Magic and Empire

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evolve Proposal

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Evolve Proposal

    EVOLVE PROPOSAL for everyone to be happy

    INTRODUCTION

    Since I can't sleep, I spent many hours thinking about this evo thing. I had some ideas, and finally came up with a whole new system. I tried to solve these problems :
    - dev say evolved spells are op for PVP ; i think that one of the problems is that evolve means currently both higher stats and extra ability, which is too much, yes.
    - some extra abilities are not always welcome (veil, guard, vast...)
    - being limited to 2 evolved of each spell in collection is really a strategy limitation for deck building

    Everything on this proposal is subject to discussion. I introduced some elements that are not directly related to evolve but this is to make the whole system consistent. I take the new announced evolve system into account : for 1 evolved spell, 6 common, 5 uncommon, 4 rare, 3 epic and 2 legendary/unique spells are required.

    LEGENDARY SHOULD BE UNIQUE IN EVERY WAY

    I read on forum the suggestion that for clarity, legendary should be named unique, and that would also mean only one unique spell per deck instead of two. I agree with that and it will have a consequence for the max number of the same spell you can have in your collection (library ?) before it gets mercilessly automatically disenchanted even if you want to keep it .

    CHOOSE YOUR EVOLUTION !

    Now we come to the core of my proposal. When a spell get evolved, player will choose what kind of evolution. There will always be 3 out of these 4 possibilities :
    - Strong (higher stats)
    - Skilled (new or improved ability)
    - Multirealm (get new realm)
    - Cheap (smaller mana cost)

    Player can choose only 1 of these possibilities. But as long as he doesn't have 2 of each possible evo (or 1 for unique spells) in collection, none of the cards shall be disenchanted ! This might not be the case for common spells though ; maybe just get gold on evo, or only the strong option, I dunno. Once the player has 2 of the same evo, he can't choose the same evo a third time.
    After evo, minion gets the adjective in front of its name : strong tartarus, multirealm circe, skilled golden knight, cheap trusted vizier... "cheap" and "multirealm" could maybe have nicer names
    Smaller mana cost should vary depending on original cost : 95 instead of 100 is meaningless, but 90 let you cast a 10-mana spell in same turn ; 55 instead of 50 is a huge buff, of course, much more than 45 to 40.

    WHY 3 OUT OF 4 ?

    For 2 reasons : first, it's easier to know (and to program) how many cards to keep in collection before putting them in the disenchant machine : that's max spells per deck * cards needed for 1 evo * number of possible evo (always 3 in that proposal). So for common that's 2*6*3=36, for uncommon that's 2*5*3=30, for rare 2*4*3=24, for epic 2*3*3=18, for unique 1*2*3=6. That way we can have a nice collection of unique, epic and rare before they get disenchanted
    Second reason : all 4 choices may not be meaningful for all spells, or even overpowered. Maybe only 2 are balanced, then propose a ridiculous one (like strong lady of the mist). I think the multirealm option should be carefully proposed.

    SOME EXAMPLES

    Congratulations ! You just evolved Tartarus ! What kind of evo ?
    - Strong (45/50)
    - Cheap (mana cost 70)
    - Multirealm (add Shadow realm)

    Congratulations ! You just evolved Spirit of the Hunt ! What kind of evo ?
    - Strong (41/53)
    - Cheap (mana cost 50)
    - Skilled (25% Frenzy)

    Congratulations ! You just evolved Jade Knight ! What kind of evo ?
    - Strong (26/65)
    - Multirealm (add nature realm)
    - Skilled (loses veil gains cloak)

    YOU GET THE IDEA ?

    I think also that maybe some spells would be interesting with one or another ability, like Lady of the Mist gaining Mystic or Cloak on evo. But well, that's all for now folks. Comments welcome
    Make Jade Knight green !

  • #2
    Interesting idea, but damn, that would be a pain to balance.

    Comment


    • #3
      Agree, this is an interesting idea. I would still limit the number of a given minion to 2 per deck regardless of evolution path so you can't have 6 of the same minion (2 of each evo path). Agreed on keeping enough copies out of Disenchant so you could build two of each evo path; you just wouldn't be able to equip them all in a single deck.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by adjacentengels View Post
        I would still limit the number of a given minion to 2 per deck regardless of evolution path.
        I agree with that. I should have mentionned it.

