Post by: Cheesy111 on June 20, 2012, 12:49:18 pm
(http://elementscommunity.org/images/Cards/Upgrade.png)
The problem is that this single card acts as a stallbreaker in and of itself. Add to that the fact that the strongest stalling elements (:aether :light :time :entropy) have no PC except for BE (not really usable in an entropy stall that would usually pack Pandemonium) and its extremely cheap cost and you have a single card that, when added to any creature deck, takes out a large swath of opposing decks. It's also very powerful when combined with Burrow, and SoP's interaction with Shrieker is a significant cause (though by no means the major cause) of the overpoweredness of the SoP + SoFo + Purify grabbow. I would rather that the card be redesigned so that it doesn't act as such a powerful stallbreaker. By the by, it also slightly nerfs delaying and freezing CC by allowing some benefit to come from those creatures being unable to attack anyways, and it buffs Sundial for the same reason.
Post by: rosutosefi on June 20, 2012, 12:53:45 pm
Post by: Higurashi on June 20, 2012, 12:55:12 pm
Post by: rosutosefi on June 20, 2012, 01:08:52 pm
Soap isn't the problem. Lack of in-element PC is.
Still, nightfall. All elements just got a better nightfall.
Post by: supertoxicwaste on June 20, 2012, 01:47:18 pm
Post by: rickerd on June 20, 2012, 02:09:00 pm
cos otherwise, if this card wouldn't exist, people would go complain about stalling cards being too strong
Not sure about if each element needs PC, now elements have their positives and negatives
And if all elements need to have PC, they all should need CC too, and they all should need healing too.....
And I quess then this game would be quite boring :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :(
Post by: furballdn on June 20, 2012, 06:12:35 pm
Post by: dragonsdemesne on June 20, 2012, 09:44:23 pm
Admittedly, certain deck archetypes are going to lose to shard of patience. Shard of sacrifice based decks like poison dial are in big trouble, because you can just hold back on attacking until you can hit them hard enough all at once that they can no longer play SoSa, and then they just die the next turn. You can do the same against Miracles, feral bonds, and that sort of thing, just build up damage until they can't deal with it anymore. (assuming they haven't killed you in the meantime in all those cases and don't have an answer to shard of patience)
If this card were to be nerfed, here are some possibilities on how to do it:
-have a time limit to how long this card can be on the field, 3 turns or whatever
-have a number of charges on this card, like 10 or 20, and once it has buffed creatures that many times, it is destroyed
-have it be infinite turns duration (until you sac it or it's destroyed) but have it give +1/-1 instead of +1/+0, thus giving it an indirect time limit as to how long it can be in play (or require angels, creature buffs, or whatever to keep your creatures going longer) This would still keep the card strong for water. It would also indirectly help gravity, since their creatures could survive almost indefinitely as well
-have it not apply to burrowed/immaterial creatures. this has some precedence already, because things like sky blitz don't work on burrowed/immaterial creatures, because area spells like firestorm or pandemonium (or sky blitz) are considered to 'target' creatures in the code (even though this is counterintuitive, it is how it works in elements)
Post by: rosutosefi on June 20, 2012, 11:31:18 pm
I really don't see why you think this is overpowered. It gains 1 attack per turn but gets delayed, that's worse than the poisonous ability. If it gains 2 attack per turn and gets delayed, that's worse than ablaze/growth since it gets delayed a turn. You can very likely outrush SoP decks.You're giving ablaze to a shrieker or growth to a physalia, no upkeep, using a 1-cost card. That's silly.
Still, I don't see any "This does not overshadow Nightfall" comment.
And you're ignoring Cheesy's point:
It's a single card that you can add to ANY creature deck to instantly make it beat stalls.
Post by: furballdn on June 21, 2012, 12:06:16 am
I'd need to keep my shrieker delayed for 1 turn, I now need at least 8-9 turns to catch up on damage done. If I delay it for 2 turns, I need 10 turns to catch up on damage. As a card by itself, SoP is actually quite weak.I really don't see why you think this is overpowered. It gains 1 attack per turn but gets delayed, that's worse than the poisonous ability. If it gains 2 attack per turn and gets delayed, that's worse than ablaze/growth since it gets delayed a turn. You can very likely outrush SoP decks.You're giving ablaze to a shrieker or growth to a physalia, no upkeep, using a 1-cost card. That's silly.
