Elements. Fantasy cards game

[Alluvian]

Ah, I think I may have gotten the death one... Some vampire blade. I get death and shadow confused. And yes, I have seen computer decks with fahrenheit but forgot about it.

[icecue7]

Yeah, the Vampire Blade one is a rare too. I can't remember if it's death or shadow either XD. Death sounds good!

Also, can you check Ne0nfighter's account? He has two accounts (one in 3rd, other in 4th) and I just played the 4th place one and the deck was quite terrible. I think he abused the glitch in the older version but I may have just gotten really really lucky against his deck.

[icecue7]

While I agree that the ranking system is based on time spent playing, if you played that guy's deck, you would agree that there's something wrong. It was absolutely horrid from the match I played against it. It seems like zanzarino agreed, because one of his accounts is deleted. I only mentioned their ranks so he could find them quickly.

[zanzarino]

Yep, neonfighter was exploiting the "spacebar during coin toss" bug, so I sent him a warning and reset score/money to zero.

The rank system is not entirely based on the time played: if you lose a match you lose score, that means that if you have a bad strategy and you lose most games you will lose score instead of gaining it.

Relying only on the won/lost ratio is a bad idea (all you have to do is win 2 games against a level 0 deck and you ration would be 100% won).

Anyway, good news:
I finally killed all the bugs you guys reported (thanks) and I am adding new cards to fine tune the game balance... which probably means I'll add new bugs too.

I am also doing some more balancing with the costs and effects of the cards: ablaze and growth skills now add +2|+0 and +2|+2 (doubled the effect). Bone yard, Armagio and Golden Hourglass are cheaper to use... and many other things...

[-Samura-]

hi
i did in a few hours a deck with Rusler, but it said 2 quantums need to play in the card, even if in-game is only 1 needed


icecue7, SuperDankChroni... yeah ... every game that have a ranking system, always has in count the number of won/loss-games played, and you were entirely right if the gain/loss-points was constant .. which they aren't ! .. only when you lose you lose 15 constantly ...but when you gain you can gain 0?-30 depending on your final HP if you win (or a bold 60 if in the end of the match you have 100hp) ...

so ... even if you do like 1000 games and win only half because your deck is no good (not actually Your deck.. anyways..) then its a high probability that you'll end with a mean of less of 50HP per win-game.. and so had gain only a mean of 15 points (or less) per win ... which are totally cancelled by all the losses...

or ... if you only do fire-decks/straight-forward-decks .. even if you win almost all your games there is a Very High probability that you end up with 50HP (or less - if you are in a match against other fire-deck).. which mean ... only 15 or less points added to your score ... which means .... much.. but much more games you have to play to get a high score

in this way this ranking system actually reflects quality (at least on ending with high HP..).. not only quantity

... so ... hmm... consider the Heal card?

nevertheless i have to agree on the fact that between equally good decks (on attaining high HP on the end of each game, to be precise) the score, as it stands, will only reflect the quantity of games

maybe considerating an ELO rating system as in chess, which is highly dependent on the rating of the players in the match ... but then the player of the losing deck would have to lose points - and that is the problem with ELO and AI playing decks - doesn't work - no one would be happy of loosing rating because others are wining his deck played by the AI ... only with Human Vs Human i can agree with ELO...

... hmm .. another thing ... about the Neonfighter and the Dragon-fire-deck of the other guy... (and despite the fact that Neon was cheating) ...dunno...but sometimes a player likes to change his deck.. and if is like me .. is always redesigning another deck .. and new strategies ... and new combos ... and that is like the strongest and the funniest part of the game ...only to say that .. like .. sometimes i'm doing crazy decks to try somethings .... and if someone come to a game against those decks and easy win i only which that they don't think i'm actually playing with those... lol


EDIT: woops.. lol ! ... i was confounding with the coins-gain .... yea .. indeed .... the coins are based on HP-finish points ... but the rating-points gained are like you said Constant!!! ... so you are right after all .. *sorry*

PvP:
is -15 for loss and +25 for a win
constantly!

[-Samura-]

suggestion for AI improvement, and settings:

we all do different decks with different strategies .. ones more conservative in spending the resources ... waiting the cumulative of creatures/direct-damage/quantums/etc... and others more on timer kill-or-die deck wich demands on spending all resources he can (which the present AI doesnt do ... like ... i see all the time Lycans that dont mutate even if it have 2 dark quantums sitting there, etc...)

so .. my suggestion is to make a 3 button AI mode where each player can set for the AI do the best play with his deck against whoever comes to play against him.. somewhat like:

-defensive (or conservative)
-normal
-aggressive (or expendable)

[Laurender]

Found two bugs: game thinks weapons are creatures (shields abilitys effect them) and when virus uses it's ability it dies even if you push cancel. Still, this is the best game ever

[Laurender]

And another minor bug: if you would have enough quantums to use ability, if you do something that uses mana so that you no longer have enough, creature still looks like it could use the ability (rears of the card flashing)

[elementee]

/begin rant

I'm beginning to feel that there needs to be something more to PvP in general. Reasonable amounts of gold, score, and rare cards can be won from fighting only the AI. PvP has the same 3 benefits, but at a much slower rate, because player-decks are better made (or more exploitative, however you want to look at it). Most of the fights come down to the luck of having the best beginning hand. As a result, in PvP, more losses will occur, slowing the rate of gain for gold/points. Also, it seems that rare card encounters happen with relatively equal frequency in both, for now.