        Make Jade Knight green !

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by fredo46 View Post
          LEGENDARY SHOULD BE UNIQUE IN EVERY WAY

          I read on forum the suggestion that for clarity, legendary should be named unique, and that would also mean only one unique spell per deck instead of two. I agree with that and it will have a consequence for the max number of the same spell you can have in your collection (library ?) before it gets mercilessly automatically disenchanted even if you want to keep it .
          That is one of my griffon gripes that you are referring to & more importantly you are changing what I said. I specifically said only one of any PARTICULAR Unique card in a deck, NOT that there could only be one Unique in a deck. Just to be clear that means you could have a Circe, Great Wyrm & Cernunnos in a Nature Majus deck, but not 2 Circe. Sorry if I seem a bit harsh about this, but being misquoted (especially to say the opposite of what I did) is a pet peeve of mine, I have had some nasty thing happen because of this.

          The point was that there is no clear hierarchy between the words epic & legendary, but unique is more easily differentiated. Also it makes sense since a lot of the legendary cards refer to an individual instead of a class op people. Yes I know some epic do as well. The fact that it limits the number of power cards in a deck is a side effect (though not necessarily a bad one). Indeed I think a lot of decks are too Legendary heavy (or at least Cern & Tart heavy).

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by fredo46 View Post
            Since I can't sleep, I spent many hours thinking about this evo thing. I had some ideas, and finally came up with a whole new system. I tried to solve these problems :
            - dev say evolved spells are op for PVP ; i think that one of the problems is that evolve means currently both higher stats and extra ability, which is too much, yes.
            The majority of the increase in stats comes from increasing the level cap not from evolution process itself. That only adds a point or 2 which is usually exceeded by the level going up. The real problem is that often the additional ability is a strong one & makes a big difference in the card. That can be solved by making the change incremental increase instead of a dramatic one. Also build cards based on their final form & try not to make the earlier version useless. Sometimes the power increase is just because they were trying to fix a weak card. Much as I like using my Elusive Hob I have to admit going from nothing to speed (gain 1 attack every round) is a big increase. Just giving him regular speed would have been more appropriate (same for beast mistress).

            Originally posted by fredo46 View Post
            CHOOSE YOUR EVOLUTION !

            Now we come to the core of my proposal. When a spell get evolved, player will choose what kind of evolution. There will always be 3 out of these 4 possibilities :
            - Strong (higher stats)
            - Skilled (new or improved ability)
            - Multirealm (get new realm)
            - Cheap (smaller mana cost)

            Player can choose only 1 of these possibilities. But as long as he doesn't have 2 of each possible evo (or 1 for unique spells) in collection, none of the cards shall be disenchanted ! This might not be the case for common spells though ; maybe just get gold on evo, or only the strong option, I dunno. Once the player has 2 of the same evo, he can't choose the same evo a third time.
            After evo, minion gets the adjective in front of its name : strong tartarus, multirealm circe, skilled golden knight, cheap trusted vizier... "cheap" and "multirealm" could maybe have nicer names
            Smaller mana cost should vary depending on original cost : 95 instead of 100 is meaningless, but 90 let you cast a 10-mana spell in same turn ; 55 instead of 50 is a huge buff, of course, much more than 45 to 40.

            WHY 3 OUT OF 4 ?

            For 2 reasons : first, it's easier to know (and to program) how many cards to keep in collection before putting them in the disenchant machine : that's max spells per deck * cards needed for 1 evo * number of possible evo (always 3 in that proposal). So for common that's 2*6*3=36, for uncommon that's 2*5*3=30, for rare 2*4*3=24, for epic 2*3*3=18, for unique 1*2*3=6. That way we can have a nice collection of unique, epic and rare before they get disenchanted
            Second reason : all 4 choices may not be meaningful for all spells, or even overpowered. Maybe only 2 are balanced, then propose a ridiculous one (like strong lady of the mist). I think the multirealm option should be carefully proposed.
            Now I like the idea of being able to pick what you get on final evolution in general. As I already said the increase in level cap is the main source of increase in stats for most cards, so if making them Strong was an option it would have to be more dramatic than just a point or two. My original point in asking for the cards to get more realms was limited to the God cards specifically because with the effort it takes to get most of them they are underused (except Cerunnos/Tiamat). Giving them more realms would make them easier to put in decks so they would see some use. Doing that in general would risk introducing the problem that the realm reduction was meant to stop. I think it would be better to try it in a limited dose (gods) & then see if there are other places to try it (Demigods or Knights). Plus I know there is at least one developer where even doing this in a limited amount will be a hard sell.