Still, I don't see any "This does not overshadow Nightfall" comment.
And you're ignoring Cheesy's point:
It's a single card that you can add to ANY creature deck to instantly make it beat stalls.
The only advantage it has is that, like you said, beats stalls, but I doubt ANY creature deck would have this. The only decks that would really have this are either stalls themselves or breaks meant to break through stalls. I highly doubt you'll see a shrieker rush packing these just because it wants to defeat stalls.
Post by: Laxadarap on June 21, 2012, 12:15:04 am
I really don't see why you think this is overpowered. It gains 1 attack per turn but gets delayed, that's worse than the poisonous ability. If it gains 2 attack per turn and gets delayed, that's worse than ablaze/growth since it gets delayed a turn. You can very likely outrush SoP decks.You're giving ablaze to a shrieker or growth to a physalia, no upkeep, using a 1-cost card. That's silly.
Still, I don't see any "This does not overshadow Nightfall" comment.
And you're ignoring Cheesy's point:
It's a single card that you can add to ANY creature deck to instantly make it beat stalls.
Ok lets compare a lava destroyer to a shreiker with "growth", assuming you have an earth mark for the golem (basically makes it free) Golem obviously outdoes it. Shreiker + SOP is 9 quanta, 9 quanta with a golem would be 4 growths. Shriekers max damage in 4 turns is actually less if you include SoP, and destroyer ties it at that point. SoP actually works better with smaller creatures, its better for massive amounts of cards, like comboing with fractal or mitosis, which also takes a lot of quanta. Ok so take photons, they are free attackers. Fractal nets about 6 or 7 cards on average, so lets say you have 8 rol on the field. That is 9 quanta (same as the shrieker). Take 4 turns again, The lava golem is at 40 damage, while RoL's max damage is 48. Not counting the fact that mass CC will destroy it, the golem will have a nice healthy 11 HP its not really that overpowered. Take an upped eclipse and hyppothetically say that RoL's were darkness type. For only an extra 3 quanta, These 8 Rol's will do 8X3X4=96 damage. Twice as much. 3 quanta is definietly worth 48 damage. SoP is only really worth it compared to growh in special occasions, like chrysoras. It isn't fully effective unless its being used on really low attack creatures.
Post by: rosutosefi on June 21, 2012, 12:28:30 am
The only advantage it has is that, like you said, beats stalls, but I doubt ANY creature deck would have this. The only decks that would really have this are either stalls themselves or breaks meant to break through stalls. I highly doubt you'll see a shrieker rush packing these just because it wants to defeat stalls.
In the BL metagame, yes, I use it. I think cheesy uses it. It's strong enough to beat stalls.
Ok lets compare a lava destroyer to a shreiker with "growth", assuming you have an earth mark for the golem (basically makes it free) Golem obviously outdoes it. Shreiker + SOP is 9 quanta, 9 quanta with a golem would be 4 growths. Shriekers max damage in 4 turns is actually less if you include SoP, and destroyer ties it at that point. SoP actually works better with smaller creatures, its better for massive amounts of cards, like comboing with fractal or mitosis, which also takes a lot of quanta. Ok so take photons, they are free attackers. Fractal nets about 6 or 7 cards on average, so lets say you have 8 rol on the field. That is 9 quanta (same as the shrieker). Take 4 turns again, The lava golem is at 40 damage, while RoL's max damage is 48. Not counting the fact that mass CC will destroy it, the golem will have a nice healthy 11 HP its not really that overpowered. Take an upped eclipse and hyppothetically say that RoL's were darkness type. For only an extra 3 quanta, These 8 Rol's will do 8X3X4=96 damage. Twice as much. 3 quanta is definietly worth 48 damage. SoP is only really worth it compared to growh in special occasions, like chrysoras. It isn't fully effective unless its being used on really low attack creatures.
Of course you don't use it when you don't need to. But if the opponent does any stalling, whether it's dims or sundials or freeze or SoSac or BBlood, it gains its power. This does not mean it's useless if you're not facing those, too. Low attack creatures? Vampires, dolls, devourers, parasites and even nymphs. Darkness is one of the elements that has the most low-attack creatures.
Post by: Laxadarap on June 21, 2012, 12:52:03 am
The only advantage it has is that, like you said, beats stalls, but I doubt ANY creature deck would have this. The only decks that would really have this are either stalls themselves or breaks meant to break through stalls. I highly doubt you'll see a shrieker rush packing these just because it wants to defeat stalls.