So why is there any reason to do PvP? For some amount of unknown glory? There's no way of telling how your deck has done against others (someone mentioned this before). Don't get me wrong, I think that it's great to have the PvP system, but it needs to be put to better use. Increased potential gold per win doesn't amount to much when gold doesn't do anything but purchase the same bazaar cards/cards won from slots.

My assumption is that most of the Top50 has gotten there based on AI fights - and very few PvP, maybe even none. Someone can prove me wrong here.

/end rant

[-Samura-]

hi
elementee, i disagree ... i think all of the top 10 are fighting in PvP ... like me ... i only fight PvP .. altogether i must have played like not more than 120 games of levels 0-3 in the beginning .. and i have 1600+ games played .. [1298wins/341losses] so almost all are PvP ... i've tryed to fight the levels 0-3 again to get rare cards but i like much more to play PvP ... and i see strategies from decks i'm fighting against evolving day by day .. which is so much cool ... the funny thing is that the only 2 Rare Cards I have is Fahrenheit and Devonian Dragon and at least Fahrenheit i got in PvP combat ^^

some confusion on your words ... AI dont mean "not PvP"... like .. in the other post i made .. when i was saying AI i was meaning "AI playing a deck of somebody else against me" in a match (is never Human Vs Human ... PvP is always Human Vs Human-Deck-Played-By-AI) ... When you say AI you are referring only about the levels 0-3.. which is not .. also PvP has a AI involved

Yea ... it would be cool to see a table of the #wins/#losses per playernameVsplayername .. but that is a like a table with N*N entries .... hmm .. maybe for the top 20 it could be possible?

[-Samura-]

About Scores:

if the gain and loss are constantly the same .. then we can have in fact some very strange situations:

PvP: -15 for a loss +25 for a win ... standing for a simple system-equation:

25x-15y=S
x+y=N

x=wins, y=losses, S=Score, N=Number of games

for a given Score we can have a sufficientelly high N of games which we have a number of losses superior to the number of wins: for y=px (p < 25/15) we have N=(1+p)S/(25-15p)... which is the awkward behavior of this kind of score system

examples of possible win/losses for a score of 25'000

super-gamer :
wins/losses = 1000/0
total of games = 1000

cool:
wins/losses = 1137/227
total of games = 1364

strange:
wins/losses = 2500/2500
total of games = 5000

super awkward :
wins/losses = 25'000/40'000
total of games = 65'000

... so i guess .. the score system is not so good after all ... but is only because of being constant!

My suggestion is to make the win not constant ... make it like the coins gain - that are not constant ...

- the gain should be in the interval 0-30 .. (with a possible 60 if HP=100 in the end)
- directly proportional to the HP left at the ending

hmm and maybe proportional to an Elo-like factor... make an Elo that do not change the score of the player if is the AI playing the deck, i mean .. an Elo only for the active player ... hmm .. well.. don't need to be an exact Elo with the Expected and all that ... just a simple factor with the scores of each of them taken into account.. could be somewhat like:

- multiply by the factor 2^((ScorePassivePlayer - ScoreActivePlayer)/maxScoreOfThem)

..that way.. the score gain varies between 0-60

but is very bad for the high scores because they don't gain so much .. but very appealing for who is aiming for the tops ... it will slow down who is high up and fastener who is somewhat low

this kind of score-gain is much less dependent of the number of games .. and awkward situations cannot occur

[Laurender]

Strange bug: enemy had a 3/2 short sword on creature zone and it also had its weapon power

[Rogue1]

The short sword was not a Bug but a weapon animiated by the flying weapon spell.

[ktchong]

Also, it will be soon time for distribution: anyone has any suggestion about how to advertise my game (online) ?

You should contact the Kongregate (or another flash game site) to work out something.

[Pieissky]

I also think that you should great a dragon that is a rare dragon that is a member of all the elements or at least a dragon that goes with the elements that dont have one.

[ktchong]

There is no "Back" button if I accidentally click "Play Now" on the main menu.

[ktchong]

^ Not the main menu. The front page.

How do I edit in here??!

[ktchong]

Sorry for the multiple posts. I'm playing the game right now, and adding suggestions as I'm seeing what's wrong and needs to be fixed or improved.


I would like to see what my opponent has played in the last round. The cards pop up and vanish too fast, and I would go: "WTF just happened?!?" And I would have no way of going back to find out what happened.

[tonypa]

I would like to see what my opponent has played in the last round. The cards pop up and vanish too fast, and I would go: "WTF just happened?!?" And I would have no way of going back to find out what happened.

Thats what I miss too.

[ktchong]

If a creature has an ability and I use a modifier on the creature, the modifier won't show.

Two examples:

Let's say I play an "Otyugh" card. The Otyugh has the ability to devour a smaller creature to grow its offense and defense. Its "devour" ability is shown below the card image. Then I use a "Momentum" card on the Otyugh, so now its attack cannot be blocked. However, its new Momentum ability is not shown.

Let's say I play an "Deja Vu" card, which shows "deja vu" below the card. Then I use "Momentum" card on it, and then I use the deja vu ability to duplicate the card. Now I have two "Deja Vu" cards without the deja vu ability. Only one of the Deja Vu (i.e., the duplicate card) shows the Momentum ability; the other one (the original card) does not show any ability.