadarap on May 02, 2012, 08:11:44 pm
When they play mono-duo fire or darkness they haven't got any choose between Explosion or DimShield. They can ONLY use explosion. And paying 4-5 for Explosion will be still worthy deal. In my one FGdeck I pay 7 quantum for one use of PC and it was big deal for me (Butterfly Effect).Very easy test - Add for Life card like Explosion which will cost 4 :life. I guarantee that it wouldn't be underused card.
I know that today I can't choose between "less and difficult PC" or "more anti PC". Zanz can't throw out few cards so I must support option "more anti PC". And I give easy change - Mark determines protecting permaments. Good change, maybe few cards needs nerf (like DimShield) but overall I like this concept. Giving new cards of course also help, but it is difficult to win game using only defending (protecting) cards. I have only 30 cards in deck, about 10 are Pillars. Packing anti PC, anti CC didn't solve a problem. The best example is with Sanctuary. This card is fine, but it didn't protect as should. It is really stupid when deck which Sanctuary counter can steal or destroy it ;)
Maybe it will be good change (as rewards in Trails) to giving Sanctuary at the start (as bonus) for Player which use Light Mark. Of course other elements should give other bonus - like Time and extra draw or seeing next five cards, Life and +20 HP etc. There are a lot of ideas how solve this problem. Adding next ProtectArtifact is the worst way.
Ok, what your saying here is that PC would be basically eliminated in rainbows. The only efficient fix would be SoF, which goes great in rainbows, yet you are complaining about this as well. Should rainbows just be unable to deal with any permanents?
Post by: Atico on May 02, 2012, 08:55:34 pm
Yes, PC should be difficult to use, especially for rainbows. Rainbow decks has got too much advantages, they didn't need "easy PC". Life, Air, Time hasn't got PC, so technically there is no problem to disable PC for rainbows.
What is more - Steal in mono darkness maybe isn't the biggest problem in game as Steal in rainbow deck. When mono darkness steal Hourglasses or Mindgate then both players can't use it. But when rainbow use Steal...
It is very difficult discussion, but necessary. There are too much destroying cards in game. Few elements has got PC and CC (like Fire), Life has got nothing. And here is a question - add PC/CC for Life or throw out PC/CC from Fire. All Players know that Zanz didn't throw Explosion, so they want to see PC for Life, Water to balance the game. I suggest third way to solve this conflict - making PC and CC harder to use. How? Raise the cost, protect by Marks or other concept.
OldTrees mention about taking risk by Players. OK, I accept this sentence and I give next reason for "buff" marks - Player should choose level of risk when he choose mark. Light, Life, Air should protect me against destroy tactics. Fire, Darkness should promote destroying but gives more risk.
You want to use PC? There is no problem, choose Fire mark, but opponent can also use it.
You didn't want to play against PC? There is no problem - use Life Mark. You can't use PC and opponent also.
You didn't want to play against thousands of BlackHoles, Pests or Quicksands? Choose Light.
You didn't want to see tones of CC? Choose Air
You want to draw cards faster/or see next 5 cards? Choose Time
etc.
Post by: Laxadarap on May 02, 2012, 09:11:32 pm
@Laxadarap - I can reserve this question and ask - Why today rainbows must have easy way to PC? Explosion, Steal, SoF and more...
Yes, PC should be difficult to use, especially for rainbows. Rainbow decks has got too much advantages, they didn't need "easy PC". Life, Air, Time hasn't got PC, so technically there is no problem to disable PC for rainbows.
What is more - Steal in mono darkness maybe isn't the biggest problem in game as Steal in rainbow deck. When mono darkness steal Hourglasses or Mindgate then both players can't use it. But when rainbow use Steal...
It is very difficult discussion, but necessary. There are too much destroying cards in game. Few elements has got PC and CC (like Fire), Life has got nothing. And here is a question - add PC/CC for Life or throw out PC/CC from Fire. All Players know that Zanz didn't throw Explosion, so they want to see PC for Life, Water to balance the game. I suggest third way to solve this conflict - making PC and CC harder to use. How? Raise the cost, protect by Marks or other concept.
OldTrees mention about taking risk by Players. OK, I accept this sentence and I give next reason for "buff" marks - Player should choose level of risk when he choose mark. Light, Life, Air should protect me against destroy tactics. Fire, Darkness should promote destroying but gives more risk.
You want to use PC? There is no problem, choose Fire mark but opponent can also use it.
You didn't want to play against PC? There is no problem - use Life Mark. You can't use PC and opponent also.
You didn't want to play against thousands of BlackHoles, Pests or Quicksands? Choose Light.
You didn't want to see tones of CC? Choose Air
You want to draw cards faster/or see next 5 cards? Choose Time
etc.
First of all, rainbows need PC because the ones that can't afford are rushers. If say a phase shield is drawn, and they have no cc, they automatically lose 3 turns. 3 turns is more than enough for a game to end, and rushes lose all their advantages. That is 1 permanent to dissamble an entire strategy.
As to your idea of buff marks, it completely disregards protect artifact. In many decks, like padimmshields, an earth mark is required for PA. If you add in these buff marks, you could make one of these with shockwave, immortal creatures, immortal shield, 12 cc. Not quite OP, but a bit hard to defeat.
Another point is that I know a few experienced players who feel that the game is too permanent based, this would make it even more so. Some of the most annoying decks for bronze farmers are aetherstalls, mostly because people farming use speedbows/immorushes. When you make it even harder to pack in PC, its a major problem.
In rainbows PC cards are balanced. Most plan on having 1 or 2 cards from each element, and our current PC (many rainbows don't use weak enough creatures for BE), is fire (which you have to sacrifice destroyers or MP for) or darkness (many people use steals anyway, but you lose gargoyles). There is only 3 elements in the game with PC (not counting pulvy). And now add in rainbows w/ SoF (I don't feel sof is effective in other elements, costs too much). We don't really need more anti-cc imo.
Post by: Atico on May 02, 2012, 09:36:10 pm
Quote
First of all, rainbows need PC because the ones that can't afford are rushers. If say a phase shield is drawn, and they have no cc, they automatically lose 3 turns. 3 turns is more than enough for a game to end, and rushes lose all their advantages. That is 1 permanent to dissamble an entire strategy.
Life hasn't got PC and CC and also must play against DimShield. So where is the problem? You wrote about situation which we have today with Life, Air, Time etc. So I didn't see problem when rainbows will have the same difficult against shields like Life. Probably You like rainbows ;)
For the rest of post - I wrote, that some permaments maybe should be nerfed and DimShield is one of them. But I didn't see problem with protected DimShield by Mark when :aether :air :death :earth :gravity :life :light :time :water can't destroy it without protecting ;)
What is more - I told about also about other changes when only few elements protect me against PC or CC. Aether can give other bonus.
We have only 3 mono elements with hard PC (Fire, Darkness and Entropy) - and it shouldn't be problem. But problem is that about 50% of decks use this cards. Upped Steal is often used than all Towers in game (beside QuantumTower)! It is horrible...
Post by: OldTrees on May 02, 2012, 09:40:56 pm
Very easy test - Add for Life card like Explosion which will cost 4 :life. I guarantee that it wouldn't be underused card.By your metric of underused or mine? I expect that after the novelty (new card yay! or PC in life yay!) and distaste (Life got Hard PC? Boo!) wore off, the card would be underused relative to the current balance of Permanents, PC and anti PC.
Marks having effects like soft anti control (or other effects depending on theme) is a good idea.
PS: Life uses Heal rather than PC vs DimShield.
Post by: Atico on May 02, 2012, 10:03:32 pm
Heal = 1 turn more, DimShield has got 3 turns, so it isn't good "counter".
And I agree that it can be soft anti control, I told only about initial concept. This discuss has got sense especially when Zanz wants to make The Trial with Marks
Post by: Guizonde on May 02, 2012, 11:10:20 pm
Quote
Life hasn't got PC and CC and also must play against DimShield. So where is the problem?
i beg to differ on the CC part: the thorn shield/ carapace is soft CC, but it remains CC. combined with :life's outrageous healing, only pure rushes, stalls, and one hit ko's can frag that element... that, and momentum, but i digress.
OldTrees, are you referring to the card idea Vines?http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,18812.0.html (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,18812.0.html)
Post by: OldTrees on May 02, 2012, 11:31:00 pm
atico, you said:Thorn Carapace is hard (lethal) CC.QuoteLife hasn't got PC and CC and also must play against DimShield. So where is the problem?
i beg to differ on the CC part: the thorn shield/ carapace is soft CC, but it remains CC. combined with :life's outrageous healing, only pure rushes, stalls, and one hit ko's can frag that element... that, and momentum, but i digress.
OldTrees, are you referring to the card idea Vines?http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,18812.0.html (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,18812.0.html)
I was not directly referring to Vines. However I did mention soft PC and Vines is the 2nd most famous soft PC. Vines also is anti PC.
Post by: Guizonde on May 02, 2012, 11:55:31 pm
what's the most famous soft pc, then? truth be told, i've yet to see all the cards in the factory... "yet" being the keyword here
Post by: pulli23 on May 03, 2012, 12:12:58 am
Post by: OldTrees on May 03, 2012, 12:27:02 am
oh, and here i thought the difference between soft and hard was active and passive (squid's freeze is hard because it's activated, whereas the fire shield is soft because it's passive). my bad, got lost in jargon.Rejuvenation (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,34369) is a recent card idea that was slightly more popular than Vines. It went through the polls so fast that I got whiplash.
what's the most famous soft pc, then? truth be told, i've yet to see all the cards in the factory... "yet" being the keyword here
Post by: Laxadarap on May 03, 2012, 12:54:04 am
Post by: jacker on May 03, 2012, 12:55:33 am
Post by: Minamikaze on May 03, 2012, 06:13:01 am
To make it benefits more to :gravity than :rainbow, Making the BH aspect :gravity only seems to be a good solution:
"The shard is destroyed when HP>49, and if your mark is :gravity BH effect is triggered"
or
"If your mark is :gravity, using Accretion absorbs 1 quantum per element from the opponent. The shard is destroyed when HP>49"
What really is OP is the whole concept of PC. That's why the shard is considered OP.
Post by: OldTrees on May 03, 2012, 06:22:59 am
I think it's okay with SoF having lower costs than other PC, because SoF is a SHARD. If it has to be balanced with regular cards, then other shards like SoR, SoP, SoFr need to be nerfed as well... Furthermore the shard can be countered by CC before it can make its full effect, while Explosion and Steal don't have this problem.You are new. Rarity is no excuse for being overpowered. Many shards should be nerfed.
It recently dropped to 1hp. The majority of this thread was before that change.
Post by: Atico on May 03, 2012, 10:41:01 am
Simple comparision:
I play for example Hourglasses and pay 4 :time
1st situation (Explosion) - opponent lose 2 :fire, I lose 4 :time and we both haven't got nothing
2nd situation (Steal) - opponent lose 3 :darkness, I lose 4 :time. I have nothing, he has got useful card
3rd situation (Rejuvenation) - opponent lose 3 :life, I lose 4 :time. I lose my permament ability but gain +5HP. Opponent gain disable my previous ability.
Don't You think that only 3rd situation is balanced?
PC gives always too big advantage, especially when destroy shield or tower. Someone asked me here why I think that. I answer - How much shields You pack into the deck? 2-3 max. The same with weapons. It means that when I destroy Your shield You probably didn't draw next one so fast. And here we can see big powerful of PC. Not when it destroy SoG or FeralBond which can be pack 6 in a deck.
Post by: Absol on May 03, 2012, 11:12:12 am
Rejuvenation shows how should PC work. This card was choosen as the best idea of 2011, so people like this mechanism.
Simple comparision:
I play for example Hourglasses and pay 4 :time
1st situation (Explosion) - opponent lose 2 :fire, I lose 4 :time and we both haven't got nothing
2nd situation (Steal) - opponent lose 3 :darkness, I lose 4 :time. I have nothing, he has got useful card
3rd situation (Rejuvenation) - opponent lose 3 :life, I lose 4 :time. I lose my permament ability but gain +5HP. Opponent gain disable my previous ability.
Don't You think that only 3rd situation is balanced?
PC gives always too big advantage, especially when destroy shield or tower. Someone asked me here why I think that. I answer - How much shields You pack into the deck? 2-3 max. The same with weapons. It means that when I destroy Your shield You probably didn't draw next one so fast. And here we can see big powerful of PC. Not when it destroy SoG or FeralBond which can be pack 6 in a deck.
Hourglass: 4 :time
Explosion : 2 :fire, disable it permanently
Steal: 3 :darkness, disable it permanently + create a copy
A copy here is worth 1 quanta. You can only use the Glass if you have :time.
Rejuvenation: 3 :life, disable it permanently + give opponent SoG. In addition, can be used on creature too.
Does 1 :life worth giving opponent SoG + can target creature?
Compare LS or OD:
LS: 3 :darkness, lobo + vampire + 1 damage per turn
OD: 4 :gravity, lobo + +3|-1 per turn
Answer: yes, Rejuvenation worth it. Because it doesn't kill the creature affected, it can use cost reduction (from 3 or 4 to 2, +1 for versatility)
Conclusion: all 3 situations are balanced.
Alternately, compare Rejuvenation to Steal.
3 :darkness, destroy + gain copy
3 :life, destroy + give SoG + versatility
Still balanced.
PC is a card designed to give you card advantage, similar to CC. It will fail against permanentless deck just as CC fail against creatureless deck.
You can see it this way: for every PC i put in my deck, i remove 1 perma from your deck. Either bring more perma, bring protection (Cloak, EA) or don't bring perma at all.
Post by: Atico on May 03, 2012, 11:35:16 am
Quote
Alternately, compare Rejuvenation to Steal.
3 :darkness, destroy + gain copy
3 :life, destroy + give SoG + versatility
Still balanced.
It isn't balanced on side people who use permament. In first situation I have got nothing and opponent has got permament. In second I lose Permament, but gain SoG. It is huge difference.
I defend victim, You defend robber ;)
Post by: Absol on May 03, 2012, 12:12:59 pm
I told about balance on side people who use permament. You told about balance on side people who use PC ;)In which case, let's compare Explosion, Steal, and Rejuv again.QuoteAlternately, compare Rejuvenation to Steal.
3 :darkness, destroy + gain copy
3 :life, destroy + give SoG + versatility
Still balanced.
It isn't balanced on side people who use permament. In first situation I have got nothing and opponent has got permament. In second I lose Permament, but gain SoG. It is huge difference.
I defend victim, You defend robber ;)
Explosion: 2 :fire, destroy perma
Steal: 3 :darkness, destroy perma + get copy
Rejuv: 3 :life, destroy perma + give SoG
From Explosion, we know that plain PC worth 2 quanta.
Steal have 1 additional quanta because it gives you advantage.
Rejuv have 1 additional quanta (2 additional cost - 1 cost) because even if it's versatile (+2), it gives you disadvantage (-1).
Post by: Atico on May 03, 2012, 02:08:46 pm
Game between Life and Darkness. Both has got PC - Rejuvenation (Life) and Steal (Darkness).
Player A (Life) put Feral Bond on a field.
Player B (Darkness) put Dusk Mantle on a field.
Both Players thinks that opponent's permament is problematic for them and they want to destroy it.
Player A use Rejuvenation on DuskMantle
Player B use Steal on FeralBond.
What is the effect and summary?
Both Players spent 3 quantum.
Player A hasn't got any permament.
Player B has got FeralBond and SoG effect.
Still You think that it is balanced? Of course it isn't. Steal, Explosion, SoF are hard PC. Hard PC today is ALWAYS OP. Always. Hard PC (especially Steal and QuickSand) gives too big advantage for player for small cost. Having PC often determines result of the game and this is reason why Steal and Explosion are very popular cards also in non-fire and non-darkness decks. But we always accepted this fact. Now in game appear new hard PC, available for everyone and people are afraid of this.
I would like to see in game more ideas like SoW, SoFr, Rejuvenation than SoF, SoSa, Steal, Quicksand etc. The last my hope for this game is TheTrial and Marks. Maybe Marks allow to disable PC, CC or others cards.
Post by: RRQJ on May 03, 2012, 03:58:47 pm
Post by: OldTrees on May 03, 2012, 05:21:29 pm
The part you are misunderstanding or underestimating is versatility.
Steal is nowhere near as versatile as Rejuvenation
For both cards to be balanced, Steal needs to have a larger effect than Rejuvenation
Also: 3 :life|2 :life < 4 :darkness|3 :darkness.
Post by: mega plini on May 03, 2012, 05:42:27 pm
Your argument is based on the fat that rejuvenation will have the cost that it does. If it were to be added to the game, zanz may just as likely let it cost 1 :life or something.Pc for only one :life? I don't think that is ever going to happen. at least I hope it doesn't
Post by: OldTrees on May 03, 2012, 05:58:52 pm
Depends on the PC. Delay for 1 turn might only cost 1 :time + 1card.Your argument is based on the fat that rejuvenation will have the cost that it does. If it were to be added to the game, zanz may just as likely let it cost 1 :life or something.Pc for only one :life? I don't think that is ever going to happen. at least I hope it doesn't
Post by: Atico on May 03, 2012, 07:35:08 pm
Personally I think that BH is the second problem in SoF. Destroying Towers + giving BH... Yeah... Why we produce in this game too powerful things? Why SoF after die can't produce for example 6-8 :gravity quantum (the same as Immolation) but must destroy the last opponent's quantum?
Post by: dspn23 on May 03, 2012, 07:44:22 pm
still about the comparison between steal/explosion/rejuvenation
they all are difrent and that is what they are suposed for:
2 :fire + card = enemy problematic permanent destroyed
3 :darkness + card = enemy problematic permanent destroyed and 1 for you're self (wich (for example in case of some permanents like diapasition fild are actualy worst to steal than to destroy in mono darkness decks)
2 :life + card= well we can't specify cause it have lot's of uses: can work as healing if you are short on it can work as PC and CC (despite it's a week CC)
the point is: they are all difrent AS SUPOSED we don't want 2 cards doing the same we want every card being unic! not saying it can't be replaced like in a cremation deck ray of light can be replaced by ball of lightning. HOWEVER in rol/hope they can not be replaced and in a bonewall/ball of lighning they CAN'T be replaced.
so i think this card is very usefull and should not be compared to steal or explosion cause it's TOTALY difrent
Post by: OldTrees on May 03, 2012, 08:22:11 pm
Current PC has a baseline to which it is balanced. SoF is cheaper than this baseline. Hence it is OP. The reduction to 1hp helps but I think the current side effect (Extremely cheap mass PC that is vulnerable to CC -> All decks required to have CC) is still harmful to the metagame.
Post by: mega plini on May 03, 2012, 10:13:19 pm
Too draw the tangent back on topic.
Current PC has a baseline to which it is balanced. SoF is cheaper than this baseline. Hence it is OP. The reduction to 1hp helps but I think the current side effect (Extremely cheap mass PC that is vulnerable to CC -> All decks required to have CC) is still harmful to the metagame.
It turns into a black hole as well, do you think that it is advisable to nerf that aspect as well?
Post by: OldTrees on May 03, 2012, 10:46:47 pm
No and Yes.Too draw the tangent back on topic.
Current PC has a baseline to which it is balanced. SoF is cheaper than this baseline. Hence it is OP. The reduction to 1hp helps but I think the current side effect (Extremely cheap mass PC that is vulnerable to CC -> All decks required to have CC) is still harmful to the metagame.
It turns into a black hole as well, do you think that it is advisable to nerf that aspect as well?
The ability to turn into a card should, theoretically, have the same value regardless of the card it turns into. This assumes all cards are balanced. It would be better to balance the card it turns into rather than change that part of the effect.
Post by: mega plini on May 03, 2012, 11:05:00 pm
One can argue about this, saying that it would be neccesary to build a deck around it before it comes to good use. This is true: without gravity quanta, the black hole is a waste.
On the other hand we must not forget that the black hole, when :gravity is available, is a big treat.
I do not think that this has priority over the cheapness of the card when nerfing it, but I would be happy if the whole BH thing is reconsiddered.
Post by: OldTrees on May 03, 2012, 11:08:56 pm
I think the card advantage, assuming BH is balanced, is roughly equivalent to other loyalty bonuses like Shard of Gratitude's +2 regen for Life marks.
However this means that the rest of SoF should be balanced using the same metric as the regen 3 version of SoG. Aka weaker than the baseline.
Post by: Korugar on May 03, 2012, 11:25:09 pm
Post by: OldTrees on May 03, 2012, 11:27:06 pm
Hmm, this might have fixed some of the balance issues, but it still doesn't fix the biggest problem: this is supposed to be the gravity shard, yet it provides virtually no advantage to playing it with a gravity deck.Non gravity decks: PC
Gravity decks: PC and Quanta Denial
Post by: Korugar on May 04, 2012, 02:27:09 am
Post by: OldTrees on May 04, 2012, 02:29:35 am
It's not as simple as that. Assuming you're just referring to gravity pull, that can easily be used in rainbows. Plus, most decks put out more than fifteen damage per turn fairly quickly, which means the shards won't last more than an extra two or three turns. That's not enough damage for quanta denial, unless you ignore more expensive damaging permanents. If you leave it till later, the deck will probably not be significantly damaged by losing a few pillars.You do know that non gravity decks cannot play Black Hole.
Post by: Korugar on May 04, 2012, 09:02:25 am
Post by: Sqantic Pilau on May 04, 2012, 09:40:18 am
I'm aware that I hold an extreme view, but I dislike the idea of PC being available to all elements at a reasonable cost (3 destructions for 7/5 quanta) so much that I feel SoF should be removed from the game and replaced with something else.Not sure if I could possibly agree more - if we're not careful all elements will have both PC and CC - we need less rather than more in my opinion.
Post by: Atico on May 04, 2012, 06:07:26 pm
Hmm, this might have fixed some of the balance issues, but it still doesn't fix the biggest problem: this is supposed to be the gravity shard, yet it provides virtually no advantage to playing it with a gravity deck.Non gravity decks: PC
Gravity decks: PC and Quanta Denial
Really?
I played against MonoAether deck, but with Gravity Mark. 0 Gravity cards, but Gravity Mark. Why? If You use Shards then type of mark is not really matter, because SoF cost rainbow quantum (so it isn't important which mark You have). But interesting situation is later. 3 turns of destroying Towers, gain 3 Gravity quantum (or 6, 9 in Arena) and gain BlackHole. Perfect!
The same is with SoD. Poison deck, 0 Light cards, but Light Mark ;) But adding +8HP more isn't the same problem for opponent (this bonus is acceptable) as clearing quantum pool and gain up to 36 HP. It is OP mechanism (or more powerful than SoD bonus), the same like duos between QS, BH, Discord, Pests.
Post by: OldTrees on May 04, 2012, 06:36:59 pm
Summary: You were able to have quanta denial because you chose to use a Gravity mark with Shard of Focus. As far as shards go that is sufficient to qualify for the loyalty bonus.Hmm, this might have fixed some of the balance issues, but it still doesn't fix the biggest problem: this is supposed to be the gravity shard, yet it provides virtually no advantage to playing it with a gravity deck.Non gravity decks: PC
Gravity decks: PC and Quanta Denial
Really?
I played against MonoAether deck, but with Gravity Mark. 0 Gravity cards, but Gravity Mark. Why? If You use Shards then type of mark is not really matter, because SoF cost rainbow quantum (so it isn't important which mark You have). But interesting situation is later. 3 turns of destroying Towers, gain 3 Gravity quantum (or 6, 9 in Arena) and gain BlackHole. Perfect!
Post by: Atico on May 04, 2012, 06:45:18 pm
Earlier we had QS+BH duo Earth+Gravity. Now it can be done by SoF+BH.
As I wrote earlier:
1. Destroy non-pillar permament
2. Other card than BH as bonus (maybe Gravity quantum?) or... nerf BH.
Post by: RRQJ on May 04, 2012, 07:39:39 pm
You keep saying that BH from the SoF is OP. You have given no evidence for that. I can't see how it is OP; the only thing I find OP about SoF is the fact that it's too cheap for it PC ability. The black hole, more often than not, is only used to heal myself and possibly EM. Never have I found it useful in denying my opponent; usually using the PC ability on their pillars was all that's needed. The BH was basically a "win more" card.
If you want people to understand why you think it's OP, you need to explain why. Saying you changed your mark to use BH does not prove that BH is OP.
Post by: TheAccuso on May 04, 2012, 07:54:37 pm
Are you certain you wouldn't have done better if you just kept your mark as aether and forget the black holes? Mono-aether has high cost aether cards; the mark can be the difference between being able to play a shield or losing.Well, discord + BH is like hell, but of course it's just 1 tactic and also i like SoF like it is now.
You keep saying that BH from the SoF is OP. You have given no evidence for that. I can't see how it is OP; the only thing I find OP about SoF is the fact that it's too cheap for it PC ability. The black hole, more often than not, is only used to heal myself and possibly EM. Never have I found it useful in denying my opponent; usually using the PC ability on their pillars was all that's needed. The BH was basically a "win more" card.
If you want people to understand why you think it's OP, you need to explain why. Saying you changed your mark to use BH does not prove that BH is OP.
Post by: RRQJ on May 04, 2012, 08:36:29 pm
Are you certain you wouldn't have done better if you just kept your mark as aether and forget the black holes? Mono-aether has high cost aether cards; the mark can be the difference between being able to play a shield or losing.Well, discord + BH is like hell, but of course it's just 1 tactic and also i like SoF like it is now.
You keep saying that BH from the SoF is OP. You have given no evidence for that. I can't see how it is OP; the only thing I find OP about SoF is the fact that it's too cheap for it PC ability. The black hole, more often than not, is only used to heal myself and possibly EM. Never have I found it useful in denying my opponent; usually using the PC ability on their pillars was all that's needed. The BH was basically a "win more" card.
If you want people to understand why you think it's OP, you need to explain why. Saying you changed your mark to use BH does not prove that BH is OP.
Yes, but in that case you're also packing the actual BH card. You aren't going to be relying on the BH generated from your SoF.
Post by: TheAccuso on May 04, 2012, 08:38:36 pm
but of course it's just 1 tactic 2...Are you certain you wouldn't have done better if you just kept your mark as aether and forget the black holes? Mono-aether has high cost aether cards; the mark can be the difference between being able to play a shield or losing.Well, discord + BH is like hell, but of course it's just 1 tactic and also i like SoF like it is now.
You keep saying that BH from the SoF is OP. You have given no evidence for that. I can't see how it is OP; the only thing I find OP about SoF is the fact that it's too cheap for it PC ability. The black hole, more often than not, is only used to heal myself and possibly EM. Never have I found it useful in denying my opponent; usually using the PC ability on their pillars was all that's needed. The BH was basically a "win more" card.
If you want people to understand why you think it's OP, you need to explain why. Saying you changed your mark to use BH does not prove that BH is OP.
Yes, but in that case you're also packing the actual BH card. You aren't going to be relying on the BH generated from your SoF.
Post by: Atico on May 04, 2012, 09:09:30 pm
Quote
Are you certain you wouldn't have done better if you just kept your mark as aether and forget the black holes? Mono-aether has high cost aether cards; the mark can be the difference between being able to play a shield or losing.Yes and no. You have 3rd turn and You play SoF. What is the difference between paying 5 :rainbow:
a) 3 :aether + 2 :gravity from Mark
b) 3 :aether + 2 :aether from Mark
There is no difference, but You receive after 3 turns possibility to use BH. But not here is problem of course. I said only that You can have mono non-gravity deck and have CC, PC and quantum denial. So "all in one" in mono. Looks too strong, isn't it?
You say about high cost aether cards. It can be other mono element like Earth (especially with Pulvy)
Quote
You keep saying that BH from the SoF is OP. You have given no evidence for that.I said it a lot of times, so I can say one more time ;)
Destroying Towers and giving into the hand a card which clear quantum is too strong combo. It is like giving BlackHole after each Discord third attack.
Combo QS+BH is also too strong in my opinion.
Post by: Laxadarap on May 04, 2012, 09:15:41 pm
QuoteYou keep saying that BH from the SoF is OP. You have given no evidence for that.I said it a lot of times, so I can say one more time ;)
Destroying Towers and giving into the hand a card which clear quantum is too strong combo. It is like giving BlackHole after each Discord third attack.
Combo QS+BH is also too strong in my opinion.
Don't really agree with this. 1st of all, DBH's usually have a black hole every 3-4 turns, so its not really that bad, however I get the point of it being one card. Discord randomizez 9 quanta, leaving 1 quanta of an element, that means that against a mono, this could take out 26 quanta, then Bhole, and drain it all, while opponent can do basically nothing. You would heal a maximum of 26.
With SoF, you destory 3 permanents, which is basically a quanta gain reduction of -1 a turn. If you start with 4 pillars, that is 13 (including turn of summoning sickness), enough to play any card in the game. Use the Bhole, and you gain 3 hp, and oppoenent is left with 10 quanta, still able to play almost any card in the game.
Very bad comparison.
Post by: Atico on May 04, 2012, 09:33:02 pm
Quote
If you start with 4 pillarsIf You win on a lottery... ;)
You show example in mono. The most popular are rainbows. Mono decks aren't so popular, more often You receive 30-36HP than 3.
All depends on deck which we play against. Rainbows got nerf (good decision), so why not nerfing BH, quantum denials and pillars destroying?
I can agree that it isn't the fastest tactic, so when we win on a lottery (4 pillars) we have a chance to avoid this combo. But here is a question - why lucky is the most important thing in game? When I draw 1 pilllar I lose, when I draw 4 I win. I didn't like this.
Remember also that we can put SoF in all mono-duo decks, so also against Explosion/QS decks. What is more - I don't need destroy all Your quantum which You produced. You spend quantum on creatures so I can kill creatures + towers and You haven't got chance to put next creature. It can be new mechanism of winning - destroying Towers. I didn't like this, but maybe it was planned ;)
Post by: bogtro on May 04, 2012, 09:35:39 pm
Post by: Atico on May 04, 2012, 09:39:35 pm
If you don't like playing against Black Hole with your rainbow, then an easy solution is to not play rainbow. Problem solved.I don't play rainbows too much, I prefer duos-trios and here BH also hurts ;) But it isn't solve of the problem. Use You this argument also in other "Nerf card" topics?
- You think that Lighting is too powerful? Play Quint
- You think that Quicksand is too powerful? Play RoL
- You think that RoF is too powerful? Don't play RoL
- You think.... - Don't play this game ;)
Post by: Laxadarap on May 04, 2012, 09:40:23 pm
QuoteIf you start with 4 pillarsIf You win on a lottery... ;)
You show example in mono. The most popular are rainbows. Mono decks aren't so popular, more often You receive 30-36HP than 3.
All depends on deck which we play against. Rainbows got nerf (good decision), so why not nerfing BH, quantum denials and pillars destroying?
I can agree that it isn't the fastest tactic, so when we win on a lottery (4 pillars) we have a chance to avoid this combo. But here is a question - why lucky is the most important thing in game? When I draw 1 pilllar I lose, when I draw 4 I win. I didn't like this.
Remember also that we can put SoF in all mono-duo decks, so also against Explosion/QS decks. What is more - I don't need destroy all Your quantum which You produced. You spend quantum on creatures so I can kill creatures + towers and You haven't got chance to put next creature. It can be new mechanism of winning - destroying Towers. I didn't like this, but maybe it was planned ;)
Still extremely slow unless you use earthquakes. And so what if it's a nerf on rainbows? Rainbows often pack cc, plus think of novabows, maybe you'll get 2 quantum pillars, SoF can't BH with that, unless you destroy one of your own. By the time 4 turns are up, there is often enough Damage on the field to get a kill in the next couple turns, especially with opponent spending 7 quanta on a creature (yes this is all unupped, upped is just as relevant)
Post by: Cheesy111 on May 04, 2012, 09:47:07 pm
Post by: Atico on May 04, 2012, 09:50:31 pm
QuoteIf you start with 4 pillarsIf You win on a lottery... ;)
You show example in mono. The most popular are rainbows. Mono decks aren't so popular, more often You receive 30-36HP than 3.
All depends on deck which we play against. Rainbows got nerf (good decision), so why not nerfing BH, quantum denials and pillars destroying?
I can agree that it isn't the fastest tactic, so when we win on a lottery (4 pillars) we have a chance to avoid this combo. But here is a question - why lucky is the most important thing in game? When I draw 1 pilllar I lose, when I draw 4 I win. I didn't like this.
Remember also that we can put SoF in all mono-duo decks, so also against Explosion/QS decks. What is more - I don't need destroy all Your quantum which You produced. You spend quantum on creatures so I can kill creatures + towers and You haven't got chance to put next creature. It can be new mechanism of winning - destroying Towers. I didn't like this, but maybe it was planned ;)
Still extremely slow unless you use earthquakes. And so what if it's a nerf on rainbows? Rainbows often pack cc, plus think of novabows, maybe you'll get 2 quantum pillars, SoF can't BH with that, unless you destroy one of your own. By the time 4 turns are up, there is often enough Damage on the field to get a kill in the next couple turns, especially with opponent spending 7 quanta on a creature (yes this is all unupped, upped is just as relevant)
OK, we have other look on this game. I see problem with PC for everyone and adding easy BH in hand, You no.
Probably I am wrong and maybe oldschool, because I see that today more players like SoF than when this topic was started. I must accept fields with SoF and new destroying tactics ;)
Post by: justaburd on May 04, 2012, 09:50:44 pm
The real power of SoF is not in destroying pillars, IMO. A 3x-pillar destruction over three turns is worse than the comparable EQ by far (+2 +1 additional quanta for opponent). The real power of SoF is in destroying shields, weapons, hourglasses, stuff that COSTS quanta. And doing it all for free with tons more versatility power than BE or Pulvy, and triple the destruction of Steal and Explosion. That's SoF's strength, and combining that with something that cata's for practically the damage of a Titan for a measly amount of quanta(just add novae!) as well as combos with GPull and Accel? Simply ridiculous.I would like to add that the secondary function of murdering rainbows with BH is just icing on the cake.
Post by: Laxadarap on May 04, 2012, 11:09:16 pm
The real power of SoF is not in destroying pillars, IMO. A 3x-pillar destruction over three turns is worse than the comparable EQ by far (+2 +1 additional quanta for opponent). The real power of SoF is in destroying shields, weapons, hourglasses, stuff that COSTS quanta. And doing it all for free with tons more versatility power than BE or Pulvy, and triple the destruction of Steal and Explosion. That's SoF's strength, and combining that with something that cata's for practically the damage of a Titan for a measly amount of quanta(just add novae!) as well as combos with GPull and Accel? Simply ridiculous.
Gpull can be useful, but 10 damage a turn is pretty easy to get. Accel kinda sucks. An armagio that starts with no attack for more quanta. Hmm..
As to its versalitility, true, but it has a turn of summoning sickness, which is a pain, especially when it is going to be vulnerable to cc.
As to catapults, takes 4 turns for it to get the hp, takes same amount of quanta of titan, and titan will do 40 damage in the time it takes for SoF to get high enough hp. With Titan vs. Sof, the only permanent that needs to be taken out is maybe a pulverizer? Very narrow job.
Post by: TheAccuso on May 04, 2012, 11:21:56 pm
it can grows, SoF + gravity pull it's actually pretty strong.The real power of SoF is not in destroying pillars, IMO. A 3x-pillar destruction over three turns is worse than the comparable EQ by far (+2 +1 additional quanta for opponent). The real power of SoF is in destroying shields, weapons, hourglasses, stuff that COSTS quanta. And doing it all for free with tons more versatility power than BE or Pulvy, and triple the destruction of Steal and Explosion. That's SoF's strength, and combining that with something that cata's for practically the damage of a Titan for a measly amount of quanta(just add novae!) as well as combos with GPull and Accel? Simply ridiculous.
Gpull can be useful, but 10 damage a turn is pretty easy to get.
Post by: RRQJ on May 04, 2012, 11:53:33 pm
QuoteIf you start with 4 pillarsIf You win on a lottery... ;)
You show example in mono. The most popular are rainbows. Mono decks aren't so popular, more often You receive 30-36HP than 3.
All depends on deck which we play against. Rainbows got nerf (good decision), so why not nerfing BH, quantum denials and pillars destroying?
I can agree that it isn't the fastest tactic, so when we win on a lottery (4 pillars) we have a chance to avoid this combo. But here is a question - why lucky is the most important thing in game? When I draw 1 pilllar I lose, when I draw 4 I win. I didn't like this.
Remember also that we can put SoF in all mono-duo decks, so also against Explosion/QS decks. What is more - I don't need destroy all Your quantum which You produced. You spend quantum on creatures so I can kill creatures + towers and You haven't got chance to put next creature. It can be new mechanism of winning - destroying Towers. I didn't like this, but maybe it was planned ;)
Still extremely slow unless you use earthquakes. And so what if it's a nerf on rainbows? Rainbows often pack cc, plus think of novabows, maybe you'll get 2 quantum pillars, SoF can't BH with that, unless you destroy one of your own. By the time 4 turns are up, there is often enough Damage on the field to get a kill in the next couple turns, especially with opponent spending 7 quanta on a creature (yes this is all unupped, upped is just as relevant)
OK, we have other look on this game. I see problem with PC for everyone and adding easy BH in hand, You no.
Probably I am wrong and maybe oldschool, because I see that today more players like SoF than when this topic was started. I must accept fields with SoF and new destroying tactics ;)
Nobody like SoF as it is. The PC ability does not cost enough. However, nobody else has had any problems with the BH part. I don't claim to have read all the posts, but from the posts I've read, you're the only one who has continued to say that SoF should not become a BH. All you say is that "it creates too strong of a combo." That's only an opinion, not evidence. I don't think this is a strong combo, and it will be weaker if/once the cost of the PC aspect is increased.
Also, it seems like you're assuming you get a SoF out on the first turn. That can't always happen. If you're playing against a mono deck and it takes to 2-3 turns to get SoF out, I guarantee that you will not prevent them from playing stuff, unless they got a bad draw (like 0-1 towers or something) in the beginning.
Post by: Atico on May 05, 2012, 07:39:47 am
QuoteIf you start with 4 pillarsIf You win on a lottery... ;)
You show example in mono. The most popular are rainbows. Mono decks aren't so popular, more often You receive 30-36HP than 3.
All depends on deck which we play against. Rainbows got nerf (good decision), so why not nerfing BH, quantum denials and pillars destroying?
I can agree that it isn't the fastest tactic, so when we win on a lottery (4 pillars) we have a chance to avoid this combo. But here is a question - why lucky is the most important thing in game? When I draw 1 pilllar I lose, when I draw 4 I win. I didn't like this.
Remember also that we can put SoF in all mono-duo decks, so also against Explosion/QS decks. What is more - I don't need destroy all Your quantum which You produced. You spend quantum on creatures so I can kill creatures + towers and You haven't got chance to put next creature. It can be new mechanism of winning - destroying Towers. I didn't like this, but maybe it was planned ;)
Still extremely slow unless you use earthquakes. And so what if it's a nerf on rainbows? Rainbows often pack cc, plus think of novabows, maybe you'll get 2 quantum pillars, SoF can't BH with that, unless you destroy one of your own. By the time 4 turns are up, there is often enough Damage on the field to get a kill in the next couple turns, especially with opponent spending 7 quanta on a creature (yes this is all unupped, upped is just as relevant)
OK, we have other look on this game. I see problem with PC for everyone and adding easy BH in hand, You no.
Probably I am wrong and maybe oldschool, because I see that today more players like SoF than when this topic was started. I must accept fields with SoF and new destroying tactics ;)
Nobody like SoF as it is. The PC ability does not cost enough. However, nobody else has had any problems with the BH part. I don't claim to have read all the posts, but from the posts I've read, you're the only one who has continued to say that SoF should not become a BH. All you say is that "it creates too strong of a combo." That's only an opinion, not evidence. I don't think this is a strong combo, and it will be weaker if/once the cost of the PC aspect is increased.
Also, it seems like you're assuming you get a SoF out on the first turn. That can't always happen. If you're playing against a mono deck and it takes to 2-3 turns to get SoF out, I guarantee that you will not prevent them from playing stuff, unless they got a bad draw (like 0-1 towers or something) in the beginning.
As i said - BH isn't the biggest problem in this card, but giving BH after SoF is decision which I can't understand. We should promote in this game others cards than BH (for example Overdrive). BH is hard counter card and we allow to use 12 BH in game (24 in Arena) + Gravity Nymph. And it isn't important how much quantum BH destroy - sometimes destroying 3-6 quantum means problems for opponent. Zanz probably want to nerf rainbows in 1.30-1.31. Yes, rainbows needs nerf. But is it the best way to reach the goal? In my opinion no, escpecially when this card is powerful and it has got only one counter (Sanctuary), which is pretty easy to destroy for SoF.
I prefer more cards like SoW than SoF. SoW gives new possibilities of attack (by reflect) and allow avoid shield. Fine idea, 0% destruction, 100% tactic. And I want to see 12 Shards like this or like SoFr, which gives new abilities but not destroy. As long as SoF wouldn't be popular then this card isn't a big problem. But in few months this Shard will be the same popular as SoG - then situation wouldn't be so funny.