In the BL metagame, yes, I use it. I think cheesy uses it. It's strong enough to beat stalls.Ok lets compare a lava destroyer to a shreiker with "growth", assuming you have an earth mark for the golem (basically makes it free) Golem obviously outdoes it. Shreiker + SOP is 9 quanta, 9 quanta with a golem would be 4 growths. Shriekers max damage in 4 turns is actually less if you include SoP, and destroyer ties it at that point. SoP actually works better with smaller creatures, its better for massive amounts of cards, like comboing with fractal or mitosis, which also takes a lot of quanta. Ok so take photons, they are free attackers. Fractal nets about 6 or 7 cards on average, so lets say you have 8 rol on the field. That is 9 quanta (same as the shrieker). Take 4 turns again, The lava golem is at 40 damage, while RoL's max damage is 48. Not counting the fact that mass CC will destroy it, the golem will have a nice healthy 11 HP its not really that overpowered. Take an upped eclipse and hyppothetically say that RoL's were darkness type. For only an extra 3 quanta, These 8 Rol's will do 8X3X4=96 damage. Twice as much. 3 quanta is definietly worth 48 damage. SoP is only really worth it compared to growh in special occasions, like chrysoras. It isn't fully effective unless its being used on really low attack creatures.
Of course you don't use it when you don't need to. But if the opponent does any stalling, whether it's dims or sundials or freeze or SoSac or BBlood, it gains its power. This does not mean it's useless if you're not facing those, too. Low attack creatures? Vampires, dolls, devourers, parasites and even nymphs. Darkness is one of the elements that has the most low-attack creatures.
So SoP is essentially only good against stalls. Lots of stalls have CC, what about Rain of Fire and Pandemonium. Also, SoP only beats it if is a decker. Take traditional monoaether, it can stall long enough with dims to win the game. OTK's don't let damage through until the end. Firestalls have CC, and a win condition. As long as you can block damage for long enough to win, SoP has no effect. Maybe chimera + SoP, but thats a combo itself.
Post by: Xamuel on June 21, 2012, 02:29:50 am
Stalls (in my book) come in several flavors: dim shields w/immortal creatures; fire decks with over 9000 CC/PC cards; poison spammers with sundials/shards of sacrifice; and pandemonium pansies. None of these are particularly beat by SoP unless I'm missing something terribly significant. I guess there are deckout decks (though I hardly ever see them), but a deckout deck had better have some way of surviving anyway, it's not like decks without SoP just sit around doing nothing and wishing for patience
Post by: furballdn on June 21, 2012, 02:31:31 am
Post by: rosutosefi on June 21, 2012, 04:49:53 am
I think he's referring to deckout stalls that rely on lots of healing and cards. Normal stalls should be no problem as long as they have some offense. It's not like that these shards suddenly make your shrieker rush hard counter a mono aether shield chain.
It did.
EDIT: at least for antabow.
Post by: furballdn on June 21, 2012, 05:30:13 am
I"m still very skeptical. Antagonbow already has some counters to mono aether, such as momentum and deflag. I doubt the SoP are what win you games and make any stall you go up against instalose.I think he's referring to deckout stalls that rely on lots of healing and cards. Normal stalls should be no problem as long as they have some offense. It's not like that these shards suddenly make your shrieker rush hard counter a mono aether shield chain.
It did.
EDIT: at least for antabow.
Post by: Cheesy111 on June 21, 2012, 05:49:43 am
I"m still very skeptical. Antagonbow already has some counters to mono aether, such as momentum and deflag. I doubt the SoP are what win you games and make any stall you go up against instalose.I think he's referring to deckout stalls that rely on lots of healing and cards. Normal stalls should be no problem as long as they have some offense. It's not like that these shards suddenly make your shrieker rush hard counter a mono aether shield chain.
It did.
EDIT: at least for antabow.
Point of clarification: Mono-Aether is not a stall. SoP does, however, aid in the battle against mono-aether by buffing up your creatures until you draw some PC.
Post by: Annele on June 21, 2012, 07:05:25 am
- There needs to be more in-element PC.
- The only thing needed to be done to SoP is to increase the cost by one or two.