            Still being able to pick between a moderate stat increase, decreased cost (where it doesn't break the game) & an improved/moderate skill would be nice. Kudos. You should be able to keep the different versions in your library, not just 2 (but not in a deck). I suspect the real problem lies with how much more difficult this will be to program than just a a standard set of effects when the card evolves. But I do feel it is important for the card to get something (even if it is just stats), so that there is a reason to bother evolving instead of it just being a sign you have silver to spare/status symbol.

            Also good idea to give examples, it made your point much clearer.

            Comment


            • #7
              - i totally agree with you about unique, we mean the same thing
              - unevo tart 35 pwr is a big difference with evo tart 45 pwr, not just 1 point or 2 but i see what you mean. But even then, 1 point or 2 (ok, 5), may make a difference for 1 shot kill.
              - agree that you should be able to keep the different versions in your library, i think i stated that in my proposal
              Make Jade Knight green !

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Griffon View Post
                Sorry if I seem a bit harsh about this, but being misquoted (especially to say the opposite of what I did) is a pet peeve of mine
                Just another perspective... I did not see him misquoting you at all; I read his post capturing your original message correctly. It might have been a little more clear if he had written, "I read on forum the suggestion that for clarity, legendary should be named unique, and that would also mean only one [of a given] unique spell per deck instead of two." But in the context of his post I understood him to mean exactly what you did.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by adjacentengels View Post
                  Just another perspective... I did not see him misquoting you at all; I read his post capturing your original message correctly. It might have been a little more clear if he had written, "I read on forum the suggestion that for clarity, legendary should be named unique, and that would also mean only one [of a given] unique spell per deck instead of two." But in the context of his post I understood him to mean exactly what you did.
                  The thing is that unless you have read the original post you would never have gotten the part you put in red to be part of it. So you would read it as one unique total not one unique of any particular minion.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Ok Griffon, sorry if i offended you, was not intended at all. Thanks adjacentengels for your support. Please friends can we now go back to the main subject ?
                    Make Jade Knight green !

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      There are some cool ideas there. I've shared with Josh and Joseph. I played a game, and still do now and then, that lets you upgrade a card by deciding on version A or B. It's a cool feature imo.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Definitely an interesting idea. But as BAGate said, that would certainly make it much harder to balance, which is the primary reason for changing evolve in the first place. The idea of choice, however, did get us talking about some other ideas and how we might be able to achieve that in other areas of the game.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by fredo46 View Post
                          Ok Griffon, sorry if i offended you, was not intended at all. Thanks adjacentengels for your support. Please friends can we now go back to the main subject ?
                          Sorry Fredo I have just had some bad experiences with people misquoting me so I'm a bit sensitive about it. I did try to make my next post relevant to your suggestions.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Josh (Developer) View Post
                            Definitely an interesting idea. But as BAGate said, that would certainly make it much harder to balance
                            I don't think so, it would take longer, cos' you would have to test every evo possibility, but you might fine tune each evo for it to be balanced. It's clear that Tart+ 45/50 with shadow and chaos is OP, but Multirealm Tart 35/40 shadow and chaos seems ok, just like Cheap Tart 35/40 only chaos but 70 mana ; actual Tart+ 45/50 would be like my "Strong Tart" and might be a bit op. Maybe only 40/45 ? Anyway, you decide, of course.

                            The idea of choice, however, did get us talking about some other ideas and how we might be able to achieve that in other areas of the game.
                            I'm glad my sleepless night was not useless after all
                            Make Jade Knight green !

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X