Post by: microman362 on May 05, 2012, 09:49:12 am
Post by: sunyata on May 05, 2012, 11:57:16 am
1) increase cost
2) incease activation cost
3) fewer turns till BH
4) freezes / rewinds rather than destroys permanent
5) remove from game / change its ability to somethng else
6) lower HP to turn into BH if mark is not :gravity
7) lower initial HP
8] HP falls rather than goes up when destoy perm. Turns to BH when it dies.
9) variant on [8]: destroying your own perm increases HP
10) using 2x in a row gives singularity instead of BH
11) Introduce more anti-pc counters that are available to more elements
12) and of course, though not sure anyone other than mathematistic will vote for it, "no nerf".
Post by: memimemi on May 05, 2012, 12:22:26 pm
OP said they would add a poll once there's feedback. Surely its high time there was a poll. Plenty of suggestions so far in thread:
(...)
12) and of course, though not sure anyone other than mathematistic will vote for it, "no nerf".
I, as well, would vote for "no nerf." It's really not all that powerful - high cost, no damage, vulnerable to CC (Freeze/Congeal is especially a PITA for this card), Fractal/TU bait, etc.
If there is anything OP about SoF, it's the fact that it can accrete/cancel, and still gain the HP. If it worked more like FW/AW, and couldn't go off without a valid target, or at least only gained HP after successfully destroying a permanent, it might seem a little more fair to those who fear it.
But, really, there are often better cards to use than SoF in most decks. Just my opinion - but I play Arena, and always pack PA in any deck that relies on perms anyways. If anything, SoF, for me, just means that more decks I face justify using PA, instead of it being a dead card in my hand against anything but darkness and fire.
Post by: Absol on May 05, 2012, 12:43:10 pm
Decrease HP gain per use. (still 3 use before turning to BH, though.)
Post by: sunyata on May 05, 2012, 01:48:49 pm
Also, add this:
Decrease HP gain per use. (still 3 use before turning to BH, though.)
I think that is already implicit in (6) lower HP before turn into BH
Post by: RRQJ on May 05, 2012, 05:20:30 pm
QuoteIf you start with 4 pillarsIf You win on a lottery... ;)
You show example in mono. The most popular are rainbows. Mono decks aren't so popular, more often You receive 30-36HP than 3.
All depends on deck which we play against. Rainbows got nerf (good decision), so why not nerfing BH, quantum denials and pillars destroying?
I can agree that it isn't the fastest tactic, so when we win on a lottery (4 pillars) we have a chance to avoid this combo. But here is a question - why lucky is the most important thing in game? When I draw 1 pilllar I lose, when I draw 4 I win. I didn't like this.
Remember also that we can put SoF in all mono-duo decks, so also against Explosion/QS decks. What is more - I don't need destroy all Your quantum which You produced. You spend quantum on creatures so I can kill creatures + towers and You haven't got chance to put next creature. It can be new mechanism of winning - destroying Towers. I didn't like this, but maybe it was planned ;)
Still extremely slow unless you use earthquakes. And so what if it's a nerf on rainbows? Rainbows often pack cc, plus think of novabows, maybe you'll get 2 quantum pillars, SoF can't BH with that, unless you destroy one of your own. By the time 4 turns are up, there is often enough Damage on the field to get a kill in the next couple turns, especially with opponent spending 7 quanta on a creature (yes this is all unupped, upped is just as relevant)
OK, we have other look on this game. I see problem with PC for everyone and adding easy BH in hand, You no.
Probably I am wrong and maybe oldschool, because I see that today more players like SoF than when this topic was started. I must accept fields with SoF and new destroying tactics ;)
Nobody like SoF as it is. The PC ability does not cost enough. However, nobody else has had any problems with the BH part. I don't claim to have read all the posts, but from the posts I've read, you're the only one who has continued to say that SoF should not become a BH. All you say is that "it creates too strong of a combo." That's only an opinion, not evidence. I don't think this is a strong combo, and it will be weaker if/once the cost of the PC aspect is increased.
Also, it seems like you're assuming you get a SoF out on the first turn. That can't always happen. If you're playing against a mono deck and it takes to 2-3 turns to get SoF out, I guarantee that you will not prevent them from playing stuff, unless they got a bad draw (like 0-1 towers or something) in the beginning.
As i said - BH isn't the biggest problem in this card, but giving BH after SoF is decision which I can't understand. We should promote in this game others cards than BH (for example Overdrive). BH is hard counter card and we allow to use 12 BH in game (24 in Arena) + Gravity Nymph. And it isn't important how much quantum BH destroy - sometimes destroying 3-6 quantum means problems for opponent. Zanz probably want to nerf rainbows in 1.30-1.31. Yes, rainbows needs nerf. But is it the best way to reach the goal? In my opinion no, escpecially when this card is powerful and it has got only one counter (Sanctuary), which is pretty easy to destroy for SoF.
I prefer more cards like SoW than SoF. SoW gives new possibilities of attack (by reflect) and allow avoid shield. Fine idea, 0% destruction, 100% tactic. And I want to see 12 Shards like this or like SoFr, which gives new abilities but not destroy. As long as SoF wouldn't be popular then this card isn't a big problem. But in few months this Shard will be the same popular as SoG - then situation wouldn't be so funny.
Ah, in that case, the explanation is simple: that's how the theme of the card works. Supermassive stars become black holes when they die. SoF gets too big -> dies and turns to black hole. I don't think zanz intended to make another card to nerf rainbows; it was just something that happened.
And I now understand that you are giving your opinion on what you want (stuff like SoFr instead). That's fine. But you can't go saying SoF needs to do ___ instead without giving a justification. There are people who like destruction effects. Other people are looking at the card from a balance point of view. "I don't like destroy effects" isn't something they are going to take as justification for why SoF should be changed.
SoG was too useful -> got nerfed. SoSa was too useful -> got nerfed (indirectly). I'm sure that if SoF continues to be OP even after the new nerf, it will get another nerf.
Post by: Atico on May 05, 2012, 05:59:32 pm
QuoteIf you start with 4 pillarsIf You win on a lottery... ;)
You show example in mono. The most popular are rainbows. Mono decks aren't so popular, more often You receive 30-36HP than 3.
All depends on deck which we play against. Rainbows got nerf (good decision), so why not nerfing BH, quantum denials and pillars destroying?
I can agree that it isn't the fastest tactic, so when we win on a lottery (4 pillars) we have a chance to avoid this combo. But here is a question - why lucky is the most important thing in game? When I draw 1 pilllar I lose, when I draw 4 I win. I didn't like this.
Remember also that we can put SoF in all mono-duo decks, so also against Explosion/QS decks. What is more - I don't need destroy all Your quantum which You produced. You spend quantum on creatures so I can kill creatures + towers and You haven't got chance to put next creature. It can be new mechanism of winning - destroying Towers. I didn't like this, but maybe it was planned ;)
Still extremely slow unless you use earthquakes. And so what if it's a nerf on rainbows? Rainbows often pack cc, plus think of novabows, maybe you'll get 2 quantum pillars, SoF can't BH with that, unless you destroy one of your own. By the time 4 turns are up, there is often enough Damage on the field to get a kill in the next couple turns, especially with opponent spending 7 quanta on a creature (yes this is all unupped, upped is just as relevant)
OK, we have other look on this game. I see problem with PC for everyone and adding easy BH in hand, You no.
Probably I am wrong and maybe oldschool, because I see that today more players like SoF than when this topic was started. I must accept fields with SoF and new destroying tactics ;)
Nobody like SoF as it is. The PC ability does not cost enough. However, nobody else has had any problems with the BH part. I don't claim to have read all the posts, but from the posts I've read, you're the only one who has continued to say that SoF should not become a BH. All you say is that "it creates too strong of a combo." That's only an opinion, not evidence. I don't think this is a strong combo, and it will be weaker if/once the cost of the PC aspect is increased.
Also, it seems like you're assuming you get a SoF out on the first turn. That can't always happen. If you're playing against a mono deck and it takes to 2-3 turns to get SoF out, I guarantee that you will not prevent them from playing stuff, unless they got a bad draw (like 0-1 towers or something) in the beginning.
As i said - BH isn't the biggest problem in this card, but giving BH after SoF is decision which I can't understand. We should promote in this game others cards than BH (for example Overdrive). BH is hard counter card and we allow to use 12 BH in game (24 in Arena) + Gravity Nymph. And it isn't important how much quantum BH destroy - sometimes destroying 3-6 quantum means problems for opponent. Zanz probably want to nerf rainbows in 1.30-1.31. Yes, rainbows needs nerf. But is it the best way to reach the goal? In my opinion no, escpecially when this card is powerful and it has got only one counter (Sanctuary), which is pretty easy to destroy for SoF.
I prefer more cards like SoW than SoF. SoW gives new possibilities of attack (by reflect) and allow avoid shield. Fine idea, 0% destruction, 100% tactic. And I want to see 12 Shards like this or like SoFr, which gives new abilities but not destroy. As long as SoF wouldn't be popular then this card isn't a big problem. But in few months this Shard will be the same popular as SoG - then situation wouldn't be so funny.
Ah, in that case, the explanation is simple: that's how the theme of the card works. Supermassive stars become black holes when they die. SoF gets too big -> dies and turns to black hole. I don't think zanz intended to make another card to nerf rainbows; it was just something that happened.
And I now understand that you are giving your opinion on what you want (stuff like SoFr instead). That's fine. But you can't go saying SoF needs to do ___ instead without giving a justification. There are people who like destruction effects. Other people are looking at the card from a balance point of view. "I don't like destroy effects" isn't something they are going to take as justification for why SoF should be changed.
SoG was too useful -> got nerfed. SoSa was too useful -> got nerfed (indirectly). I'm sure that if SoF continues to be OP even after the new nerf, it will get another nerf.
You are of course right, that it isn't argument against SoF that I didn't like "destroy tactic" ;) But You miss other aspects of my opinion - I said that Player should have a choice. BH hasn't got counter, good counter. Sanctuary works only with 1/12 Elements and it is pretty easy to destroy (also by SoF). The same PC - we have only PA. So I can accept that Fire, Darkness has got destroy tactics, but please give me a chance to play against it!
It is interesting that we have few "all in one" destroy Elements like Fire, Darkness, Entropy, which have PC + CC and we haven't got any Element which protect me against all "bad destroy effects"...
Post by: OldTrees on May 05, 2012, 07:28:25 pm
I said that Player should have a choice. BH hasn't got counter, good counter.Aka go fix Black Hole.
Post by: Atico on May 05, 2012, 08:16:53 pm
OK, I wrote a lot of text in this topic, maybe my English isn't the best but I hope that You understand :) To sum up: We should give for Players defending mechanism and later give for them powerful cards. Today we have situation when Players use SoSa, SoF, BH, Quicksand etc. and most of decks can't defend against it. And it is problem. Maybe TheTrial and Marks solve this. What is more - counters should have the last word against some mechanism (in my opinion). It is stupid (for me) when Sanctuary is easy to destroy by decks which it counter.
Post by: yaladilae on May 08, 2012, 11:37:54 am
For the simple part that even as a creature, half of the cc is useless on it (lightning, rage pot, Rewind, bolts, gravity pull), because of its mega high hp
And the fact that you can combo with many things makes it too versatile to be called balanced
Put a gravity pull on there, you get a 45hp tank. Put an overdrive on there, you get a ticking dmg dealer. Put a butterfly effect on there, you get to destory more. Put some rage pot on there, you get a big critter
Its just too much...
Post by: TheAccuso on May 08, 2012, 09:43:49 pm
I still think this card needs a nerfdon't forget that with gravity pull it's like 15 auto-heal everytime you want.
For the simple part that even as a creature, half of the cc is useless on it (lightning, rage pot, Rewind, bolts, gravity pull), because of its mega high hp
And the fact that you can combo with many things makes it too versatile to be called balanced
Put a gravity pull on there, you get a 45hp tank. Put an overdrive on there, you get a ticking dmg dealer. Put a butterfly effect on there, you get to destory more. Put some rage pot on there, you get a big critter
Its just too much...
Post by: BluePriest on May 09, 2012, 04:23:19 am
Post by: TheAccuso on May 09, 2012, 05:32:42 am
I think we should just wait for 1.31 to go live since its getting nerfed and then go from there.seems quite fair .
Post by: Aneninen on May 10, 2012, 12:39:06 pm
"One-turn combos" are always more powerful than "Two-turn combos". Eg. Dune Scorpion + Blessing/Momentum/Chaos Power can be played in the same turn and the works is done before the opponent could react anything. On the other hand, for a Firefly Queen combo you need to play the Queen first and it can start spamming the Fireflies in the next turn, so, there is a chance to counter the process.
Shard of Focus is "semi-one-turn" due to the high HP. In theory, the opponent can react, in practice, very few things work (Lobotomizer and Liquid Shadow are my best bets, though, Guard/Congeal/Rewind/etc. can hinder the Shard). Plus, it is versatile indeed, especially with 45 HPs...
On the other hand, it can be used limited times.
1 HP is a bit few, I suppose. About 6HP would be fair. Eludes Rage, Lightning and Shockwave for good but, with some quanta in reserve, Siphon/Fire/Ice Bolt kills it, an Otyugh eats it after its 2nd meal. Perhaps it could gain only 5HP per destroy and could turn into a Black Hole at 21HP - no more Gravity Pull megatank, Acceleration time bomb, etc.
Post by: Absol on May 10, 2012, 12:43:41 pm
1 HP is a bit few, I suppose. About 6HP would be fair. Eludes Rage, Lightning and Shockwave for good but, with some quanta in reserve, Siphon/Fire/Ice Bolt kills it, an Otyugh eats it after its 2nd meal. Perhaps it could gain only 5HP per destroy and could turn into a Black Hole at 21HP - no more Gravity Pull megatank, Acceleration time bomb, etc.5 or 4 HP should be enough. And i agree that the HP gain could be lowered, like 5 per use. It trades tanking ability for versatility (Lightning, Ragepot, Shockwave, most CC will now give more use. So this is a somewhat berf.)
Post by: AquaticImpalement on May 13, 2012, 05:45:21 am
All in all I think it's not that OP. But you know, what to I know.
Post by: OldTrees on May 13, 2012, 07:07:58 pm
I personally think this isn't overpowered. It destroys only 3 permanents and afterwards only drains three quanta from each element. A rainbow deck is the only place this would even be considered gamebreaking and ever then only when quanta is scarce. There are other cards with similar effects, specifically pulveriser, trident, earthquake, deflagration, steal, butterfly effect, and you can even mutate a creature to give it steal or destroy. Most of these don't even have a limit to how many times they can be used and a Black Hole is a common card that a lot of gravity decks use. Other cards also drain large amounts of quanta. If you have a lot of devorers out (fractal/mitosis/twin-universe, or even mindgate, potentially) you can basically stop quanta flow and there are even mutants with the Devourer ability, as well as Shard Golems but that's an entirely different thread. I think at the most you should make it cost eight instead of seven and MAYBE change it from 50 to 45/44 (depending on what it means by >50) HP to become a black hole. Something along these lines has probably been posted before if so then cool story bro. If not then cool story bro.The complaint is not about the effect nor about the cost but rather about the effect / cost. Yes it is too efficient.
All in all I think it's not that OP. But you know, what to I know.
Post by: Alchemist on May 13, 2012, 11:52:28 pm
Post by: Shantu on May 18, 2012, 08:53:43 pm
Instead of focusing itself, everything else is focused on the shard:
Basically, all targeted effects are focused on this creature. Perma control, creature control, everything that needs targeting.
It could have 5+X HP, where X is your :gravity divided by 5, allowing it to have up to 20 HP. The HP needs careful balancing since every targeted effect would be blocked/redirected. It needs to be useful but not overpowered, like the current shard. Permanent control - since it is originally not meant to deal damage to creatures - should do about 10-15 to the shard.
If this is found too powerful, maybe limit the focus to one side of the field - so your opponents can still target themselves with Purify if they want to.
This change would be nice to limit control and to provide creature and permanent protection outside of the few elements that have it.
Post by: OldTrees on May 18, 2012, 09:22:50 pm
Got an idea how to change focus while talking on chat and people seemed to like it:While this idea is an old and popular idea. There is something to be said in favor of an Other PC card. That ^ idea is better suited to a mono Gravity card.
Instead of focusing itself, everything else is focused on the shard:
Post by: ralouf on May 20, 2012, 07:49:09 pm
This card is totally stupid and ruined every games where I played it/my opponent used it.
Post by: eaglgenes101 on May 20, 2012, 07:49:50 pm
Just the point of view of someone that play quite a lot :*Cough* CC *Cough*
This card is totally stupid and ruined every games where I played it/my opponent used it.
Post by: ralouf on May 20, 2012, 07:59:42 pm
Also I'm not a noob thanks.
Post by: OldTrees on May 20, 2012, 08:11:32 pm
For the unupped metagame you make turn 1 nova SoFO you have win. I don't know a lot of deck that can play CC first turn. Also lots of deck doesn't have always CC in their hand (I just recently lost vs a SoFO deck with firestall so..)How can this particular usage be nerfed sufficiently?
Also I'm not a noob thanks.
An activation cost of 3 :rainbow would give SoFO 5 :rainbow + 4 :underworld over 4 turns. This would slow down the Pillar destruction (by an insignificant 1 pillar turn) and slow down the eventual Black Hole but would it be enough?
Post by: ralouf on May 20, 2012, 08:19:45 pm
Giving increasing HP isn't a good idea either methink, the card should get counter like a "get fat" counter and at 3 counter it become a BH. like that it stay a vulnerable creature, because when it's a 0/16 you will never kill it.
Post by: furballdn on May 20, 2012, 08:22:55 pm
Post by: ralouf on May 20, 2012, 08:34:22 pm
Or make it start with 45 hp and lose 15 hp each time it accretes. Free accretion should also be changed.
This would just make the card even more OP.
Post by: esran on May 20, 2012, 08:51:45 pm
tldr; this card is still OP after the nerf because i shouldnt be required to put CC in every deck.
Post by: memimemi on May 20, 2012, 11:42:20 pm
tldr; this card is still OP after the nerf because i shouldnt be required to put CC in every deck.
Well, then, with the space saved by not putting in CC, you can slip in some PAs. There are plenty of answers to this card, that are still useful when it's not being played against you.
Post by: furballdn on May 20, 2012, 11:44:11 pm
Yes. Because I can obviously slip in PAs into every single deck I build and for every important permanent I have.
tldr; this card is still OP after the nerf because i shouldnt be required to put CC in every deck.
Well, then, with the space saved by not putting in CC, you can slip in some PAs. There are plenty of answers to this card, that are still useful when it's not being played against you.
Post by: Laxadarap on May 21, 2012, 12:28:45 am
First thing is : 0 activation cost is clearly OP.
Giving increasing HP isn't a good idea either methink, the card should get counter like a "get fat" counter and at 3 counter it become a BH. like that it stay a vulnerable creature, because when it's a 0/16 you will never kill it.
Yeh the 0 turn activation cost is my problem with it, For example, if I'm running a pestal, I can't play my eclipses, even if I have a total lock on the board. It should be gg by them, but a couple SoFo can stall out for a significant amount of time (really not fun)
Post by: memimemi on May 21, 2012, 01:23:41 am
Quote
Yes. Because I can obviously slip in PAs into every single deck I build and for every important permanent I have.
Well, anything that's vital to your deck deserves protection. For perms, it's PA; for creatures, it's Quintessence. Is it unreasonable to suggest that if you can't afford to lose a perm, don't play it unless you can protect it? Especially when there are so many ways to protect your perms against SoF: in PvP, there's any CC spell, along with OE, Eternity, and Electrocutor; against the AI, Golden Hourglasses work as a sort of soft PA, as the AI targets them above almost anything else, along with all the CC. Or, of course, run a couple PAs for either.
Eventually, the abuse of SoF will die out of the meta, just as SoS has died out since the Purity buff. Just pack protection until then, is all I'm trying to say.
Post by: Cheesy111 on May 21, 2012, 03:21:32 am
QuoteYes. Because I can obviously slip in PAs into every single deck I build and for every important permanent I have.
Well, anything that's vital to your deck deserves protection. For perms, it's PA; for creatures, it's Quintessence. Is it unreasonable to suggest that if you can't afford to lose a perm, don't play it unless you can protect it? Especially when there are so many ways to protect your perms against SoF: in PvP, there's any CC spell, along with OE, Eternity, and Electrocutor; against the AI, Golden Hourglasses work as a sort of soft PA, as the AI targets them above almost anything else, along with all the CC. Or, of course, run a couple PAs for either.
Eventually, the abuse of SoF will die out of the meta, just as SoS has died out since the Purity buff. Just pack protection until then, is all I'm trying to say.
Abuse of powerful cards does not die out of the meta naturally. Also, simply because something can be countered, does not mean that it is not overpowered. The argument here is not that permanent destruction in-and-of itself is overpowered, but that triple permanent destruction in a single card that can almost be played twice over off of a single nova while gaining HP and then turning into a quanta-drainer that also heals is overpowered.
Post by: OldTrees on May 21, 2012, 04:58:51 am
There is a problem when every deck needs to either use or include specific counters (1-2 quanta CC or Protect Artifact is very specific) to a single card.
tldr; this card is still OP after the nerf because i shouldnt be required to put CC in every deck.
Well, then, with the space saved by not putting in CC, you can slip in some PAs. There are plenty of answers to this card, that are still useful when it's not being played against you.
The last example was 2 turn Sundial.
Post by: ralouf on May 21, 2012, 07:07:16 am
Also without even looking further, if your SoFo isn't killed the frirst turn it comes in to play (just mentionning also that any silence/BH can protect it) it'll destroy 3 permanent and then become a bh for 7 random quanta. it mean that for 7 quanta you can destroy 3 cards and then get a powerfull card. The card advantage is 4 for 1. I know hourglass or nymph can also do it but you'll never play a nymph or an HG turn 1 and their ability have a cost. Also I don't wanna use 6 PA in every deck just in case.
Finally just to mention that's it's not only good vs stall I had a game vs a rush deck where I played 2 SoFo very quickly I just destroyed all his pillar he couldn't do anything.
Post by: BluePriest on May 21, 2012, 11:05:10 pm
Other counters-Lobotomizer, LS, BE (although sorta counterproductive), Mind Flayer, Acceleration, BB, the earth card that has the effect guard that I cant think of the name of right now and the wiki is down so its not helping,CC the first turn, CC coupled with Rewind, ect ect. Its not just a matter of Destroying the Card, or protecting your permanents. Its also disabling the card.
Post by: OldTrees on May 21, 2012, 11:16:42 pm
Dont get me wrong, I know this card is powerful, but saying that its only real counter is PA is really really wrong....Since the problem is most significant with the turn 1 Shard of Focus, that is would be countered.
Other counters-Lobotomizer, LS, BE (although sorta counterproductive), Mind Flayer, Acceleration, BB, the earth card that has the effect guard that I cant think of the name of right now and the wiki is down so its not helping,CC the first turn, CC coupled with Rewind, ect ect. Its not just a matter of Destroying the Card, or protecting your permanents. Its also disabling the card.
I predict there will be 5 metagame strategies for dealing with Shard of Focus.
1) Equalize by using the same strategy (Shard of Focus + Nova)
2) Structure your deck around reliable CC on turn 1.5
3) Play without permanents (Immolation, Nova, Supernova) [Black Hole hurts worse here]
4) Structure your deck around reliable Protect Artifact on turn 1.5
5) Overload your deck with quanta to overpower the denial
Post by: blarp on May 23, 2012, 04:07:45 am
A: it shouldn't become a black hole.
B: it shouldn't be gravity pullable.
C: it shouldn't be able to destroy pillars.
D: you shouldn't be able to use its ability without destroying a permanent
implement that and i'll be much happier.
Post by: TheonlyrealBeef on May 25, 2012, 12:51:37 pm
(http://imageplay.net/img/tya22267417/SoFop.png)
Solution to specific situation: disallow Shard of Focus to be targeted by Mitosis. Of course, the deck itself is not overpowered and it doesn't solve most of its issues. Personally, I just don't like permanent control for Other, least of all cheap and repeatable.
Post by: Picheleiro on May 25, 2012, 03:20:10 pm
But I think it can be fixed somehow. It causes a lot of yelling because it´s a denial card. And this community hates denial.
Post by: Chapuz on May 26, 2012, 02:46:52 pm
It causes a lot of yelling because it´s a denial card. And this community hates denial.Only when played against the player. IMO denial is just boring, but pple who like denial have good time with it.
Post by: OldTrees on May 26, 2012, 02:51:20 pm
The people who hate facing denial tend to hate using it and thus don't use it.It causes a lot of yelling because it´s a denial card. And this community hates denial.Only when played against the player. IMO denial is just boring, but pple who like denial have good time with it.
Post by: pocator on May 26, 2012, 03:06:17 pm
OPPPPPPPPP
A: it shouldn't become a black hole.
B: it shouldn't be gravity pullable.
C: it shouldn't be able to destroy pillars.
D: you shouldn't be able to use its ability without destroying a permanent
implement that and i'll be much happier.
nice idea, another one: you can choose when playing only to destroy non-pillar permanents or Pillars
maybe it would be nice, when the shard looses the accretion ability when it is target of a spell or ability
Post by: vivimancer on June 05, 2012, 03:22:52 pm
first turn photon + immolation + lava golem + Shard of focus
just had 3 players in a row rage quit in pvp1
Post by: Guizonde on June 05, 2012, 05:21:51 pm
it's main shtick is focussing right? so how about this. it LOSES hp when it destroys a permanent. give it 10 hp. loses 3hp when it uses its ability, making it easier to take care of the more it uses its ability. oh, and frag the black hole idea: once it's burned out, it's burned out (3 accretions max), dead spot on your field.
even better: make the deck that uses it lose 150hp everytime it summons one shard, 500hp for each activation :P what do you mean it's a bad idea? ::)
@vivimancer: you're the reason i don't play pvp. that's just gruelling to face!
Post by: OldTrees on June 05, 2012, 05:31:47 pm
i haven't read the 15 pages, so sorry if my idea has been posted:The main shtick was "devouring permanents to get bigger".
it's main shtick is focussing right? so how about this. it LOSES hp when it destroys a permanent. give it 10 hp. loses 3hp when it uses its ability, making it easier to take care of the more it uses its ability. oh, and frag the black hole idea: once it's burned out, it's burned out (3 accretions max), dead spot on your field.
even better: make the deck that uses it lose 150hp everytime it summons one shard, 500hp for each activation :P what do you mean it's a bad idea? ::)
@vivimancer: you're the reason i don't play pvp. that's just gruelling to face!
Post by: Guizonde on June 05, 2012, 05:44:22 pm
The main shtick was "devouring permanents to get bigger".
duly noted. then in that case, i don't think it's aptly named. "focus" kind of brings to mind the idea that it'll do one task to the exclusion of everything else, until it's completely done, or it burns out. turning into a black hole works (thematically), but gameplay wise it's overkill. maybe underlining the fact that its only use is destroying permanents?
Post by: eaglgenes101 on June 05, 2012, 10:21:39 pm
Post by: kimham8a on June 05, 2012, 11:05:10 pm
Post by: vivimancer on June 06, 2012, 08:10:32 am
What if it needed gravity quanta to eat pillars?
that actually a good idea, it fits the theme and restricts it to gravity decks.
+1
Post by: ralouf on June 06, 2012, 08:37:28 am
Post by: SnoWeb on June 06, 2012, 09:16:49 am
the fact that the capacity is free to play is part of the OPness of this card yeahwhat if the cost of the ability was increasing at the same time as the HP?
first activation: 1 :rainbow
second activation: 2 :rainbow
third activation: 3 :rainbow
etc ...
Post by: ralouf on June 06, 2012, 10:39:00 am
Post by: OldTrees on June 06, 2012, 03:20:54 pm
Another great idea.the fact that the capacity is free to play is part of the OPness of this card yeahwhat if the cost of the ability was increasing at the same time as the HP?
first activation: 1 :rainbow
second activation: 2 :rainbow
third activation: 3 :rainbow
etc ...
Maybe start with 2 :rainbow. (obviously after testing starting with 1 :rainbow)
Post by: mega plini on June 06, 2012, 03:23:49 pm
Post by: OldTrees on June 06, 2012, 03:27:04 pm
If you make it cost to much, rainbows will benefit to much instead of the duo's and mono's.It will always suffer that fate because its power is so great. Nova makes designing an other card worth more than 5 :rainbow troublesome.
Post by: Guizonde on June 06, 2012, 06:07:37 pm
Post by: tyranim on June 08, 2012, 12:01:06 am
Post by: Aneninen on June 08, 2012, 09:41:26 am
All other Permanent Controls are bound to certain elements ( :gravity :earth :fire :darkness and :entropy - did I miss something?). With this Shard, any deck can have a Permanent Control. Though it can be used limited times, same goes for Explosion, Earthquake and Steal, and these can be used only once. Though the Shard can be easily destroyed right after it's been played, after one use it's hard to get rid of it. Also, this is compensated by the fact, that the Shard itself can gain many other functions too - most popular is Acceleration, but eg. Gravity Pull also works. Sometimes winning a Black Hole is a great advantage - frankly, I have a deck which uses one single Shard of Focus and that Black Hole's healing saved me many times...
So, Shard of Focus can be attached to any deck and in many cases it eliminates the only weakness of that deck. The only "penality" in this case is a dead card (if the deck has no :gravity quanta).
For Permanent protection there is only one element; more precisely, one card.
As a Permanent Control creature, we already had Butterfly Effect, and lucky mutations.
We'd need another Shard instead of this. Or, alternatively, "redirect" Shard of Integrity to the :gravity element, and give :earth eg. a "Shard of Protection". (Which could protect permanents or increase HP for all creatures, with an :earth bonus.)
Post by: Absol on June 08, 2012, 10:48:14 am
The more I think about it the more I'm sure that Shard of Focus is not a good concept at all.Agree, and added a few points for consideration.
All other Permanent Controls are bound to certain elements ( :gravity :earth :fire :darkness and :entropy - did I miss something?). With this Shard, any deck can have a Permanent Control. Though it can be used limited times, same goes for Explosion, Earthquake and Steal, and these can be used only once. And SoF can be used multiple times via CC. Though the Shard can be easily destroyed right after it's been played, after one use it's hard to get rid of it. Also, this is compensated by the fact, that the Shard itself can gain many other functions too - most popular is Acceleration, but eg. Gravity Pull also works. Sometimes winning a Black Hole is a great advantage - frankly, I have a deck which uses one single Shard of Focus and that Black Hole's healing saved me many times...
So, Shard of Focus can be attached to any deck and in many cases it eliminates the only weakness of that deck. The only "penality" in this case is a dead card (if the deck has no :gravity quanta). Not even a dead card, only "additional card which you can't use".
For Permanent protection there is only one element; more precisely, one card. PA is for surefire permanent protection, Cloak for bait/temporary protection.
As a Permanent Control creature, we already had Butterfly Effect, and lucky mutations. BE is going obsolete with SoFo anyway, as both have high cost while SoFo is more versatile.
We'd need another Shard instead of this. Or, alternatively, "redirect" Shard of Integrity to the :gravity element, and give :earth eg. a "Shard of Protection". (Which could protect permanents or increase HP for all creatures, with an :earth bonus.) Or just reduce HP gain to +2 or +3 per use. Still useful as Accel fodder, but is far easier to counter. As of now, either next turn counter or gg. Reduced versatility? Well, a card this versatile is why it's OP.
(http://i.imgur.com/xwd0n.png)(http://i.imgur.com/kKpG1.png)
Post by: Aneninen on June 08, 2012, 11:02:12 am
Agree, and added a few points for consideration.(http://i.imgur.com/xwd0n.png)(http://i.imgur.com/kKpG1.png)
Seems fine. The great difference is that it'd be still vulnerable to Lightning/Shockwave/E.Otyugh and Siphon/Fire/IceBolt after one use too.
(off) By the way, anyone noticed, how annoying when Shard of Focus becomes a subject of... Fractal? ^_^ (/off)
Post by: esran on June 09, 2012, 12:41:52 am
Post by: sunyata on June 09, 2012, 11:26:30 am
it still bugs me there isnt a poll
It has been bugging me for some time too. After waiting months for a poll, I finally decided to add one myself at http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,41127.0.html (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,41127.0.html) based on all the great suggestions in this thread. Apologies if this ends up causing a fork in the discussion, but its high time there was a poll available. The post with the poll links back to this thread, so hopefully the discussion will remain somewhat contained.
Post by: Higurashi on June 09, 2012, 12:03:18 pm
Post by: ZephyrPhantom on June 09, 2012, 04:51:42 pm
I like this idea the most, as it retains the Other-ness of the card while forcing the player to rethink how much quanta they want to waste (given the appropriate start/increase, though - I currently prefer the 2 + 1 :rainbow model suggsested.) Some more anti-PC and PC to level out the elements (such as allowing Freeze to target permanents) would also be a nice way to even things up seeing as elements may find better in-element alternatives to PC than a non-element card like SoF.Another great idea.the fact that the capacity is free to play is part of the OPness of this card yeahwhat if the cost of the ability was increasing at the same time as the HP?
first activation: 1 :rainbow
second activation: 2 :rainbow
third activation: 3 :rainbow
etc ...
Maybe start with 2 :rainbow. (obviously after testing starting with 1 :rainbow)
Post by: bobknows on June 10, 2012, 03:37:45 am
For every one in your deck you have 3 perm control, to match this outside pillars you need either flying pulvys or multiple BE, which both cost more total and more cards.
It can be played first turn consistently through nova, even in the unupped world. This makes the only way to counter it is through novas of your own, and lightning costs 2 :aether making first turn cc impossible to do consistently in the unupped world.
This leads me to 2 nerfs which should balance it together:
Playing one first turn causes some negative effect, be it singularity, a straight 20 damage , whatever.
-and-
Either having two on the field causes singularity
Or nerf the number of times it can accrete to 2, possibly reducing cost by one
Post by: dspn23 on June 13, 2012, 09:02:38 pm
-1 to everyone else :P
with this card you will never again see explosions in any raimbow deck
this card is way to versatile compared to the cost which is random
this card don't benefit gravity, it benefit raimbows cause mono :gravity will not afrod to spend 7|5 gravity for 3 PC but raimbows will not mind to spend 7/3|5/3 = 2.3|1.6 to have acsess to 3 PC's plus a black hole OR catapult it OR gravity pull it OR consume oponent CC
there are already many ideas of how to nerf it. JUST PICK 1 OR 2
Post by: Totila on June 13, 2012, 09:14:04 pm
+1 to everyone who thinks it should be nerfed
-1 to everyone else :P
with this card you will never again see explosions in any raimbow deck
this card is way to versatile compared to the cost which is random
this card don't benefit gravity, it benefit raimbows cause mono :gravity will not afrod to spend 7|5 gravity for 3 PC but raimbows will not mind to spend 7/3|5/3 = 2.3|1.6 to have acsess to 3 PC's plus a black hole OR catapult it OR gravity pull it OR consume oponent CC
there are already many ideas of how to nerf it. JUST PICK 1 OR 2
Woah!!! Just agree any word in your post xD this shard is too OP, replace steals and deflag in any rainbow and a free BH, 'nuff said
Post by: lokiburn4 on June 22, 2012, 04:12:07 pm
Suggestion: Drop the cost and turns-until-BH to implement a "sacrifice a permanent you control to..." cost.
This is a good idea. You have to trade a perm to destroy a perm. I like that.
Post by: Odii Odsen on June 22, 2012, 04:41:10 pm
Its cost are already very high and there are enough counter cards to Sofo like Lobotimzer, Mind flayer, all Bolt's, SW, Drain Life, Mutation, RT (In some cases), Oty, OE, Enchant Artifact, LS, etc ...
Post by: Cheesy111 on June 22, 2012, 04:46:01 pm
No nerf - its already perfect.
Its cost are already very high and there are enough counter cards to Sofo like Lobotimzer, Mind flayer, all Bolt's, SW, Drain Life, Mutation, RT (In some cases), Oty, OE, Enchant Artifact, LS, etc ...
I have not yet seen or made a viable deck that can easily deal with first-turn sofo. As most CC requires two novae as well as the CC in hand, managing to create a deck that can usually do this is nigh-impossible without it becoming completely unviable against most other things.
Post by: omegareaper7 on June 22, 2012, 05:41:04 pm
No nerf - its already perfect.lol, what? You act like all of those are really easy to get out first turn. Upped, maybe, but unupped, not at all.
Its cost are already very high and there are enough counter cards to Sofo like Lobotimzer, Mind flayer, all Bolt's, SW, Drain Life, Mutation, RT (In some cases), Oty, OE, Enchant Artifact, LS, etc ...
Post by: AP579 on June 22, 2012, 05:53:33 pm
Post by: Holokausti on June 22, 2012, 06:05:31 pm
Post by: rickerd on June 22, 2012, 06:30:27 pm
Post by: vivimancer on June 25, 2012, 04:16:27 am
No nerf - its already perfect.
Its cost are already very high and there are enough counter cards to Sofo like Lobotimzer, Mind flayer, all Bolt's, SW, Drain Life, Mutation, RT (In some cases), Oty, OE, Enchant Artifact, LS, etc ...
I have not yet seen or made a viable deck that can easily deal with first-turn sofo. As most CC requires two novae as well as the CC in hand, managing to create a deck that can usually do this is nigh-impossible without it becoming completely unviable against most other things.
in the last 3 days I've had my sofo's countered on the first turn by; shockwave, rage potion, lobo, anaflatoxin, fire bolt and acceleration.
this card is not OP its balancing the phase shield heavy decks that seem to be everywhere
as you might tell i'm not a mono :aether fan
Post by: OldTrees on June 25, 2012, 04:24:46 am
1) 6 :death + 1 card on turn 1? Either that required a hand full of Bone Towers or 2 Soul Catchers a Photon and an Immolation. Not to mention that SoFo can outgrow the infection. This really drops the credibility of your claim. (also note the first turn issue is more of a concern unupped)No nerf - its already perfect.
Its cost are already very high and there are enough counter cards to Sofo like Lobotimzer, Mind flayer, all Bolt's, SW, Drain Life, Mutation, RT (In some cases), Oty, OE, Enchant Artifact, LS, etc ...
I have not yet seen or made a viable deck that can easily deal with first-turn sofo. As most CC requires two novae as well as the CC in hand, managing to create a deck that can usually do this is nigh-impossible without it becoming completely unviable against most other things.
in the last 3 days I've had my sofo's countered on the first turn by; shockwave, rage potion, lobo, anaflatoxin, fire bolt and acceleration.
this card is not OP its balancing the phase shield heavy decks that seem to be everywhere
as you might tell i'm not a mono :aether fan
2) Thanks for admitting you are not an Aether fan. You should recognize that is biasing your view of Phase Shield decks.
3) Your final claim is that card X is not OP because it is countering strong/OP deck Y. This is fallacious. A counter to a strong deck can be balanced OR OP.
PS: You do know that it is impossible to use Lobotomy on the first turn.
Post by: vivimancer on June 25, 2012, 05:20:42 am
1) 6 :death + 1 card on turn 1? Either that required a hand full of Bone Towers or 2 Soul Catchers a Photon and an Immolation. Not to mention that SoFo can outgrow the infection. This really drops the credibility of your claim. (also note the first turn issue is more of a concern unupped)>pvp2 only and yes this is possible, I didn't believe it either.
Quote
2) Thanks for admitting you are not an Aether fan. You should recognize that is biasing your view of Phase Shield decks.but I play mono-aether decks as well, just because I don't like something doesn't mean I'm baised against it. Phase shield is pretty powerful and unless you have a solid counter it can lead to boring games.
Quote
3) Your final claim is that card X is not OP because it is countering strong/OP deck Y. This is fallacious. A counter to a strong deck can be balanced OR OP.But denial seems to be in accendancy, a strong counter to [[that deck]] changes the meta but maybe i have a case of the stupids but I don't see how this is a fallacy
Quote
PS: You do know that it is impossible to use Lobotomy on the first turn.my bad, poor or selective memory at fault. :-[ you are right, sorry.
Post by: eaglgenes101 on June 25, 2012, 05:38:44 am
Card A wins the game for you unless you are holding card B in your hand, in which case the opponent wins. Otherwise, card B is useless and occupies a useless position. Is either card A or card B balanced?
Post by: OldTrees on June 25, 2012, 07:49:13 am
Claim: Because Card X counters strong/OP deck Y, Card X is not OP.3) Your final claim is that card X is not OP because it is countering strong/OP deck Y. This is fallacious. A counter to a strong deck can be balanced OR OP.But denial seems to be in accendancy, a strong counter to [[that deck]] changes the meta but maybe i have a case of the stupids but I don't see how this is a fallacy
P -> !Q
Counter example: A 0 cost spell that deals 100 damage to the opponent would counter any and all strong/OP decks. Such a card is demonstrably OP.
P & Q
Conclusion: Either the claim or the counterexample is false.
!( (P & Q) & (P -> !Q) )
Post by: Odii Odsen on June 25, 2012, 04:14:34 pm
No nerf - its already perfect.