Post by: Cheesy111 on June 21, 2012, 07:09:23 am
I believe two things:There wasn't an option for this, so I picked the "other" option.
- There needs to be more in-element PC.
- The only thing needed to be done to SoP is to increase the cost by one or two.
Cost increases in Other cards hardly matter until they get to insane levels (something like 10+) because of the ease of generating Other quanta compared to the ease of generating elemental quanta.
Post by: rosutosefi on June 21, 2012, 12:05:56 pm
What's the problem with SoFo? The neutral cost. Personally, I think that the shards' costs don't matter that much, it's just that smaller costs are usable in mono decks and cards with larger costs fit well into a rainbow. As a consequence, you cannot balance a shard by increasing it's neutral cost, because this will only make people use it with novas and rainbows, which is silly. Shards should be paid with a low cost, enough to give it a "cost" and still become good in monos. The main problem here is that SoFo does too much as a shard: it's effects mean that it should have a very high cost, but this cannot be done because increasing the cost will only make it favor rainbows and become unusable in mono-gravity decks. This should be the same with the other shards.
TL;DR: We cannot make a powerful shard with a high cost. SoFo completely disobeys this.
I would like to post this in every shard thread in existence.
Post by: Higurashi on June 21, 2012, 01:12:29 pm
"The problem is that this single card acts as a stallbreaker in and of itself." This is, of course, false. Just like Fractal, which breaks stalls a lot better due to not being vulnerable to either CC or PC (but is vulnerable to QC), it requires good enough creatures. Too low HP and you -should- pay for it, unless your opponent is a dunce.
So the only argument left that bothers me is how it interacts with Burrow. I agree that's a powerful mechanic, solely because of how good SoFo Grabbows and other speedbows are. I wouldn't mind if it changed, even though Nova remains the fundamental problem at hand.
In the end, this card isn't close to OP, but I know you mostly started this topic on principle because you want to balance all cards, one at a time. My response to that was that it'd take way too long. Zanz adds new cards to change the meta instead for a reason. In this case we need more PC, but that was already true before SoP anyway. That explains my vote, of course (add more PC).
Post by: esran on June 21, 2012, 07:51:11 pm
Post by: Laxadarap on June 21, 2012, 07:53:31 pm
i have yet to see a sop+burrow deck thats any good, so i am nto worried about that.
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,36261.msg479693.html#msg479693
Not the best, but definitely not bad. Still, SoP isn't OP.
Post by: Cheesy111 on June 21, 2012, 08:36:41 pm
So far I've yet to see a presented problem; only explanations why SoP is even usable in the first place.
"The problem is that this single card acts as a stallbreaker in and of itself." This is, of course, false. Just like Fractal, which breaks stalls a lot better due to not being vulnerable to either CC or PC (but is vulnerable to QC), it requires good enough creatures. Too low HP and you -should- pay for it, unless your opponent is a dunce.
So the only argument left that bothers me is how it interacts with Burrow. I agree that's a powerful mechanic, solely because of how good SoFo Grabbows and other speedbows are. I wouldn't mind if it changed, even though Nova remains the fundamental problem at hand.
In the end, this card isn't close to OP, but I know you mostly started this topic on principle because you want to balance all cards, one at a time. My response to that was that it'd take way too long. Zanz adds new cards to change the meta instead for a reason. In this case we need more PC, but that was already true before SoP anyway. That explains my vote, of course (add more PC).
I would rather face Fractal with any of my stalls than SoP, because Fractal decks still rely on doing damage through creatures that attack with reasonable attack power, which is what stalls primarily defend against. Sundial, Sanctuary, SoG, SoSac, Miracle, Stone Skin - all of these powerful stalling tools rely on having a chance to work, while a SoP user can simply OTK you no matter how much HP you have. Fractal isn't vulnerable to single-target CC or PC, but it is defensible. You can heal through a barrage of earth dragons with sosac, stall them with sundials, use Stone Skin to keep your maximum HP high and Miracle when you're getting low, use Procrastination to delay them to give you time to heal up. You can't do any of that with a SoP on a field of burrowed Shriekers waiting to pop up and OTK you. SoP, in a single card, destroys healing-based stalls. And that is far too powerful for a single card in my opinion.
Post by: Higurashi on June 21, 2012, 08:42:10 pm
SoP still doesn't destroy anything as a single card. You need creatures.