Its cost are already very high and there are enough counter cards to Sofo like Lobotimzer, Mind flayer, all Bolt's, SW, Drain Life, Mutation, RT (In some cases), Oty, OE, Enchant Artifact, LS, etc ...
I have not yet seen or made a viable deck that can easily deal with first-turn sofo. As most CC requires two novae as well as the CC in hand, managing to create a deck that can usually do this is nigh-impossible without it becoming completely unviable against most other things.
No nerf - its already perfect.lol, what? You act like all of those are really easy to get out first turn. Upped, maybe, but unupped, not at all.
Its cost are already very high and there are enough counter cards to Sofo like Lobotimzer, Mind flayer, all Bolt's, SW, Drain Life, Mutation, RT (In some cases), Oty, OE, Enchant Artifact, LS, etc ...
1. Win coin toss. The probability is 50%.
2. Get one SoFo in starting hand. (rainbow)
- If we win coin toss, we have 7 cards in hand.
- I act on the assumption of 30 cards in our deck.
- We have (2 or) 3 SoFo's in that deck. This is approximately 10%.
- The probability to have one of three SoFo's in our deck is about 70%.
- Plus we need at least one Nova.
3. If point 1 and 2 are fulfiled, we could play one SoFo, but the creatures (and permanents) suffer under too less quanta in turn 1-3. (Worst case, but not unlikely).
Thatswhy it isn't OP imo. I think SoFo is just one of many strong cards in that game.
Post by: OldTrees on June 25, 2012, 05:25:37 pm
1) SoF has 3+ uses of hard PC for much less than the pre-nerf Deflagration.
2) There is about a 56% chance of having 1 of 3 SoFs in the starting hand of 7. 83% chance of having 1 of 6 novas. There is less than but still about 46% chance of being able to play SoF on your first turn. It is unlikely for an unupped deck to be able deal with such an early SoF. 50% of the time they would have 1 turns worth of quanta and their starting hand to hope for CC.
http://stattrek.com/online-calculator/hypergeometric.aspx
Post by: JuneIsSunny on June 25, 2012, 05:41:30 pm
Post by: inthisroom on June 25, 2012, 09:35:01 pm
This is yet another shard I despise. In my opinion, the last two updates - especially with the introduction of the (now slightly nerfed) SoSa and SoFo - changed the entire game and broke it, to the point where I almost completely stopped playing since war. It used to be Elements, but it is hardly more than shardements now, it's really all about having and spamming SoFo which is splashed into just about any deck in arena or pvp. More often than not, you face a turn 1 SoFo followed by many others, and the previous nerf hasn't changed anything in my opinion. There will of course always be those who don't have a problem with anything because they're so incredibly pro that they'll just "CC it away", but my point is that the entire game has shifted towards "anti-SoFo" decks, just the way it was before with SoSa, and that doesn't help keeping the game varied but makes it just boring.
Now that I expressed my disdain of the recent evolution of Elements, I might as well try to make some suggestions to improve this.
Not sure raising the cost even more would make a big difference. Right now, 2 Quantum pillars are enough to play SoFo on turn 1, even with raised cost, it would probably not take more than 3 Quantum pillars to do so.
One suggestion would be to let it use its ability only once before turning into a BH, that would limit it to a max of 12 perm destructions even in an arena deck with doubled card amount.
I also like the idea of giving the ability a cost (:gravity Quantum preferably) equal to the cost of an Explosion/Deflagration, depending if the Shard is upped or not. Playing the Shard would still cost random Quanta but actually using it would require to at least have some :gravity Quanta in your deck.
The third option - by far my favourite - would be to remove all those bloody Shards and create more cards for each element, making the game more varied, balanced, and therefore more interesting.
Post by: mypetmachine on June 25, 2012, 10:02:48 pm
Post by: Cheesy111 on June 25, 2012, 10:09:41 pm
In my opinion, it needs multiple of the suggested nerfs. First, it should have an other activation cost (around 3 I think), it should not gain so much HP. I think 3 per use is good. This gradually puts it out of harms way without making it nearly impossible to kill off if it manages to be used once. I think a bump in casting cost and maybe a shift in how many times it can be activated might still also be in order, even with the first two suggested nerfs.
Compare SoFo to Pulvy. A 1-4HP creature is much more vulnerable, and for a higher ability cost. At maximum the ability cost should be set to 2 gravity to equalize with Pulverizer.
Post by: Annele on June 26, 2012, 12:25:04 am
In my opinion, it needs multiple of the suggested nerfs. First, it should have an other activation cost (around 3 I think), it should not gain so much HP. I think 3 per use is good. This gradually puts it out of harms way without making it nearly impossible to kill off if it manages to be used once. I think a bump in casting cost and maybe a shift in how many times it can be activated might still also be in order, even with the first two suggested nerfs.
Compare SoFo to Pulvy. A 1-4HP creature is much more vulnerable, and for a higher ability cost. At maximum the ability cost should be set to 2 gravity to equalize with Pulverizer.
But that would make it impossible to use without :gravity, something I'm pretty sure Zanz doesn't want. It is my understanding that shards are meant to be able to be used in any deck, with any quanta production, but favour a certain element and make using it with that elements more rewarding, but not necessary.
Post by: OldTrees on June 26, 2012, 01:46:58 am
In my opinion, it needs multiple of the suggested nerfs. First, it should have an other activation cost (around 3 I think), it should not gain so much HP. I think 3 per use is good. This gradually puts it out of harms way without making it nearly impossible to kill off if it manages to be used once. I think a bump in casting cost and maybe a shift in how many times it can be activated might still also be in order, even with the first two suggested nerfs.
Compare SoFo to Pulvy. A 1-4HP creature is much more vulnerable, and for a higher ability cost. At maximum the ability cost should be set to 2 gravity to equalize with Pulverizer.
But that would make it impossible to use without :gravity, something I'm pretty sure Zanz doesn't want. It is my understanding that shards are meant to be able to be used in any deck, with any quanta production, but favour a certain element and make using it with that elements more rewarding, but not necessary.
An activation cost of :gravity :gravity(weapon) ~= :rainbow :rainbow :rainbow(creature)
Post by: Annele on June 26, 2012, 01:49:45 am
In my opinion, it needs multiple of the suggested nerfs. First, it should have an other activation cost (around 3 I think), it should not gain so much HP. I think 3 per use is good. This gradually puts it out of harms way without making it nearly impossible to kill off if it manages to be used once. I think a bump in casting cost and maybe a shift in how many times it can be activated might still also be in order, even with the first two suggested nerfs.
Compare SoFo to Pulvy. A 1-4HP creature is much more vulnerable, and for a higher ability cost. At maximum the ability cost should be set to 2 gravity to equalize with Pulverizer.
But that would make it impossible to use without :gravity, something I'm pretty sure Zanz doesn't want. It is my understanding that shards are meant to be able to be used in any deck, with any quanta production, but favour a certain element and make using it with that elements more rewarding, but not necessary.
An activation cost of :gravity :gravity(weapon) ~= :rainbow :rainbow :rainbow(creature)
I like the :rainbow :rainbow :rainbow idea. And have it gain no more than 10 hp for accretion (max hp before black hole would have to be decrease as well).
Post by: esran on June 26, 2012, 05:53:31 am
Post by: Annele on June 26, 2012, 06:25:11 am
IMO 2 gravity more equals 4 :rainbow because of snovas and novas and QTs. when you factor in that the sofocus has limited uses, but also factor in the fact that it is doable in elements without normal access to PC, i say it should cost 4 other per activation.
1. I am just going with what OTs said.
2. If you make it 4 :rainbow, that would mean it costs a whopping 11/10 of 1 type of quanta in monos.
3. I completely disagree with you. There is no reason elements other than :entropy, :fire and :darkness should not have flexible PC.
Post by: mildlyfrightenedboy on June 26, 2012, 07:56:02 am
Destroy permanents
Absorb lots of damage through Gravity Pull
Absorb lots of damage through Chimera
Drain the enemy's quanta pools
Heal you
Damage the opponent through Catapult
Damage the opponent through Acceleration
Make you breakfast
All without setting foot out of :gravity.
Post by: Odii Odsen on June 26, 2012, 10:28:06 am
@Odii Odsen
1) SoF has 3+ uses of hard PC for much less than the pre-nerf Deflagration.
2) There is about a 56% chance of having 1 of 3 SoFs in the starting hand of 7. 83% chance of having 1 of 6 novas. There is less than but still about 46% chance of being able to play SoF on your first turn. It is unlikely for an unupped deck to be able deal with such an early SoF. 50% of the time they would have 1 turns worth of quanta and their starting hand to hope for CC.
http://stattrek.com/online-calculator/hypergeometric.aspx
Sorry, I did a mistake.
(http://www.imgbox.de/users/public/images/jtH4N6JUql.jpg)
Fixed post (page 18)
1. Win coin toss. The probability is 50%.
2. Get one SoFo in starting hand. (rainbow)
- If we win coin toss, we have 7 cards in hand.
- I act on the assumption of 30 cards in our deck.
- We have (2 or) 3 SoFo's in that deck. This is approximately 10%.
- The probability to have one of three SoFo's in our deck is about 56%.
- Plus we need at least one Nova.
3. If point 1 and 2 are fulfiled, we could play one SoFo, but the creatures (and permanents) suffer under too less quanta in turn 1-3. (Worst case, but not unlikely).
Thatswhy it isn't OP imo. I think SoFo is just one of many strong cards in that game.
Post by: Annele on June 26, 2012, 10:57:29 am
@Odii Odsen
1) SoF has 3+ uses of hard PC for much less than the pre-nerf Deflagration.
2) There is about a 56% chance of having 1 of 3 SoFs in the starting hand of 7. 83% chance of having 1 of 6 novas. There is less than but still about 46% chance of being able to play SoF on your first turn. It is unlikely for an unupped deck to be able deal with such an early SoF. 50% of the time they would have 1 turns worth of quanta and their starting hand to hope for CC.
http://stattrek.com/online-calculator/hypergeometric.aspx
Sorry, I did a mistake.(http://www.imgbox.de/users/public/images/jtH4N6JUql.jpg)
Fixed post (page 18)
1. Win coin toss. The probability is 50%.
2. Get one SoFo in starting hand. (rainbow)
- If we win coin toss, we have 7 cards in hand.
- I act on the assumption of 30 cards in our deck.
- We have (2 or) 3 SoFo's in that deck. This is approximately 10%.
- The probability to have one of three SoFo's in our deck is about 56%.
- Plus we need at least one Nova.
3. If point 1 and 2 are fulfiled, we could play one SoFo, but the creatures (and permanents) suffer under too less quanta in turn 1-3. (Worst case, but not unlikely).
Thatswhy it isn't OP imo. I think SoFo is just one of many strong cards in that game.
Just want to point out that thanks to my friend the Mulligan, getting a nova in your starting hand is VERY likely.
Post by: OldTrees on June 26, 2012, 02:35:41 pm
IMO 2 gravity more equals 4 :rainbow because of snovas and novas and QTs. when you factor in that the sofocus has limited uses, but also factor in the fact that it is doable in elements without normal access to PC, i say it should cost 4 other per activation.2 :gravity = 5 :rainbow
2 :gravity (weapon) = 3 :rainbow (creature)
Post by: thispersonisagenius on June 26, 2012, 03:58:27 pm
It is my understanding that shards are meant to be able to be used in any deck, with any quanta production, but favour a certain element and make using it with that elements more rewarding, but not necessary.I understand Shards this way too, so that's what my idea is based off of.
Post by: esran on June 26, 2012, 05:18:43 pm
Post by: thispersonisagenius on June 27, 2012, 10:30:37 am
Post by: kira666 on June 27, 2012, 12:08:38 pm
the first nerf was very good, but it still need something else
two things that also make it very strong:
it becomes very hard to kill after using it first time
if it takes only 2 damage, you can destroy another permanent
i don't know if the black hole is something good or bad, the shard may get a little weak without it
it could be something like what thispersonisagenius said:
shard of focus 7 :gravity
Destroy a permanent and gain +0/+15. Turn into a black hole if HP>25 (HP>35 if mark is gravity)
0/1
2 permanents destroyed, 3 if mark is gravity
shard of focus needing more than 2 damage to give you a chance of destroy
Post by: SnoWeb on June 27, 2012, 12:10:37 pm
Post by: OldTrees on June 27, 2012, 01:52:57 pm
Since i've been playing this game Zanz never did a complete remake of an existing card. IMO, He'll most likely tweak a bit the numbers (cost, timer, stats, etc...) or modify the type (spell becomes permanent e.g. SoPa) but he won't make a complete new card out of it. He'll probably cure this by changing the cost and if he sees good ideas of a new mechanic, he'll make a new card. That's what I think at least...Verified.
The only cards that have been significantly changed were in development. (Shard of Conscience and kinda Dune Scorpion)
Post by: RavingRabbid on June 27, 2012, 01:56:09 pm
Kind of Dune Scorpion (again, in development).Since i've been playing this game Zanz never did a complete remake of an existing card. IMO, He'll most likely tweak a bit the numbers (cost, timer, stats, etc...) or modify the type (spell becomes permanent e.g. SoPa) but he won't make a complete new card out of it. He'll probably cure this by changing the cost and if he sees good ideas of a new mechanic, he'll make a new card. That's what I think at least...Verified.
The only card that has been significantly changed was in development. (Shard of Conscience)
Post by: kira666 on June 27, 2012, 02:17:39 pm
Both black hole and a health bonus is too much.
Instead of a black hole, SoFo could instantly absorbs 1 quanta of each mark for both players (you dont have to pay 3 :gravity for a black hole, but loses some quanta).
I heard Zanzs saying that this game should'nt be played all rainbow, so a SoFo working this way is good for monocolors or duo decks, and good against rainbow.
Post by: eaglgenes101 on June 27, 2012, 04:22:17 pm
5/4 Quanta:
0|1.
Accretion: Destroy permanent, gain +0|+12. Turn into black hole if HP>20.
This makes it a 2-charge perm killer and increases the gravity affinity.
Post by: Laxadarap on June 27, 2012, 04:40:23 pm
Also, we should give only one advantage for having :gravity mark
Both black hole and a health bonus is too much.
Instead of a black hole, SoFo could instantly absorbs 1 quanta of each mark for both players (you dont have to pay 3 :gravity for a black hole, but loses some quanta).
I heard Zanzs saying that this game should'nt be played all rainbow, so a SoFo working this way is good for monocolors or duo decks, and good against rainbow.
Actually, I really like this idea. The point of bhole is to counter rainbows obviously, so this still makes sense, also, it fixes the huge flaw of the shard (it basically sucks in gravity, but works fantastically in rainbows). This way monos have something to go on, while making rainbows sacrifice a lot. However, this does need a bit of tweaking so it fits gravity, and I don't think the health bonus is enough (although that does synergize awesomely, people just generally don't use it that way). However, the "antinova" for each player is great.
Post by: DarkBaron12390 on June 28, 2012, 11:08:25 pm
0|1
Accretion: Destroy target permanent. Gain +0|15. When HP > 50, Activate black hole on both players. Your opponent heals from your quanta drained; you heal from your opponent's drained quanta. If your mark is Gravity, activate black hole on only your opponent.
Devastates rainbows, even if they try to use it, unless their mark is gravity. In which case, SoF satisfies its mark favoring. It even complements gravity by simulating a binary black hole system -- Focus.
(Under this scheme, you may be able to change its initial stats)
Post by: Laxadarap on June 28, 2012, 11:42:43 pm
Post by: bobknows on June 29, 2012, 12:05:30 am
Maybe this: 0|1 gain 10 hp per accrete, and become bh if hp is over 25 or 30
Post by: DarkBaron12390 on June 29, 2012, 12:27:43 am
Post by: Annele on June 29, 2012, 03:07:30 am
Here's the obvious (to me) benefit to gravity:
0|1
Accretion: Destroy target permanent. Gain +0|15. When HP > 50, Activate black hole on both players. Your opponent heals from your quanta drained; you heal from your opponent's drained quanta. If your mark is Gravity, activate black hole on only your opponent.
Devastates rainbows, even if they try to use it, unless their mark is gravity. In which case, SoF satisfies its mark favoring. It even complements gravity by simulating a binary black hole system -- Focus.
(Under this scheme, you may be able to change its initial stats)
This is great. When I first read SoF, I thought it meant this anyways.
Post by: SnoWeb on June 29, 2012, 07:18:17 am
When HP > 45, Activate black hole on both players. [...] If your mark is Gravity, activate black hole on only your opponent.This is indeed interesting. It maintains the usability of SoF in mono and duo decks (with a cost of maximum 6 quanta for the 3rd activation). It limits its use to gravity marked rainbows which is fine. This way it does not work at full strength combined with SoB, SoV and/or SoG. This is the best idea I've seen so far.
Post by: kira666 on June 29, 2012, 12:10:33 pm
But I still think SoF should activate when HP>40, so it's harder to use it more than 3 times.
Post by: Captain Scibra on June 29, 2012, 12:51:15 pm
Post by: dspn23 on July 02, 2012, 03:25:27 pm
gravity is safe from those black holes is a very good way to give the gravity an advantage :D
i think with that and SoF being capable of only 2 uses it will reach the necessary poud :D
Post by: Jenkar on July 02, 2012, 04:13:42 pm
Post by: vivimancer on July 04, 2012, 03:01:08 pm
that idea is awesome :D
gravity is safe from those black holes is a very good way to give the gravity an advantage :D
i think with that and SoF being capable of only 2 uses it will reach the necessary poud :D
that gets around people using casting bolts/shockwaves on their own SoFos
Post by: Laxadarap on July 04, 2012, 05:57:06 pm
Post by: Chapuz on July 04, 2012, 10:16:57 pm
Post by: furballdn on July 04, 2012, 10:24:16 pm
I hope Zanzarino sees only 8/86 member voted the No Nerf option so far.I voted just to mess your statistic up.
Post by: teffy on July 05, 2012, 09:10:16 pm
Because rainbow decks can get it out very early (and very often), I think another nerf is good.
I´m still for starting at 0/1 and dying with 0/4. gaining 1 HP per destroyed card.
This will also create a new synergy: Infection, and a bit Drain Life/Icebolt. Infect one shard, and it could stay forever, but most CC stops it. Even Blessing.
Except this, there´s no real way to weaken the HP of the card without a downside of the used CC. Use Icebolt , it may freeze, try Drain Life/Icebolt, you may have too much quanta.
Activation cost ? Maybe random quanta.
Voted for "other".
Post by: kimham8a on July 08, 2012, 01:03:35 am
Add a poll option: When it "expires" SoFo automatically casts a Bhole on each player, unless your mark is gravity, then only on opponent.
I like this.
Post by: dragonsdemesne on July 08, 2012, 01:13:58 am
Post by: neuroleptics on July 08, 2012, 09:33:33 am
Post by: Cheesy111 on July 08, 2012, 09:45:59 am
Post by: Mathematistic on July 08, 2012, 02:20:00 pm
:gravity shard without having :gravity quantas requirement.....i'd already submitted my vote
Shards do not require a particular element to use. However, the BH created is not :gravity enough IMO.
Post by: kimham8a on July 08, 2012, 04:37:28 pm
Post by: OldTrees on July 08, 2012, 05:45:43 pm
:gravity shard without having :gravity quantas requirement.....i'd already submitted my voteShards are other cards, they must not require specific quanta to use. (Otherwise the generic casting cost is inappropriate.)
Shards should get a bonus from their element. Shard of Focus + Gravity Mark = Earthquake + Blackhole. Shard of Focus + no :gravity = Earthquake + no Blackhole
Post by: Cheesy111 on July 08, 2012, 09:32:41 pm
If it was restricted to pillars-only it wouldn't be the complete powerhouse that it is. It might still be OP, but it might not be catastrophically so.:gravity shard without having :gravity quantas requirement.....i'd already submitted my voteShards are other cards, they must not require specific quanta to use. (Otherwise the generic casting cost is inappropriate.)
Shards should get a bonus from their element. Shard of Focus + Gravity Mark = Earthquake + Blackhole. Shard of Focus + no :gravity = Earthquake + no Blackhole
Post by: kimham8a on July 08, 2012, 11:53:57 pm
If it was restricted to pillars-only it wouldn't be the complete powerhouse that it is. It might still be OP, but it might not be catastrophically so.:gravity shard without having :gravity quantas requirement.....i'd already submitted my voteShards are other cards, they must not require specific quanta to use. (Otherwise the generic casting cost is inappropriate.)
Shards should get a bonus from their element. Shard of Focus + Gravity Mark = Earthquake + Blackhole. Shard of Focus + no :gravity = Earthquake + no Blackhole
That IMO would be slightly UP, let alone OP or even moderately powerful.
Post by: Cheesy111 on July 09, 2012, 12:46:56 am
The problem is the incredibly low cost of SoFo. 7 other costs much less than 3 earth to produce. That being said, upon further reconsideration it would probably be slightly UP due to the possibility of a first-turn kill and summoning sickness.If it was restricted to pillars-only it wouldn't be the complete powerhouse that it is. It might still be OP, but it might not be catastrophically so.:gravity shard without having :gravity quantas requirement.....i'd already submitted my voteShards are other cards, they must not require specific quanta to use. (Otherwise the generic casting cost is inappropriate.)
Shards should get a bonus from their element. Shard of Focus + Gravity Mark = Earthquake + Blackhole. Shard of Focus + no :gravity = Earthquake + no Blackhole
That IMO would be slightly UP, let alone OP or even moderately powerful.
Post by: neuroleptics on July 09, 2012, 05:31:31 am
Post by: Cheesy111 on July 11, 2012, 01:30:51 am
oh well, but until the shards are balanced (nerf the overpowered) they will have no place in the tourney or any PvP events. Maybe trials have used that but that's for closed fight in an element
I don't understand this logic. Why ban all of the shards instead just the incredibly overpowered ones?
Post by: neuroleptics on July 11, 2012, 05:20:08 am
oh well, but until the shards are balanced (nerf the overpowered) they will have no place in the tourney or any PvP events. Maybe trials have used that but that's for closed fight in an element
I don't understand this logic. Why ban all of the shards instead just the incredibly overpowered ones?
No, you got me wrong, what i mean is that many still see shards as OP and i've not seen a tourney that shards are allowed yet. I was implying that since shards are quite new, until they are tested like all other cards, i doubt shards would be introduced in PvP tourney or so. Personally, i love shards (at least for farming).
Post by: Laxadarap on July 11, 2012, 06:27:18 am
oh well, but until the shards are balanced (nerf the overpowered) they will have no place in the tourney or any PvP events. Maybe trials have used that but that's for closed fight in an element
I don't understand this logic. Why ban all of the shards instead just the incredibly overpowered ones?
No, you got me wrong, what i mean is that many still see shards as OP and i've not seen a tourney that shards are allowed yet. I was implying that since shards are quite new, until they are tested like all other cards, i doubt shards would be introduced in PvP tourney or so. Personally, i love shards (at least for farming).
Think your forgetting about league, arguably the biggest pvp event(s) on the forum (war is probably bigger, but this is a close second).
Post by: Cheesy111 on July 11, 2012, 07:02:41 am
oh well, but until the shards are balanced (nerf the overpowered) they will have no place in the tourney or any PvP events. Maybe trials have used that but that's for closed fight in an element
I don't understand this logic. Why ban all of the shards instead just the incredibly overpowered ones?
No, you got me wrong, what i mean is that many still see shards as OP and i've not seen a tourney that shards are allowed yet. I was implying that since shards are quite new, until they are tested like all other cards, i doubt shards would be introduced in PvP tourney or so. Personally, i love shards (at least for farming).
I guess there's still something I'm not getting. Shards have been pretty well defined in the new metagame. Some are older, some much older than newer cards like Seraph and Psion and yet those are both allowed in tourneys.
Post by: Higurashi on July 11, 2012, 10:41:47 am
Noting, new rares are always banned for a month or two because we have to give people a chance to get them first.
And, of course, the Leagues' metagame is the only completely unrestricted one. Not something you see anywhere else, for good reason. It's a lot more common that shards are banned whenever someone speaks of "the meta" thanks to PvP Events, Tourneys and Wars. The bigger a game gets, the more restrictions do you need to create a challenging or creatively demanding and varying metagame.
Post by: umgrego2 on July 11, 2012, 02:56:30 pm
Lasting tourney bans have been evaluated after whether or not they ruin the theme of a tourney or not. That's always a risk with Other cards and some other ones that can avoid the theme and still be viable, such as Animate Weapon, Discord, Bolts, Poison, Dims and Miracle stalls. If there's a tourney theme that would survive having Shards, they'd be allowed, but frankly anything revolving Shards sounds incredibly boring as a tourney. We'd rather have strong elemental themes, as that's where the identity of the game and creative possibilities lie.
Noting, new rares are always banned for a month or two because we have to give people a chance to get them first.
And, of course, the Leagues' metagame is the only completely unrestricted one. Not something you see anywhere else, for good reason. It's a lot more common that shards are banned whenever someone speaks of "the meta" thanks to PvP Events, Tourneys and Wars. The bigger a game gets, the more restrictions do you need to create a challenging or creatively demanding and varying metagame.
Nice. I like that philosophy. Looking forward to getting into my first tourney.
Post by: shileka on July 13, 2012, 09:02:34 pm
Post by: Trollinator on July 18, 2012, 03:24:35 am
Post by: Cheesy111 on July 18, 2012, 03:28:30 am
I fully expect to be flamed for this, but I like Focus the way it is. That is how I voted. It got a reasonable and well-deserved nerf with the HP reduction and I like that. It was a needed change. I think it is fine as is, and doesn't need any changes. Most suggested changes would hurt monos and duos a helluva lot more than would hurt rainbows. As far as adding an additional benefit to gravity users/mark, black hole already is the benefit. The main problem here is not with the card itself, but with rainbow's flexibility. If it absolutely has to be change, to go with the spirit of colorless shards, I support the "growing" activation cost. However, with rainbows, a colorless activation cost would be negligible. I would still play it without a thought. A more appropriate change, I think, would be to get black hole card if and only if you have gravity mark. So, in conclusion, I do not support a change, but if a change has to be made, those are what I would hope for.
Please, I beg you to join BL. Then perhaps you will see why SoFo is a severe problem that kills the metagame.
Post by: kimham8a on July 18, 2012, 03:52:40 am
Post by: furballdn on July 18, 2012, 03:59:32 am
Oh? What's happening there with SoFo? I don't have time to join, but I'd like to hear what problems are encountered. Is everyone using/countering it?Many people don't like a 6 :rainbow creature that can destroy 3 permanents in 3 turns, be nearly immortal after 1 turn, and then give the owner a free black hole to cause even more denial.
Post by: kimham8a on July 18, 2012, 04:13:55 am
Oh? What's happening there with SoFo? I don't have time to join, but I'd like to hear what problems are encountered. Is everyone using/countering it?Many people don't like a 6 :rainbow creature that can destroy 3 permanents in 3 turns, be nearly immortal after 1 turn, and then give the owner a free black hole to cause even more denial.
But is there really any problem? What decks are people using these days? Because poison dials, rainbow rushes, cremation, pestal, etc, are barely affected by sofo. Sofo kills instosis, but its not like everyone's going to use that if they seem to run into sofo all the time. (at least with my experience)
Post by: OldTrees on July 18, 2012, 04:21:45 am
Oh? What's happening there with SoFo? I don't have time to join, but I'd like to hear what problems are encountered. Is everyone using/countering it?Many people don't like a 6 :rainbow creature that can destroy 3 permanents in 3 turns, be nearly immortal after 1 turn, and then give the owner a free black hole to cause even more denial.
But is there really any problem? What decks are people using these days? Because poison dials, rainbow rushes, cremation, pestal, etc, are barely affected by sofo. Sofo kills instosis, but its not like everyone's going to use that if they seem to run into sofo all the time. (at least with my experience)
Yes. The threat of SoFo is great enough that it insulates the metagame against change. Most new challengers to those archetypes would involve pillars. SoFo slows pillars down a lot.
PS: How does SoFo hurt a SN OTK like Instosis?
Post by: omegareaper7 on July 18, 2012, 04:23:21 am
Type of decks being used don't matter. The whole issue is the fact its invincible pc that can be played easily on the first turn. You know what most decks do when they have two of these against them? They lose. Losing 6 pillars is awful. Or they could target your shields. One of these destroys mono aether without a second thought. Your not exactly coming back from having something destroyed every turn for the price of a nova and a single shard.Oh? What's happening there with SoFo? I don't have time to join, but I'd like to hear what problems are encountered. Is everyone using/countering it?Many people don't like a 6 :rainbow creature that can destroy 3 permanents in 3 turns, be nearly immortal after 1 turn, and then give the owner a free black hole to cause even more denial.
But is there really any problem? What decks are people using these days? Because poison dials, rainbow rushes, cremation, pestal, etc, are barely affected by sofo. Sofo kills instosis, but its not like everyone's going to use that if they seem to run into sofo all the time. (at least with my experience)
Post by: kimham8a on July 18, 2012, 04:26:05 am
Oh? What's happening there with SoFo? I don't have time to join, but I'd like to hear what problems are encountered. Is everyone using/countering it?Many people don't like a 6 :rainbow creature that can destroy 3 permanents in 3 turns, be nearly immortal after 1 turn, and then give the owner a free black hole to cause even more denial.
But is there really any problem? What decks are people using these days? Because poison dials, rainbow rushes, cremation, pestal, etc, are barely affected by sofo. Sofo kills instosis, but its not like everyone's going to use that if they seem to run into sofo all the time. (at least with my experience)
Yes. The threat of SoFo is great enough that it insulates the metagame against change. Most new challengers to those archetypes would involve pillars. SoFo slows pillars down a lot.
PS: How does SoFo hurt a SN OTK like Instosis?
Oh thanks. I get it now.
Also, it kills instosis because of killing its hourglasses or alternatively killing sundials at the right time, or simply using their ability no matter what just for the BH's.
Post by: OldTrees on July 18, 2012, 04:30:23 am
What if the Instosis deck discarded its Hourglasses and played its Sundials without :light?Oh? What's happening there with SoFo? I don't have time to join, but I'd like to hear what problems are encountered. Is everyone using/countering it?Many people don't like a 6 :rainbow creature that can destroy 3 permanents in 3 turns, be nearly immortal after 1 turn, and then give the owner a free black hole to cause even more denial.
But is there really any problem? What decks are people using these days? Because poison dials, rainbow rushes, cremation, pestal, etc, are barely affected by sofo. Sofo kills instosis, but its not like everyone's going to use that if they seem to run into sofo all the time. (at least with my experience)
Yes. The threat of SoFo is great enough that it insulates the metagame against change. Most new challengers to those archetypes would involve pillars. SoFo slows pillars down a lot.
PS: How does SoFo hurt a SN OTK like Instosis?
Oh thanks. I get it now.
Also, it kills instosis because of killing its hourglasses or alternatively killing sundials at the right time, or simply using their ability no matter what just for the BH's.
Black Hole would only drain mark quanta and OTKs don't care about Singularities.
PS: I have not had a good test for this counter strategy so I don't know if it would work.
Post by: Cheesy111 on July 18, 2012, 04:35:03 am
What if the Instosis deck discarded its Hourglasses and played its Sundials without :light?Oh? What's happening there with SoFo? I don't have time to join, but I'd like to hear what problems are encountered. Is everyone using/countering it?Many people don't like a 6 :rainbow creature that can destroy 3 permanents in 3 turns, be nearly immortal after 1 turn, and then give the owner a free black hole to cause even more denial.
But is there really any problem? What decks are people using these days? Because poison dials, rainbow rushes, cremation, pestal, etc, are barely affected by sofo. Sofo kills instosis, but its not like everyone's going to use that if they seem to run into sofo all the time. (at least with my experience)
Yes. The threat of SoFo is great enough that it insulates the metagame against change. Most new challengers to those archetypes would involve pillars. SoFo slows pillars down a lot.
PS: How does SoFo hurt a SN OTK like Instosis?
Oh thanks. I get it now.
Also, it kills instosis because of killing its hourglasses or alternatively killing sundials at the right time, or simply using their ability no matter what just for the BH's.
Black Hole would only drain mark quanta and OTKs don't care about Singularities.
PS: I have not had a good test for this counter strategy so I don't know if it would work.
There is not enough hand room in Instosis for both all the Supernovae needed and all the cards needed to OTK.
Post by: Kuroaitou on July 18, 2012, 04:59:31 am
1) SoFo gets an activation cost of 6 :rainbow quanta, 5 :rainbow if upped. (This makes it so that it has a heavy cost, even if a player were to cast one with Nova)
2) SoFo turns into a Black Hole if its HP is greater than 31. (Note: If this change was implemented, it would still allow 3 permanents to be destroyed, BUT a single buff (Heavy Armor, Momentum, Chaos Power, Blessing, etc.) will reduce its permanent destruction capabilities to only two perms. Basilisk Blood would reduce it immediately to one PC.
...that being said, it would also be more interesting if instead of 'Black Hole', Focus becomes a different Gravity spell altogether to concentrate on the theme (hell, even Momentum or Gravity Pull would have more thematic meaning than the PC-denial-etc. of doom).
Post by: rosutosefi on July 18, 2012, 05:12:09 am
Personally, the best nerf to SoFo (that would be reasonable within Zanz's limits) would be these two small changes:
1) SoFo gets an activation cost of 6 :rainbow quanta, 5 :rainbow if upped. (This makes it so that it has a heavy cost, even if a player were to cast one with Nova)
2) SoFo turns into a Black Hole if its HP is greater than 31. (Note: If this change was implemented, it would still allow 3 permanents to be destroyed, BUT a single buff (Heavy Armor, Momentum, Chaos Power, Blessing, etc.) will reduce its permanent destruction capabilities to only two perms. Basilisk Blood would reduce it immediately to one PC.
...that being said, it would also be more interesting if instead of 'Black Hole', Focus becomes a different Gravity spell altogether to concentrate on the theme (hell, even Momentum or Gravity Pull would have more thematic meaning than the PC-denial-etc. of doom).
But it's still a Rainbow card, and now it's complete trash in mono-gravity. D:
Post by: eaglgenes101 on July 18, 2012, 05:17:33 am
As in 5/3: 0|5. Accretion: Destroy target permanent, gain +0|+10, and generate black hole. (One use only.)
Post by: kimham8a on July 18, 2012, 05:24:10 am
How about we reduce the number of shots of PC it brings, and modify it to compensate?
As in 5/3: 0|5. Accretion: Destroy target permanent, gain +0|+10, and generate black hole. (One use only.)
IMO rainbows would still use this over BH or other PC, and decks everywhere would still splash it.
Post by: furballdn on July 18, 2012, 06:40:26 am
Post by: shileka on July 18, 2012, 07:00:46 am
My idea? Keep it at same cost. Start with 0|1 stats. Accretion: Destroy target permanent (cannot target pillars or pends) and gain +0|+5. Disappears when hp>10. Generate a black hole if your mark is :gravity.
sounds very good to me
Post by: Cheesy111 on July 18, 2012, 07:13:58 am
My idea? Keep it at same cost. Start with 0|1 stats. Accretion: Destroy target permanent (cannot target pillars or pends) and gain +0|+5. Disappears when hp>10. Generate a black hole if your mark is :gravity.
I disagree. +5 is the same hard-to-cc for most decks, except it lessens the gpull/accretion synergies with gravity.
Post by: furballdn on July 18, 2012, 07:16:06 am
Post by: Cheesy111 on July 18, 2012, 07:29:36 am
Accretion causes +3hp and disappears when hp>7?
No, no. You misunderstand. We WANT to increase the synergy with gravity....
Post by: OldTrees on July 18, 2012, 08:39:37 am
Deflagration destroys a permanent. Pulverizer destroys multiple permanents.
This means we want this creature to be balanced relative to Deflagration and Pulverizer.
We want the high hp for the synergy with the parent element :gravity.
The consequence is the creature will be extremely resilient to CC.
This makes the previous balance issue (above) be even more significant.
Post by: eaglgenes101 on July 18, 2012, 03:58:48 pm
Post by: Trollinator on July 18, 2012, 09:18:47 pm
I used to gamble with my permanents, with the previous PC available. Now, in my rainbow, I have adjusted my metagame and I ALWAYS pack 2 PA's. Some matches, 2 PA's mean 2 dead cards, and I'm ok with that, because ANY deck can have PC now. I don't want my skull buckler stolen or smashed, usually. Skull Buckler destroys dark and fire monsters. If I see gravity quanta, or devourers, I'm going to PA my sanctuary. Earth quanta, my towers are getting PA'd. My Poseidon ALWAYS gets a PA. Chances are, Poseidon isn't leaving my hand until a PA can immediately follow it. Point is, Focus can EASILY win games for someone. Other side of the coin, so can my 1 :earth PA.
Post by: Laxadarap on July 18, 2012, 09:25:04 pm
This is a tough situation. We want to make it more powerful/synergize well for mono/duo gravity compared to using it in "other" decks. Problem is, any changes made for upping cost, whether it be casting cost or activation, will hurt EVERY mono/duo, including gravity. Reducing HP gained per activation and "max" HP before turning to BH could possibly help CC, but, again, takes away from gravity synergy. This card is unintentionally most powerful in rainbow decks, far more powerful and flexible and easy to play in rainbow. Most decks have one shot at removing the focus threat, after that one turn, strap in and hold on 'cuz it's gonna be a bumpy ride.
What hurts rainbows? BHoles. If SoFo is going to keep the same mechanic of PC, in my opinion the best way to do it was allready suggested. When it finishes "accreting", make it cast a Bhole on each player, instead of going into the hand (this also stops stockpiling Bholes). IF you have a gravity mark, it only casts Bhole on your opponent. It essentially forces a gravity mark rainbow, which isn't as effective for Supernovas or Timebows. Also, this hurts rainbows a LOT more than monos. I used to gamble with my permanents, with the previous PC available. Now, in my rainbow, I have adjusted my metagame and I ALWAYS pack 2 PA's. Some matches, 2 PA's mean 2 dead cards, and I'm ok with that, because ANY deck can have PC now. I don't want my skull buckler stolen or smashed, usually. Skull Buckler destroys dark and fire monsters. If I see gravity quanta, or devourers, I'm going to PA my sanctuary. Earth quanta, my towers are getting PA'd. My Poseidon ALWAYS gets a PA. Chances are, Poseidon isn't leaving my hand until a PA can immediately follow it. Point is, Focus can EASILY win games for someone. Other side of the coin, so can my 1 :earth PA.
SoFo is ALMOST NEVER a dead card. Just saying. Plus, 6 sofo=18 destructions, 2 PA= 2 protections. I feel like that doesn't cover it enough. Elaborating on this, I feel like one of my problems with SoFo is that it can just destroy so much. It gives a great card advantage. Rainbows often pack 3 PC or so, just so if something pops up, you can handle out. With sofo, you pack 3, and you can handle all the things!
Post by: Trollinator on July 18, 2012, 09:56:00 pm
Post by: DigitalHero07 on July 18, 2012, 11:14:13 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/7FPAv.png)
Sorry if anyone had already posted this idea.
Post by: furballdn on July 18, 2012, 11:17:02 pm
IMO, the playing cost would be increased, an activaton cost would be added and instead of adding HP, it would decrease the attack, something like it:Oh god no. Now it's an offensive creature as well? one nova plus one of these is a free 7|30 creature.(http://i.imgur.com/7FPAv.png)Sorry if anyone had already posted this idea.
Post by: DigitalHero07 on July 18, 2012, 11:19:06 pm
Post by: furballdn on July 18, 2012, 11:19:59 pm
Post by: DigitalHero07 on July 18, 2012, 11:23:07 pm
Modify: I removed my vote and voted in ''Requires :gravity to use''.
(http://i.imgur.com/fAuQk.png)
Post by: furballdn on July 18, 2012, 11:39:38 pm
Post by: OldTrees on July 19, 2012, 12:10:59 am
High :rainbow costs restrict a card to only being used in rainbows. Additionally, such cards remain cheap.
Laxadarap, I see your point, and here's my response: That IS a buttload of destructions. It is unfortunate that players use that many Shards. Like everything in life, it's the few A-holes that mess everything up for the majority. I personally only use one.If using multiple is being an A-hole, then the card is OP.
Now it is completely useless without :gravity. Shards were meant to be able to be played in any deck.This is a very important point. Shard of Focus must have a use even in the absence of :gravity and :gravity marks.
Post by: Thurhame on July 19, 2012, 12:48:16 am
Like most CCGs I know of, Elements is based around different colored groups ("Elements"). Each group has its own strengths and weaknesses, and combining them makes them more versatile at the cost of being harder to use. Rainbows run completely counter to this concept. They freely combine the strengths of many elements, and their limitations have nothing to do with the basic groupings. It's like if Magic: The Gathering had a basic land that gave you mana of any color; it just doesn't make sense with the theme of the game.
The only solution I see is to remove Quantum Pillars from the game, but I'm open to other suggestions.
Post by: OldTrees on July 19, 2012, 12:59:43 am
Shard of Focus does not need nerfed. Rainbows need nerfed.I am glad someone is questioning this balance.
Like most CCGs I know of, Elements is based around different colored groups ("Elements"). Each group has its own strengths and weaknesses, and combining them makes them more versatile at the cost of being harder to use. Rainbows run completely counter to this concept. They freely combine the strengths of many elements, and their limitations have nothing to do with the basic groupings. It's like if Magic: The Gathering had a basic land that gave you mana of any color; it just doesn't make sense with the theme of the game.
The only solution I see is to remove Quantum Pillars from the game, but I'm open to other suggestions.
Pillars provide 1 quanta per turn.
Quantum Pillars provide 3 quanta per turn but distributed among 12 elements.
Most cards cost multiple quanta of the same type.
Pillars can cast Elemental cards sooner than Quantum Pillars can.
Quantum Pillars can cast cards from more elements than Pillars can.
Other cards cost more quanta than mono cards.
What if MtG had a land that provided 1 random mana? It would probably be weaker than a basic land. What if it provided 2 random mana?
Now remember than a mono red card costs X :rainbow + Y :fire. Mono fire cards cost Z :fire.
Post by: odideph on July 19, 2012, 01:25:13 am
Also to use the Black Hole you'll need :gravity anyways.
SoFo is the most horrible thing that happened to elements imho, especially because it's castable on turn 0 after just 1 nova, 2 QP or 5 upped towers.
Because many say that "you just CC it", except you can rarely CC anything on turn 0, and if you don't, SoFo will pillar-lock you then quanta-lock you. That's just too much for 1 card playable at the very start. It's to Devourer what a flamethrower is to a lighter.
And yes i registered on the forums just to vote to nerf it.
Post by: furballdn on July 19, 2012, 01:37:03 am
Post by: Xamuel on July 19, 2012, 02:03:30 am
Make it so Shard of Focus costs something like "3 :underworld", but by this I don't mean the same as "3 :rainbow", instead I mean that to play the card, you must be able to pay the cost entirely from one type of quanta.
- For example, if you have 3 :fire and no other quanta, you may play SoFo
- On the other hand, if you have exactly 2 of every quanta, you can NOT play SoFo
- If you have 3 :fire and 3 :water, you may play SoFo and its cost will either be 3 :fire or 3 :water, determined randomly.
- The number 3 is arbitrary, could be 4, could be whatever, not sure what the optimum number would be.
Post by: rosutosefi on July 19, 2012, 02:25:11 am
One possibility, which would require a bit of coding and a whole new mechanic but would be worth it since the idea could be applied elsewhere:
Make it so Shard of Focus costs something like "3 :underworld", but by this I don't mean the same as "3 :rainbow", instead I mean that to play the card, you must be able to pay the cost entirely from one type of quanta.
- For example, if you have 3 :fire and no other quanta, you may play SoFo
- On the other hand, if you have exactly 2 of every quanta, you can NOT play SoFo
- If you have 3 :fire and 3 :water, you may play SoFo and its cost will either be 3 :fire or 3 :water, determined randomly.
- The number 3 is arbitrary, could be 4, could be whatever, not sure what the optimum number would be.
7. It should stay at 7 if that happens.
Post by: OldTrees on July 19, 2012, 02:31:07 am
Your suggestion is an old one and a good one. It was one of the more popular nerfs for SoG before the nerf to being mark based.
Post by: kimham8a on July 19, 2012, 02:56:58 am
Post by: odideph on July 19, 2012, 03:00:57 am
SoW is a badly designed shard imo, but it is at least more flexible than a :gravity activated SoFo. Even without dropping a BH in the hand, SoFo is still OP as it is now.
Ehh, i'd be happy to know how an enchant castable only on immortal creatures (it needs to be a creature, but also immortal, seriously you have to build your Whole deck around this) can be more flexible than one of the two creatures you can cast with any quanta, at least barely useful in any deck.
Heck, we could probably make decks based on casting sofo and buffing it rightaway with :aether :earth :entropy :gravity :life :light enchants if it didn't have accretion. (yes it would probably suck, but at least it would do anything, unlike target-less SoW :( )
Post by: furballdn on July 19, 2012, 03:13:30 am
I wrote the article for SoW on the wiki here (http://elementscommunity.org/wiki/Shard_of_Wisdom) :P
A gravity activated SoFo would only be useful in a deck using gravity quanta.
Post by: OldTrees on July 19, 2012, 03:19:51 am
(yes it would probably suck, but at least it would do anything, unlike target-less SoW :( )Better than Bad is still not Good. This rule still also applies to card design.
Post by: DarkBaron12390 on July 20, 2012, 02:13:37 am
Everything is the same, only when Hp > 45, automatically cast BH on both players. Only on opponent if mark is gravity.
+1 DarkBaron12390!
Post by: Chapuz on July 20, 2012, 02:16:52 am
My impartial opinion leads me to steer toward the idea user DarkBaron12390 came up with for Shard of Focus. It is a beautiful mechanic and totally implementable without an overhaul on the card's effect.Then gravity mark decks would be OP. WHEN IS THE TRIAL COMMING!?! It seems too hard to balance >:(
Everything is the same, only when Hp > 45, automatically cast BH on both players. Only on opponent if mark is gravity.
+1 DarkBaron12390!
Post by: eaglgenes101 on July 20, 2012, 05:07:23 am
How about we reduce the number of shots of PC it brings, and modify it to compensate?Slightly modified. This nerf puts it in range of monos, and it sticks on fewer uses to compensate.
As in 5/4: 0|5. Accretion: Destroy target permanent, gain +0|+10, and generate black hole. (One use only.)
Post by: Junkers on July 20, 2012, 11:16:59 am
Post by: Raitei on July 20, 2012, 01:24:14 pm
Post by: Altissimus on July 20, 2012, 01:37:57 pm
a) easily farmable FGs with this card are now auto-quit against some decks (Instosis, for example) - and it's hardly as if Instosis had a 100% win streak against everything
b) every Silver, Gold or Plat arena deck NOT running this card is only because it's owner hasn't been fortunate enough to farm one yet.
c) 6 of these in a deck = win. It's that broken.
If it drops, you have ONE turn to find creature removal. Very difficult early in game. After that, 16HP means it's all but invulnerable to most kill methods.
Meanwhile, please discard 3 permanents in play of your opponent's choice. Oh, and don't play any supernovas until after the BH has gone. Just wait three turns instead. Yeah, good plan.
I hate this card so much, I might stop playing until it's gone.
Post by: Cheesy111 on July 20, 2012, 01:57:32 pm
This card is ruining the game for me.
a) easily farmable FGs with this card are now auto-quit against some decks (Instosis, for example) - and it's hardly as if Instosis had a 100% win streak against everything
b) every Silver, Gold or Plat arena deck NOT running this card is only because it's owner hasn't been fortunate enough to farm one yet.
c) 6 of these in a deck = win. It's that broken.
If it drops, you have ONE turn to find creature removal. Very difficult early in game. After that, 16HP means it's all but invulnerable to most kill methods.
Meanwhile, please discard 3 permanents in play of your opponent's choice. Oh, and don't play any supernovas until after the BH has gone. Just wait three turns instead. Yeah, good plan.
I hate this card so much, I might stop playing until it's gone.
While this card is overpowered, it is important to realize that it is overpowered for the right reasons and not the wrong ones. Making easily farmable FGs harder does not merit a nerf by itself. Your second point is quite simply false. Your third point is also false. Your fourth point is a good and important one. Your fifth point fails to take into account time delay and permanent protection. Supernovae being countered by SoFo also does not merit it a nerf. I am very much in favor of a sofo nerf, but it must be for the right reasons or else things like the SoSac nerf happen (puri/sopa).
Post by: umgrego2 on July 20, 2012, 02:56:23 pm
I built a fat rainbow for my league deck and included two SoFo as well as two fractals. I was testing my deck and, whether I play a SoFo or the AI plays one, the AI targets the SoFo for fractal. All of a sudden there's like four or five SoFos on the field. "Oh, you don't have six EAs to protect your permanents? then you're S.O.L."
Seriously, I don't feel like I can complain enough about how OP this card is. In some ways, I felt the same about SOG in the past, and was happy for the nerf it got. Can't wait for this one to get balanced.
Post by: Higurashi on July 20, 2012, 05:14:25 pm
Post by: kira666 on July 20, 2012, 05:50:04 pm
A low HP bonus (+5) makes it easy to use more times. And has no synergy.
Post by: furballdn on July 20, 2012, 06:33:14 pm
A high HP bonus (+15) makes it harder to kill.Make the hp at which it disappears lower.
A low HP bonus (+5) makes it easy to use more times. And has no synergy.
Make it start with 0|1, gain 5hp per time it accretes, disappears at hp>10, and then give a BH to the owner only if they have a :gravity mark. This way, the gravity bonus is still there, and it nerfs it.
If a +5 boost is to high, it can be 0|1, gain 2hp each time it accretes, and disappears when hp>4.
Post by: russianspy1234 on July 20, 2012, 06:36:59 pm
Post by: Cheesy111 on July 20, 2012, 06:39:27 pm
why do we need an HP bonus at all? just give it an explicit 3 uses.
Shards are supposed to have synergy with 'their' element. SoFo's synergy is both with it turning into a Black Hole as well as its high HP (GPull, Accel, Catapult).
Post by: furballdn on July 20, 2012, 06:59:06 pm
It's rare that you see people use it for the hp. Yes, there are people who use it with rage, catapult, and accel, but those are very rare. I'm all for a counter based system that tracks how many permanents it destroyed and let the synergy just be the BH gained if mark is gravity. I'd also want the permanent destruction number lower. 3 is too much.why do we need an HP bonus at all? just give it an explicit 3 uses.
Shards are supposed to have synergy with 'their' element. SoFo's synergy is both with it turning into a Black Hole as well as its high HP (GPull, Accel, Catapult).
Post by: Cannibal7 on July 21, 2012, 06:39:58 am
Post by: furballdn on July 21, 2012, 06:48:52 am
imo SoFo is not that broken as ppl say. even if you dont 1st turn kill it there are other ways 2 deal with it, liquid shadow, rewind, lobotomize or any other buff that will replace destroy effect.Those really aren't buffs. Liquid shadow and lobo'ing are the only two ways of truly shutting it down after it has gained hp. Casting BE on it may delay it, but these are often found in SNbows, so it's not that big of a deal. Rewinding it would just be helping it, as it lets it destroy more permanents.
Post by: Cannibal7 on July 21, 2012, 09:37:27 am
as i sudgested in a different thread maybe could add a sacrifice effect (2 pillars/pends?) as an additional cost on casting SoFo. also chaos seed will proly kill SoFo or delay it enough 2 avoid it do more harm.imo SoFo is not that broken as ppl say. even if you dont 1st turn kill it there are other ways 2 deal with it, liquid shadow, rewind, lobotomize or any other buff that will replace destroy effect.Those really aren't buffs. Liquid shadow and lobo'ing are the only two ways of truly shutting it down after it has gained hp. Casting BE on it may delay it, but these are often found in SNbows, so it's not that big of a deal. Rewinding it would just be helping it, as it lets it destroy more permanents.
Post by: OldTrees on July 21, 2012, 06:16:10 pm
imo SoFo is not that broken as ppl say. even if you dont 1st turn kill it there are other ways 2 deal with it, liquid shadow, rewind, lobotomize or any other buff that will replace destroy effect.LS is too expensive to get that soon.
Lobotomizer would be destroyed. Mind Flayer would not.
Rewind would work but is only a 1 turn break from PC.
Acceleration is too dangerous to use.
Mitosis = many more SoFo.
Post by: eaglgenes101 on July 21, 2012, 10:54:23 pm
How about we reduce the number of shots of PC it brings, and modify it to compensate?
As in 5/4: 0|5. Accretion: Destroy target permanent, gain +0|+10, and generate black hole. (One use only.)
Post by: Cheesy111 on July 21, 2012, 11:07:39 pm
Let's just lower the cost and give it just 1 use. My suggestion is a few posts back, here it is:15HP is enough to do well with Accel, but not enough to really synergize with Catapult or Gravity Pull. As 15HP is already out of CC range, why not have it be a super high-HP creature?How about we reduce the number of shots of PC it brings, and modify it to compensate?
As in 5/4: 0|5. Accretion: Destroy target permanent, gain +0|+10, and generate black hole. (One use only.)
Post by: furballdn on July 21, 2012, 11:08:35 pm
Would a super high hp creature tread on armagio, titan, and gravy dragon, cards used only for their high hp?Let's just lower the cost and give it just 1 use. My suggestion is a few posts back, here it is:15HP is enough to do well with Accel, but not enough to really synergize with Catapult or Gravity Pull. As 15HP is already out of CC range, why not have it be a super high-HP creature?How about we reduce the number of shots of PC it brings, and modify it to compensate?
As in 5/4: 0|5. Accretion: Destroy target permanent, gain +0|+10, and generate black hole. (One use only.)
Post by: Cheesy111 on July 21, 2012, 11:48:41 pm
None of those are ONLY used for their high-HP. And I think I didn't make as much sense as I meant to - 45ish was what I meant by super high HP.Would a super high hp creature tread on armagio, titan, and gravy dragon, cards used only for their high hp?Let's just lower the cost and give it just 1 use. My suggestion is a few posts back, here it is:15HP is enough to do well with Accel, but not enough to really synergize with Catapult or Gravity Pull. As 15HP is already out of CC range, why not have it be a super high-HP creature?How about we reduce the number of shots of PC it brings, and modify it to compensate?
As in 5/4: 0|5. Accretion: Destroy target permanent, gain +0|+10, and generate black hole. (One use only.)
Post by: furballdn on July 22, 2012, 12:08:53 am
Armagio-180
Shard of Focus-108
Titan-78
Colossal Dragon-90
Shard of Focus (U)-349
Armagio(U)-27
Titan(U)-25
Colossal Dragon(U)-21
That's pretty sad. Shard of Focus is already more used than most of those cards, and even unupped, being a rare new shard, is still more used than titan. Also, I am very interested to see you use gravy dragon, titan, or armagio in decks that don't make use of their high hp.
Armagio is a very expensive 30hp heal for 6 :gravity + 1 card, Massive dragon is a UP card and one of the worst dragons, and titan is one of the most expensive weapons.
Post by: OldTrees on July 22, 2012, 12:35:25 am
*Yes, I know usage is only loosely related to balance.
Post by: jawdirk on July 22, 2012, 01:48:42 am
Casting cost remains the same. When you use the ability it removes 1 quanta of every color except :gravity from your pool (like a mini black hole on yourself), and then gives you 1 :gravity. When SoF gets above 45 hp it becomes vanilla.
This would make it expensive in one way for monos, and expensive in a different way for rainbows. It would give an advantage to gravity. It would also improve the synergy with acceleration/gravity pull.
Post by: kimham8a on July 22, 2012, 04:12:32 am
Let's just lower the cost and give it just 1 use. My suggestion is a few posts back, here it is:How about we reduce the number of shots of PC it brings, and modify it to compensate?
As in 5/4: 0|5. Accretion: Destroy target permanent, gain +0|+10, and generate black hole. (One use only.)
Adding hp with the ability is pointless because it's dead when you use it.
Post by: Raitei on July 22, 2012, 10:44:24 pm
Post by: frimax on July 22, 2012, 10:58:09 pm
Just destroy 2 permas.
3 is too much.
Post by: Cheesy111 on July 22, 2012, 11:15:18 pm
Would it make any difference is the number of shards you can put in your deck is nerfed? Or would that change the game too much? For instance, you can have only two of every shard in your deck. The only problem with this (even with this there are still problems!!) is that an early SoF would have the same effect..
I hate this solution for any OP card. For graboid, for sofo, for any of them. Changing game mechanics to make a card less powerful is a much worse idea than nerfing a card, partially because it leads to a game where the rules vary from card to card. In this particular instance it would also do next-to-no good, as most SoFo decks only run 1-3 as it is. Aside from all of that, it makes no sense to nerf every shard if one is overpowered, or change the rules for all of them. It would not make sense to nerf every dragon if Ruby Dragon was overpowered, and it does not make sense to nerf every shard because SoFo is overpowered.
Post by: ZephyrPhantom on July 22, 2012, 11:21:59 pm
Would it make any difference is the number of shards you can put in your deck is nerfed? Or would that change the game too much? For instance, you can have only two of every shard in your deck. The only problem with this (even with this there are still problems!!) is that an early SoF would have the same effect..This alleviates the problem of seeing SoFo spam but doesn't directly solve the balance issue. A first turn Shard of Focus is still a first turn Shard of Focus.
(For that matter, limiting the number of copies of an OP-card usually doesn't eliminate the situation in which they're OP, and would just make an enemy player more frustrated when they appear in that OP situation/combo because it still demonstrates that the card is exploitable and just reliant on luck of drawing instead.)
Post by: Raitei on July 22, 2012, 11:56:51 pm
Post by: kimham8a on July 23, 2012, 02:56:42 am
How about it drains one of every non :gravity quanta upon activation? Makes it so only mono gravity remains the same, all other elements are nerfed and rainbow heavily punished.
Post by: furballdn on July 23, 2012, 02:58:08 am
A suggestion was made in the sofo thread that I found nice.But then you'll get a disloyalty punishment rather than a loyalty bonus. Elemental hate is bad, and so is punishment.
How about it drains one of every non :gravity quanta upon activation? Makes it so only mono gravity remains the same, all other elements are nerfed and rainbow heavily punished.
Post by: jawdirk on July 23, 2012, 03:25:52 am
But then you'll get a disloyalty punishment rather than a loyalty bonus. Elemental hate is bad, and so is punishment.Look at it as an alternative activation cost. If you were playing :darkness :fire it would cost you 2 :underworld. If you were playing :darkness :gravity, it would only cost you 1 :underworld. If you were playing rainbow, it would cost you at most 12 :rainbow (and this balances the relatively cheap 6 :rainbow vs. 6 :underworld to cast it). There is no punishment there, just a reward for playing :gravity. Note also that it preserves the ability for any player to use it for 0 if they have no quanta.
Post by: OldTrees on July 23, 2012, 03:34:45 am
1) A drain is not a guaranteed cost. There are many ways to time :rainbow production to avoid to cheat such a cost.But then you'll get a disloyalty punishment rather than a loyalty bonus. Elemental hate is bad, and so is punishment.Look at it as an alternative activation cost. If you were playing :darkness :fire it would cost you 2 :underworld. If you were playing :darkness :gravity, it would only cost you 1 :underworld. If you were playing rainbow, it would cost you at most 12 :rainbow (and this balances the relatively cheap 6 :rainbow vs. 6 :underworld to cast it). There is no punishment there, just a reward for playing :gravity. Note also that it preserves the ability for any player to use it for 0 if they have no quanta.
2) The primary concern is nova + sofo then activating the ability. In this case the ability only costs 2 :rainbow with a gravity mark.
Post by: memimemi on July 23, 2012, 03:46:27 am
1) A drain is not a guaranteed cost. There are many ways to time :rainbow production to avoid to cheat such a cost.
2) The primary concern is nova + sofo then activating the ability. In this case the ability only costs 2 :rainbow with a gravity mark.
1) There are many ways to time the play of any cards, in order to maximize their utility. The advantage gained thereby is a reward for good play. This sounds a little too close to a problem with playing well, rather than with SoF specifically.
2) The primary concern is nova + sofo then activating the ability. In this case the ability only costs 2 :rainbow with a gravity mark; which is 2 :rainbow more than it is now. Isn't that a reasonable place to start making changes, in small increments?
I may be biased, however - I voted that it's fine how it is. Even still, were jawdirk's suggestion imposed, I wouldn't mind it at all. It fits thematically; the BH is paid for by the drained :rainbow; and mono- :gravity gains the benefit of using SoF in essentially the same form as it is now.
Post by: jawdirk on July 23, 2012, 04:22:36 am
2) The primary concern is nova + sofo then activating the ability. In this case the ability only costs 2 :rainbow with a gravity mark.
Do you mean that this is the most unbalanced aspect of SoFo? After thinking about it, I think I see what you are saying.
As a thought experiment, if SoFo cost 6 :gravity, then it would be almost balanced with Pulverizer. It would have the advantage of being cheaper after 2 uses, but it would be more expensive with 0 uses. It doesn't do any damage, but it doesn't use the weapon slot. It only has 3(ish) uses, but it compensates with a top-tier card.
So the real problem is that you can drop it turn one with a nova, and my suggestion only partially helps with that. At least it makes it a little harder to get the full potential out of it because you have to try to use your quanta pool up if you are playing a rainbow deck.
Post by: OldTrees on July 23, 2012, 04:33:31 am
1) If a cost can be avoided with minor thought then it is not a cost. We do not buff cards based on the possibility of subnormal play. Nor do we assume subnormal play when estimating whether something is or is not a significant cost.
1) A drain is not a guaranteed cost. There are many ways to time :rainbow production to avoid to cheat such a cost.
2) The primary concern is nova + sofo then activating the ability. In this case the ability only costs 2 :rainbow with a gravity mark.
1) There are many ways to time the play of any cards, in order to maximize their utility. The advantage gained thereby is a reward for good play. This sounds a little too close to a problem with playing well, rather than with SoF specifically.
2) The primary concern is nova + sofo then activating the ability. In this case the ability only costs 2 :rainbow with a gravity mark; which is 2 :rainbow more than it is now. Isn't that a reasonable place to start making changes, in small increments?
I may be biased, however - I voted that it's fine how it is. Even still, were jawdirk's suggestion imposed, I wouldn't mind it at all. It fits thematically; the BH is paid for by the drained :rainbow; and mono- :gravity gains the benefit of using SoF in essentially the same form as it is now.
2) Keep it short and simple. If the drain would normally be a 2 :rainbow cost then why not put a 2 :rainbow cost to ensure payment? My original suggestion was 2-3 :rainbow activation cost.
Post by: jawdirk on July 23, 2012, 04:49:43 am
My original suggestion was 2-3 :rainbow activation cost.
It doesn't do much to mitigate the complaint that SoFo is OP specifically for rainbow decks. You can still do a lot of damage with 1st turn SoFo + nova with this suggestion.
Post by: OldTrees on July 23, 2012, 05:14:41 am
Agreed. It was a start and it is as effective as a drain effect would be expected to be. (hence the KISS rule) I have since agreed that even that would be insufficient. (although the chance of eating :gravity would delay the black hole longer than the drain idea would)My original suggestion was 2-3 :rainbow activation cost.
It doesn't do much to mitigate the complaint that SoFo is OP specifically for rainbow decks. You can still do a lot of damage with 1st turn SoFo + nova with this suggestion.
Post by: ZephyrPhantom on July 23, 2012, 01:43:33 pm
Post by: umgrego2 on July 23, 2012, 02:04:07 pm
-snip-
Also, I am very interested to see you use gravy dragon, titan, or armagio in decks that don't make use of their high hp.
-snip-
Gravy Dragon? Sounds delicious!
On-topic: Some of these fixes are starting to sound a little too complicated, no?
Post by: kimham8a on July 24, 2012, 02:01:50 am
-snip-
Also, I am very interested to see you use gravy dragon, titan, or armagio in decks that don't make use of their high hp.
-snip-
Gravy Dragon? Sounds delicious!
On-topic: Some of these fixes are starting to sound a little too complicated, no?
Not really, except the sacrifice one, but how about this for a simple fix?
Generate singularity upon death, unless mark is :gravity.
Post by: furballdn on July 24, 2012, 02:10:30 am
Post by: kimham8a on July 24, 2012, 02:24:31 am
Does overaccretion count as death? If so, then this basically disables SoFo for every single non gravity mark deck unless they can deal with the singularity immediately.
Overaccretion counts as death, but any deck can still use it, they will just activate it only twice and won't get BH either.
Post by: furballdn on July 24, 2012, 02:30:01 am
Upped or unupped singularity? Unupped would be way easier to kill and usable by a lot more elements, upped is much harder to kill. This will also lead to more entropy rainbows using this with mutation for the singularities.Does overaccretion count as death? If so, then this basically disables SoFo for every single non gravity mark deck unless they can deal with the singularity immediately.
Overaccretion counts as death, but any deck can still use it, they will just activate it only twice and won't get BH either.
Post by: dragonsdemesne on July 24, 2012, 02:38:55 am
Post by: umgrego2 on July 24, 2012, 03:01:18 pm
Does overaccretion count as death? If so, then this basically disables SoFo for every single non gravity mark deck unless they can deal with the singularity immediately.
Overaccretion counts as death, but any deck can still use it, they will just activate it only twice and won't get BH either.
Now there's an idea I can get behind. For added simplicity (thinking of the text) Upon death, creates Singularity (BH if mark of :gravity)
Benefits:
1. only two permanents can be destroyed for non-gravity-mark decks
2. cost is essentially 3 :rainbow for each permanent destroyed by a non-gravity-mark deck (makes it more expensive then explosion, which it should be)
3. Anyone playing it at 0/1 runs the risk of having it zapped and having a singularity in their field
Does point three underpower it, though? Maybe, upon death, creates an anti-supernova. (?) a
Post by: OldTrees on July 24, 2012, 04:13:50 pm
1) How are you going to nerf the Gravity bows?Does overaccretion count as death? If so, then this basically disables SoFo for every single non gravity mark deck unless they can deal with the singularity immediately.
Overaccretion counts as death, but any deck can still use it, they will just activate it only twice and won't get BH either.
Now there's an idea I can get behind. For added simplicity (thinking of the text) Upon death, creates Singularity (BH if mark of :gravity)
Benefits:
1. only two permanents can be destroyed for non-gravity-mark decks
2. cost is essentially 3 :rainbow for each permanent destroyed by a non-gravity-mark deck (makes it more expensive then explosion, which it should be)
3. Anyone playing it at 0/1 runs the risk of having it zapped and having a singularity in their field
Does point three underpower it, though? Maybe, upon death, creates an anti-supernova. (?) a
2) 6 :rainbow + 1 card + 2 turns < 6 :fire + 2 cards
Post by: Vangelios on August 05, 2012, 12:53:56 am
Post by: Atom_heart on August 06, 2012, 03:43:31 pm
He must enter 0/8 and destroy at most two permanent, their cost may be 8 :rainbow.
I like this idea.
The singularity at the end is a bit too much for me, but I agree that there should be a minor dissadvantage for marks other than :gravity
Post by: Jen-i on August 06, 2012, 03:58:40 pm
When Shard of Focus enters play it recieves 3 tokens.
:rainbow: Remove one token to destroy a target permanent. Gain 10 HP if your mark is Gravity
0/1 Creature
We lose the BH effect but leave a target for Acceleration or Gravity Pull once it dies - it still adds significant PC to every element but it becomes a fragile target for everyone except Gravity. And while a nova still allows you to play one quickly it at least forces you into an interesting choice for a mark to use.
On a personal note, shards like this are the reason I have stopped league play
Post by: kira666 on August 07, 2012, 07:27:44 pm
6/5 :rainbow
0/1
Accreation: Destroys a permanent, gets +0/+15, if HP>25, instant blackhole for both. Does not affect Gravity quanta.
Post by: furballdn on August 07, 2012, 07:31:07 pm
Post by: ZephyrPhantom on August 07, 2012, 07:46:14 pm
Hmm. Whatever happened to that suggestion of 'sacrifice 1 permanent to destroy one permanent' that I saw a while ago on this thread? Even if the 'double-targeting' coding is a little tough (and could be avoided entirely if the sacrifice was random), I feel that would be a good start since you'd need at least 4 cards to deal with 3 permanents ( SoFo + 3 Pillars seems better than just SoFo) and it prevents Novabows from running Pillarless.I'd just like to bump this suggestion, since no one appeared to respond to it the first time I asked about it.
Post by: Laxadarap on August 07, 2012, 07:51:57 pm
Post by: dragonsdemesne on August 07, 2012, 09:10:38 pm
1) Destroy one of the opponent's permanents at random.
2) Destroy one of the opponent's permanents just like it is now, but as an additional cost you must sacrifice one of your own permanents (not sure if this should be your choice or at random, but either way would balance it better)
Whether pillar/shard stacks should count as one permanent or as however many cards the stack contains would be a subject to discuss if Zanz takes the suggestion seriously.
Post by: vivimancer on August 10, 2012, 02:43:52 am
Post by: Cheesy111 on August 10, 2012, 02:45:09 am
What if we made SoFo a perm? that would make it fit with nearly all the other shards and stop the gravity pull/accelleration nonsense...
Destroying SoFo's synergy with Gravity without solving the problem of its horrendous PC is the worst possible scenario.
Post by: vivimancer on August 10, 2012, 06:49:02 am
Destroying SoFo's synergy with Gravity without solving the problem of its horrendous PC is the worst possible scenario.
Ok. Ok, I'll finally admit it, EVERY DECK in arena and PvP seems to have at least at least 3 SoFos but thats only because we are not giving them any choice, e.g. a mono-fire rush can either have 6 deflags to break that guys dim shield spam or 2 SoFos, which would you consider more useful?
Gravity has Armidagio's, titans and massive dragons to fill the role that SoFos seem to be stealing at the monent. The probelm isn't SoFo, the problem is lack of useful, cost-effective PC.
Post by: OldTrees on August 10, 2012, 07:12:28 am
1) Decks will not have to have a card when that card is balanced. Decks would not have to have card type if card type were balanced.
Destroying SoFo's synergy with Gravity without solving the problem of its horrendous PC is the worst possible scenario.
Ok. Ok, I'll finally admit it, EVERY DECK in arena and PvP seems to have at least at least 3 SoFos but thats only because we are not giving them any choice, e.g. a mono-fire rush can either have 6 deflags to break that guys dim shield spam or 2 SoFos, which would you consider more useful?
Gravity has Armidagio's, titans and massive dragons to fill the role that SoFos seem to be stealing at the monent. The probelm isn't SoFo, the problem is lack of useful, cost-effective PC.
2) Fire Elementals will be ambivalent between Deflagrations and SoFos once SoFo is balanced. This means 6 Deflagrations and 2 SoFos should have costs of an similar magnitude. SoFo needs to be nerfed until it is in line with the standard for cost-effective PC (Deflagration)
Post by: teffy on August 10, 2012, 02:04:41 pm
1. the shard becomes 0/1, 0/2, 0/3.
destroyed combination with Grav Pull, new combination with Virus, Infection skill. Black Hole has still synergy with Gravity.
If that´s not enough:
2. The max HP(!) is always 3. The shard comes into play with 1 HP. Holy Light/Flash (free card!) and Purify can destroy the shard this way.
Post by: OldTrees on August 10, 2012, 03:30:02 pm
I think I got a nice idea, how to nerf this shard:This makes the card vulnerable. This is good but it does not deal with the excessive efficiency problem. The result is decks would be forced to either include CC or SoFo. Decks should not be required to include CC or SoFo.
1. the shard becomes 0/1, 0/2, 0/3.
destroyed combination with Grav Pull, new combination with Virus, Infection skill. Black Hole has still synergy with Gravity.
If that´s not enough:
2. The max HP(!) is always 3. The shard comes into play with 1 HP. Holy Light/Flash (free card!) and Purify can destroy the shard this way.
Post by: dragonsdemesne on August 10, 2012, 04:41:29 pm
In regards to the comments comparing shard of focus with explosion, I'll put it this way. In any case where I can use shard of focus (i.e. not tourneys) I will use it over explosion, -including- in monofire. The power of shard of focus should not exceed an element card like that, yet it does. Even in decks that could use pulverizer, I'll often use shard of focus, because I can get the black hole, and obviously use it if I could've used pulvy.
Ideally, shard of focus should be comparable in power to something like butterfly effect. BE is the weakest form of PC currently ingame, and an other card accessible to any element should be among the weakest, not the best one.
Post by: jawdirk on August 10, 2012, 07:37:01 pm
Ideally, shard of focus should be comparable in power to something like butterfly effect. BE is the weakest form of PC currently ingame, and an other card accessible to any element should be among the weakest, not the best one.
That is an interesting idea. SoFo could be a spell that transmutes a creature into what the current shard of focus is (like mutation). It should be a new creature so you can't use SoFo's ability on the turn you play it. This would also make the card a form of CC.
Post by: Elite arbiter on August 10, 2012, 10:37:38 pm
Ok. Ok, I'll finally admit it, EVERY DECK in arena and PvP seems to have at least at least 3 SoFos but thats only because we are not giving them any choice-
The current #1 Plat deck possesses 0 Shards of Focus, so no, people do have some choice.
That said, the card is currently excessively powerful and can 'feel' omnipresent. Either an activation cost, a way to deal with it card effectively (such as a eternal cast spell that deals low CC), or some combination are needed to lower the dominion over the metagame.
Post by: dragonsdemesne on August 10, 2012, 11:19:45 pm
Ideally, shard of focus should be comparable in power to something like butterfly effect. BE is the weakest form of PC currently ingame, and an other card accessible to any element should be among the weakest, not the best one.
That is an interesting idea. SoFo could be a spell that transmutes a creature into what the current shard of focus is (like mutation). It should be a new creature so you can't use SoFo's ability on the turn you play it. This would also make the card a form of CC.
Actually, that post just gave me a GREAT idea. Turn shard of focus into something like this...
Cost = 7 // 6 (like now)
Type: Spell (plays on a creature, like butterfly effect, blessing, etc)
Text: Target creature gains the ability Accretion: Destroy target permanent. This creature loses 10hp from its max hp, and this damage cannot be healed. Turns into a black hole if it dies by this effect.
This would, on most creatures, result in destroying a single permanent. On some dragons, like upped light dragon or upped earth dragon or steam machine, you could do it twice. On gravity creatures, like massive dragon or armagio, you could do it three times (and thus increase yet more the gravity synergy) The no healing clause is to prevent stuff like holy flash or archangel turning it into the same near-perpetual destruction machine that gravity force can do to it now. This could be a little too abusive with voodoo dolls, but even there, you'd do 10 damage one time (the second time, the doll dies and thus does no damage) so it's probably okay, and you'd have to use deck slots on dolls which are kinda weak anyway, whereas a card like gravity force is useful in other ways, like CC, on your own other creatures in an emergency, etc. Also note that this card won't be broken by phoenix, since when the phoenix dies, it wouldn't have the original phoenix ability, as it is replaced by accretion; same thing with ash and the rebirth ability. It would be like how you can stop phoenix/ash now by liquid shadow or overdrive, or stop ash rebirth by butterfly effect.
Thematically, I'd argue that the creature is losing mass to the accretion ability (rather than the way the shard is gaining mass) so that hopefully justifies the reversal from hp gain to hp loss under this design from a thematic point of view. It also makes the shard easier to deal with by CC. The one buff that would actually come about is that if the creature were already in play, you could theoretically play SoF on it and activate it right away (like how you can do with butterfly effect, assuming sufficient entropy quanta) but I don't think that's too much of a problem, given that outside of gravity it's capped at 2 activations anyway, and will usually be one.
Post by: furballdn on August 10, 2012, 11:22:36 pm
Post by: OldTrees on August 10, 2012, 11:51:56 pm
This would change the SoFo + Nova + Gravity Mark to Photon + SoFo + Nova + Gravity Mark.Ideally, shard of focus should be comparable in power to something like butterfly effect. BE is the weakest form of PC currently ingame, and an other card accessible to any element should be among the weakest, not the best one.
That is an interesting idea. SoFo could be a spell that transmutes a creature into what the current shard of focus is (like mutation). It should be a new creature so you can't use SoFo's ability on the turn you play it. This would also make the card a form of CC.
This is an improvement in that the cost is increased by 1 card. I do not think it is sufficient but it does address the problem in an effective manner.
Post by: jawdirk on August 11, 2012, 03:54:43 am
That is an interesting idea. SoFo could be a spell that transmutes a creature into what the current shard of focus is (like mutation). It should be a new creature so you can't use SoFo's ability on the turn you play it. This would also make the card a form of CC.This would change the SoFo + Nova + Gravity Mark to Photon + SoFo + Nova + Gravity Mark.
This is an improvement in that the cost is increased by 1 card. I do not think it is sufficient but it does address the problem in an effective manner.
It would also make use of SoFo riskier, because most CC would give 1-for-2 card advantage. It would also decrease the reliability of playing it on turn 1.
Post by: Ilias22 on August 11, 2012, 05:24:06 pm
Post by: Trollinator on August 11, 2012, 06:24:44 pm
Ideally, shard of focus should be comparable in power to something like butterfly effect. BE is the weakest form of PC currently ingame, and an other card accessible to any element should be among the weakest, not the best one.
That is an interesting idea. SoFo could be a spell that transmutes a creature into what the current shard of focus is (like mutation). It should be a new creature so you can't use SoFo's ability on the turn you play it. This would also make the card a form of CC.
Actually, that post just gave me a GREAT idea. Turn shard of focus into something like this...
Cost = 7 // 6 (like now)
Type: Spell (plays on a creature, like butterfly effect, blessing, etc)
Text: Target creature gains the ability Accretion: Destroy target permanent. This creature loses 10hp from its max hp, and this damage cannot be healed. Turns into a black hole if it dies by this effect.
This would, on most creatures, result in destroying a single permanent. On some dragons, like upped light dragon or upped earth dragon or steam machine, you could do it twice. On gravity creatures, like massive dragon or armagio, you could do it three times (and thus increase yet more the gravity synergy) The no healing clause is to prevent stuff like holy flash or archangel turning it into the same near-perpetual destruction machine that gravity force can do to it now. This could be a little too abusive with voodoo dolls, but even there, you'd do 10 damage one time (the second time, the doll dies and thus does no damage) so it's probably okay, and you'd have to use deck slots on dolls which are kinda weak anyway, whereas a card like gravity force is useful in other ways, like CC, on your own other creatures in an emergency, etc. Also note that this card won't be broken by phoenix, since when the phoenix dies, it wouldn't have the original phoenix ability, as it is replaced by accretion; same thing with ash and the rebirth ability. It would be like how you can stop phoenix/ash now by liquid shadow or overdrive, or stop ash rebirth by butterfly effect.
Thematically, I'd argue that the creature is losing mass to the accretion ability (rather than the way the shard is gaining mass) so that hopefully justifies the reversal from hp gain to hp loss under this design from a thematic point of view. It also makes the shard easier to deal with by CC. The one buff that would actually come about is that if the creature were already in play, you could theoretically play SoF on it and activate it right away (like how you can do with butterfly effect, assuming sufficient entropy quanta) but I don't think that's too much of a problem, given that outside of gravity it's capped at 2 activations anyway, and will usually be one.
I like this. It would stop this from happening in arena:
(http://imageplay.net/img/tya22279519/AWFUL.png)
Post by: jawdirk on August 11, 2012, 09:01:08 pm
I like this idea too. It seems fairly balanced as is. Personally, I don't mind the synergy with voodoo doll.
Cost = 7 // 6 (like now)
Type: Spell (plays on a creature, like butterfly effect, blessing, etc)
Text: Target creature gains the ability Accretion: Destroy target permanent. This creature loses 10hp from its max hp, and this damage cannot be healed. Turns into a black hole if it dies by this effect.
Post by: Cheesy111 on August 11, 2012, 09:03:12 pm
I like this idea too. It seems fairly balanced as is. Personally, I don't mind the synergy with voodoo doll.
Cost = 7 // 6 (like now)
Type: Spell (plays on a creature, like butterfly effect, blessing, etc)
Text: Target creature gains the ability Accretion: Destroy target permanent. This creature loses 10hp from its max hp, and this damage cannot be healed. Turns into a black hole if it dies by this effect.
This is a great idea that I really like.
Post by: Atom_heart on August 12, 2012, 02:36:50 pm
This would, on most creatures, result in destroying a single permanent. On some dragons, like upped light dragon or upped earth dragon or steam machine, you could do it twice. On gravity creatures, like massive dragon or armagio, you could do it three times (and thus increase yet more the gravity synergy)
Titan + Flying weapon + SoFo :o
Post by: Laxadarap on August 12, 2012, 05:17:37 pm
Post by: chinagogoya on August 13, 2012, 09:45:41 am
We can use 2 rainbow towers to place the SoF, but use 6 solo towers to place.
I really dislike it to place in the rainbow deck.
I think that it is use for every solo elements to use it. Some elements which is without permanent control are under power.
I recommend that SoF has to place for 6 quantum and has to use 3 quantum on your Mark to destroy permanent, :gravity cost 2 quantum.
After 3 time to use, it became the black hole to decrease 3 every element quantum from you and opponent.
Post by: umgrego2 on August 13, 2012, 02:49:27 pm
Well thought-out. I would support this.I like this idea too. It seems fairly balanced as is. Personally, I don't mind the synergy with voodoo doll.
Cost = 7 // 6 (like now)
Type: Spell (plays on a creature, like butterfly effect, blessing, etc)
Text: Target creature gains the ability Accretion: Destroy target permanent. This creature loses 10hp from its max hp, and this damage cannot be healed. Turns into a black hole if it dies by this effect.
This is a great idea that I really like.
Post by: kimham8a on August 13, 2012, 06:12:12 pm
Post by: ItzSean on August 14, 2012, 04:03:31 pm
Post by: OldTrees on August 14, 2012, 04:07:25 pm
Dunno if i posted here or not, but here goes. I just say give it a :gravity activation cost of 1 or 2 and call it good.Shards are meant to be useful for any element. A mono Life deck could not use SoFo if it required :gravity.