From what I can tell, you have three issues with it: it can OTK stalls, it counters CC/PC-less stalls (much like Fractal), and it works on Shriekers. tbh, CC/PC-less stalls deserve to lose, and having counters to them isn't a bad thing.
Post by: Ilias22 on August 11, 2012, 07:21:27 am
Post by: rosutosefi on August 16, 2012, 12:07:22 pm
I have already stated why this needs a nerf, because this card is already comparable to Nightfall even in use outside water. It definitely is strong when placed in water decks, and even if you will say that water decks need this card to be competitive, you can easily say that most of the decks power will most likely come from this. If you will not nerf an overpowered card because it is balanced enough in the decks it is applicable on, then you are only stopping the necessary buffs for the cards that go along with this. Keeping this strong to make water decks balanced will only hinder possible development for the cards as these will only serve as a "quick fix" and will then forse all water decks with creatures to use this. The same can be said for Shard of Wisdom and Shard of Freedom. Now I must ask: Why in the world would it need a buff?
Higs, you do need creatures, but aren't these cards necessary for a rush? What bothers me is that it can turn a rush into a stallbraker, and because it is applicable in many decks, this effectively thins out the meta to Rush-Stallbreakers, Domins and poor Stalls. This is in addition to the obvious advantage it has over Nightfall/Eclipse.
We already have good counters to CC/PC-less Stalls, but we don't want every rush and all their neighbors, friends and mothers countering these stalls.
CC/PC-less stalls deserve to loseI do not understand this. I expect better reasoning.
I don't want to post Magic Potato again.
Post by: Cheesy111 on August 16, 2012, 12:13:01 pm
I have not visited this thread for a long time, but here goes:
I have already stated why this needs a nerf, because this card is already comparable to Nightfall even in use outside water. It definitely is strong when placed in water decks, and even if you will say that water decks need this card to be competitive, you can easily say that most of the decks power will most likely come from this. If you will not nerf an overpowered card because it is balanced enough in the decks it is applicable on, then you are only stopping the necessary buffs for the cards that go along with this. Keeping this strong to make water decks balanced will only hinder possible development for the cards as these will only serve as a "quick fix" and will then forse all water decks with creatures to use this. The same can be said for Shard of Wisdom and Shard of Freedom. Now I must ask: Why in the world would it need a buff?
Higs, you do need creatures, but aren't these cards necessary for a rush? What bothers me is that it can turn a rush into a stallbraker, and because it is applicable in many decks, this effectively thins out the meta to Rush-Stallbreakers, Domins and poor Stalls. This is in addition to the obvious advantage it has over Nightfall/Eclipse.
We already have good counters to CC/PC-less Stalls, but we don't want every rush and all their neighbors, friends and mothers countering these stalls.CC/PC-less stalls deserve to loseI do not understand this. I expect better reasoning.
I don't want to post Magic Potato again.
Also please note that SoP is a comparable if not better stallbreaker than Fractal, and yet it doesn't require the immense support structure (aether quanta) that Fractal does.
Post by: justaburd on August 16, 2012, 12:14:15 pm
CC/PC-less stalls deserve to loseI do not understand this. I expect better reasoning.
Can you post a good stall deck that has no cc or pc? I'm including shields in here because shields offer damage reduction and, in some cases, cc (fire, thorn, procrastination)
SoP requires way too many turns to break a stall compared to fractal. CC and PC, as stated before, crush SoP decks except when it works on untargettable creatures. If you'd like, perhaps you'd consider arguing nerfing SoP to not affect untargettable creatures instead.I have not visited this thread for a long time, but here goes:
I have already stated why this needs a nerf, because this card is already comparable to Nightfall even in use outside water. It definitely is strong when placed in water decks, and even if you will say that water decks need this card to be competitive, you can easily say that most of the decks power will most likely come from this. If you will not nerf an overpowered card because it is balanced enough in the decks it is applicable on, then you are only stopping the necessary buffs for the cards that go along with this. Keeping this strong to make water decks balanced will only hinder possible development for the cards as these will only serve as a "quick fix" and will then forse all water decks with creatures to use this. The same can be said for Shard of Wisdom and Shard of Freedom. Now I must ask: Why in the world would it need a buff?
Higs, you do need creatures, but aren't these cards necessary for a rush? What bothers me is that it can turn a rush into a stallbraker, and because it is applicable in many decks, this effectively thins out the meta to Rush-Stallbreakers, Domins and poor Stalls. This is in addition to the obvious advantage it has over Nightfall/Eclipse.