Post by: ItzSean on August 14, 2012, 10:55:20 pm
Shards are meant to be useful for any element. A mono Life deck could not use SoFo if it required :gravity.
..EXACTLY. It's that fact alone that makes it such an overpowered card. Yes, it has 1 hp upon playing, yes it has a 7 :rainbow play cost, please dont waste your breath typing out the typical 'Everything has a counter.' response or 'You lost to it, so that must mean it's OP.'
BUT, the fact that ANY DECK can use this card and have PC now because of it. And besides.. You rarely see SoW outside mono aether decks. You rarely see SoP outside of mono water. You can use SoG but is more efficient in a life mark deck. Same goes for SoD. Even for SoV, it doesn't hit full potential unless you run dark mark. SoI is silly. SoR works better on time creatures. SoFr works better on air creatures, and SoBr works better with fire mark. Only exception to this would be SoSer, SoSac, and SoFo. Grant it, any of the listings above has never stopped anyone from throwing shards into any deck. Even though SoSac is arguably OP as well, this is the SoFo thread. People run this card a high percent of the time with zero synergy with it's effects, nor generate a single gravity quanta for the BH and use it for the sole purpose of, 'Herpderp, i need pc, better run this life rush with 6 sofos.' That's just wrong. If you dont have a way to counter a SoFo turn one and they get one out and you have a bad hand? You're screwed. I remember you or someone else posting something like, and this is a paraphrase, don't get mad at me for twisting words, 'If a card has been a game changer multiple times..' Well, this has. [/rant]
Since you don't like my 'give it a :gravity activation cost', what about this:
Accretion:
Destroy a permanent and gain +0/+15. Turns into a black hole if mark is :gravity when hp >45.
If neither of the conditions are met, no black hole is generated. That way, people can have their precious splashed PC while having a high potential to take away the 'Getting kicked while down' effect that giving the owner a free black hole gives.
Post by: RRQJ on August 14, 2012, 11:10:30 pm
Since you don't like my 'give it a :gravity activation cost', what about this:
Accretion:
Destroy a permanent and gain +0/+15. Turns into a black hole if mark is :gravity when hp >45.
If neither of the conditions are met, no black hole is generated. That way, people can have their precious splashed PC while having a high potential to take away the 'Getting kicked while down' effect that giving the owner a free black hole gives.
This is way worse. The biggest problem with SoFo has always been the fact that it can destroy permanents too easily for not a high enough cost. One of the only limitations (though flimsy) is that you needed to be somewhat careful about using it the third time, before it turned to a black hole. The black hole, though annoying and deadly, isn't nearly as problematic as more "free PC". All you did was to make it even more OP (for non-gravity marks, ironically).
Post by: ItzSean on August 14, 2012, 11:19:54 pm
This is way worse. The biggest problem with SoFo has always been the fact that it can destroy permanents too easily for not a high enough cost. One of the only limitations (though flimsy) is that you needed to be somewhat careful about using it the third time, before it turned to a black hole. The black hole, though annoying and deadly, isn't nearly as problematic as more "free PC". All you did was to make it even more OP (for non-gravity marks, ironically).
Yeah, you're right. I had to re-read your post. At least with the generation of a black hole into the owners hand, it took up one space.
Post by: kimham8a on August 14, 2012, 11:32:42 pm
When this card dies, generate 8 black hole.
Although it doesn't nerf rainbows that much...
Post by: OldTrees on August 15, 2012, 04:00:55 am
Consider the following statements:Shards are meant to be useful for any element. A mono Life deck could not use SoFo if it required :gravity.
..EXACTLY. It's that fact alone that makes it such an overpowered card. Yes, it has 1 hp upon playing, yes it has a 7 :rainbow play cost, please dont waste your breath typing out the typical 'Everything has a counter.' response or 'You lost to it, so that must mean it's OP.'
BUT, the fact that ANY DECK can use this card and have PC now because of it. And besides.. You rarely see SoW outside mono aether decks. You rarely see SoP outside of mono water. You can use SoG but is more efficient in a life mark deck. Same goes for SoD. Even for SoV, it doesn't hit full potential unless you run dark mark. SoI is silly. SoR works better on time creatures. SoFr works better on air creatures, and SoBr works better with fire mark. Only exception to this would be SoSer, SoSac, and SoFo. Grant it, any of the listings above has never stopped anyone from throwing shards into any deck. Even though SoSac is arguably OP as well, this is the SoFo thread. People run this card a high percent of the time with zero synergy with it's effects, nor generate a single gravity quanta for the BH and use it for the sole purpose of, 'Herpderp, i need pc, better run this life rush with 6 sofos.' That's just wrong. If you dont have a way to counter a SoFo turn one and they get one out and you have a bad hand? You're screwed. I remember you or someone else posting something like, and this is a paraphrase, don't get mad at me for twisting words, 'If a card has been a game changer multiple times..' Well, this has. [/rant]
Since you don't like my 'give it a :gravity activation cost', what about this:
Accretion:
Destroy a permanent and gain +0/+15. Turns into a black hole if mark is :gravity when hp >45.
If neither of the conditions are met, no black hole is generated. That way, people can have their precious splashed PC while having a high potential to take away the 'Getting kicked while down' effect that giving the owner a free black hole gives.
"Effect A" isn't OP because only Fire has access to it.
"Effect A" is only balanced because only Fire has access to it.
These statements don't make sense because no element has more valuable quanta than another. If an effect is balanced in one element then it would be balanced in another element. If a card is balanced with an elemental quanta cost, then it would be balanced if given an equivalent :rainbow cost. (Equivalent meant equally expensive not equal amount of quanta.)
So PC can is not OP just because it costs :rainbow. (It is OP so there must be another reason)
Shards are intended to have 2 modes:
Disloyal mode: Casting Cost -> Base effect
Loyal mode: Casting Cost + Loyalty to element -> Base effect + Loyalty bonus.
(SoSac and SoW are the worst example of this intent. SoG and SoD are the best examples of this intent.)
SoFo has a problem in that both modes are OP.
Removing the Black Hole does not hurt the Disloyal mode. Increasing the Loyalty cost from :gravity quanta to :gravity mark will not strongly affect the Loyal mode. Nerfing the base effect would nerf both modes. Giving it an :rainbow activation cost (2-3) would nerf both.
Post by: Cheesy111 on August 15, 2012, 04:08:08 am
Consider the following statements:Shards are meant to be useful for any element. A mono Life deck could not use SoFo if it required :gravity.
..EXACTLY. It's that fact alone that makes it such an overpowered card. Yes, it has 1 hp upon playing, yes it has a 7 :rainbow play cost, please dont waste your breath typing out the typical 'Everything has a counter.' response or 'You lost to it, so that must mean it's OP.'
BUT, the fact that ANY DECK can use this card and have PC now because of it. And besides.. You rarely see SoW outside mono aether decks. You rarely see SoP outside of mono water. You can use SoG but is more efficient in a life mark deck. Same goes for SoD. Even for SoV, it doesn't hit full potential unless you run dark mark. SoI is silly. SoR works better on time creatures. SoFr works better on air creatures, and SoBr works better with fire mark. Only exception to this would be SoSer, SoSac, and SoFo. Grant it, any of the listings above has never stopped anyone from throwing shards into any deck. Even though SoSac is arguably OP as well, this is the SoFo thread. People run this card a high percent of the time with zero synergy with it's effects, nor generate a single gravity quanta for the BH and use it for the sole purpose of, 'Herpderp, i need pc, better run this life rush with 6 sofos.' That's just wrong. If you dont have a way to counter a SoFo turn one and they get one out and you have a bad hand? You're screwed. I remember you or someone else posting something like, and this is a paraphrase, don't get mad at me for twisting words, 'If a card has been a game changer multiple times..' Well, this has. [/rant]
Since you don't like my 'give it a :gravity activation cost', what about this:
Accretion:
Destroy a permanent and gain +0/+15. Turns into a black hole if mark is :gravity when hp >45.
If neither of the conditions are met, no black hole is generated. That way, people can have their precious splashed PC while having a high potential to take away the 'Getting kicked while down' effect that giving the owner a free black hole gives.
"Effect A" isn't OP because only Fire has access to it.
"Effect A" is only balanced because only Fire has access to it.
These statements don't make sense because no element has more valuable quanta than another. If an effect is balanced in one element then it would be balanced in another element. If a card is balanced with an elemental quanta cost, then it would be balanced if given an equivalent :rainbow cost. (Equivalent meant equally expensive not equal amount of quanta.)
So PC can is not OP just because it costs :rainbow. (It is OP so there must be another reason)
Shards are intended to have 2 modes:
Disloyal mode: Casting Cost -> Base effect
Loyal mode: Casting Cost + Loyalty to element -> Base effect + Loyalty bonus.
(SoSac and SoW are the worst example of this intent. SoG and SoD are the best examples of this intent.)
SoFo has a problem in that both modes are OP.
Removing the Black Hole does not hurt the Disloyal mode. Increasing the Loyalty cost from :gravity quanta to :gravity mark will not strongly affect the Loyal mode. Nerfing the base effect would nerf both modes. Giving it an :rainbow activation cost (2-3) would nerf both.
If no quanta is worth any more than any other quanta, then how do you explain something like Damselfly compared to Brimstone Eater? One is free, has flying and is air element (relevant for Wings, Sky Blitz, Guard, SoFre) and the other costs one quanta and has none of those attributes.
Post by: OldTrees on August 15, 2012, 04:12:05 am
Many games suffer from power creep. The players create a metagame out of the top cards. Game designers try to balance all new cards to the current metagame. Variance in balance results in cards more powerful that the prior top cards. The metagame changes to the new height.Consider the following statements:Shards are meant to be useful for any element. A mono Life deck could not use SoFo if it required :gravity.
..EXACTLY. It's that fact alone that makes it such an overpowered card. Yes, it has 1 hp upon playing, yes it has a 7 :rainbow play cost, please dont waste your breath typing out the typical 'Everything has a counter.' response or 'You lost to it, so that must mean it's OP.'
BUT, the fact that ANY DECK can use this card and have PC now because of it. And besides.. You rarely see SoW outside mono aether decks. You rarely see SoP outside of mono water. You can use SoG but is more efficient in a life mark deck. Same goes for SoD. Even for SoV, it doesn't hit full potential unless you run dark mark. SoI is silly. SoR works better on time creatures. SoFr works better on air creatures, and SoBr works better with fire mark. Only exception to this would be SoSer, SoSac, and SoFo. Grant it, any of the listings above has never stopped anyone from throwing shards into any deck. Even though SoSac is arguably OP as well, this is the SoFo thread. People run this card a high percent of the time with zero synergy with it's effects, nor generate a single gravity quanta for the BH and use it for the sole purpose of, 'Herpderp, i need pc, better run this life rush with 6 sofos.' That's just wrong. If you dont have a way to counter a SoFo turn one and they get one out and you have a bad hand? You're screwed. I remember you or someone else posting something like, and this is a paraphrase, don't get mad at me for twisting words, 'If a card has been a game changer multiple times..' Well, this has. [/rant]
Since you don't like my 'give it a :gravity activation cost', what about this:
Accretion:
Destroy a permanent and gain +0/+15. Turns into a black hole if mark is :gravity when hp >45.
If neither of the conditions are met, no black hole is generated. That way, people can have their precious splashed PC while having a high potential to take away the 'Getting kicked while down' effect that giving the owner a free black hole gives.
"Effect A" isn't OP because only Fire has access to it.
"Effect A" is only balanced because only Fire has access to it.
These statements don't make sense because no element has more valuable quanta than another. If an effect is balanced in one element then it would be balanced in another element. If a card is balanced with an elemental quanta cost, then it would be balanced if given an equivalent :rainbow cost. (Equivalent meant equally expensive not equal amount of quanta.)
So PC can is not OP just because it costs :rainbow. (It is OP so there must be another reason)
Shards are intended to have 2 modes:
Disloyal mode: Casting Cost -> Base effect
Loyal mode: Casting Cost + Loyalty to element -> Base effect + Loyalty bonus.
(SoSac and SoW are the worst example of this intent. SoG and SoD are the best examples of this intent.)
SoFo has a problem in that both modes are OP.
Removing the Black Hole does not hurt the Disloyal mode. Increasing the Loyalty cost from :gravity quanta to :gravity mark will not strongly affect the Loyal mode. Nerfing the base effect would nerf both modes. Giving it an :rainbow activation cost (2-3) would nerf both.
If no quanta is worth any more than any other quanta, then how do you explain something like Damselfly compared to Brimstone Eater? One is free, has flying and is air element (relevant for Wings, Sky Blitz, Guard, SoFre) and the other costs one quanta and has none of those attributes.
Brimestone Eater is a very old card. Damselfly's current form is really new.
There has been a power creep of slightly more than 1 :underworld during that time (~3yrs). O.O Zanz is really good at balancing. MtG has much faster power creep.
Post by: Cheesy111 on August 15, 2012, 04:21:23 am
Many games suffer from power creep. The players create a metagame out of the top cards. Game designers try to balance all new cards to the current metagame. Variance in balance results in cards more powerful that the prior top cards. The metagame changes to the new height.Consider the following statements:Shards are meant to be useful for any element. A mono Life deck could not use SoFo if it required :gravity.
..EXACTLY. It's that fact alone that makes it such an overpowered card. Yes, it has 1 hp upon playing, yes it has a 7 :rainbow play cost, please dont waste your breath typing out the typical 'Everything has a counter.' response or 'You lost to it, so that must mean it's OP.'
BUT, the fact that ANY DECK can use this card and have PC now because of it. And besides.. You rarely see SoW outside mono aether decks. You rarely see SoP outside of mono water. You can use SoG but is more efficient in a life mark deck. Same goes for SoD. Even for SoV, it doesn't hit full potential unless you run dark mark. SoI is silly. SoR works better on time creatures. SoFr works better on air creatures, and SoBr works better with fire mark. Only exception to this would be SoSer, SoSac, and SoFo. Grant it, any of the listings above has never stopped anyone from throwing shards into any deck. Even though SoSac is arguably OP as well, this is the SoFo thread. People run this card a high percent of the time with zero synergy with it's effects, nor generate a single gravity quanta for the BH and use it for the sole purpose of, 'Herpderp, i need pc, better run this life rush with 6 sofos.' That's just wrong. If you dont have a way to counter a SoFo turn one and they get one out and you have a bad hand? You're screwed. I remember you or someone else posting something like, and this is a paraphrase, don't get mad at me for twisting words, 'If a card has been a game changer multiple times..' Well, this has. [/rant]
Since you don't like my 'give it a :gravity activation cost', what about this:
Accretion:
Destroy a permanent and gain +0/+15. Turns into a black hole if mark is :gravity when hp >45.
If neither of the conditions are met, no black hole is generated. That way, people can have their precious splashed PC while having a high potential to take away the 'Getting kicked while down' effect that giving the owner a free black hole gives.
"Effect A" isn't OP because only Fire has access to it.
"Effect A" is only balanced because only Fire has access to it.
These statements don't make sense because no element has more valuable quanta than another. If an effect is balanced in one element then it would be balanced in another element. If a card is balanced with an elemental quanta cost, then it would be balanced if given an equivalent :rainbow cost. (Equivalent meant equally expensive not equal amount of quanta.)
So PC can is not OP just because it costs :rainbow. (It is OP so there must be another reason)
Shards are intended to have 2 modes:
Disloyal mode: Casting Cost -> Base effect
Loyal mode: Casting Cost + Loyalty to element -> Base effect + Loyalty bonus.
(SoSac and SoW are the worst example of this intent. SoG and SoD are the best examples of this intent.)
SoFo has a problem in that both modes are OP.
Removing the Black Hole does not hurt the Disloyal mode. Increasing the Loyalty cost from :gravity quanta to :gravity mark will not strongly affect the Loyal mode. Nerfing the base effect would nerf both modes. Giving it an :rainbow activation cost (2-3) would nerf both.
If no quanta is worth any more than any other quanta, then how do you explain something like Damselfly compared to Brimstone Eater? One is free, has flying and is air element (relevant for Wings, Sky Blitz, Guard, SoFre) and the other costs one quanta and has none of those attributes.
Brimestone Eater is a very old card. Damselfly's current form is really new.
There has been a power creep of slightly more than 1 :underworld during that time (~3yrs). O.O Zanz is really good at balancing. MtG has much faster power creep.
So then would a reduction of ~1 :underworld in cost be appropriate for old cards like Brimstone Eater in order to make them more competitive? Or should other balancing measures be taken to make sure that old cards aren't completely outclassed? It's especially important to keep cards relevant in a game like EtG where new cards do not come out as rapidly as in, say, MtG.
Post by: dragonsdemesne on August 15, 2012, 04:22:24 am
Post by: OldTrees on August 15, 2012, 04:28:56 am
Many cards that have not been changed for a long time probably deserve a slight buff.Many games suffer from power creep. The players create a metagame out of the top cards. Game designers try to balance all new cards to the current metagame. Variance in balance results in cards more powerful that the prior top cards. The metagame changes to the new height.Consider the following statements:Shards are meant to be useful for any element. A mono Life deck could not use SoFo if it required :gravity.
..EXACTLY. It's that fact alone that makes it such an overpowered card. Yes, it has 1 hp upon playing, yes it has a 7 :rainbow play cost, please dont waste your breath typing out the typical 'Everything has a counter.' response or 'You lost to it, so that must mean it's OP.'
BUT, the fact that ANY DECK can use this card and have PC now because of it. And besides.. You rarely see SoW outside mono aether decks. You rarely see SoP outside of mono water. You can use SoG but is more efficient in a life mark deck. Same goes for SoD. Even for SoV, it doesn't hit full potential unless you run dark mark. SoI is silly. SoR works better on time creatures. SoFr works better on air creatures, and SoBr works better with fire mark. Only exception to this would be SoSer, SoSac, and SoFo. Grant it, any of the listings above has never stopped anyone from throwing shards into any deck. Even though SoSac is arguably OP as well, this is the SoFo thread. People run this card a high percent of the time with zero synergy with it's effects, nor generate a single gravity quanta for the BH and use it for the sole purpose of, 'Herpderp, i need pc, better run this life rush with 6 sofos.' That's just wrong. If you dont have a way to counter a SoFo turn one and they get one out and you have a bad hand? You're screwed. I remember you or someone else posting something like, and this is a paraphrase, don't get mad at me for twisting words, 'If a card has been a game changer multiple times..' Well, this has. [/rant]
Since you don't like my 'give it a :gravity activation cost', what about this:
Accretion:
Destroy a permanent and gain +0/+15. Turns into a black hole if mark is :gravity when hp >45.
If neither of the conditions are met, no black hole is generated. That way, people can have their precious splashed PC while having a high potential to take away the 'Getting kicked while down' effect that giving the owner a free black hole gives.
"Effect A" isn't OP because only Fire has access to it.
"Effect A" is only balanced because only Fire has access to it.
These statements don't make sense because no element has more valuable quanta than another. If an effect is balanced in one element then it would be balanced in another element. If a card is balanced with an elemental quanta cost, then it would be balanced if given an equivalent :rainbow cost. (Equivalent meant equally expensive not equal amount of quanta.)
So PC can is not OP just because it costs :rainbow. (It is OP so there must be another reason)
Shards are intended to have 2 modes:
Disloyal mode: Casting Cost -> Base effect
Loyal mode: Casting Cost + Loyalty to element -> Base effect + Loyalty bonus.
(SoSac and SoW are the worst example of this intent. SoG and SoD are the best examples of this intent.)
SoFo has a problem in that both modes are OP.
Removing the Black Hole does not hurt the Disloyal mode. Increasing the Loyalty cost from :gravity quanta to :gravity mark will not strongly affect the Loyal mode. Nerfing the base effect would nerf both modes. Giving it an :rainbow activation cost (2-3) would nerf both.
If no quanta is worth any more than any other quanta, then how do you explain something like Damselfly compared to Brimstone Eater? One is free, has flying and is air element (relevant for Wings, Sky Blitz, Guard, SoFre) and the other costs one quanta and has none of those attributes.
Brimestone Eater is a very old card. Damselfly's current form is really new.
There has been a power creep of slightly more than 1 :underworld during that time (~3yrs). O.O Zanz is really good at balancing. MtG has much faster power creep.
So then would a reduction of ~1 :underworld in cost be appropriate for old cards like Brimstone Eater in order to make them more competitive? Or should other balancing measures be taken to make sure that old cards aren't completely outclassed? It's especially important to keep cards relevant in a game like EtG where new cards do not come out as rapidly as in, say, MtG.
The same card costing different amounts in different elements isn't power creep; a card in a different element can't be strictly superior or inferior to another That reflects how 'natural' it is for certain elements to do something. Life has cheaper creatures, therefore horned frog is cheaper than blue crawler, for instance, even though both are 3/3 creatures. Make a water creature that costs 2 and is a 3/3, and that's power creep, because blue crawler will never be used again except possibly in decks with 6 of the cheaper one already. Make a darkness creature that costs 4 and is a 3/3 creature, that's just a crap card, but it's not power creeped by anything currently in the game.The same card costing different amounts in different elements isn't power creep unless the elements are balanced based on a 1 :aether = 1 :air principle. Pillars are the basis of evaluating the value of an element's balance. Notice that each pillar is identically balanced.
Post by: ItzSean on August 15, 2012, 11:40:02 am
Removing the Black Hole does not hurt the Disloyal mode. Increasing the Loyalty cost from :gravity quanta to :gravity mark will not strongly affect the Loyal mode. Nerfing the base effect would nerf both modes. Giving it an :rainbow activation cost (2-3) would nerf both.
Okay, that I can agree with. Even then though, it would only barely slow down the inevitable.
Post by: OldTrees on August 15, 2012, 03:01:06 pm
There must exist a better nerf than giving it a :rainbow activation cost. Please keep brainstorming.Removing the Black Hole does not hurt the Disloyal mode. Increasing the Loyalty cost from :gravity quanta to :gravity mark will not strongly affect the Loyal mode. Nerfing the base effect would nerf both modes. Giving it an :rainbow activation cost (2-3) would nerf both.
Okay, that I can agree with. Even then though, it would only barely slow down the inevitable.
Post by: ItzSean on August 15, 2012, 08:38:40 pm
Giving it an :rainbow activation cost (2-3) would nerf both.
There must exist a better nerf than giving it a :rainbow activation cost. Please keep brainstorming.
>Suggests a good starting point in nerfing SoFo
>Puts it down in his next post
OT: Why must there be? It'd be a great start and would slow down a lot of the decks that, in my opinion, have given SoFo a bad name. I'm just going to be honest here. Yeah it's a OP card but it's not truely that bad. It's the fact that people abuse it to 'splash PC' in any element that made me hate it and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one. 'You know what this monowater rush needs? What? Uh.. Squids? A few Crawlers? Nope! Then uh.. What else? SoFos of course! It'll be perfect!'
Post by: OldTrees on August 15, 2012, 08:50:36 pm
My suggestion raises the total :rainbow cost far beyond where :rainbow is meant to go. :rainbow is meant to be usable in rainbow or mono (though at a higher effective cost). As the amount of :rainbow increases the advantage rainbow decks have increases until it becomes a forced combo with Nova or Quantum Pillar.Giving it an :rainbow activation cost (2-3) would nerf both.There must exist a better nerf than giving it a :rainbow activation cost. Please keep brainstorming.
>Suggests a good starting point in nerfing SoFo
>Puts it down in his next post
OT: Why must there be? It'd be a great start and would slow down a lot of the decks that, in my opinion, have given SoFo a bad name. I'm just going to be honest here. Yeah it's a OP card but it's not truely that bad. It's the fact that people abuse it to 'splash PC' in any element that made me hate it and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one. 'You know what this monowater rush needs? What? Uh.. Squids? A few Crawlers? Nope! Then uh.. What else? SoFos of course! It'll be perfect!'
So my suggestion does some significant patchwork. However it remains an incomplete patch relative to the average quality of EtG.
Post by: DarkBaron12390 on August 18, 2012, 07:29:23 pm
Post by: rosutosefi on August 18, 2012, 07:36:26 pm
Guys... the perfect nerf has already been given on page 20 by a very intelligent user named DarkBaron12390 who has garnered much support over his idea.I lol'd. Accretion count increase and instant BH cast? What?
The real problem is that shards are other.And that's why I do not like the simple "don't do this instead" nerfs because it will only make it useless in monos and balanced with Nova, which already looks like a forced combo. Remember that shards were supposed to provide what was lacking in other elements, and we have :aether :air :death :life :light :time :water lining up for that much-needed PC.
Post by: FIQ on August 19, 2012, 03:10:26 pm
Post by: DarkBaron12390 on August 20, 2012, 12:05:28 am
Guys... the perfect nerf has already been given on page 20 by a very intelligent user named DarkBaron12390 who has garnered much support over his idea.I lol'd. Accretion count increase and instant BH cast? What?
Yeah, the problem is the user gets both PC and quanta control with a black hole. There is no downside. My idea is follows
•Starts at 0/1
•HP increase remains the same, +15.
•BH when HP > 45 (iirc the post had a typo with 50, so no PC increase)
•Black hole activates immediately on both players.
•If your mark is gravity, then it activates on only the opponent.
This decimates the rainbow abuse of SoF, mainly.
Post by: furballdn on August 20, 2012, 12:08:49 am
Derp.
PSN :gravity mark bows?
Post by: RRQJ on August 20, 2012, 12:22:24 am
But I do question how annoying the extra black hole is. I have always found the PC part more annoying since the opponent can just destroy your pillars. All that solution above does is force the opponent to only use the effect twice, unless the situation calls for another use and the benefit outweighs the consequences. It's a nerf, but I really don't think it'll make enough of a difference, especially if those rainbow decks are packing 4-6 SoFos.
Post by: OldTrees on August 20, 2012, 01:15:36 am
How would this fix the :gravity Nova bows?Guys... the perfect nerf has already been given on page 20 by a very intelligent user named DarkBaron12390 who has garnered much support over his idea.I lol'd. Accretion count increase and instant BH cast? What?
Yeah, the problem is the user gets both PC and quanta control with a black hole. There is no downside. My idea is follows
•Starts at 0/1
•HP increase remains the same, +15.
•BH when HP > 45 (iirc the post had a typo with 50, so no PC increase)
•Black hole activates immediately on both players.
•If your mark is gravity, then it activates on only the opponent.
This decimates the rainbow abuse of SoF, mainly.
It does not. In fact it buffs them by freeing them from the :gravity required to cast BH.
It does nerf non :gravity Nova bows from 3 PC down to 2 PC.
Post by: kimham8a on August 20, 2012, 02:38:18 am
Post by: ddevans96 on August 20, 2012, 02:48:50 am
How would this fix the :gravity Nova bows?
It does not. In fact it buffs them by freeing them from the :gravity required to cast BH.
Costs to black hole opponent:
Currently: 4 :gravity quanta
With this: 3 quanta in every element
So this nerfs SoFo hugely in both nova-grabbies (common) and QT-based speedbows (common), but in turn buffs it in gravity-mark cremation bows (rare) and gravity-mark PSNbows (rare).
I think the trade-off is much closer to a nerf than a buff.
Post by: OldTrees on August 20, 2012, 03:48:05 am
Look at the yellow, then at my comment, then at yours.-snip-Guys... the perfect nerf has already been given on page 20 by a very intelligent user named DarkBaron12390 who has garnered much support over his idea.I lol'd. Accretion count increase and instant BH cast? What?
Yeah, the problem is the user gets both PC and quanta control with a black hole. There is no downside. My idea is follows
•Starts at 0/1
•HP increase remains the same, +15.
•BH when HP > 45 (iirc the post had a typo with 50, so no PC increase)
•Black hole activates immediately on both players.
•If your mark is gravity, then it activates on only the opponent.
This decimates the rainbow abuse of SoF, mainly.
How would this fix the :gravity Nova bows?
It does not. In fact it buffs them by freeing them from the :gravity required to cast BH.
Costs to black hole opponent:
Currently: 4 :gravity quanta
With this: 3 quanta in every element
So this nerfs SoFo hugely in both nova-grabbies (common) and QT-based speedbows (common), but in turn buffs it in gravity-mark cremation bows (rare) and gravity-mark PSNbows (rare).
I think the trade-off is much closer to a nerf than a buff.
A broken fix is still broken.
Post by: Laxadarap on August 20, 2012, 04:02:00 am
How would this fix the :gravity Nova bows?Guys... the perfect nerf has already been given on page 20 by a very intelligent user named DarkBaron12390 who has garnered much support over his idea.I lol'd. Accretion count increase and instant BH cast? What?
Yeah, the problem is the user gets both PC and quanta control with a black hole. There is no downside. My idea is follows
•Starts at 0/1
•HP increase remains the same, +15.
•BH when HP > 45 (iirc the post had a typo with 50, so no PC increase)
•Black hole activates immediately on both players.
•If your mark is gravity, then it activates on only the opponent.
This decimates the rainbow abuse of SoF, mainly.
It does not. In fact it buffs them by freeing them from the :gravity required to cast BH.
It does nerf non :gravity Nova bows from 3 PC down to 2 PC.
From personal experience, hardly anybody runs gravy mark bows, mostly because other marks help a lot more efficiency wise. This would make the bow focus on gravity, which means it would require a specialized bow, which I don't have as much of a problem with.
Post by: ddevans96 on August 20, 2012, 04:13:20 am
Your post: Read this too.
My post: Argues against yours taking the yellow into account.
Not sure what I'm missing :)
As Lax agrees, the nerf would force SoFo into more specialized decks, making it a definite nerf, though a double-edged one. Overall I think it is beneficial.
Post by: DarkBaron12390 on August 20, 2012, 04:40:04 am
It's like saying that Shard of Sacrifice was buffed toward death-nova-bows (scorpions anyone?). This is simply not the case, and is focusing on a very small sub-section of possible uses. The problem will not arise from Shard of Focus with this nerf -- the problem will be a very common problem: nova. Considering this nerf, focus on the card, not nova. Nova has a very long history of issues, and I don't think it's a coincidence it's the gravity-nova-bow that comes up in your challenge.
Post by: OldTrees on August 20, 2012, 04:59:44 am
Yellow part: Yep, I read this:
Your post: Read this too.
My post: Argues against yours taking the yellow into account.
Not sure what I'm missing :)
As Lax agrees, the nerf would force SoFo into more specialized decks, making it a definite nerf, though a double-edged one. Overall I think it is beneficial.
So you do not think SoFo is OP in :gravity rainbow rush (particularly :gravity nova) and you think it will remain not OP even if given 4 free :gravity (cost of BH) per SoFo?
Your primary argument is that :gravity rainbow rush is underused due to better options. This indicates you understand the OP usage would migrate to :gravity rainbow rush. Whether it remains OP or becomes balanced by this migration is unknown.
As a middle ground between our estimates, what if it became a BH in the hand for :gravity marks but triggered a 2 edged BH if not?
Post by: furballdn on August 20, 2012, 05:14:53 am
12 usages of PC and 8 BHs (half of which are free) packed into a DBH :gravity PSNbow. Also consider a simple :gravity + :entropy duo using DBH and SoFo. More PC, up to 6 more free black holes.
Post by: kimham8a on August 20, 2012, 10:27:51 am
I admit that looks powerful, but speed and raw power has been sacrificed here. In fact, it's not even a rush anymore. Entropy rainbow rushes can afford to have many/stronger creatures (like 15). This is already an example of limited deck possibilities from the :gravity mark. Even firestall and mono aether could beat this, due to its slowness. In terms of pure speed, this is comparable to 24 life pillars and 6 giant frogs. Also the concern was about first turn nova then Sofo, not supernova then Sofo, though the pends partly increase the chance of first turn Sofo.
The point is that although Sofo may remain OP with the nerf its forced usage in gravity mark decks would be another huge nerf.
@OldTrees
That sounds like a good nerf, though it sounds like it'll take a lot of card text.
Post by: Cheesy111 on August 20, 2012, 10:29:53 am
I admit that looks powerful, but speed has been sacrificed here. In fact, it's not even a rush anymore. Entropy rainbow rushes can afford to have many/stronger creatures (like 15). This is already an example of limited deck possibilities from the :gravity mark. Even firestall and mono aether could beat this, due to its slowness.
Gravity has plenty of speed if you substitute Chargers for Black Holes.
Post by: furballdn on August 20, 2012, 06:47:29 pm
@furballI highly doubt this, and I never said it was a rush. Not every PSNbow has to rush, this one is more control oriented. I believe this can easily take down mono aether and even put up a good match vs firestall with the PC it packs along with the heavy denial. As for speed, it is nowhere near the slow speed you've exaggerated, and even then, even if it takes 20 turns, you've gotten your opponent securely locked down, so what does speed matter?
I admit that looks powerful, but speed and raw power has been sacrificed here. In fact, it's not even a rush anymore. Entropy rainbow rushes can afford to have many/stronger creatures (like 15). This is already an example of limited deck possibilities from the :gravity mark. Even firestall and mono aether could beat this, due to its slowness. In terms of pure speed, this is comparable to 24 life pillars and 6 giant frogs. Also the concern was about first turn nova then Sofo, not supernova then Sofo, though the pends partly increase the chance of first turn Sofo.
Post by: dragonsdemesne on August 20, 2012, 11:14:00 pm
Also consider a simple :gravity + :entropy duo using DBH and SoFo. More PC, up to 6 more free black holes.
I did that for one of my CL decks. 6 discord, 6 black hole, couple SoF, gravity nymph, some animate weapons, and pends. It took forever to win, but when it worked, I often won without the opponent playing a single card besides pillars that were instantly destroyed. The downside is that if the opponent gets almost anything out at all, you're screwed :p With the right draw, I've seen that deck lock out pretty much any tower-based deck from playing nontower cards.
Post by: kira666 on August 21, 2012, 12:28:18 pm
Post by: kimham8a on August 22, 2012, 02:18:35 am
35 pages and I dont even know if Zanz is going to Nerf SoF.
I think he will nerf only if he is sure most experienced people believe it is OP. Or maybe he will buff other PC instead. But I don't think the number of pages of discussion of whether something needs to be nerfed or how to nerf it is relevant, unless each page agrees it is OP.
Post by: furballdn on August 22, 2012, 02:20:22 am
Post by: kimham8a on August 22, 2012, 02:33:12 am
@furballI highly doubt this, and I never said it was a rush. Not every PSNbow has to rush, this one is more control oriented. I believe this can easily take down mono aether and even put up a good match vs firestall with the PC it packs along with the heavy denial. As for speed, it is nowhere near the slow speed you've exaggerated, and even then, even if it takes 20 turns, you've gotten your opponent securely locked down, so what does speed matter?
I admit that looks powerful, but speed and raw power has been sacrificed here. In fact, it's not even a rush anymore. Entropy rainbow rushes can afford to have many/stronger creatures (like 15). This is already an example of limited deck possibilities from the :gravity mark. Even firestall and mono aether could beat this, due to its slowness. In terms of pure speed, this is comparable to 24 life pillars and 6 giant frogs. Also the concern was about first turn nova then Sofo, not supernova then Sofo, though the pends partly increase the chance of first turn Sofo.
It is slow as that. 7 creatures Vs 6, with some of your creatures atk being higher, lower, or delayed. Plus your creatures cant be played as reliably. And you cant lock down your opponent the way you seem to think. If you wait for discord to decently even out the quanta before black holing, your opponent will be able to play their strategy. To soon, and your draining more from yourself than your opponent.
Also if you replace the black holes with chargers you will be starved for quanta and the denial will be significantly less.
Just to make sure though, I'm going to make an buffed copy of this as an arena deck and try mono aether. I'm thinking along the lines of only using lightning on sofo, and if any slip through on the early turns he has a choice: destroy the shield or the tower, and I'll have many of both. Then even with no shields immortals and phases could outdamage those 7 creatures.
To the post you just made: whoops didn't know.
Post by: furballdn on August 22, 2012, 02:36:44 am
Quote
•If your mark is gravity, then it activates on only the opponent.
Post by: Laxadarap on August 23, 2012, 08:03:18 pm
Actually, that post just gave me a GREAT idea. Turn shard of focus into something like this...
Cost = 7 // 6 (like now)
Type: Spell (plays on a creature, like butterfly effect, blessing, etc)
Text: Target creature gains the ability Accretion: Destroy target permanent. This creature loses 10hp from its max hp, and this damage cannot be healed. Turns into a black hole if it dies by this effect.
This would, on most creatures, result in destroying a single permanent. On some dragons, like upped light dragon or upped earth dragon or steam machine, you could do it twice. On gravity creatures, like massive dragon or armagio, you could do it three times (and thus increase yet more the gravity synergy) The no healing clause is to prevent stuff like holy flash or archangel turning it into the same near-perpetual destruction machine that gravity force can do to it now. This could be a little too abusive with voodoo dolls, but even there, you'd do 10 damage one time (the second time, the doll dies and thus does no damage) so it's probably okay, and you'd have to use deck slots on dolls which are kinda weak anyway, whereas a card like gravity force is useful in other ways, like CC, on your own other creatures in an emergency, etc. Also note that this card won't be broken by phoenix, since when the phoenix dies, it wouldn't have the original phoenix ability, as it is replaced by accretion; same thing with ash and the rebirth ability. It would be like how you can stop phoenix/ash now by liquid shadow or overdrive, or stop ash rebirth by butterfly effect.
Thematically, I'd argue that the creature is losing mass to the accretion ability (rather than the way the shard is gaining mass) so that hopefully justifies the reversal from hp gain to hp loss under this design from a thematic point of view. It also makes the shard easier to deal with by CC. The one buff that would actually come about is that if the creature were already in play, you could theoretically play SoF on it and activate it right away (like how you can do with butterfly effect, assuming sufficient entropy quanta) but I don't think that's too much of a problem, given that outside of gravity it's capped at 2 activations anyway, and will usually be one.
Bringing this back to attention, because I like the idea a lot, however, cost should not be that much, I woul pretty much be fine with the standard 3|5 cost of many of the other shards. Especially since the damage can't be healed.
@furballI highly doubt this, and I never said it was a rush. Not every PSNbow has to rush, this one is more control oriented. I believe this can easily take down mono aether and even put up a good match vs firestall with the PC it packs along with the heavy denial. As for speed, it is nowhere near the slow speed you've exaggerated, and even then, even if it takes 20 turns, you've gotten your opponent securely locked down, so what does speed matter?
I admit that looks powerful, but speed and raw power has been sacrificed here. In fact, it's not even a rush anymore. Entropy rainbow rushes can afford to have many/stronger creatures (like 15). This is already an example of limited deck possibilities from the :gravity mark. Even firestall and mono aether could beat this, due to its slowness. In terms of pure speed, this is comparable to 24 life pillars and 6 giant frogs. Also the concern was about first turn nova then Sofo, not supernova then Sofo, though the pends partly increase the chance of first turn Sofo.
Just throwing out against the firestall, your "PC" is invested in Shard of focus, which can be one hit by the mulitude of firestalls spells, explosion can most likely handle discord.
Post by: furballdn on August 26, 2012, 11:18:28 pm
Post by: Sufjan on August 27, 2012, 01:21:36 am
Post by: thispersonisagenius on August 27, 2012, 01:31:30 am
This card is a complete joke, and is ruining the game.YAY! Yet another person makes their first post on the forum a blunt complaint about a card.
Does anyone think SoFo should be a shield of some sort? For example, it could be a shield that blocks 45 damage (just a suggestion).
Another thing to note is that if your deck has enough CC and has a fast enough start, SoFo is easy enough to kill as it comes in with 1 HP. I think that many people are focusing on what happens after the turn it is played, and not realizing that even the weakest CC can take it out on turn one.
Post by: furballdn on August 27, 2012, 01:33:53 am
This card is a complete joke, and is ruining the game.YAY! Yet another person makes their first post on the forum a blunt complaint about a card.
Does anyone think SoFo should be a shield of some sort? For example, it could be a shield that blocks 45 damage (just a suggestion).
OP much? Heal costs 2 :underworld for 20 healing, SoD costs 3 :rainbow for 16 (or 24) A single SoFo that basically negates 45 damage for 6 :rainbow + 1 card is ridiculous
Another thing to note is that if your deck has enough CC and has a fast enough start, SoFo is easy enough to kill as it comes in with 1 HP. I think that many people are focusing on what happens after the turn it is played, and not realizing that even the weakest CC can take it out on turn one.
You are implying everyone carries CC. You are implying that SoFos can't come out first turn. A first turn SoFo is invincible after it gains that first 15hp. I would like to see you carrying around CC able to be played on the first turn PURELY to counter one specific card.[/card]
Post by: thispersonisagenius on August 27, 2012, 01:41:44 am
As for the first-turn SoFo, I'm not sure it comes up that often. Many decks that carry it have SNs, not novas, so the SoFo will have to wait a turn or two. I may be wrong, though.
Post by: furballdn on August 27, 2012, 01:46:21 am
1 nova-->SoFo
Second turn SoFo is just as bad. Unless you have CC purely designed for countering SoFo, you'll be unprepared, and if you did gear your entire deck to dealing with SoFo, you'll be slow.
6 :life + 3 cards for 60 healing
9 :rainbow + 3 cards for 48 (72 if :light) healing
18 :rainbow + 3 cards for 135 damage negation
Repeating my above suggestion: Start at 1hp. Accrete gives it +15 hp. Dies when hp>15, or hp>30 if mark is :gravity. no black hole given.
Post by: Laxadarap on August 27, 2012, 01:48:54 am
That shield idea was just that - an idea. Actually, it isn't THAT overpowered. 2 :life for 20 heal means 6 :life + 3 cards for 60 healing, which means that 1 card would have to = 5 HP, which isn't way too far off. Also, an average of 20 HP for 3 :rainbow is 6 :rainbow + 2 cards for 40 healing, which isn't that bad either compared to my shield.
As for the first-turn SoFo, I'm not sure it comes up that often. Many decks that carry it have SNs, not novas, so the SoFo will have to wait a turn or two. I may be wrong, though.
Perhaps the main reason that SoFo is a huge problem is because of unupped play. It literally dominated BL. In unupped play, you ofc run unupped novas, and it ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE to get 1st turn CC. In upped play, 2 QT=A 0th turn SoFo. In a PSN, a 0th turn snova isn't that rare, and its personally the type of speedbow I use, because they hardly took a nerf due to the nova nerf. Also, the majority of decks don't have always available 1st turn CC, let alone 0th turn.
Post by: Elbirn on August 29, 2012, 04:02:35 am
Anyway. In my opinion, the best way to nerf this card would be to give it only one use before it dies, and it should only give a blackhole if your mark is gravity.
Think about it. We're giving every element permanent control for a very low cost. I find this to be a terrible idea. I don't think that every element should be a jack of all trades. Each element should have it's own strengths and weaknesses. But if we must have permanent control for all...Do we REALLY need 18 costless perm destructions for every element? That's better permanent control than any other card in the entire game. And just to rub salt in the wound, the accursed thing sucks up all of your quanta when it's done desecrating your side of the playing field? Stop it. Is this shard a joke?
At least there's been a starting HP nerf so that it can be killed a bit easier...But this card still rustles my jimmies.
Post by: AnonymousRevival on August 29, 2012, 06:34:39 am
While SoF does seem a little OP, at least we can kill it with lightning before it starts its PC.
Post by: ioiui on August 29, 2012, 09:40:05 pm
SO
how about when you play SoF, you get a black hole played against yourself, ie losing 3 quanta from each element, healing your opponent? Would probably have to adjust the playing cost of the card to something like 3 :rainbow or maybe even nothing at all, but I think this would work well and would be thematic for this card.
Be kind, its my first post :D
Post by: Laxadarap on August 29, 2012, 10:21:31 pm
Post by: ioiui on August 29, 2012, 11:28:38 pm
Post by: russianspy1234 on August 29, 2012, 11:51:00 pm
Post by: Vangelios on August 30, 2012, 01:40:13 am
(http://i.imgur.com/3x4nT.png) | (http://i.imgur.com/k4tSd.png) | |
|
Post by: Elite arbiter on September 01, 2012, 03:40:48 am
This card is a complete joke, and is ruining the game.YAY! Yet another person makes their first post on the forum a blunt complaint about a card.
Does anyone think SoFo should be a shield of some sort? For example, it could be a shield that blocks 45 damage (just a suggestion).
OP much? Heal costs 2 :underworld for 20 healing, SoD costs 3 :rainbow for 16 (or 24) A single SoFo that basically negates 45 damage for 6 :rainbow + 1 card is ridiculous
Another thing to note is that if your deck has enough CC and has a fast enough start, SoFo is easy enough to kill as it comes in with 1 HP. I think that many people are focusing on what happens after the turn it is played, and not realizing that even the weakest CC can take it out on turn one.
You are implying everyone carries CC. You are implying that SoFos can't come out first turn. A first turn SoFo is invincible after it gains that first 15hp. I would like to see you carrying around CC able to be played on the first turn PURELY to counter one specific card.[/card]
I think the real problem in making SoFo such a dominant, and I'd say overpowered force is that there is virtually no way of dealing with it cost-effectively. And even the niche cards that CAN deal with it cost effectively have trouble coming out on the first couple turns.
Think about it. Even assuming best case scenario, you have that firebolt in unupped play, or whatever CC, and its a second turn SoFo and you can CC it down... you paid 3 :fire + 1 card, and your opponent paid 7 :rainbow. Which comes out about even and can in circumstances actually be in the SoFo playing players favor. And thats the core issue.
Even assuming a best case scenario where you CC it down, you still come out on the losing end.
Slightly less of an issue in upped play, but even in upped play best case scenario, the counter, will only let you break even, or at most come ahead by an amount less than 1 :underworld quanta. This is primarily because the only cards that can deal with it cost effectively like oty, owls eye, and mind flayer, are all very bulky and comparatively take a while to field.
Thus, the best way to nerf the card would be to simultaneously give it a maximum potential nerf, such as max hp = 20, gravity mark lets you get it to 40, and introduction of cards that can cost effectively get rid of it and be played early game.
Post by: Kuroaitou on September 01, 2012, 09:43:20 am
(http://i.imgur.com/djFQ8.png)(http://i.imgur.com/FEPOk.png)
Also, as bjessee stated:
"So at most one permanent a turn and no attacking on the turn you do so? Interesting."
By doing it this way as a nerf, you make a conscious, singular decision to break that permanent in half; no, you can't spam a field with Shards of Focus and obliterate everything in existence, nor will you be able to throw this in a rainbow and rush the enemy with Graboids/Shriekers, Lava Golems, Frogs, Discord/BH combos, Minor Phoenixes, etc. You either break the troubling permanent, or you simply let all your other creatures take priority.
Getting this in 4 lines is tough... but you never know. :P
Post by: OldTrees on September 01, 2012, 10:25:40 am
An alternative nerf? (This helps stop its excessive use in rainbow-creature spam decks, and turns the shard into a focused PC-mechanic - also, lowering the HP threshold for the Black Hole transformation limits its usage(ironically enough)):
Getting this in 4 lines is tough... but you never know. :P
That non quanta additional cost (the delaying allied creatures) does a good job of extending the reach of the balanceable range of :rainbow.
I am amazed you got that much info that clear in that little space.
Post by: willng3 on September 01, 2012, 02:40:55 pm
-snip-I've ignored most of the thread due to redundancy, but I have to say that I like this proposal a lot.
Post by: Cheesy111 on September 01, 2012, 02:44:17 pm
An alternative nerf? (This helps stop its excessive use in rainbow-creature spam decks, and turns the shard into a focused PC-mechanic - also, lowering the HP threshold for the Black Hole transformation limits its usage(ironically enough)):
(http://i.imgur.com/djFQ8.png)(http://i.imgur.com/FEPOk.png)
Also, as bjessee stated:
"So at most one permanent a turn and no attacking on the turn you do so? Interesting."
By doing it this way as a nerf, you make a conscious, singular decision to break that permanent in half; no, you can't spam a field with Shards of Focus and obliterate everything in existence, nor will you be able to throw this in a rainbow and rush the enemy with Graboids/Shriekers, Lava Golems, Frogs, Discord/BH combos, Minor Phoenixes, etc. You either break the troubling permanent, or you simply let all your other creatures take priority.
Getting this in 4 lines is tough... but you never know. :P
This also has comparatively good synergy with gravity - you can still catapult creatures, creatures are still affected by accel. Nice work!
Post by: Nicolas95014 on September 05, 2012, 04:26:44 am
Post by: dragonsdemesne on September 05, 2012, 04:36:37 am
An alternative nerf?
*blah blah blah*
I hadn't seen any good nerfs that would work, so I posted one somewhere a few pages ago that I really liked, and a few other people did too, but I think this one is at least as good if not better than the one I proposed. SoF would be pretty much just as powerful early game, but it would lose a lot of power in the late game since it would be delaying your whole field. In the early game, you might not have anything else out, and you can activate SoF and then play a creature to partially bypass the restriction, but in the late game, delaying 5-6 creatures is going to be quite costly most of the time.
Ironically, this nerf also has synergy with voodoo dolls, since delaying your own doll will delay your opponent's weapon :p
Post by: Laxadarap on September 05, 2012, 05:10:31 am
An alternative nerf?
*blah blah blah*
I hadn't seen any good nerfs that would work, so I posted one somewhere a few pages ago that I really liked, and a few other people did too, but I think this one is at least as good if not better than the one I proposed. SoF would be pretty much just as powerful early game, but it would lose a lot of power in the late game since it would be delaying your whole field. In the early game, you might not have anything else out, and you can activate SoF and then play a creature to partially bypass the restriction, but in the late game, delaying 5-6 creatures is going to be quite costly most of the time.
Ironically, this nerf also has synergy with voodoo dolls, since delaying your own doll will delay your opponent's weapon :p
Except Sofo destroys your enemies weapon :P
Post by: kira666 on September 06, 2012, 01:22:04 pm
A simple good nerf would be:
"SoF can't be played on your first turn."
Post by: Dhanzig on September 07, 2012, 12:48:16 am
(http://i.imgur.com/cqQgZ.png) (http://i.imgur.com/6Jr5Q.png)
Please note ... I have 6 upped SoFos ... and wouldn't mind at all the change I've proposed here. So many 'OK' to 'great' decks become JUNK when just ONE SoFo hits ... let alone 2, 3 or 15 ...
Post by: furballdn on September 07, 2012, 02:11:12 am
(http://i.imgur.com/6Jr5Q.png)Early nova for one of these doubles your quanta production for the rest of the game. Probably more OP than it is now.
Post by: DarkBaron12390 on September 07, 2012, 02:12:26 am
Post by: RRQJ on September 07, 2012, 03:05:41 am
Post by: kimham8a on September 09, 2012, 03:02:03 am
SoFo is beyond retarded ... the only positive for it is it makes Thunderstorm a bit useful ... Here's MY take on what shard of focus COULD be:
(http://i.imgur.com/cqQgZ.png) (http://i.imgur.com/6Jr5Q.png)
Please note ... I have 6 upped SoFos ... and wouldn't mind at all the change I've proposed here. So many 'OK' to 'great' decks become JUNK when just ONE SoFo hits ... let alone 2, 3 or 15 ...
Needs synergy with :gravity.
Post by: Dhanzig on September 09, 2012, 03:18:04 am
Post by: kimham8a on September 09, 2012, 03:58:53 am
Gain 15 hp and drain 2 hp from each of your creatures to destroy a pernament. Turns into black hole when hp>45.
Extra synergy with gravity because :gravity creatures have lots of hp.
Post by: Laxadarap on September 09, 2012, 04:06:16 am
Skill Suggestion:
Gain 15 hp and drain 2 hp from each of your creatures to destroy a pernament. Turns into black hole when hp>45.
Extra synergy with gravity because :gravity creatures have lots of hp.
However, it cripples oty, (main stalling card), and gravy's rush potential is essentially chargers, which only have 5 HP.
Post by: meowww on September 09, 2012, 09:50:11 am
"Gain 15 hp and drain 2 hp from each of your creatures (other than :gravity or SoF) to destroy a pernament. Turns into black hole when hp>45."
Sounds slight better?
Post by: AnonymousRevival on September 09, 2012, 10:34:30 am
Post by: kimham8a on September 10, 2012, 04:12:06 am
Maybe make it.Maybe rephrase to:
"Gain 15 hp and drain 2 hp from each of your creatures (other than :gravity or SoF) to destroy a pernament. Turns into black hole when hp>45."
Sounds slight better?
Gain 13 hp and drain 2 hp from each of your non- :gravity creatures to destroy a pernament. Turns into black hole when hp>45.
Note that if you have non- :gravity creatures SoF will last only 2 times.
I'm actually quite surprised. After SoFo has been destroyed, it did not produce the black hole effect.Was it destroyed by an effect other than its own?
Post by: meowww on September 10, 2012, 06:43:17 am
I would rather make it not draining another Sof, cause you can still get 5 destroy out of two Sof, or 8 out of three.Maybe make it.Maybe rephrase to:
"Gain 15 hp and drain 2 hp from each of your creatures (other than :gravity or SoF) to destroy a pernament. Turns into black hole when hp>45."
Sounds slight better?
Gain 13 hp and drain 2 hp from each of your non- :gravity creatures to destroy a pernament. Turns into black hole when hp>45.
Note that if you have non- :gravity creatures SoF will last only 2 times.I'm actually quite surprised. After SoFo has been destroyed, it did not produce the black hole effect.Was it destroyed by an effect other than its own?
Post by: Evan_85 on September 10, 2012, 09:04:02 am
I think the main problem with sofo is that it's really hard to destroy if you can't do it instantly - and that happens quite often, as it isn't too hard to get it first turn. 0/16 is a giant..
My suggestion: It shouldn't be that big. Let it gain 1hp/accretion, and turn into a black hole on 4hp. That way it gets vulnerable to a wide variety of CC. And it loses some, but not all of the more disgusting synergies.
Post by: meowww on September 10, 2012, 12:10:23 pm
Voted 'other' as I don't think the nerfs in the poll would solve the problem, at least not without changing the card's nature.1hp/accretion sounds prefect for acceleration+quint....
I think the main problem with sofo is that it's really hard to destroy if you can't do it instantly - and that happens quite often, as it isn't too hard to get it first turn. 0/16 is a giant..
My suggestion: It shouldn't be that big. Let it gain 1hp/accretion, and turn into a black hole on 4hp. That way it gets vulnerable to a wide variety of CC. And it loses some, but not all of the more disgusting synergies.
Post by: Picheleiro on September 10, 2012, 12:23:20 pm
Post by: meowww on September 10, 2012, 12:24:56 pm
Acceleration removes activate abilities.Ah my silly mistake :)
What about a point of self infected poison.
Post by: Evan_85 on September 10, 2012, 02:25:46 pm
It wouldn't be that safe and easy to use as it is now, so faster and cheaper PC cards would become an alternative. But the sofo could still be the base of some nice denial combos.
Post by: meowww on September 10, 2012, 02:49:26 pm
Well, if my suggestion made you think that with quintessence and poison it could still do what it does now, I assume that hp-nerf might be a viable solution.It is slightly different though, since with a point of poison and quint, it effectively become a "one free destroy a turn," which you have almost no meant to stop.
It wouldn't be that safe and easy to use as it is now, so faster and cheaper PC cards would become an alternative. But the sofo could still be the base of some nice denial combos.
And even without quint, this way still get to destroy more than it was.
Post by: Dhanzig on September 11, 2012, 04:53:43 am
Post by: Nayoelw on September 11, 2012, 08:15:32 am
like using it on a creature and swapping their skill,
and reduce hp per use.
huge gravity creature have an advantage
as they won't die so quickly after one or two use.
moreover, all other shards are either spells or permanent,
turning this to a spell would bring unity to the shard family
while contrasting the importance of shard of integrity
Post by: AnonymousRevival on September 11, 2012, 09:53:29 am
Post by: OldTrees on September 11, 2012, 04:25:49 pm
@kim: No. It wasn't. It completely obliterated 3 permanents without any CC, but no black hole.........Full hand?
Post by: ioiui on September 16, 2012, 04:45:35 pm
i saw suggestion about turning this into a spell,
like using it on a creature and swapping their skill,
and reduce hp per use.
huge gravity creature have an advantage
as they won't die so quickly after one or two use.
moreover, all other shards are either spells or permanent,
turning this to a spell would bring unity to the shard family
while contrasting the importance of shard of integrity
I think this is a brilliant idea, requiring a creature before you can play this card would slow down the rate at which you can spam SoF from the first turn. Admittedly, you could play this on a cheap/no cost creature but they all tend to have tiny hp, plus there's still summoning sickness. Maybe reduce hp by 5 or 10 per use? You could even use it as a form of lobotomy, depending if giving away a free explosion is worth it.
Post by: russianspy1234 on September 16, 2012, 04:52:35 pm
i saw suggestion about turning this into a spell,
like using it on a creature and swapping their skill,
and reduce hp per use.
huge gravity creature have an advantage
as they won't die so quickly after one or two use.
moreover, all other shards are either spells or permanent,
turning this to a spell would bring unity to the shard family
while contrasting the importance of shard of integrity
I think this is a brilliant idea, requiring a creature before you can play this card would slow down the rate at which you can spam SoF from the first turn. Admittedly, you could play this on a cheap/no cost creature but they all tend to have tiny hp, plus there's still summoning sickness. Maybe reduce hp by 5 or 10 per use? You could even use it as a form of lobotomy, depending if giving away a free explosion is worth it.
doing it this way encroaches on butterfly effect too much though.
Post by: jawdirk on September 16, 2012, 05:18:24 pm
i saw suggestion about turning this into a spell, like using it on a creature and swapping their skill, and reduce hp per use.
I think this is a brilliant idea, requiring a creature before you can play this card would slow down the rate at which you can spam SoF from the first turn. Admittedly, you could play this on a cheap/no cost creature but they all tend to have tiny hp, plus there's still summoning sickness. Maybe reduce hp by 5 or 10 per use? You could even use it as a form of lobotomy, depending if giving away a free explosion is worth it.
doing it this way encroaches on butterfly effect too much though.
Maybe, but butterfly effect has the requirement of low attack. This would have a soft requirement of high hp. I would like to see butterfly effect changed a little to bring it into balance with SoF.
Post by: asiantraceur on September 19, 2012, 04:18:35 am
Post by: Picheleiro on September 19, 2012, 10:58:16 am
How about every turn SoFo is in play, it absorbs a certain amount of quanta?
Something like x :gravity and if you dont have enought gravity quanta 3x :rainbow?
Dont sound bad, but you dont fix the main problems of this card.
Post by: YellowfLash on September 19, 2012, 01:43:55 pm
Nowdays the arena is filled with SOF, psions, immortals, phase dragons, pests, and some more SOFS.
Again and again the dame decks.
Soooooo boring,
i remember the day where you could see alot of different decks fighting their way through..
but no its like SOF, psions, immortals, phase dragons, pests, and some more SOFS.
And dont get me wrong i am not loosing.
I got my speed-rainbow deck and farming my ass of silver and gold but thats only cause i have been playing this game for like 6 years (best work game).
but what about others trying to do the same?
I feel really bad for the game and the only reason i am not posting in other sections to cry about those is because these are all the things at fault nowdays in Elements.
Sorry for the long post
Post by: thispersonisagenius on September 19, 2012, 08:52:23 pm
i have been playing this game for like 6 yearsIt's existed for 3 or 4 :)
There's no need at all to just make a rant when the past 40 pages have been the exact same thing in a more polite, refined fashion.
As for the absorbing quanta idea, many SoFoBows are upgraded, and will have no problem supplying 1 gravity quanta or 3 random quanta per turn.
Post by: Absol on September 19, 2012, 11:23:01 pm
Real pro plays before it is even developed!i have been playing this game for like 6 yearsIt's existed for 3 or 4 :)
Post by: redeyesly on September 19, 2012, 11:42:03 pm
Post by: YellowfLash on September 20, 2012, 11:14:24 am
I said like 6 years.. i culculated my time here in my job.. i am playing it since i got here.. maybe its not the first or the second year.. and i am pretty sure its not just 2-3 years game.. its gotta be more than that..
Also when a thread has like 98598665 pages you cannot expect a member to go through all the pages just to see if someone else has already posted your ideas.
this is not community friendly..
You post what you wanna say..
Now i am sorry if i am playing since forever and i have like 3 posts here.. also i cannot talk SoCafhauuekfha Sogajfdobr and i cannot understand..
That doesnt mean i dont have like 10+ sosacs..
ok i understand when you speak but i am quite old here and know these cards or stategies.. the new player doesn't..
No regard in this forum by its members for the new player..
I am not talking about admins or mods cause i have no complains at all.. they are very helpfull.
But if a new member comes here and reads a couple of posts he will leave and never come back..
and even if he decides to post he will ge the usual try to stack sockjkdshfjsdhfsdfjsefh over the sodfpskjh and be all confused-dissapointed..
Post by: SnoWeb on September 20, 2012, 04:35:43 pm
To show my support I will not use any acronym any more.
Cu
Post by: ddevans96 on September 21, 2012, 02:34:46 am
I said like 6 years.. i culculated my time here in my job.. i am playing it since i got here.. maybe its not the first or the second year.. and i am pretty sure its not just 2-3 years game.. its gotta be more than that..
This game was posted in May of 2009, as you can see >here< (http://board.flashkit.com/board/showthread.php?794854-Elements.-Fantasy-cards-game). We have a lot of people saying they've played longer than the game has existed due to faulty memory. Time can really fly.
Also when a thread has like 98598665 pages you cannot expect a member to go through all the pages just to see if someone else has already posted your ideas.
this is not community friendly..
You post what you wanna say..
...
No regard in this forum by its members for the new player..
I am not talking about admins or mods cause i have no complains at all.. they are very helpfull.
But if a new member comes here and reads a couple of posts he will leave and never come back..
and even if he decides to post he will ge the usual try to stack sockjkdshfjsdhfsdfjsefh over the sodfpskjh and be all confused-dissapointed..
As a veteran member, I'd like to apologize on genius's behalf. I disagree that your comment was unrefined, and to be honest I don't think he is yet in a place to make that statement.
This is not how we should be treating newer players who have valid concerns, especially when we have enough trouble getting people active. I understand the sarcastic responses to the 6 years comment, and I would have done them myself if you were not respectful in your first post. However, most everything else in your posts has been relatively insightful.
Post by: Chapuz on September 22, 2012, 03:27:05 am
Post by: Laxadarap on September 22, 2012, 05:08:49 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNWdSNFfbZw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNWdSNFfbZw)
Chapuz, you are awesome. The ad for the beginning of that was definitely a Victoria's secret ad :)
Post by: bob8willie on September 23, 2012, 11:41:35 pm
Post by: russianspy1234 on September 23, 2012, 11:46:40 pm
i just want to say, all people who want it nerf'd/changed either dont have it, or dont have enough for an actual sofo deck. all the people who dont want it changed at all are the ones that rely on sofo for their decks. maybe we should ask people who have never seen it before, and have niether used or played against it. makes the poll much more accurate
in order to do that, you need to find someone who has never played PvP / Arena / very little FGs
Post by: Cheesy111 on September 23, 2012, 11:56:22 pm
i just want to say, all people who want it nerf'd/changed either dont have it, or dont have enough for an actual sofo deck. all the people who dont want it changed at all are the ones that rely on sofo for their decks. maybe we should ask people who have never seen it before, and have niether used or played against it. makes the poll much more accurate
I have 6 unupped sofo and 6 upped sofo. I want it nerfed heavily. Why do you think everyone that wants it changed doesn't have any of it?
Post by: Laxadarap on September 24, 2012, 12:38:52 am
i just want to say, all people who want it nerf'd/changed either dont have it, or dont have enough for an actual sofo deck. all the people who dont want it changed at all are the ones that rely on sofo for their decks. maybe we should ask people who have never seen it before, and have niether used or played against it. makes the poll much more accurateNot sure if sarcasm, if not, it probably should be. That is an extremely bad idea. The only way to actually determine balance is through playing. Everything else is theoretical.
in order to do that, you need to find someone who has never played PvP / Arena / very little FGs
I second this. I have more SoFo's than I have of SoG's. If you've played a while, you'll know how messed up that is.
I have 6 unupped sofo and 6 upped sofo. I want it nerfed heavily. Why do you think everyone that wants it changed doesn't have any of it?
I second this absolutely.
Post by: OldTrees on September 24, 2012, 03:50:35 am
i just want to say, all people who want it nerf'd/changed either dont have it, or dont have enough for an actual sofo deck. all the people who dont want it changed at all are the ones that rely on sofo for their decks. maybe we should ask people who have never seen it before, and have niether used or played against it. makes the poll much more accurateWhen I first saw it I judged it to be OP because it was strictly more efficient than the pre nerf Deflagration.
When I played against (trainer playtesting) it my judgement was it was still OP.
When I played against a turn 1 capable deck (still trainer) my judgement was confirmed.
To further verify this judgement I switched the two decks I was using. When I used SoFo I still thought it was OP.
Finally I revisited the cost theory to see if any relevant considerations had been revealed. In light of the difficultly of very early CC, I modified my theoretical estimate of SoFo's resilience based on the potential metagame warping. This resulted in an even more OP theoretical estimate.
I have been in all the relevant shoes and have thought it was OP in all of them.
Post by: pervepic on September 24, 2012, 11:55:50 am
2. Can't increase playing cost much, because it would make it to be useful only in rainbows
3. Don't like adding activation cost, since it makes that Shard and its use even more complicated
4. Fever turns when it comes to Black Hole - I agree with that, a simple and sensible nerf.
5. Freezes/ rewinds rather than destroys - an interesting idea for a new water or time card
6. Lower HP if turns into Black Hole if mark is not gravity - a possible way to nerf it, but in order to be a noticable nerf there should be too big differences between Shards that are played with mark and that are not (and are therefore destroyable with the usual CC).
7. If HP falls rather than rises then it is a buff not a nerf
8. Using a Shard too much in a row creates a Singularity - no more Singularities (read: too coplex and artificial nerfs), please!
9. Introducing more anti-PC counters. Something like PA for aether or entropy, for example? Not sure. Basically that kind of indirect nerfing is a good idea, because creates new cards, but that takes a long time and needs some deep thinking and calculations
10. If it doesn't creat BH then it should be a fire Shard
11. It shouldn't be gravity pullable - actually I would be glad if someone uses it like a slower version of an Armagio. No need to take away that kind of secondary functions that enrich the game but still do no make SoF considerably stronger.
12. No reason why Pillars, Pendulums or whatever should be untouchable if they are not immortal cards themslves (like a Mirror Shield)
13. If it requires gravity to use then it wouldn't be a Shard. Now if there are new permanents and Shards added there just should be an option for every element to destroy those, otherwise stronger elements (having PC)just becoming stronger and weaker are becoming weaker and too dependent on other elements that have PC.
14. Activation costs grows - I didn't like adding activation cost
15. Change it profoundly - no, that Shard is needed because many perms were added
16. Other nerf - not necessary, I already agreed with the option 4.
Post by: redeyesly on September 24, 2012, 08:00:37 pm
Post by: furballdn on September 24, 2012, 08:38:59 pm
Make upgraded protect artifact colorless, like animate weapon. Then every deck will have 6 of them, and nobody will play sofo anymore. Or leave it like it is and let people continue to abuse the hell out of it. Lately I've been using mitosis and quint on a sofo, then you've got a permanent black hole factory, like a ghetto gravity nymph.Wat. Even if it becomes free I doubt people will do that. Card space is important. If a card warrants every single deck to include a counter it is probably a sign it is OP.
Post by: vivimancer on September 25, 2012, 11:51:24 pm
Post by: OldTrees on September 26, 2012, 03:27:23 am
red eye does have a valid point though furball, buffing PA would help. I agree that its not the solution but if there was a reliable counter to sofo spam it might reduce the frequency and potency of sofo heavy decksTrue. However the damage an OP card does in not the frequency but the warping of the metagame. The existance of SoFo makes the metagame shift to requiring more early CC and anti-PC. This eliminates many potential decks thus reducing the metagame variety. A card could be (SoFo isn't) so OP that it would warp a metagame to the point that every deck ran a counter and no deck ran the card. (If 1 player did not include the counter then another player would be able to increase their win ratio by adding the warping card.)
Post by: redeyesly on September 26, 2012, 12:15:31 pm
Post by: OldTrees on September 26, 2012, 01:45:44 pm
Obviously absolutes like everyone/nobody are an exaggeration. Even if PA were free, not everyone would use it. Even if everyone used it, people would still use sofo anyway. Even when I do run a deck with 6 PAs, they don't always show up when I need them and sofo still ruins my day. So there is currently no way to counter the OP card, and it is used in well over half the decks in plat right now, and overused in at least 1 in 10. Consider the metagame officially warped.
However making a counter available will not remove the warping. Rather it will merely change the appearance of the warp from overused SoFo to overused counter.
Post by: redeyesly on September 26, 2012, 02:31:14 pm
Post by: Laxadarap on September 26, 2012, 03:17:44 pm
Well the only other solution I can see would be to remove the card from the game. Rewind and black hole can go with it.
However, Zanz won't do this. I think he wants this final shard to be rainbow PC, he just did a fairly bad job of making it (good mechanic, just OP). Rewind has been argued for a nerf, but its nowhere near metagame warping, and black hole is DEFINITELY not overpowered. It's very strong with a Discord, but by itself it really isn't that great, in fact, the only time you really use it is when your using a DBH, it's never seen in monogravity.
Post by: vivimancer on September 26, 2012, 03:28:18 pm
So there is currently no way to counter the OP card,
Snip,
There are lots of ways to counter Sofo; quanta denial (Discord/black hole) creature control (Bolts/RW/Gravity Pull/Oty) and hard counter (PA)
Back on topic, just banning stuff is never the answer, even though I could scream after seeing 10 plat decks in a row with either 1st or 2nd turn Sofos
Post by: OdinVanguard on September 26, 2012, 07:01:49 pm
quanta denial doesn't really stop it though. The trouble is, even though it costs 7|6 to cast, the fact that the cost is rainbow makes it easy to just use a nova or immo to pull one out.... Current quanta denial methods are useless against that. Its one of the hazards of making high :rainbow cost cards.So there is currently no way to counter the OP card,
Snip,
There are lots of ways to counter Sofo; quanta denial (Discord/black hole) creature control (Bolts/RW/Gravity Pull/Oty) and hard counter (PA)
Back on topic, just banning stuff is never the answer, even though I could scream after seeing 10 plat decks in a row with either 1st or 2nd turn Sofos
Creature control helps, but you basically get 1 turn to do it. After that you have a 16 hp permanent chewer on your hands.
RW and GP don't really help that much. In fact they can make it worse if you time them wrong.
Oty can help if it gets out first, but a 'bow or nova deck can get these out well before you can pull one out.
The only reliable counters are PA and Lobotomizer (only if it comes out first though) or mind flayer... the fact is though, these are not viable in all decks. Hence the phrase "just because a counter exists does not mean a card is not OP".
One of the big problems I see is that giving it a high :rainbow cost really only promotes its abuse in 'bows and nova decks. Best nerf for this, in my opinion, is to make the card more painful and difficult to use for 'bows and nova based decks.
For example, add an activation cost and have the skill drain 1 of each quanta type when used.
Post by: RRQJ on September 26, 2012, 11:43:14 pm
For example, add an activation cost and have the skill drain 1 of each quanta type when used.
This is a good way to nerf SoFo for rainbows relative to monos/duos, which I think is the main difficulty when trying to find a non-radical change. It also doesn't really mess with the theme either.
Post by: jumpingbeans on September 27, 2012, 01:08:26 am
Though in seriousness, how about the cost to summon it is either 7|6 Quanta OR one of each type of Quanta available, whichever is more? And add the 1 Quanta/type activation cost?
Post by: furballdn on September 27, 2012, 01:09:32 am
Post by: rob77dp on September 29, 2012, 05:11:43 am
Starts with max HP (24 seems right) and each activation removes 8 HP and it simply dies at <=0 HP... So combination of declining HP to activate and no Black Hole result.
As it stands, SoFo is essentially a double-whammy card advantage. You play one SoFo and gain:
-3 opposing permanents (cards)
+1 Black Hole
... for a total card advantage of FOUR as I see it.
My 2 cents - hope it helps!
Post by: Tiltias on September 29, 2012, 07:00:26 pm
1) Shard Of Focus needs to be changed completely. Free, multiple-use permanent removal is unprecedented and overpowered enough without the Rage/GPull synergies that currently exist.
2) SoFo should be a permanent or spell, not a creature. How can a glowing crystal even be animate? (ignoring golems.. )
If it is turned into a permanent, Give it either spammable GPull casts, or a cloak-bonewall like combo ability, hiding your permanents beneath several layers of SoFo. and no countdown timer.
If it's turned into a spell, give it an ability based around chimera- GPull, Momentum, +30hp. On a single target. I don't have many shard-worthy ideas for this one.
Post by: shoemaja on September 29, 2012, 09:25:30 pm
after shard of focus eats one perm, it is very difficult to remove from the field of play...
but if it was a perm itself, even after 1 or two times it destroys a perm, you can steal or defraug it
Post by: Dhanzig on September 29, 2012, 11:02:01 pm
Post by: eaglgenes101 on September 29, 2012, 11:05:20 pm
FOCUS POCUS ... this game sucks now.*sets up mono gravy with BH's and gravy shield*
Post by: pulli23 on September 30, 2012, 05:44:32 pm
That would stop a quick spawn of these using novae.
Post by: kimham8a on October 01, 2012, 01:38:57 am
just wondering: can't it be made that it uses "7 of 1 "random" type quantum" (and probably lower the cost to 5 or something).
That would stop a quick spawn of these using novae.
Sounds good, but since there are no cards like that so far maybe zanz intends to never have to such a cost type.
Post by: Ilias22 on October 01, 2012, 01:16:38 pm
FOCUS POCUS ... this game sucks now.Hahhahahahaha but still the old virsion is better :P :P :P
Post by: AnonymousRevival on October 01, 2012, 02:55:30 pm
Post by: rob77dp on October 01, 2012, 03:04:32 pm
I know SoFo is OP. But does ranting really help change the mechanism of this sh**'d?
Seeing as this is all going on in a "Nerf This Card" thread, the whole idea is changing or deciding to change a card - so if ranting will ever help or get a change made, this is the only place it may happen. :D
Still, un-focused (pun!) rants or angry posts without attempting a 'solution' to the problem help not so much...
Post by: meowww on October 01, 2012, 08:40:29 pm
I know SoFo is OP. But does ranting really help change the mechanism of this sh**'d?
It is petty clear that most if not all of us agreed that Shard of OpFocus is OP, we all know a counter SoOpFo deck meant a decent Pt farming deck, and the only thing can bring your prefect gold farming deck down are SoOpFo.
Though I also agree telling what to do (suggesting ways to balance, or comment on the suggestions) is better than what not to do (it is F*ing OP change it, change it.)
Post by: choongmyoung on October 03, 2012, 06:38:13 am
Post by: TheAccuso on October 03, 2012, 07:14:49 am
(http://i.imgur.com/dvTNE.png)What's the point of makin' it better?
EDIT better=more OP
Post by: choongmyoung on October 03, 2012, 07:26:24 am
(http://i.imgur.com/dvTNE.png)What's the point of makin' it better?
EDIT better=more OP
No, I removed PC.
But this synergies with GP, Acceleration, Catapult though.
Post by: TheAccuso on October 03, 2012, 07:54:39 am
Right, my fault, i didn't check that good.What's the point of makin' it better?(http://i.imgur.com/dvTNE.png)
EDIT better=more OP
No, I removed PC.
But this synergies with GP, Acceleration, Catapult though.
On the card: i kinda like your idea, just maybe the total removal of PC is probably too much, you could at least leaved it for 1 or 2 times and give it self destruction at =50/<50 , maybe just the last two ones so that you can either choose to destroy 2 permanent only and go with something big to catapult or use twice to destroy.
Post by: choongmyoung on October 03, 2012, 08:00:11 am
Right, my fault, i didn't check that good.What's the point of makin' it better?(http://i.imgur.com/dvTNE.png)
EDIT better=more OP
No, I removed PC.
But this synergies with GP, Acceleration, Catapult though.
On the card: i kinda like your idea, just maybe the total removal of PC is probably too much, you could at least leaved it for 1 or 2 times and give it self destruction at =50/<50 , maybe just the last two ones so that you can either choose to destroy 2 permanent only and go with something big to catapult or use twice to destroy.
Currently SoFo is Explosion+Explosion+Explosion+Blackhole+Synergy with GP(meat shield,More Explosion)+Synergy with Acceleration+Synergy with Catapult+More Explosion with other cards(HP removal such as Rage pot).
Removing PC part and blackhole (seriously, 12 blackholes in one deck?) will be a serious nerf, but yet synergies with other :gravity is enough imo.
And personally I don't think the "others" PC is good idea. Now literally all elements has hard PC..
Post by: TheAccuso on October 03, 2012, 08:14:47 am
And personally I don't think the "others" PC is good idea. Now literally all elements has hard PC..Maybe the problem is that some elements are seriously less efficients(or totally missing) than other on PC*(PC* intended like destructcion, stealing or delaying).
With this card everyone will got PC, but without this one some will remain too poor compared to others.
So the fact is do we keep this and offer to everyone the possibility to have PC*, or we may have to create some new concept about PC in this game?
I'd rather see the second one realized, but requires time.
In the meantime we can keep this one to balance the metagame but balance it as well.
Post by: choongmyoung on October 03, 2012, 08:31:35 am
And personally I don't think the "others" PC is good idea. Now literally all elements has hard PC..Maybe the problem is that some elements are seriously less efficients(or totally missing) than other on PC*(PC* intended like destructcion, stealing or delaying).
With this card everyone will got PC, but without this one some will remain too poor compared to others.
So the fact is do we keep this and offer to everyone the possibility to have PC*, or we may have to create some new concept about PC in this game?
I'd rather see the second one realized, but requires time.
In the meantime we can keep this one to balance the metagame and balance the card as well.
Agreed. Yes, many elements lacks PC. Actually Explosion, Steal, Pulvy is almost the only good PC source. (Not counting EQ/Shield bypassing like that)
Butterfly Effect wins against Electrocuter, but its too expensive to deal with small amount of PC (7 :entropy in start)
As we have Card suggestion boards, I think it is possible to deal the PC lack part.
Still, "Focused" PC ballancing is not that good idea.
Post by: Absol on October 03, 2012, 12:18:33 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/dvTNE.png)I noticed that you remove its effect as a PC. Why would you use this over Voodoo Doll? 1 turn vulnerability is not worth it.
Better to use Voodoo (cheaper with Voodoo passive) or Armagio (build-in GP).
Sure this can grow, but 15 HP per turn can easily be outrushed.
Post by: choongmyoung on October 03, 2012, 12:49:01 pm
Though the doll is cheap, it's duo.I noticed that you remove its effect as a PC. Why would you use this over Voodoo Doll? 1 turn vulnerability is not worth it.(http://i.imgur.com/dvTNE.png)
Better to use Voodoo (cheaper with Voodoo passive) or Armagio (build-in GP).
Sure this can grow, but 15 HP per turn can easily be outrushed.
Armagio is too expensive.
/
Well, actually you're right.
Hmm, maybe its HP can start with 15? Anyway the number part can be adjusted.
Post by: OldTrees on October 03, 2012, 12:54:19 pm
It requires :gravity to use (Gravity Pull, Acceleration, Chimera, Catapult). Thus it is not an Other card. Thus it is not a shard.Though the doll is cheap, it's duo.I noticed that you remove its effect as a PC. Why would you use this over Voodoo Doll? 1 turn vulnerability is not worth it.(http://i.imgur.com/dvTNE.png)
Better to use Voodoo (cheaper with Voodoo passive) or Armagio (build-in GP).
Sure this can grow, but 15 HP per turn can easily be outrushed.
Armagio is too expensive.
/
Well, actually you're right.
Hmm, maybe its HP can start with 15? Anyway the number part can be adjusted.
Post by: choongmyoung on October 03, 2012, 01:04:35 pm
It requires :gravity to use (Gravity Pull, Acceleration, Chimera, Catapult). Thus it is not an Other card. Thus it is not a shard.Better than the current version imo.
Well... yes it is, you're right. Don't have enough synergy but :gravity.
But cheap(consider novae) free PCs is way too OP. Almost every SNbow deck packs SoFo now in Arena.
Again, Explosion+Explosion+Explosion+Blackhole+Additional Synergy in one other card.
"other" element PC card is bad, bad thinking. Adding other PC cards in specific elements (like midas' touch) will be much better.
Maybe "inflict X damage to your opponent if HP>Y" or some completely different mechanics?
Post by: choongmyoung on October 03, 2012, 01:18:44 pm
SoSe = You must have :entropy to use the first card.
SoFo = You must have :gravity to use the BH.
SoD, SoG, SoR(although I think is little overpowered with mitosis), SoSac(although it removes all quanta but :death... and I think it is slightly forced to :death), SoV, SoP, SoB, SoI(although it needs :earth to use its skill), SoW, SoFre don't have this "forced" element part.
I think the shards should be synergied without this kinda usage. Shards are in the "others" card pack. Like the GotP with Nightmare. GotP don't say about :darkness, but synergies well.
Inelegant way, but still (SoB, SoD, SoG, SoV) this shards' mechanic is okay.
I think the "forced" elements usage is like:
Pegasus with :air.
Gravoid with :time.
Poseidon with :earth.
The non-forced elements usage is like:
GotP with :darkness.
Puffer fish with Epinephrine.
Pest with Mitosis.
The forced elements usage seems to be "almost nothing without those element" or "The card says it hardly needs this element".
/* SoFo is even OP without BH imo */
Sorry for my bad English.
Post by: OldTrees on October 03, 2012, 01:58:39 pm
It requires :gravity to use (Gravity Pull, Acceleration, Chimera, Catapult). Thus it is not an Other card. Thus it is not a shard.Better than the current version imo.
Well... yes it is, you're right. Don't have enough synergy but :gravity.