We already have good counters to CC/PC-less Stalls, but we don't want every rush and all their neighbors, friends and mothers countering these stalls.CC/PC-less stalls deserve to loseI do not understand this. I expect better reasoning.
I don't want to post Magic Potato again.
Also please note that SoP is a comparable if not better stallbreaker than Fractal, and yet it doesn't require the immense support structure (aether quanta) that Fractal does.
Post by: Little Lord on January 24, 2013, 07:52:52 am
After the recent buff it acts not only as a stallbreaker, there are an alarming lot of decks using it with damselflys, ball lightnings and the likes doing exceptionally well.
I recommend to reinstate the former version, no buff was needed for this card.
Post by: Chapuz on January 24, 2013, 01:26:31 pm
Post by: whatifidogetcaught? on January 24, 2013, 01:50:16 pm
Post by: Absol on January 24, 2013, 02:33:28 pm
And no, before you say Flooding, it's too situational and is a specific card bonus, not in-element. Refer to old SoP for in-element bonus example.
Post by: RavingRabbid on January 26, 2013, 11:48:09 pm
Maybe it's just me, but this card doesn't have in-element bonus.Flooding is an in-element malus.
And no, before you say Flooding, it's too situational and is a specific card bonus, not in-element. Refer to old SoP for in-element bonus example.
Post by: Little Lord on January 27, 2013, 03:51:22 pm
+2/+0 to all
+2/+2 to water creatures
+5/+5 if flooded (very hard to pull off, not OP in my book)
(probably not gonna happen after phase salvager though)
Post by: skyironsword on May 04, 2013, 12:48:55 pm
Post by: timetock on May 04, 2013, 04:00:49 pm
not to mention triple plague and gravity shield
Post by: omegareaper7 on May 04, 2013, 04:03:08 pm
My suggestion was to make the lifegain only apply to water creatures again, it would make ball lightnings, damselflys etc. CC-able, so it would look like this:That was what it was before, and it was not very good at all, bordering on useless for many many decks that currently see use.
+2/+0 to all
+2/+2 to water creatures
+5/+5 if flooded (very hard to pull off, not OP in my book)
(probably not gonna happen after phase salvager though)
Its fine as is. If your going to make a nerf thread, please present a valid reason.
Post by: Cheesy111 on May 04, 2013, 04:59:20 pm
1. What can try to outstall mono-aether without PC? Nothing. Except maybe another mono-aether.
2. This card is easily a game breaker, but it creates more fun situations than destroys.
3. It doesn't mess with the metagame, because there are faster rushes out there.
1. Please please please tell me this is a joke or something.
2. Creating fun situations while breaking game balance is bad, not good.
3. Are you arguing that having faster rushes in a metagame is the determining factor in game balance..? I honestly don't understand the argument here. SoP is not even a rush card, so why would it be compared to rushes?
Post by: Marsu on May 04, 2013, 07:16:06 pm
In unupped meta, it's not op though. I encountered it once in over one hundred unlimited BL games.
Post by: Cheesy111 on May 04, 2013, 08:08:12 pm
The design could probably be better, as it indeed effectively doesn't have an in-element Bonus.
In unupped meta, it's not op though. I encountered it once in over one hundred unlimited BL games.
While low amount of play may be a result of underpoweredness, it is not proof or cause for a claim.
Post by: Marsu on May 04, 2013, 08:12:59 pm
Post by: skyironsword on May 05, 2013, 12:28:53 pm
Post by: Cheesy111 on May 05, 2013, 05:41:41 pm
Yes, of course it's no proof. There is still a strong correlation between how op a card is and how often it is played in a serious, unlimited environment.
There can be. But you claimed that it was not OP in the unupped meta because you encountered it rarely. If there is no other proof for it, it is an unsubstantiated claim.
Post by: Marsu on May 05, 2013, 05:51:09 pm
There can be.
No. There is a correlation. When I say 'There is a correlation between being overweight and dying early' and you show me a person that is fat and 100 years old, the correlation still exists. In the same way, my statement stays correct even if SoP was OP, but seldom used, simply because it is true for more than 50% of all cards that can be considered OP.
But you claimed that it was not OP in the unupped meta because you encountered it rarely.