But cheap(consider novae) free PCs is way too OP. Almost every SNbow deck packs SoFo now in Arena.
Again, Explosion+Explosion+Explosion+Blackhole+Additional Synergy in one other card.
"other" element PC card is bad, bad thinking. Adding other PC cards in specific elements (like midas' touch) will be much better.
Maybe "inflict X damage to your opponent if HP>Y" or some completely different mechanics?
My thoughts:
1) It is an other card. This means it must be usable with a single type of quanta from any of the elements.
2) Currently it costs :rainbow. This means it needs to cost between 1 :rainbow and 5 :rainbow. Otherwise it is exclusively a rainbow card.
3) The core of the card is PC. This means the final version must also be PC unless there is a very good reason to change the purpose. There are better ways to add PC but that is not a sufficient reason to remove Other PC.
4) Every element has a broad enough theme to allow some form of PC (soft or hard). Not every element has a broad enough theme for hard PC. Thus it needs to be soft PC.
5) It is a Shard. Shards have a loyal and disloyal usage. The loyal usage involves an additional cost (A mark or access to a particular quanta) in return for additional benefit. It might seem forced if one ignores the disloyal usage (SoSe for 2 random cards rather than 2 random cards + 1 entropy card). However it is simply the option for and additional cost/benefit.
Result:
It needs to be made into soft PC.
It needs to be made weak enough to be balanced for 5 :rainbow.
It needs to have some reward for loyal Gravity players.
Post by: OdinVanguard on October 03, 2012, 09:39:32 pm
Result:(http://i.imgur.com/FrRM6.png)
It needs to be made into soft PC.
It needs to be made weak enough to be balanced for 5 :rainbow.
It needs to have some reward for loyal Gravity players.
Here is my idea for revamping shard of focus. Rather than destroy permanents, it simply stuns the slot for a couple turns.
In the case of a non-stacking permanent, like a shield or weapon, it will be disabled.
For pillars and stackable permanents, instead of shutting down the whole stack, the effective stack size is instead reduced by the remaining stun duration.
Example:
Suppose accretion is used on a slot containing a stack of 10 life pillars. On the owner's next turn, only 8 quanta will be produced. The following turn, 9 quanta will get produced and on the turn after that, it will be back to full.
For bonewall (or anything like it in the future), the bonewall will only block damage if its remaining stack size is less than the stun duration. However, it will still still lose stack size as if it had blocked the attack.
E.g. if a bonewall with 3 counters were hit with accretion, it could only stop a single attack, so if 2 photons attacked, the first would get blocked and the second would get through, but the shield would still lose 2 counters.
Finally, notice that no black hole gets created anymore (there simply isn't space for that part … :( ) However, it still gains hp when using its ability. Further, :gravity is tied in by causing the hp gain to be larger if the player's mark is gravity.
I think that should cover the list:
-"Soft" PC method - stun instead of destruction
-HP gain and ability now weaker so cost can be reduced to 5
-Rewards :gravity loyalty with larger HP gains on use
Post by: Tiltias on October 03, 2012, 09:45:10 pm
Result:
It needs to be made into soft PC.
It needs to be made weak enough to be balanced for 5 :rainbow.
It needs to have some reward for loyal Gravity players.
How about being:
1) A permanent version of the Iridium/Vanadium Warden? Which targets PC, and delays their use (or effect?) for 1 turn.
2) Initial casting cost of 5/3 :rainbow and extra ability cost of :rainbow?
3) Hummmmmmm. Yeah, Odin's idea is better.
Every time I play this game, I think "SoFo needs changing"
Post by: pulli23 on October 03, 2012, 09:46:19 pm
That would completely shut down decks even worse than now: play this card, stun pillars and no more quanta for a very long time???
Post by: Tiltias on October 03, 2012, 09:48:34 pm
Post by: OldTrees on October 03, 2012, 10:32:12 pm
Good idea. I would have preferred an activation cost too. (Where each fraction of the cost should go is dependent on the cause of the cost.) This can be tacked on to increase the target 2 permanents over and over usage so it is closer to the price of 2 hard PC.Result:-img-
It needs to be made into soft PC.
It needs to be made weak enough to be balanced for 5 :rainbow.
It needs to have some reward for loyal Gravity players.
Here is my idea for revamping shard of focus. Rather than destroy permanents, it simply stuns the slot for a couple turns.
For pillars and stackable permanents, instead of shutting down the whole stack, the effective stack size is instead reduced by the remaining stun duration.
-snip-
I think that should cover the list:
-"Soft" PC method - stun instead of destruction
-HP gain and ability now weaker so cost can be reduced to 5
-Rewards :gravity loyalty with larger HP gains on use
PS: I loved your solution for stacks.
Post by: whatifidogetcaught? on October 03, 2012, 10:40:47 pm
It maintains a :gravity reward, has much softer PC, and won't completely shut down stalls!
Post by: OdinVanguard on October 04, 2012, 12:26:03 am
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,43859.0.html
I can't take all the credit here, the discussion of how stunning is an issue for stacks (particularly pillars) has come up all over. The latest one I saw, which was part of the inspiration was the "Breakdown" card topic: http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,43486.0.html
Post by: choongmyoung on October 04, 2012, 03:28:55 am
Or the CC version?
Well, +0|-1 could be too small damage, but numbers part can be adjusted.
Post by: jawdirk on October 04, 2012, 03:45:19 am
Accretion: Replace a permanent and gain +0/+15
Turn into a black hole if HP > 45
"Replace" means that the permanent is destroyed, and the owner of the permanent now owns the Shard of Focus.
Post by: choongmyoung on October 04, 2012, 03:48:01 am
Shard of Focus 0|1So manipulating SoFo in the game?
Accretion: Replace a permanent and gain +0|+15
Turn into a black hole if HP > 45
"Replace" means that the permanent is destroyed, and the owner of the permanent now owns the Shard of Focus.
You play SoFo, Destroy opponent's, He plays SoFo, He destroyes your perm, and infinite chain?
Worse than the current version.
Post by: jawdirk on October 04, 2012, 03:55:56 am
No, much better.Shard of Focus 0|1You play SoFo, Destroy opponent's, He plays SoFo, He destroyes your perm, and infinite chain?
Accretion: Replace a permanent and gain +0|+15
Turn into a black hole if HP > 45
"Replace" means that the permanent is destroyed, and the owner of the permanent now owns the Shard of Focus.
Worse than the current version.
Player A destroys 1 permanent.
Player B can either destroy a permanent, or enjoy his 0/16 creature.
If he destroys a permanent, player A can either enjoy his 0/31 creature, or destroy a permanent and get a BH... unless the SoF is damaged in any way. Then player B might get to destroy a 2nd permanent and get the BH.
You can also destroy your own permanents and keep the SoF.
Post by: OldTrees on October 04, 2012, 04:01:17 am
Another valid fix although I stick with my statement that soft PC fits other better. (Soft PC would not fit your fix)No, much better.Shard of Focus 0|1You play SoFo, Destroy opponent's, He plays SoFo, He destroyes your perm, and infinite chain?
Accretion: Replace a permanent and gain +0|+15
Turn into a black hole if HP > 45
"Replace" means that the permanent is destroyed, and the owner of the permanent now owns the Shard of Focus.
Worse than the current version.
Player A destroys 1 permanent.
Player B can either destroy a permanent, or enjoy his 0/16 creature.
If he destroys a permanent, player A can either enjoy his 0/31 creature, or destroy a permanent and get a BH... unless the SoF is damaged in any way. Then player B might get to destroy a 2nd permanent and get the BH.
You can also destroy your own permanents and keep the SoF.
Post by: Annele on October 04, 2012, 06:08:14 am
I will do the same here, though bear in mind I still think SoFo needs a nerf. I'm just chucking it out there. (BTW, I've only used the unupped names, but in most cases it works upped too)
Here are all the POSSIBLE counters to SoFo.
- Chaos Seed
- Mutation
- Fallen Elf
- Butterfly effect (if the opponent doesn't have :entropy)
- Pandemonium
- Otyugh
- Gravity pull (if played with creatures that can kill it in one turn)
- Acceleration
- Enchant Artifact (the most obvious)
- Basilisk Blood
- Earth Nymph
- Fire Bolt
- Rain of Fire
- Rage Potion
- Freeze
- Ice Bolt
- Arctic Squid
- Mind Flayer
- Sanctuary
- Thunderstorm
- Shockwave
- Flying Weapon
- Reverse Time/Eternity lock
- Drain Life
- Liquid Shadow
- Cloak
- Black Nymph
- Lightning
- Lobotomiser
- Silence
- Quanta denial
And yet it is still OP. I think they may need to re-think the list on the dim nerf thread.
Just throwing it out there.
Post by: meowww on October 04, 2012, 06:13:54 am
In the Dim Shield nerf this card thread, someone (I think it was Chapuz) posted a list of the counters to dim shield.Basically:
I will do the same here, though bear in mind I still think SoFo needs a nerf. I'm just chucking it out there. (BTW, I've only used the unupped names, but in most cases it works upped too)
- Chaos Seed
- Mutation
- Fallen Elf
- Butterfly effect (if the opponent doesn't have :entropy)
- Pandemonium
- Otyugh
- Gravity pull (if played with creatures that can kill it in one turn)
- Acceleration
- Enchant Artifact (the most obvious)
- Basilisk Blood
- Earth Nymph
- Fire Bolt
- Rain of Fire
- Rage Potion
- Freeze
- Ice Bolt
- Arctic Squid
- Mind Flayer
- Sanctuary
- Thunderstorm
- Shockwave
- Flying Weapon
- Reverse Time/Eternity lock
- Drain Life
- Liquid Shadow
- Cloak
- Black Nymph
- Lightning
- Lobotomiser
- Silence
- Quanta denial
And yet it is still OP. I think they may need to re-think the list on the dim nerf thread.
Just throwing it out there.
CC, CC-like, EA, EA-like, denial, denial-like.
Post by: eaglgenes101 on October 04, 2012, 06:17:08 am
In the Dim Shield nerf this card thread, someone (I think it was Chapuz) posted a list of the counters to dim shield.A number of these don't work after the 1st use of SoFo.
I will do the same here, though bear in mind I still think SoFo needs a nerf. I'm just chucking it out there. (BTW, I've only used the unupped names, but in most cases it works upped too)
- Chaos Seed
- Mutation
- Fallen Elf
- Butterfly effect (if the opponent doesn't have :entropy)
- Pandemonium
- Otyugh
- Gravity pull (if played with creatures that can kill it in one turn)
- Acceleration
- Enchant Artifact (the most obvious)
- Basilisk Blood
- Earth Nymph
- Fire Bolt
- Rain of Fire
- Rage Potion
- Freeze
- Ice Bolt
- Arctic Squid
- Mind Flayer
- Sanctuary
- Thunderstorm
- Shockwave
- Flying Weapon
- Reverse Time/Eternity lock
- Drain Life
- Liquid Shadow
- Cloak
- Black Nymph
- Lightning
- Lobotomiser
- Silence
- Quanta denial
And yet it is still OP. I think they may need to re-think the list on the dim nerf thread.
Just throwing it out there.
Post by: choongmyoung on October 04, 2012, 07:49:37 am
later lobotomizer either.
quanta denial is half because it doesnt have the skill cost.
nova*SoFo is unstoppable with quanta denial.
Post by: Tiltias on October 05, 2012, 09:52:44 pm
First turn counters .. are practically all CC. I wouldn't use mutations unless desperate, since there is a very good chance something will appear that has better stats than 0|16. SoFo is fairly easy to counter on its first turn. But after that it is very difficult.
Counters that can be played at anytime to remove SoFo's influence from the board with (almost) no positive side effects? Basilisk Blood. Lobotomise. A mind flayer needs one turn to activate, and a lobotomiser gets one chance before it is destroyed. Acceleration gives it lots of attack, so the only stonewall lobo effect is Liquid Shadow.
So there are just two cards which are hard, direct counters to SoFo. Mind flayer is certainly strong enough to be considered.
But this is definitly a key contributor to the Shard's OP status.
The others listed.. only delayed. Mutation is risky. Countering an active SoFo with permanents is a non-starter.
Using Acceleration/Rage pots/GPull are all improvements and not counters. Most CC cannot hit past the 15 or 30 hp wall. Anything that doesn't kill the shard will give it more charges.
Reverse time just resets the charges and if you have nothing else that can kill on 1st turn, you are screwed.
Post by: Paniko on October 05, 2012, 10:09:59 pm
Post by: OdinVanguard on October 05, 2012, 10:13:38 pm
I would split the counter list.There are two you missed
First turn counters .. are practically all CC. I wouldn't use mutations unless desperate, since there is a very good chance something will appear that has better stats than 0|16. SoFo is fairly easy to counter on its first turn. But after that it is very difficult.
Counters that can be played at anytime to remove SoFo's influence from the board with (almost) no positive side effects? Basilisk Blood. Lobotomise. A mind flayer needs one turn to activate, and a lobotomiser gets one chance before it is destroyed. Acceleration gives it lots of attack, so the only stonewall lobo effect is Liquid Shadow.
So there are just two cards which are hard, direct counters to SoFo. Mind flayer is certainly strong enough to be considered.
But this is definitly a key contributor to the Shard's OP status.
The others listed.. only delayed. Mutation is risky. Countering an active SoFo with permanents is a non-starter.
Using Acceleration/Rage pots/GPull are all improvements and not counters. Most CC cannot hit past the 15 or 30 hp wall. Anything that doesn't kill the shard will give it more charges.
Reverse time just resets the charges and if you have nothing else that can kill on 1st turn, you are screwed.
-Butterfly Effect (if they don't have :entropy , its essentially just like liquid shadow )
-Freeze Effect (freeze, squid, ice bolt) + shockwave combo, which is an instant kill no matter how tough it is.
Though these still aren't enough to make a huge impact on its power since
1)BE is fairly uncommon and
2) The freeze-wave combo takes a 2 card duo (which often needs a deck built around it) to deal with a card that can be easily put into almost any deck.
Post by: choongmyoung on October 06, 2012, 01:03:45 am
Seems petty balanced for me.
Post by: Elite arbiter on October 06, 2012, 10:50:14 pm
The problem with Shard of Focus isn't what it does, it is how effectively it does this job and just how hard it is to stop from doing this job. It is also the fact that it is almost literally impossible to come out on the worse end of a turn 1-2 SoFo play.
Unlike what you may think, SoFo does not have the job of selective permanent destruction. SoFo is in the business of immense card advantage. Similar to SoSe, but a lot more powerful. Thinking about this in terms of card advantage, a first turn SoFo has almost literally no way of being taken out cost effectively. All the CCs in the world also take up a card to vanquish the shard, so you have to fall to repeatable card destruction or nerfing, like Owls Eye, or Mind Flayer. However, these take time to get onto the field, and if you go second, and your opponent goes first and gets a SoFo out, you have literally no cost effective way to deal with it.
I point this out because there is almost no way for SoFo to not at least break even. And if allowed any say in the matter it will balloon up to 3 explosions + Gravity pull target / Black Hole. There are literally NO first turn counters, because all of the 'first turn counters' required you to spend a card to stop it, and probably more quanta after considering SoFo is :rainbow costed.
What SoFo needs is a counter, something that actually can stop it on the first turn that it is played while maintaining card advantage. The whole prospect of having 4 cards in 1 (explosion x3 + black hole) is a separate issue, but I feel like the bigger issue is the sheer inability to be countered effectively. Especially early game.
(aka, the vast majority of the cards on that list are not counters to SoFo, merely ways to stop it from snowballing out of control. Breaking even should not be considered a counter.)
Post by: kimham8a on October 09, 2012, 12:51:03 am
Before I begin, let me define how I am using the word 'counter'. I mean counter to mean something like "Purify counters Deadly Poison, because Purify nullifies the 4 deadly poisons you put onto the field, giving you both quanta and card advantage". Not something such as "Liquid Shadow counters Ray of Light, because it kills the creature and only heals them for 1". Because you invested more into your 'counter' than they did their RoLThat's a really good point! But with this insight, do you have any suggestions for what to do about it?
The problem with Shard of Focus isn't what it does, it is how effectively it does this job and just how hard it is to stop from doing this job. It is also the fact that it is almost literally impossible to come out on the worse end of a turn 1-2 SoFo play.
Unlike what you may think, SoFo does not have the job of selective permanent destruction. SoFo is in the business of immense card advantage. Similar to SoSe, but a lot more powerful. Thinking about this in terms of card advantage, a first turn SoFo has almost literally no way of being taken out cost effectively. All the CCs in the world also take up a card to vanquish the shard, so you have to fall to repeatable card destruction or nerfing, like Owls Eye, or Mind Flayer. However, these take time to get onto the field, and if you go second, and your opponent goes first and gets a SoFo out, you have literally no cost effective way to deal with it.
I point this out because there is almost no way for SoFo to not at least break even. And if allowed any say in the matter it will balloon up to 3 explosions + Gravity pull target / Black Hole. There are literally NO first turn counters, because all of the 'first turn counters' required you to spend a card to stop it, and probably more quanta after considering SoFo is :rainbow costed.
What SoFo needs is a counter, something that actually can stop it on the first turn that it is played while maintaining card advantage. The whole prospect of having 4 cards in 1 (explosion x3 + black hole) is a separate issue, but I feel like the bigger issue is the sheer inability to be countered effectively. Especially early game.
(aka, the vast majority of the cards on that list are not counters to SoFo, merely ways to stop it from snowballing out of control. Breaking even should not be considered a counter.)
Post by: OldTrees on October 09, 2012, 03:21:08 am
Before I begin, let me define how I am using the word 'counter'.I completely agree especially with the part that counters should be designed to be more efficient than what they counter.
-snip-
(aka, the vast majority of the cards on that list are not counters to SoFo, merely ways to stop it from snowballing out of control. Breaking even should not be considered a counter.)
I usually use the term "efficient counter" (in contrast to inefficient counter) to highlight the cards that are worth considering as counters rather than the larger set of cards that could be considered as counters if they were buffed (cheaper/faster/more certain).
Post by: Elite arbiter on October 09, 2012, 07:41:04 pm
That's a really good point! But with this insight, do you have any suggestions for what to do about it?
I completely agree especially with the part that counters should be designed to be more efficient than what they counter.
I usually use the term "efficient counter" (in contrast to inefficient counter) to highlight the cards that are worth considering as counters rather than the larger set of cards that could be considered as counters if they were buffed (cheaper/faster/more certain).
SoFo has a low cost and a very powerful snowballing effect. This is countered by having a very vulnerable first turn on the field. The problem is, having 1 HP only for 1 turn isn't currently a weakness, as there are very few things that separate that from having 3 HP. All of these are either too slow to play (unupped oty), need a second turn to work (poison), rely on attacking (Fire shield) or only break even (Drain Life, Thunderstorm).
Thus what we need is a ultra cheap and cost efficient way to deal 1 damage very fast. An example of a true counter card would be a 1 :underworld cost card that deals 1 damage to target creature or player, that also returns to your hand after playing. Playing against a first turn SoFo would look like a trade of...
1 Card + 6 :rainbow
for
0 Cards + 1 :underworld
Which would allow for an actual cost efficient trade, while having this card not overshadow other cards of similar style in other cases like thunderbolt because 5 burst damage is worth more than 1 per turn for an upkeep. This keeps the card balanced in other regards, and would solve all instances of SoFo except a first turn nova+SoFo un all unupped play, where even having 1 :underworld isn't expected until your second turn.
Obviously other solutions would be possible since the key to any solution to SoFo is a early and quanta cheap (1-2nd turn ideally, and ideally 2 or less quanta) way to deal 1 damage without spending a card, or the ability to have that card do other things (Ex: Making thunderstorm deal 1 damage to the opponents field 2 or 3 times over the course of 2-3 turns). This is only the simplest way of going about it. Of course, considering that we're talking about a 2 quanta, 0 card cost card, the options are very limited.
Post by: pulli23 on October 10, 2012, 12:40:13 am
TO battle this early-game creatures would need more hp, however more hp for early game creatures makes mid-game relative weaker.. etc etc.
\
First thing to look for should be the actual card itself.
Post by: kimham8a on October 10, 2012, 02:09:12 am
This way its vulnerability time is increased and preparation time for the opponent is increased, making it easier to counter with cheap cc, plus the delay itself may make sofo balanced without counters.
Post by: Paniko on October 10, 2012, 06:27:24 pm
Post by: meowww on October 10, 2012, 07:54:45 pm
Remove this card!IMO even nerfing a card next to useless is better than removing anything already in the game...
Post by: ZephyrPhantom on October 10, 2012, 10:33:52 pm
Remove this card!Removing a card is a last resort; almost no balance-affecting changes have been made on SoFo to begin with (The nerf to HP was a step in the right direction but did not fix the ability, which is the main source of the problem) and removing it disrupts the 12-shard cycle. There is plenty of room to rebalance/nerf SoFo appropriately as well, as this thread shows.
Post by: Elite arbiter on October 11, 2012, 10:07:58 am
Adding more "early cheap CC" would simply start a arms race in early game power. - It would mean spamming early creatures becomes more weak, and as this card would be almost obligatory having high hp creatures would give the opponent in a card disadvantage. Thus focussing the game more on high hp creatures.
TO battle this early-game creatures would need more hp, however more hp for early game creatures makes mid-game relative weaker.. etc etc.
\
First thing to look for should be the actual card itself.
I was stating what it would take for a card to be considered an actual counter to SoFo in the current state. And this is why the card I suggested did exactly 1 damage-so that things with more than 1 HP have an advantage in dealing with it.
There is another way of achieving the same effect, but by changing SoFo. I originally discarded the idea out of thinking it too heavy a nerf, but the more I think about it the more I realize that it would merely make thought have to go into playing it, rather than making it unstoppable. And the idea is both simple and thematic.
Make SoFo activate a Gravity Pull on itself when it enters the battlefield.
Post by: choongmyoung on October 11, 2012, 10:11:33 am
Make SoFo activate a Gravity Pull on itself when it enters the battlefield.But then you can't summon SoFo once your opponent get a creature out?
Increase HP?
Post by: pulli23 on October 11, 2012, 10:22:26 am
Post by: Elite arbiter on October 11, 2012, 10:27:42 am
Make SoFo activate a Gravity Pull on itself when it enters the battlefield.But then you can't summon SoFo once your opponent get a creature out?
Increase HP?
No. I intend this to remain at 1 HP. And there are currently 4 cards to summon SoFo with a opponent having a creature out.
A: G-Pull onto another of your creatures.
B: Armagio to attract the G-Pull back onto itself.
C: Sundial to prevent the opponents from launching an attack that turn.
or, and this is particularly noteworthy...
D: Play a second SoFo.
Note that if you G-Pull a second thing on your field, the G-Pull is taken away from the first target. This is simply how the game mechanics work. Currently the card meshes with 4 cards in the game, 2 of them gravity. But one of the 4 combo cards is itself, which allows you to play 2 SoFo to get the effect of 1 (and blocking a single creature hit).
Now, tell me, even if you had to pay twice the full cost presented below, does the following equation look like a beneficial outcome?
2 Cards + 12 :rainbow
for
3 Destructions + Black Hole
It is still in your favorable, but it is still counterable, and this is looking far more balanced in comparison to being capable of threatening this with every SoFo as a standalone.
Post by: choongmyoung on October 11, 2012, 10:35:53 am
Make SoFo activate a Gravity Pull on itself when it enters the battlefield.But then you can't summon SoFo once your opponent get a creature out?
Increase HP?
No. I intend this to remain at 1 HP. And there are currently 4 cards to summon SoFo with a opponent having a creature out.
A: G-Pull onto another of your creatures.
B: Armagio to attract the G-Pull back onto itself.
C: Sundial to prevent the opponents from launching an attack that turn.
or, and this is particularly noteworthy...
D: Play a second SoFo.
Note that if you G-Pull a second thing on your field, the G-Pull is taken away from the first target. This is simply how the game mechanics work. Currently the card meshes with 4 cards in the game, 2 of them gravity. But one of the 4 combo cards is itself, which allows you to play 2 SoFo to get the effect of 1 (and blocking a single creature hit).
Now, tell me, even if you had to pay twice the full cost presented below, does the following equation look like a beneficial outcome?
2 Cards + 12 :rainbow
for
3 Destructions + Black Hole
It is still in your favorable, but it is still counterable, and this is looking far more balanced in comparison to being capable of threatening this with every SoFo as a standalone.
Wellll I see. Much much better.
Noticed you must kill one of your creature to choose the first option.
Unless you are using armagio, which is pretty UP and underused, you'll need 2 SoFo to actually do the thing.
/
Then, what's your opinion about the BH generation?
Post by: Dhanzig on October 11, 2012, 10:51:16 am
(http://i.imgur.com/KTTO4.png)(http://i.imgur.com/n79ry.png)
It has a similar feel to Shard of Serendipity and Shard of Bravery, is usable in any mono or bow and may be the best thing to happen to duo/trio.
Post by: Picheleiro on October 11, 2012, 11:08:01 am
Post by: TheAccuso on October 11, 2012, 11:22:11 am
Words cant express how OP is that card, Dhanzig. Its far better than SoSep.The famous SoSep. of the famous series So'ssup? i love that one :)
Serious mode on, SoSer does a total different thing, you can't compare the two.
Post by: pulli23 on October 11, 2012, 12:05:25 pm
Make SoFo activate a Gravity Pull on itself when it enters the battlefield.But then you can't summon SoFo once your opponent get a creature out?
Increase HP?
No. I intend this to remain at 1 HP. And there are currently 4 cards to summon SoFo with a opponent having a creature out.
A: G-Pull onto another of your creatures.
B: Armagio to attract the G-Pull back onto itself.
C: Sundial to prevent the opponents from launching an attack that turn.
or, and this is particularly noteworthy...
D: Play a second SoFo.
Note that if you G-Pull a second thing on your field, the G-Pull is taken away from the first target. This is simply how the game mechanics work. Currently the card meshes with 4 cards in the game, 2 of them gravity. But one of the 4 combo cards is itself, which allows you to play 2 SoFo to get the effect of 1 (and blocking a single creature hit).
Now, tell me, even if you had to pay twice the full cost presented below, does the following equation look like a beneficial outcome?
2 Cards + 12 :rainbow
for
3 Destructions + Black Hole
It is still in your favorable, but it is still counterable, and this is looking far more balanced in comparison to being capable of threatening this with every SoFo as a standalone.
I still think this wouldn't solve the worst problem: a single nova + sofo can be played at turn 1...
Post by: Elite arbiter on October 11, 2012, 12:13:30 pm
Post by: pulli23 on October 11, 2012, 12:57:19 pm
Especially that for counter cards you won't put 6 of them in your deck (if you would you would create a deck based on a counter vs 1 type of card that's quite the weird situation).
Post by: choongmyoung on October 11, 2012, 01:11:17 pm
People pack novae just to fuel SoFo. No more description needed.
If we make SoFo 9cost or so, No nova = too hard to use / Nova here= turn 1 blerp.
What if it works as delayed explosion? No every turn explosion, but it destroys only one permanent.
5 :rainbow | 3 :rainbow would be fit in this way.
Comparing to explosion, you can use SoFo with no :fire. Bit more expensive and vulnerable to CC, but you can pack simple PC anyway.
Post by: Elbirn on October 11, 2012, 02:55:20 pm
Post by: rob77dp on October 11, 2012, 04:27:22 pm
Quote from: Elite Arbiter
Make SoFo activate a Gravity Pull on itself when it enters the battlefield.
The problem with your proposed nerf, arbiter, is that in some situations it's actually a buff. Gravity pulling SoFo's allows it to act as a meatshield, AND gets even more perm destruction.
What about having SoFo summon as 0/1 creature, accretion is +0/+15 with change in "Gravity Pull state", and turns into Black Hole at HP>30?
Example: Summon SoFo as 0/1 creature with 'accretion' ability. Opponent has one turn to deal with the 0/1 standard SoFo. Next turn, with nothing happening to SoFo in the interim, accretion is activated giving SoFo gravity pull status and 0/13 stats. If a Gravity Pull is then cast onto another creature or an Armagio ability is activated, the SoFo loses Gravity Pull state and is now just a 0/13 with accretion.
Any ideas as to why this wouldn't work - and/or how to improve (if possible) upon this?
Post by: Elbirn on October 11, 2012, 04:31:24 pm
Post by: rob77dp on October 11, 2012, 05:00:05 pm
...Yeah, that's even MORE of a buff. You're then giving it free gravity pull, for no quanta or card cost. Do not want! D:
Due to your lack of using the 'quote' comment function, I am not sure if you're response was to my post or choongmyoung...
Were it to mine, here is my reply:
If SoFo is summoned early-game (first turn via Nova, for example) it gets basically two activation opp's for the summoning player if the opponent isn't also rushing (pillarless, maybe?) and therefore deals no damage to the SoFo during it's turn of Gravity Pull'ing (2nd turn) before losing Grav Pull state and having to WAIT A TURN to get it back to be able to accretion without dying or to NOT WAIT and get Black Hole after just two accretions.
If SoFo is summoned mid-to-late game, then it is quite likely to take heavy damage during the first Grav Pull state (at 0/16) and either die or get low enough that normal CC could kill it - if not then the risk works and you get three accretions from it.
Did you pay attention that is doesn't simply get Gravity Pull and keep it forever? The turn after Grav Pull it loses Grav Pull, and so on back-and-forth. Perhaps this helps your stance of "even MORE of a buff"...
Post by: russianspy1234 on October 11, 2012, 05:06:22 pm
Post by: rob77dp on October 11, 2012, 05:09:03 pm
how about just making it so that any spell damage done to it kills it no matter how much HP it has? id say "any damage" or "any targeting" but i feel synergy with gravity spells is worth keeping on a gravity shard.
Or healing & damage increases SoFo HP...?
Post by: russianspy1234 on October 11, 2012, 05:10:59 pm
not particularly thematic...how about just making it so that any spell damage done to it kills it no matter how much HP it has? id say "any damage" or "any targeting" but i feel synergy with gravity spells is worth keeping on a gravity shard.
Or healing & damage increases SoFo HP...?
also, the check for HP death on it only checks when the ability activates so increasing it's HP like via basalisk blood or armor doesnt decrease number of destructions (well it could, but it wont get rid of the final one)
Post by: Elbirn on October 11, 2012, 06:14:17 pm
[snip]
Your idea isn't entirely made clear, but I think this is it?
1. SoFo is played
2. SoFo uses skill, "Accretion"
3. SoFo loses skill, becomes gravity pulled
4. If another creature on your side of the field is gravity pulled, SoFo regains "Accretion" skill
5. Repeat steps 2 through 4.
If this is the case: I get your idea, it's just that it doesn't...really work. Accretion is a skill, whereas gravity pull is a status. Accretion isn't lobotomized by gravity pull. I suppose a potential nerf to SoFo could be making that the case, where gravity pull is a lobotomizer in addition to it's current effect. As for it regaining a lost skill, I'm not saying it's undoable, but there's nothing at all like that currently in game.
I'm not saying your idea is bad, wrong, or impossible. But with the current mechanics or "rules" of this game, as they've been established, that idea is completely contrary to them.
Post by: OldTrees on October 11, 2012, 07:27:07 pm
Only a problem in unupped play, and even then only an issue when the SoFo player goes first. This is an altogether different issue, which can be easily remedied by rendering you unable to play the card if there are no permanents on the opponents field. Which would guarantee that your opponent would have had a turn to play towers and gather quanta for whatever solution they may possess.Ideally any fix would fix all problems. Your fix is a good one except for this one area.
Post by: furballdn on October 12, 2012, 01:49:34 am
Seems my last post offended some of you :o Here's a more constructive idea about what a gravity shard should be:Definitely feeling some SoBe vibes here, the OP SoBe, not the current SoBe. Let's just assume I used a mono gravy deck. I pay 3 :gravity to instantly gain 3 :gravity back, three towers for next turn, AND it thins my deck by 3 cards. So this is now like three free precognitions packed into one card.
(http://i.imgur.com/KTTO4.png)(http://i.imgur.com/n79ry.png)
It has a similar feel to Shard of Serendipity and Shard of Bravery, is usable in any mono or bow and may be the best thing to happen to duo/trio.
Post by: Dhanzig on October 12, 2012, 02:58:36 am
Seems my last post offended some of you :o Here's a more constructive idea about what a gravity shard should be:Definitely feeling some SoBe vibes here, the OP SoBe, not the current SoBe. Let's just assume I used a mono gravy deck. I pay 3 :gravity to instantly gain 3 :gravity back, three towers for next turn, AND it thins my deck by 3 cards. So this is now like three free precognitions packed into one card.
(http://i.imgur.com/KTTO4.png)(http://i.imgur.com/n79ry.png)
It has a similar feel to Shard of Serendipity and Shard of Bravery, is usable in any mono or bow and may be the best thing to happen to duo/trio.
As opposed by ... say ... 3 free deflags and a bonus BH?
How about 1 and 2 if mark ... or up the cost? I have no choice but to look outside the focus box because SoFo is stupid as it is right now. NO other shard is as useful because NO other shard does even 1/3 of what sofo does.
At the very least ... this idea helps EVERY deck out while not hosing every opposing deck! ;)
Post by: ZephyrPhantom on October 12, 2012, 03:16:55 am
Quote
Definitely feeling some SoBe vibes here, the OP SoBe, not the current SoBe. Let's just assume I used a mono gravy deck. I pay 3 :gravity to instantly gain 3 :gravity back, three towers for next turn, AND it thins my deck by 3 cards. So this is now like three free precognitions packed into one card.
Quote
As opposed by ... say ... 3 free deflags and a bonus BH?I guess you could make the argument that this version of SoFo is 3-in-1 as opposed to 4-in-1, but said argument is negated pretty quickly by the fact it still has way too good card advantage -and- is now a speed booster that steps into SoBe's niche in pillar/pend-based decks. (And thematically, why does Gravity deserve instant quanta acceleration?)
Quote
How about 1 and 2 if mark ... or up the cost? I have no choice but to look outside the focus box because SoFo is stupid as it is right now. NO other shard is as useful because NO other shard does even 1/3 of what sofo does.I'd argue SoSe, SoBe, and SoSac are also pretty versatile for what they do, except their effects happen to be more digestible/balanced out. (Worth noting SoSe and SoBe can also become 3-in-1 cards if used correctly, but do not play the 'three cards' they give for free as opposed to SoFo.)
Quote
At the very least ... this idea helps EVERY deck out while not hosing every opposing deck! ;)IMHO, you overshot that goal a bit, because now every rush-based player would include SoFo not for the PC but for the rush acceleration - I can picture an especially annoying Nova/QT bow based on using these to get out pillars (which in turn fixes the main weakness of Novabows, spread out quantum management because you have a much better chance to deploy your pillars rather than wait for the 4-6 QTs you've packed in your deck). It seems SoFo would not only remain overused with this change but would also bump up the power of rushbows again.
My thoughts : how much discussion has there been on a nerf that replaces Destroy with Delay? I remember having an idea (slightly retooled below) along the lines of:
5 :rainbow | 3 :rainbow
0 | 1
3 :rainbow : Pressure : Delay target permanent for 1 turn and gain +0 | +5. Turns into a Black Hole if HP>15.
Post by: Dhanzig on October 12, 2012, 11:10:15 am
Post by: choongmyoung on October 12, 2012, 11:38:16 am
These are all awesome arguments ... so why wasn't anyone arguing against the sofo we have now? The first time I saw I knew it was stupid broken! But it was already in the game at that point ... and furthermore ... why doesn't every other shard produce the card it's element's nymph is based on? SoFo needs to LOSE that part.Totttttaly agreed.
/
Actually SoSe also "forces" to make the specific element's card. But SoSe is more reasonable anyway.
Post by: ddevans96 on October 12, 2012, 03:08:01 pm
These are all awesome arguments ... so why wasn't anyone arguing against the sofo we have now?
What.
Post by: OldTrees on October 12, 2012, 05:12:03 pm
These are all awesome arguments ... so why wasn't anyone arguing against the sofo we have now?This entire thread is arguing against the existing SoFo.
Post by: OdinVanguard on October 12, 2012, 08:50:09 pm
Maybe something like this would be a feasible counter:Before I begin, let me define how I am using the word 'counter'. I mean counter to mean something like "Purify counters Deadly Poison, because Purify nullifies the 4 deadly poisons you put onto the field, giving you both quanta and card advantage". Not something such as "Liquid Shadow counters Ray of Light, because it kills the creature and only heals them for 1". Because you invested more into your 'counter' than they did their RoLThat's a really good point! But with this insight, do you have any suggestions for what to do about it?
The problem with Shard of Focus isn't what it does, it is how effectively it does this job and just how hard it is to stop from doing this job. It is also the fact that it is almost literally impossible to come out on the worse end of a turn 1-2 SoFo play.
Unlike what you may think, SoFo does not have the job of selective permanent destruction. SoFo is in the business of immense card advantage. Similar to SoSe, but a lot more powerful. Thinking about this in terms of card advantage, a first turn SoFo has almost literally no way of being taken out cost effectively. All the CCs in the world also take up a card to vanquish the shard, so you have to fall to repeatable card destruction or nerfing, like Owls Eye, or Mind Flayer. However, these take time to get onto the field, and if you go second, and your opponent goes first and gets a SoFo out, you have literally no cost effective way to deal with it.
I point this out because there is almost no way for SoFo to not at least break even. And if allowed any say in the matter it will balloon up to 3 explosions + Gravity pull target / Black Hole. There are literally NO first turn counters, because all of the 'first turn counters' required you to spend a card to stop it, and probably more quanta after considering SoFo is :rainbow costed.
What SoFo needs is a counter, something that actually can stop it on the first turn that it is played while maintaining card advantage. The whole prospect of having 4 cards in 1 (explosion x3 + black hole) is a separate issue, but I feel like the bigger issue is the sheer inability to be countered effectively. Especially early game.
(aka, the vast majority of the cards on that list are not counters to SoFo, merely ways to stop it from snowballing out of control. Breaking even should not be considered a counter.)
(http://i.imgur.com/DtIkX.png)
So a first turn SoFo could be countered by this.
The enemy pays 7 / 6 :rainbow
You spend 3 / 1 :rainbow and 2 HP
No card advantage on either side (both players have the card they used put at bottom of their deck). You spend less quanta but lose a nominal amount of health... which is negligible early on.
The issue is though, is it possible to introduce a card that:
1) Stops SoFo with an equal or lower "cost" investment (cost theory would help here)
2) Is useable early game (low cost)
3) Broadly available. I.e. since SoFo itself can be placed in any deck, a viable counter would need to be likewise viable.
4) Will not itself be imbalanced
If the above 4 can be met, then one viable solution is to propose a new card(s) to fill a CC / counter niche.
If the above criteria can not be met,
(e.g. any card would either be imbalanced / OP itself, too narrowly available to counter SoFo's broad usage, to expensive to help cope with SoFo's first round combos, or requires a greater "cost" investment than SoFo)
Then the only solution is a major nerf to SoFo.
Post by: kimham8a on October 13, 2012, 01:23:50 am
Post by: Dhanzig on October 13, 2012, 08:15:33 am
(http://i.imgur.com/x7sag.png)(http://i.imgur.com/yxeB4.png)
Of COURSE ... he flies.
Meh ... I'm beating SoFo now ....
I can't believe this sat here all weekend with NO comments o.O
Post by: kimham8a on October 15, 2012, 01:32:40 am
Post by: Cheesy111 on October 15, 2012, 02:47:35 am
Was there anything wrong with the ''blackhole both players'' (except gravity quanta) idea?
It's unnecessarily clunky and punitive while failing to answer the real problems with sofo.
Post by: Vangelios on October 15, 2012, 03:41:02 am
(http://i.imgur.com/AZCpG.png) | (http://i.imgur.com/ejNn8.png) | |
|
Post by: choongmyoung on October 15, 2012, 04:05:58 am
Well, this is my last suggestion to resolve the balance of this card,That's too week nerf.
Shard of Focus
Post by: furballdn on October 15, 2012, 04:25:26 am
Post by: choongmyoung on October 15, 2012, 04:52:17 am
(http://i.imgur.com/tAQgC.png)Maybe then, +0|+15 would be better?
I like that.
Post by: furballdn on October 15, 2012, 05:00:15 am
I worry that fractal+this is still viable though.
Or we can go the whole other side of the spectrum. Accretion: Gain +0/+30. Disappears if hp>30. If mark is gravity, disappears if hp>60
Post by: pulli23 on October 15, 2012, 08:24:56 am
Post by: choongmyoung on October 15, 2012, 08:34:42 am
also for the upgraded card now rage potion + this becomes an even "better" combo.
Or we can go the whole other side of the spectrum. Accretion: Gain +0/+30. Disappears if hp>30. If mark is gravity, disappears if hp>60Chrome is good browser, every letter smaller than 8pt is seen as 8pt.
Post by: Little Lord on October 17, 2012, 04:26:50 pm
You can still play the black hole but it hurts most decks that just pack them with novae to slow you down since they are slowed too.
Also, some of the combos (rage potion) become unviable, while the gravity combos (gravity pull, overdrive) still work.
Post by: kimham8a on November 06, 2012, 02:39:23 am
Post by: Cheesy111 on November 06, 2012, 02:41:49 am
I think zanz has already fixed the main problem: first turn nova then Sofo. It seems AI skips the first Accretion it can do with Sofo now.
That problem cannot be fixed by AI alterations.
Post by: OldTrees on November 06, 2012, 02:42:19 am
I think zanz has already fixed the main problem: first turn nova then Sofo. It seems AI skips the first Accretion it can do with Sofo now.Do more testing please. The AI has a random chance to use each valid ability. (The chance is based on the cost and the automatically targeted card's variables)
That said, it is extremely hard to fix a PvP problem by changing the PvE AI.
Post by: kimham8a on November 06, 2012, 02:48:02 am
I think zanz has already fixed the main problem: first turn nova then Sofo. It seems AI skips the first Accretion it can do with Sofo now.
That problem cannot be fixed by AI alterations.
Lol I was editing my post to reflect this and then I read this. Anyway, so of course, you're right. But my point is I think zanz did something about it.
Can someone confirm this nerf actually happened?
edit: OMG people are replying fast.
@OldTrees
I think I had hourglasses, a sundial, and a thorn carapace out while he had one sofo that had been out for one turn already and then for that turn just played one more sofo and didn't use ability (and I think each sofo also rested 2 turns, but I wasn't paying attention for that). But yeah I'll keep my eyes open for it next time I play. (probably tomorrow)
Post by: sunyata on November 07, 2012, 02:38:55 am
New idea for a nerf: SoF stays as is but on activation (every activation of accretion) it costs you all quanta but gravity (like SoSa does).Like it :-) One of the best nerf suggestions I've seen yet.
You can still play the black hole but it hurts most decks that just pack them with novae to slow you down since they are slowed too.
Also, some of the combos (rage potion) become unviable, while the gravity combos (gravity pull, overdrive) still work.
Post by: furballdn on November 07, 2012, 02:45:26 am
SoSa's design is not as good since instead of having an elemental benefit, it has elemental penalty instead. Shards should benefit their specific element, not penalize every element besides theirs.New idea for a nerf: SoF stays as is but on activation (every activation of accretion) it costs you all quanta but gravity (like SoSa does).Like it :-) One of the best nerf suggestions I've seen yet.
You can still play the black hole but it hurts most decks that just pack them with novae to slow you down since they are slowed too.
Also, some of the combos (rage potion) become unviable, while the gravity combos (gravity pull, overdrive) still work.
Post by: kimham8a on November 07, 2012, 02:50:39 am
Also it doesn't solve the first turn nova sofo combo issue at all.SoSa's design is not as good since instead of having an elemental benefit, it has elemental penalty instead. Shards should benefit their specific element, not penalize every element besides theirs.New idea for a nerf: SoF stays as is but on activation (every activation of accretion) it costs you all quanta but gravity (like SoSa does).Like it :-) One of the best nerf suggestions I've seen yet.
You can still play the black hole but it hurts most decks that just pack them with novae to slow you down since they are slowed too.
Also, some of the combos (rage potion) become unviable, while the gravity combos (gravity pull, overdrive) still work.
By the way, I played a few more games against platinum today and I saw the same AI for the Sofos; after playing the Sofo they cannot use Accretion for two turns, rather than one.
Post by: Tirear on November 07, 2012, 03:13:34 pm
By the way, I played a few more games against platinum today and I saw the same AI for the Sofos; after playing the Sofo they cannot use Accretion for two turns, rather than one.I tested in the trainer, and the AI destroyed all three of my permanents with its four SoF played in the previous turn. I can only conclude that you were using low value permanents and the AI decided to save its uses of accretion for a bigger threat (and then got tired of waiting next turn).
Post by: sunyata on November 07, 2012, 05:16:22 pm
I can confirm. AI continues to use SoF next turn when it wants to.By the way, I played a few more games against platinum today and I saw the same AI for the Sofos; after playing the Sofo they cannot use Accretion for two turns, rather than one.I tested in the trainer, and the AI destroyed all three of my permanents with its four SoF played in the previous turn. I can only conclude that you were using low value permanents and the AI decided to save its uses of accretion for a bigger threat (and then got tired of waiting next turn).
N.B. how AI uses SoF is irrelevant to card balancing which should be based on cards abilities in a real player's hand. This thread is large enough without going off topic to discuss AI issues, which should be in a separate thread elsewhere.
Post by: Little Lord on November 07, 2012, 05:18:23 pm
SoSa's design is not as good since instead of having an elemental benefit, it has elemental penalty instead. Shards should benefit their specific element, not penalize every element besides theirs.New idea for a nerf: SoF stays as is but on activation (every activation of accretion) it costs you all quanta but gravity (like SoSa does).Like it :-) One of the best nerf suggestions I've seen yet.
You can still play the black hole but it hurts most decks that just pack them with novae to slow you down since they are slowed too.
Also, some of the combos (rage potion) become unviable, while the gravity combos (gravity pull, overdrive) still work.
Designwise, i agree with you but since SoSa (the 2nd most OP card in my opinion) does it already...
/offtopic
SoSa should cost more (permanent!) life if you dont have a deathmark, which would also nerf its synergy with Shard of Divinty+light mark
/offtopic
With SoFo we have not only PC for every element, it even REPLACED the PC that we had before.
Monofire / immolation decks no longer use explosions because SoFo is BETTER.
In my opinion it needs to be nerfed AT LEAST to the point where it becomes worse (yes, worse, not equal to) in its use than an explosion in a fire deck or a rainbow.
My nerf would do that.
Post by: OldTrees on November 07, 2012, 05:27:24 pm
With SoFo we have not only PC for every element, it even REPLACED the PC that we had before.What is your reason for why an Other card should be worse than an elemental card in a rainbow? (Being worse in an elemental deck is obviously good design)
Monofire / immolation decks no longer use explosions because SoFo is BETTER.
In my opinion it needs to be nerfed AT LEAST to the point where it becomes worse (yes, worse, not equal to) in its use than an explosion in a fire deck or a rainbow.
Post by: Pepitoss on November 07, 2012, 05:29:04 pm
Post by: Little Lord on November 07, 2012, 05:31:23 pm
With SoFo we have not only PC for every element, it even REPLACED the PC that we had before.What is your reason for why an Other card should be worse than an elemental card in a rainbow? (Being worse in an elemental deck is obviously good design)
Monofire / immolation decks no longer use explosions because SoFo is BETTER.
In my opinion it needs to be nerfed AT LEAST to the point where it becomes worse (yes, worse, not equal to) in its use than an explosion in a fire deck or a rainbow.
As always, you are right :-). Scratch that bit. Argument still stands though.
(being: should be worse than explosion somehow)
Removing all quanta would actually take away its supposed "other" = rainbow synergies.
But to me, "other" does NOT mean rainbow, just "anyone can play it".
You wouldnt put a sword or a tower shield in your rainbow when you can have, say, vampire dagger and permafrost.
You shouldnt put a SoFo in your rainbow when you can have explosion (which should be the better choice but isnt).
Shards should be a way to get a specific element`s traits, even if you dont play that element.
Want healing, but dont like life? Get a Shard of Gratitude. It will work, but not as good as in its natural environment (lifemark).
Sadly, most of the newer shards turned their back on that rule.
It would make way more sense to me if the "PC-Shard" was the fireshard, and the shard of bravery was the timeshard.
(draw cards = time trait, but your opponent draws too, so its worse than hourglass)
By making the shards "new and exciting", they lost their original theme.
Post by: meowww on November 07, 2012, 06:22:08 pm
Though when it come to the point which even a mono player DO think SoF might be the better idea over their own PC card, that become petty obvious...With SoFo we have not only PC for every element, it even REPLACED the PC that we had before.What is your reason for why an Other card should be worse than an elemental card in a rainbow? (Being worse in an elemental deck is obviously good design)
Monofire / immolation decks no longer use explosions because SoFo is BETTER.
In my opinion it needs to be nerfed AT LEAST to the point where it becomes worse (yes, worse, not equal to) in its use than an explosion in a fire deck or a rainbow.
At least it should make Fire players think stick to explosion is a obvious better idea over SoF.
Not to mention explosion itself is a popular card, before SoFo came out.
Post by: OldTrees on November 07, 2012, 09:27:19 pm
I will refer you to the orange. I am glad you agree.Though when it come to the point which even a mono player DO think SoF might be the better idea over their own PC card, that become petty obvious...With SoFo we have not only PC for every element, it even REPLACED the PC that we had before.What is your reason for why an Other card should be worse than an elemental card in a rainbow? (Being worse in an elemental deck is obviously good design)
Monofire / immolation decks no longer use explosions because SoFo is BETTER.
In my opinion it needs to be nerfed AT LEAST to the point where it becomes worse (yes, worse, not equal to) in its use than an explosion in a fire deck or a rainbow.
At least it should make Fire players think stick to explosion is a obvious better idea over SoF.
Not to mention explosion itself is a popular card, before SoFo came out.
Post by: choongmyoung on November 07, 2012, 10:15:11 pm
Though when it come to the point which even a mono player DO think SoF might be the better idea over their own PC card, that become petty obvious...With SoFo we have not only PC for every element, it even REPLACED the PC that we had before.What is your reason for why an Other card should be worse than an elemental card in a rainbow? (Being worse in an elemental deck is obviously good design)
Monofire / immolation decks no longer use explosions because SoFo is BETTER.
In my opinion it needs to be nerfed AT LEAST to the point where it becomes worse (yes, worse, not equal to) in its use than an explosion in a fire deck or a rainbow.
At least it should make Fire players think stick to explosion is a obvious better idea over SoF.
Not to mention explosion itself is a popular card, before SoFo came out.
Actually Immo provides 11 non-fire quanta, so using other-element cards in Immo :fire mono seems pretty obvious, especially when it is costly.
I think we should consider that non-Immo :fire mono.
Post by: kimham8a on November 07, 2012, 11:58:55 pm
Yeah, I played more today, and got the same result as you guys today. Strange, I know that when I played the first time I had a thorn carapace out.I can confirm. AI continues to use SoF next turn when it wants to.By the way, I played a few more games against platinum today and I saw the same AI for the Sofos; after playing the Sofo they cannot use Accretion for two turns, rather than one.I tested in the trainer, and the AI destroyed all three of my permanents with its four SoF played in the previous turn. I can only conclude that you were using low value permanents and the AI decided to save its uses of accretion for a bigger threat (and then got tired of waiting next turn).
N.B. how AI uses SoF is irrelevant to card balancing which should be based on cards abilities in a real player's hand. This thread is large enough without going off topic to discuss AI issues, which should be in a separate thread elsewhere.
Post by: andretimpa on December 06, 2012, 10:19:20 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/Z5mXO.png)
Post by: DarkBaron12390 on December 07, 2012, 01:43:22 pm
Post by: TheAccuso on December 07, 2012, 01:50:42 pm
I played ten straight arena matches, all of which use this broken ass card. I'm quitting elements. Learn to balance your damn game ffs.Bye ungrateful free game player.
Post by: choongmyoung on December 07, 2012, 01:55:25 pm
I played ten straight arena matches, all of which use this broken ass card. I'm quitting elements. Learn to balance your damn game ffs.^
unfortunately, he is partially right. :P
Post by: TheAccuso on December 07, 2012, 02:03:12 pm
Is the whole game unbalanced and unplayable because of a single card?I played ten straight arena matches, all of which use this broken ass card. I'm quitting elements. Learn to balance your damn game ffs.^
unfortunately, he is partially right. :P
Did one have to complain that much on a free game that is given to you for free instead of try to find solutions via polls and suggestions like all the members do?
Post by: Cunning_Wish on December 07, 2012, 02:12:11 pm
my idea: add an extra ability for SoF: IF you have 2 or more SoF, drain 3 quanta per element from YOU.
like supernova's change,do not have many SoF and do not Only have SoF.
Post by: cometbah on December 07, 2012, 10:41:47 pm
1) SoFo no longer gains HP from the activation of its ability, but by actually destroying something (like Otyughs and Scarabs).
2) SoFo gains HP equal to 5 times the cost of the destroyed permanent. Exceptions: Bone Wall counts as 1-cost, Pillars & Pendulums count as 8-cost.
Post by: choongmyoung on December 07, 2012, 10:58:36 pm
Is the whole game unbalanced and unplayable because of a single card?I played ten straight arena matches, all of which use this broken ass card. I'm quitting elements. Learn to balance your damn game ffs.^
unfortunately, he is partially right. :P
Did one have to complain that much on a free game that is given to you for free instead of try to find solutions via polls and suggestions like all the members do?
Post by: TheAccuso on December 08, 2012, 04:39:39 pm
unfortunately, he is partially right. :PIndeed he is partially right, but i think that is important to give more emphasis to the "...Then all the game is unbalanced;screw the developer of this game, learn to do this..."(wich surely isn't true and show how poor of mind and negative is this guy) then highlight a thing that as much we can say it is logical grammatically correct, surely doesn't bring anything new, good, positive to the game, that's the job of a good member, not discuss on technicalities just to be in the absolute right.
e all the members do?
Post by: kimham8a on December 11, 2012, 04:05:16 am
I'm thinking mono :aether with protected dims, or mono :gravity (since :gravity doesnt need important perms to have a good deck).
Post by: rob77dp on December 11, 2012, 04:28:06 am
Post by: TheAccuso on December 11, 2012, 02:51:22 pm
Anyone have a deck idea that HARD counters sofo rainbows that are almost always first these days? I mean, if we know what opponent we're facing, that should help.Light Earth with sanctcs/ miracles,PA and stone skin.
I'm thinking mono :aether with protected dims, or mono :gravity (since :gravity doesnt need important perms to have a good deck).
Post by: DarkBaron12390 on December 11, 2012, 03:26:46 pm
unfortunately, he is partially right. :PIndeed he is partially right, but i think that is important to give more emphasis to the "...Then all the game is unbalanced;screw the developer of this game, learn to do this..."(wich surely isn't true and show how poor of mind and negative is this guy) then highlight a thing that as much we can say it is logical grammatically correct, surely doesn't bring anything new, good, positive to the game, that's the job of a good member, not discuss on technicalities just to be in the absolute right.
e all the members do?
In all your self righteousness, you forget that I've been trying to give feedback for this card for over half a year, to a dead developer. The "free game" argument is poor--that doesn't change the fact that the card is broken and destroys balance. Just because a game is free does not mean it is immune to the rigor of balance. That's what we call a strawman, and it is logically bankrupt.
Only a fool thinks in absolutes, and judges a character on one statement. The Arena is possible the most important aspect of this game right now for single player use, and it is on this aspect I am saying it is unbalanced. If your most prized aspect of a game is unbalanced, the game is unbalanced. There is nothing to argue here against that. The only argument you can logically make against this is that SoF is NOT unbalanced (saying it's fine for PvP doesn't excuse its imbalance on the single player scale, fyi). The fact of the matter is that it is unbalanced, and the developer made an unbalanced card with very pisspoor testing, and then took a buckshot to the face or something and died, leaving an unbalanced game. That's why I'm quitting. Now go along and judge more without all the information at your disposal on a character.
Post by: TheAccuso on December 11, 2012, 03:51:04 pm
Some order:unfortunately, he is partially right. :PIndeed he is partially right, but i think that is important to give more emphasis to the "...Then all the game is unbalanced;screw the developer of this game, learn to do this..."(wich surely isn't true and show how poor of mind and negative is this guy) then highlight a thing that as much we can say it is logical grammatically correct, surely doesn't bring anything new, good, positive to the game, that's the job of a good member, not discuss on technicalities just to be in the absolute right.
e all the members do?
In all your self righteousness, you forget that I've been trying to give feedback for this card for over half a year, to a dead developer. The "free game" argument is poor--that doesn't change the fact that the card is broken and destroys balance. Just because a game is free does not mean it is immune to the rigor of balance. That's what we call a strawman, and it is logically bankrupt.
Only a fool thinks in absolutes, and judges a character on one statement. The Arena is possible the most important aspect of this game right now for single player use, and it is on this aspect I am saying it is unbalanced. If your most prized aspect of a game is unbalanced, the game is unbalanced. There is nothing to argue here against that. The only argument you can logically make against this is that SoF is NOT unbalanced (saying it's fine for PvP doesn't excuse its imbalance on the single player scale, fyi). The fact of the matter is that it is unbalanced, and the developer made an unbalanced card with very pisspoor testing, and then took a buckshot to the face or something and died, leaving an unbalanced game. That's why I'm quitting. Now go along and judge more without all the information at your disposal on a character.
"...to a dead developer"+"...judge more without all the information at your disposal on a character".
Zanazarino created a free game with a little money return due to commercials and donations, wich you (player) don't have to pay.
He worked his ass off to create this and that's why he presents it as a fairly strong part of his career portfolio, he is the only 1 developer.
From time to time he go to the forum, boring his ass of reading all the crappy gripes from the users like you, but with patience accumulates all the meaningful info.
When finally he found some time from WORK to dedicate to this PROJECT he start to work ON HIS OWN to a new patch for FREE PLAYERS.
Some people are here since 2010 and they are extremely passionate to the game, probably more than you; but guess what...they don't whine for no reason.Get a grip.
Post by: meowww on December 11, 2012, 11:28:08 pm
Is it possible to raise some money to make a more frequent patch worth his time?
I know there are donation, but what if we raise it specificity for patch?
Post by: kimham8a on December 12, 2012, 03:25:53 am
Anything permanent-less is good vs SPAM'd SoFo. OR packing lots of quick/easy hard CC (get the SoFo cleaned up when it is still 0/1).Tried pillarless splat and failed (rainbows have purifies :( )
Tried crema rush and got rushed and cc'ed.
Spamming CC on sofo didnt work either... Costed me more to play CC than for AI to play Sofo. Otyughs worked semiwell though (still always got rushed in the end though).
My light earth builds are aren't working, they are getting rushed superfast... Did you have any specific decklist you were thinking of?Anyone have a deck idea that HARD counters sofo rainbows that are almost always first these days? I mean, if we know what opponent we're facing, that should help.Light Earth with sanctcs/ miracles,PA and stone skin.
I'm thinking mono :aether with protected dims, or mono :gravity (since :gravity doesnt need important perms to have a good deck).
Post by: kimham8a on December 12, 2012, 03:36:05 am
Leaving aside all the heat of this discussion, when the AI can have 2x draw, it sort of makes every card OP, although it capitalizes on Sofo. Maybe it's just meant to be a real challenge. I mean, there is still no opponent or deck we elements players can't beat without tremendous luck (except 1st in plat that still has 160+ hp, but then there are huge rewards)unfortunately, he is partially right. :PIndeed he is partially right, but i think that is important to give more emphasis to the "...Then all the game is unbalanced;screw the developer of this game, learn to do this..."(wich surely isn't true and show how poor of mind and negative is this guy) then highlight a thing that as much we can say it is logical grammatically correct, surely doesn't bring anything new, good, positive to the game, that's the job of a good member, not discuss on technicalities just to be in the absolute right.
e all the members do?
In all your self righteousness, you forget that I've been trying to give feedback for this card for over half a year, to a dead developer. The "free game" argument is poor--that doesn't change the fact that the card is broken and destroys balance. Just because a game is free does not mean it is immune to the rigor of balance. That's what we call a strawman, and it is logically bankrupt.
Only a fool thinks in absolutes, and judges a character on one statement. The Arena is possible the most important aspect of this game right now for single player use, and it is on this aspect I am saying it is unbalanced. If your most prized aspect of a game is unbalanced, the game is unbalanced. There is nothing to argue here against that. The only argument you can logically make against this is that SoF is NOT unbalanced (saying it's fine for PvP doesn't excuse its imbalance on the single player scale, fyi). The fact of the matter is that it is unbalanced, and the developer made an unbalanced card with very pisspoor testing, and then took a buckshot to the face or something and died, leaving an unbalanced game. That's why I'm quitting. Now go along and judge more without all the information at your disposal on a character.
Post by: meowww on December 12, 2012, 09:11:31 pm
Yes arena are OP as hell, hence the handsome reward, If you want fair games, go for AI3, that is the standard reward for standard difficulty.
Before Arena there are FGs, they are harder than gold, though now gold arena give better reward than FG.
I assume Pt is harder then FG for now, but their reward are even more handsome.
Post by: Blaze on December 14, 2012, 09:57:32 pm
I think the card is fine, and well balanced. It has counters, yes it's strong but permanents aren't required to win.
Post by: neuroleptics on December 30, 2012, 07:10:05 pm
Post by: xsindomanx on May 06, 2013, 01:35:32 am
Despite the nerf in the last update, I found it quite surprising that nobody found the SoF not overpowered.
It's quite an all-in-one card with possible:
Permanent control (free). Of course, only up to three permanents per SoF.
But cards with similar effects generally cost at least 6 quarta:
- Explosion (2 :fire per)
- Steal (3 :darkness per)
- Pulvy effect (2 :gravity per)
Damage control when used with gravity pull, with 15 health per turn (free). A targetable permanent is required, but the great majority of decks use pillars / pendulums.
Cards with similar effects generally cost at least 1 quarta per turn:
- Heavy armor (1 :earth) x 2
- Basilisk blood (1 :earth) but with 6 turn freeze
Quarta control. Via free PC and getting an additional black hole allows very good quarta control / denial. The black hole is indeed put into the owner's hand instead of getting casted automatically, but both 'drawing an additional card' and 'getting additional cards not included in deck' are both fairly expansive effects / cards by themselves.
It's quite common to add an SoF or two in a rainbow deck, or to use them in a gravity mono / duo (when I often just quit).
However, SoF has a great weakness that it starts with just 1 hp, making it prone to all kinds of CC (although it becomes quite indestructible after that first turn). Therefore, I don't think a cost increase makes sense. However, some other nerfs I thought of:
- Increased cost of ability, possibly of another element so as not to limit it to gravity mono decks.
- Card stats changed to 1|1, making it prone to additional CC (fireshield)
- Decreased hp gain per permanent destroyed AND/OR decreased maximum health before being destroyed.
- A shard 'pillar' or 'holder' that is a permanent that appears with each SoF, and the SoF is destroyed with no black hole created if the holder is destroyed.
Post by: Aneninen on May 06, 2013, 09:25:39 am
Since Shards are In-Element now, it's unnecessary to associate it with :gravity by the Black Hole anyway. (In other words: now, if you have quanta for the Shard itself, most probably you'll have quanta for the Black Hole too which means, Black Hole won't be a dead card anymore if you have no :gravity.)
In all other aspects, the card is fine.
Post by: omegareaper7 on May 06, 2013, 01:51:10 pm
Remove the turns into a Black Hole part, in my opinion.3 permanents for one card is fine? Explosion weeps.
Since Shards are In-Element now, it's unnecessary to associate it with :gravity by the Black Hole anyway. (In other words: now, if you have quanta for the Shard itself, most probably you'll have quanta for the Black Hole too which means, Black Hole won't be a dead card anymore if you have no :gravity.)
In all other aspects, the card is fine.
Post by: OldTrees on May 06, 2013, 02:26:46 pm
3 permanents for one card is fine? Explosion weeps.Your incomplete argument sounds like you are unaware that cards also cost quanta and turns. Please don't forget to mention why you are ignoring the 2 other costs.
Post by: omegareaper7 on May 06, 2013, 05:44:35 pm
3 card slots and 6 cost for upped deflag, but only 1 slot and four quanta for focus. (More potential uses and defense if used along with gravity pull, but this can be ignored for now) I ask, how is it balanced, even without black hole, in regards to explosion?3 permanents for one card is fine? Explosion weeps.Your incomplete argument sounds like you are unaware that cards also cost quanta and turns. Please don't forget to mention why you are ignoring the 2 other costs.
Post by: OldTrees on May 06, 2013, 05:57:09 pm
One thing to consider is it just got a large nerf so some are satisfied, some are patient and some are testing.
Post by: Calindu on May 06, 2013, 06:08:56 pm
3 permanents for one card is fine? Explosion weeps.Your incomplete argument sounds like you are unaware that cards also cost quanta and turns. Please don't forget to mention why you are ignoring the 2 other costs.
What is that incomplete? If you would be to play the game more, you would see that SoFo is quite overused and OP.
One bad part at SoFo is that it can do too many things in the same time, it can attack(Rage Potion, Acceleration), it can act as PC(obvious), it can act as denial(the BH after you use it) and can act as a form of defense(combined with GPull).
The other bad part is that it blows out of the water any other form of PC, in effectiveness.
Let's take the case when SoFo is not used with anything else and try to get other forms of used PC at the same level, with the mention that SoFo is weak in the first turn and requires a turn to get active.
Deflagration: You need 3 of those to get to SoFo power, so 9 :fire quanta and 3 card slots.
Steal: You need 3 of those to get to SoFo power, so 12 :darkness quanta and 3 card slots, instead you get 3 permanents too.
Pulverizer: You need it and then 3 uses of Pulvy to get it to SoFo power, so 4 :earth quanta, 9 :gravity quanta and 1 turn slot, but it's weak in all the turns and requires a turn to get active, also needing a duo to work.
Post by: OldTrees on May 06, 2013, 09:24:51 pm
Read the post I was replying to. Then read the expanded argument in his/her next post. Someone as smart as you should be able to find out what was being talked about.What is that incomplete?3 permanents for one card is fine? Explosion weeps.Your incomplete argument sounds like you are unaware that cards also cost quanta and turns. Please don't forget to mention why you are ignoring the 2 other costs.
In the meantime don't put words in people's mouths.
Post by: BunKeR on May 06, 2013, 09:42:51 pm
Thanks. I think the extra time it takes to resolve and the fragility do make up some of the difference but I would like a small nerf still.
One thing to consider is it just got a large nerf so some are satisfied, some are patient and some are testing.
I was heavily in favor of adding an activation cost to SoFo of 1 :gravity to use each time . Would that nerf be considered small or large ? Also , I'm still testing the new SoFo but my gut feeling is that its a lot more balanced but there is a little more work to be done .
Post by: OldTrees on May 06, 2013, 09:43:53 pm
Increasing the activation cost by 1 :gravity would be a small nerf.
Post by: BunKeR on May 06, 2013, 09:45:19 pm
@Bunker
Increasing the activation cost by 1 :gravity would be a small nerf.
Of the options in the OP , the only other one that looks good is "Card stats changed to 1|1, making it prone to additional CC (fireshield)"
Edit : The other thing is maybe fixing the +15 boost so that if you cancel the activation it doesn't get the boost ?
Post by: xsindomanx on May 06, 2013, 10:05:33 pm
Edit : The other thing is maybe fixing the +15 boost so that if you cancel the activation it doesn't get the boost ?
Didn't know this happened. Wouldn't this be a bug?
Post by: BunKeR on May 06, 2013, 10:06:27 pm
Edit : The other thing is maybe fixing the +15 boost so that if you cancel the activation it doesn't get the boost ?
Didn't know this happened. Wouldn't this be a bug?
I dont think it is a bug . It boosts when you activate , if you cancel the boost is still there .
Post by: xsindomanx on May 06, 2013, 10:16:09 pm
Really?
SoF's effect is "Destroy a permanent and gain +0/+15. If it doesn't destroy a permanent, it shouldn't have health gain, just like how an Oty's effect is "swallow a smaller creature and gain +1/+1", and it doesn't gain +1/+1 even if skill is activated then canceled.
Seems that it's programmed in an incorrect order in that: click SoF (to activate ability) -> Health gain -> Click permanent to destroy it -> done
Instead of: click SoF (to activate ability) -> Click permanent to destroy it -> Health gain -> done
Post by: BunKeR on May 06, 2013, 10:20:36 pm
EDIT : the above is my assumption I didn't program anything . :D
card text =/= card functionality , unfortunately there isnt room on cards for a complete explanation .
Still , I feel like a small nerf is in order , but not a big one . Which brings to question the necessity of the nerf in the 1st place .
Post by: Tirear on May 06, 2013, 10:29:14 pm
(http://elementscommunity.org/images/Cards/EliteOtyugh.png)(http://elementscommunity.org/images/Cards/ShardOfFocusUpgraded.png)
Really?
SoF's effect is "Destroy a permanent and gain +0/+15. If it doesn't destroy a permanent, it shouldn't have health gain, just like how an Oty's effect is "swallow a smaller creature and gain +1/+1", and it doesn't gain +1/+1 even if skill is activated then canceled.
Seems that it's programmed in an incorrect order in that: click SoF (to activate ability) -> Health gain -> Click permanent to destroy it -> done
Instead of: click SoF (to activate ability) -> Click permanent to destroy it -> Health gain -> done
The problem is a difference in philosophy. SoFo's health gain ends up destroying it, putting a soft limit on the number of uses. This makes it a cost, and skill costs are always payed even if the player cancels the skill. Otyugh's stat gain is designed to be pure benefit, so it is a reward, not a cost.
Changing how SoF to work like Otyugh might be a good idea, since mistakes are probably very rare, making this only come up when players want the shard to gain health. But there is precedent to suggest that it was a design feature, not a bug.
Post by: xsindomanx on May 06, 2013, 11:31:53 pm
If the opponent has no targetable permanents (SoF click & cancel being intentional):
- If SoF health is below 30, the 15 hp gain can be used to avoid destruction and control damage
- If SoF health is equal to or above 30, player gets a black hole despite having destroyed no permanents
If the opponent has targetable permanents (SoF click & cancel being unintentional):
- If SoF health is below 30, the SoF loses one opportunity to destroy a permanent, but it can be used to avoid destruction and control damage, and there is still at least one opportunity to destroy a permanent
- If SoF health is equal to or above 30, player loses SoF for a black hole.
Post by: Vangelios on May 07, 2013, 12:16:09 am
In arena or upgraded and FG he is strong? maybe but not OP.
I think he needs some alterations, for me it would be great as well:
(http://i.imgur.com/smHwqUV.png) (http://i.imgur.com/as70oOM.png)
Post by: xsindomanx on May 07, 2013, 01:04:02 am
Against FG, I think a good deck using SoF just hasn't been made yet, due to very good farmers with Sosa and SoP in existence. The famous FG grinder CCYB utilized ~two pulvys, which had the same :rainbow cost as SoF, with 2 additional cost to use ability. Certainly a card with so many possible uses and abilities can be used to make a decent FG grinder :D
Post by: laxnut90 on May 07, 2013, 01:03:59 pm
My suggested change would be for Shard of Focus to come into play as a 0/45 with Gravity Pull and then lose 15 Health any time it destroys a permanent. This would allow the card to be destroyed or at least limited in number of uses by an all out attack of some kind.
Post by: xsindomanx on May 07, 2013, 05:27:43 pm
My suggested change would be for Shard of Focus to come into play as a 0/45 with Gravity Pull and then lose 15 Health any time it destroys a permanent. This would allow the card to be destroyed or at least limited in number of uses by an all out attack of some kind.
Sounds decent, but if the player decides to use SoF to solely control damage, 45 health for just 4 :gravity is quite cheap..
Post by: laxnut90 on May 09, 2013, 08:11:43 pm
My suggested change would be for Shard of Focus to come into play as a 0/45 with Gravity Pull and then lose 15 Health any time it destroys a permanent. This would allow the card to be destroyed or at least limited in number of uses by an all out attack of some kind.
Sounds decent, but if the player decides to use SoF to solely control damage, 45 health for just 4 :gravity is quite cheap..
That is true. Maybe it should have 30 health and lose 10 each time. That way, it would be a 1 :gravity cheaper Armagio that doesn't give you the choice of when to activate Gravity Pull.
Post by: legion_bre on May 11, 2013, 08:20:51 am
My suggested change would be for Shard of Focus to come into play as a 0/45 with Gravity Pull and then lose 15 Health any time it destroys a permanent. This would allow the card to be destroyed or at least limited in number of uses by an all out attack of some kind.
Sounds decent, but if the player decides to use SoF to solely control damage, 45 health for just 4 :gravity is quite cheap..
That is true. Maybe it should have 30 health and lose 10 each time. That way, it would be a 1 :gravity cheaper Armagio that doesn't give you the choice of when to activate Gravity Pull.
When I first read this I agreed with it, but now I think about it more - this would mean for all deck with creatures (which is most) the card would have 10hp and so 1 chance to damage permanents gone instantly. In most cases 20 damage could be done over the two turns (Played + first permanent destroyed) it takes to cast it a second time. This means it would most commonly be limited to 1 and if your lucky 2 uses. On the other hand - high damage decks would crush it in 1 turn.
Conversely - at least it would be a means of damage absorption even if its other functions were destroyed.
It really changes the whole use of the card. :gravity is set up for momentum style creatures that deal consistent damage through shields and creature control through otyugh. The soft creature control of the SoF is strong, but giving gravity decks the ability to absorb even more damage (with armagio) could make it OP.
6x Armagio = +150hp
6x SoF = +180hp
means a player has 430hp essentially. This is even more than the lengendary stone skin typically boosts :earth decks.
Consider if you had 2 saffire chargers (10dmg) and your opponent had a high damage output of 30dmg / turn. If you just played 1 of either Armagio or SoF each turn you would deal 100damg in 10 turns. They would deal 20-30 damage over the same time period.
Post by: mega plini on May 11, 2013, 12:14:57 pm
@Bunker
Increasing the activation cost by 1 :gravity would be a small nerf.
I think that ann activation cost in different element would be better. :fire would fit thematicaly but maybe another element? :gravity has allready a lot of synergie with :fire. choosing another element for the activation cost would increase the synergie with that element as well.
Post by: traceurling on May 11, 2013, 01:49:44 pm
-add activation cost of 1 :gravity because I favor small nerfs(except in major situations like the previous shard situation) of tweaking a little here and there to kinda refine a card
-Make stats 2|1, vulnerable to paradox
Post by: ssingeitus on May 11, 2013, 02:41:32 pm
The also think the idea of making the ability cost a different quanta(while its a good idea) is not right for this card.
I think it should stick to mono gravity.
Perhaps the card should cost (upgraded) 5 :gravity start with 1/1 and use 1 :gravity to play its ability and (unupgraded) cost 6 :gravity start with 1/1 and cost 2 :gravity to play its ability.
Reasons for this is the card is too cheap to play for that amount of PC, by increasing the cost by 1 and making the ability cost 1 this makes it take 2 turns and 6 :gravity to destroy one permanent.(upgraded)
For the unupgraded this will cost 8 :gravity for one permanent.
While initially this seems rather expensive but play this card as part of a combo ( e.g with gravity pull) or with more than one of the field I think this fairly reasonable.
Thoughts on this?
Post by: xsindomanx on May 17, 2013, 04:01:16 am
Whether it's a bug or an intentional addition, needs to be changed so that it's not so..
Post by: squelchy911 on May 29, 2013, 02:07:13 pm
Post by: Laxadarap on May 29, 2013, 09:38:41 pm
I think a well structured gold or plat gravity deck is VERY good and underrated because SoFo just donimate+ black holes and/or nymph for quanta controll coupled with accelerated armagio<--- maybe or flying titan(better) hit dmg very fast. I think alot of gravity cards should be nullified.
Gold and plat are supposed to be unfair, it is a bad idea to take them into account when concerning balance. Also, lol at not mentioning the actually unbalanced cards in gravity (except for sofo).
Post by: xsindomanx on May 29, 2013, 11:25:05 pm
However, if used properly, SoFo is with no doubt OP.
Post by: PoLdeR on July 12, 2013, 09:04:26 pm
Post by: Sinolai on October 18, 2013, 10:19:18 am
3 Destroys with one card is not that bad but since you can use this card for so much more it is a bit too strong. I'd also like to add 1 :gravity or 2 :gravity activation cost, or maybee reduce the number of permanents destroyed to 2. (Make it gain 25hp/Destroy and turn into a black hole when hp>50)
Post by: Tsmuji on October 18, 2013, 04:29:06 pm
(Make it gain 25hp/Destroy and turn into a black hole when hp>50)
Gaining 25HP per accretion would synergise far too well with GPull, I personally think 2 activations before it turns into a black hole would be balanced but it'd have to be at >30HP.
Post by: Zergva on October 19, 2013, 03:17:08 pm
You pay:
4|6 :gravity
1 card
1 turn (after the 2. turn, it's nearly unstoppable)
You'll get:
A lot of quanta advantage
3 card advantage
One additional card
Lot of synergy
If you lose:
3-4 quanta disadvantage
It's not too balanced in my sight.
Some balancing idea:
-Making BH if it's destroyed (Accretion effect excluded). It's actually seems a buff, but it's only good for compensate the lost card (and if there's 7 card on the opp. hand, there's no advantage). There could be some thematics in it. Or triggering BH, so you can count with that (but lose the 3-4 quanta cost of playing the BH)
-Reduce the destroyed cards to 2.
With these, SoF wouldn't give you too much advantage, but the risk will be minimal. It'll be still a very good card (and usable in Plat).
Post by: Generation_G34 on November 02, 2013, 07:48:40 am
They would now need a total of 12 - 14 :gravity to use both the black hole and use the card.
You could even add a skill cost to it of 1-2 making it even more pricey to use it. making it a total of 15+ to use the full ability.
That would balance the PROs and CONs of using a SoF
Post by: Lech on November 05, 2013, 07:23:33 pm
:gravity : Destroy a permanent to gain 5hp. Like: If it have more than 15 hp, destroy it and get black hole.
This way, it still act as it work now unanswered, but you can actually kill it with some cc, and it's not that good with acceleration and pull.
And don't forget to remove that stupid bug when you gain hp even if it's cancelled.
Post by: Keolino on November 11, 2013, 06:59:39 am
And don't forget to remove that stupid bug when you gain hp even if it's cancelled.
--> That's not a bug, by the way. With any activated targeting ability (of a card on the field), once you click the card, you have to pay the ability cost and can't activate the card this turn again. Even if you cancel the ability, you have already paid the cost for it and won't get it back. (With SoF, the ability cost is the gain of HP) So it is not a bug, but intended.
Post by: CuCN on November 11, 2013, 07:45:52 am
And don't forget to remove that stupid bug when you gain hp even if it's cancelled.
--> That's not a bug, by the way. With any activated targeting ability (of a card on the field), once you click the card, you have to pay the ability cost and can't activate the card this turn again. Even if you cancel the ability, you have already paid the cost for it and won't get it back. (With SoF, the ability cost is the gain of HP) So it is not a bug, but intended.
IMO the HP gain should be changed to be part of the benefit (so it would be undone if cancelled) instead of the cost.
Post by: iancudorinmarian on November 11, 2013, 04:07:22 pm
"Destroy target permanent and get +0/+15. After 3 uses, SoFo gets gravity pull and is lobotomised."
Post by: Dimpl on November 13, 2013, 07:16:58 am
Post by: Lech on November 15, 2013, 09:34:44 pm
And don't forget to remove that stupid bug when you gain hp even if it's cancelled.
--> That's not a bug, by the way. With any activated targeting ability (of a card on the field), once you click the card, you have to pay the ability cost and can't activate the card this turn again. Even if you cancel the ability, you have already paid the cost for it and won't get it back. (With SoF, the ability cost is the gain of HP) So it is not a bug, but intended.
How so ? Outygh have same wording, yet it don't get +1/+1 if you cancel. In pvp and pve, getting free +0/+15 when canceling (for gravity pull for example) is pure benefit.
It surely wasn't intended this way (ok, for me gravity is crazy op [disclaimer: op as strong, not as op] with all their tricks, even without sofo).
Post by: CuCN on November 15, 2013, 10:11:43 pm
Post by: Tsmuji on November 15, 2013, 10:28:20 pm
Post by: Lech on November 16, 2013, 08:40:51 am
An Otyugh doesn't self-destruct if its stats are higher than 3|8. The +15 HP limits the number of times the skill can be used.
You don't misplay shard of focus, do you ? If you don't want to use it, just don't. If enemy have no targetable perms, you should be forced to destroy your own to get +15hp, otherwise it's plain unfair and stupid.
Post by: CuCN on November 16, 2013, 09:40:47 am
I agree with you that the +15HP should be changed to only happen on a successful skill use, I was just noting why it was coded as part of the cost.An Otyugh doesn't self-destruct if its stats are higher than 3|8. The +15 HP limits the number of times the skill can be used.
You don't misplay shard of focus, do you ? If you don't want to use it, just don't. If enemy have no targetable perms, you should be forced to destroy your own to get +15hp, otherwise it's plain unfair and stupid.
Post by: Savage on December 15, 2013, 01:43:23 am
An Otyugh doesn't self-destruct if its stats are higher than 3|8. The +15 HP limits the number of times the skill can be used.
You don't misplay shard of focus, do you ? If you don't want to use it, just don't. If enemy have no targetable perms, you should be forced to destroy your own to get +15hp, otherwise it's plain unfair and stupid.
Zanz would also have to change abilities of cards on field...say you accidentally click an effect and then don't want to use it...you lose the quantum which is the tough part.
Back on topic: the shard should have an element requirement to use its effect. Cards that are big hit and miss (it is one hp, so it could die on your opponents next turn, but if it stays on, it becomes OP) need nerfed to where the game is more reasonable. Those super good effects should be left to luck (mutations on monsters) and one play cards (like destroy) rather than having a monster card that can have it, in this case SoF, so you can have it multiple times.