That is also false.
Quote
In unupped meta, it's not op though. I encountered it once in over one hundred unlimited BL games.
That's what I said, which is totally different from 'not op, because I [...]'.
Post by: Cheesy111 on May 05, 2013, 06:43:26 pm
There can be.
No. There is a correlation. When I say 'There is a correlation between being overweight and dying early' and you show me a person that is fat and 100 years old, the correlation still exists. In the same way, my statement stays correct even if SoP was OP, but seldom used, simply because it is true for more than 50% of all cards that can be considered OP.But you claimed that it was not OP in the unupped meta because you encountered it rarely.
That is also false.QuoteIn unupped meta, it's not op though. I encountered it once in over one hundred unlimited BL games.
That's what I said, which is totally different from 'not op, because I [...]'.
Apologies for the confusion. I took your statement as meaning that there is a strong correlation for each card's power to the amount it is used, as that would be the interpretation that supports your other statement ("In the unupped meta...BL games").
I believed that the two were connected because otherwise the additional information would have been useless and unrelated to the topic.
Post by: Vangelios on May 05, 2013, 06:59:15 pm
Post by: Submachine on May 27, 2013, 09:53:32 pm
Deflags, steals, etc...
not to mention triple plague and gravity shield
The problem is that after you destroy it, some 7|7 creatures will attack you, or worse.
I say it should be:
+1|+1 for all,
+2|+2 for water,
+5|+5 flooded.
OR
+2|+0 for all,
+4|+0 for water,
+4|+4 flooded.
Post by: xsindomanx on May 27, 2013, 10:38:53 pm
Post by: eaglgenes101 on May 28, 2013, 02:17:26 am
You have to set up at least 3 creatures for that to be much of a threat, and you just threw 3 turns out of the window doing so.Deflags, steals, etc...
not to mention triple plague and gravity shield
The problem is that after you destroy it, some 7|7 creatures will attack you, or worse.
I say it should be:
+1|+1 for all,
+2|+2 for water,
+5|+5 flooded.
OR
+2|+0 for all,
+4|+0 for water,
+4|+4 flooded.
Post by: Keeps on May 28, 2013, 04:30:09 am
I seriously will never get this community when it comes to game mechanics.
Post by: timetock on May 28, 2013, 11:51:08 am
Seriously, people think Shard of Patience is over powered. This is seriously one of the first cards in its modified form and Shards of Bravery. That really have taken this game to the next level, we need 100 more cards at this power level not nerf this one.
I seriously will never get this community when it comes to game mechanics.
wait what?
articulate please.
Are you saying that we should make more cards on par with SoP and not nerf this card?
Easier said than done.
Post by: OldTrees on May 28, 2013, 05:26:42 pm
He wants cards to be more powerful per card. Think of it as desiring every card buffed.Seriously, people think Shard of Patience is over powered. This is seriously one of the first cards in its modified form and Shards of Bravery. That really have taken this game to the next level, we need 100 more cards at this power level not nerf this one.
I seriously will never get this community when it comes to game mechanics.
wait what?
articulate please.
Are you saying that we should make more cards on par with SoP and not nerf this card?
Easier said than done.
Post by: Keeps on May 30, 2013, 03:30:01 am
Post by: timetock on May 30, 2013, 01:45:36 pm
Post by: Plastica on July 10, 2013, 01:07:23 am
Post by: Allannon95 on December 05, 2014, 03:53:30 pm
Post by: Chapuz on December 05, 2014, 06:16:50 pm
in a rainbow swarm deck like a ffq or a aflatoxin it can be really devastating, specially with phase shield and enchant artifact on the SoP it can give like +56 damage x turn and 168 during the 3 turns of the phase shield, really game breaking imho but still need a specific combo to winIf it's game-breaking, try abusing it and post your deck ;)
Post by: Faro on December 05, 2014, 09:17:52 pm
in a rainbow swarm deck like a ffq or a aflatoxin it can be really devastating, specially with phase shield and enchant artifact on the SoP it can give like +56 damage x turn and 168 during the 3 turns of the phase shield, really game breaking imho but still need a specific combo to winIf it's game-breaking, try abusing it and post your deck ;)
Beat the Bug (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/rainbow-decks/beat-the-bug-%28fg%29%28plat%29/)
Post by: Sera on December 29, 2014, 03:53:15 am