Printable View
Yup. it is. Have you tried it? It`s got a very slick presentation IMO, and a great depth of strategy. As Darkgate said a few balance issues right now, but I think that is one of the chief benefits of having this forum. I think the biggest drawback right now is that you can't yet play a live opponent, but from what we hear that is in the works.Quote:
Originally Posted by Incrue
This game is good. Its just, its way too difficult to get the rare cards from the jackpot thing. Maybe the probability rate could be made higher?
And also, summoning sickness, like that of magic the gathering, should be really be implemented. Meaning once a certain creature enters the game, it will only be able to attack on the next turn. This allows the opponent 1 turn to react. Can you imagine casting 3-4 parallel universe on a dragon in a single turn? Thats pretty unfair to the opponent.
My pov is until there are top 50 decks without Nova, then it's overpowered...Quote:
Originally Posted by kethaq
If Nova cost 1 Entropy, I think what would happen is everyone would change Marks to Entropy. This would slow down Nova by 1 turn. It would also eliminate the combos that cost 5+ non-Entropy quanta (Firefly) and help the combos that cost less (Poison, Lycanthrope). Other than that I don't think there would be too many changes.
Nova-less decks need to be competitive vs Nova decks. Right now even Aether decks are using Nova to bring out early Lycans. ;)
I'm working on getting into the top 50 sheesh, hehe. I'm against using Nova in my decks and I think I may have enough time to try and break into the top 50 in a couple of days, but I'll see what I can do haha. Really though I think that nova does need to be changed in at least some manner such as making it cost 1 entropy. This would also make it harder on the poison novas because they wouldn't keep getting more poison quantums to just continually use on me before I can get my first dragon out.Quote:
Originally Posted by -Manwe-
There are definitely reasons both for and against creatures attacking immediately.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfyyy
For instance, it keeps the game moving to have them hit right away - even against a creature shutdown deck, you get that one hit off. But there's also creatures dying/getting frozen from attacking into a shield, and as you mentioned really brutal attacks possible with no response.
This one is just a matter of taste I think.
If you were to put a summoning sickness rule into effect in this game it would give a large advantage towards stalling decks such as poison freeze because sometimes the only hits you get in are the ones you get when you first summon a creature.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfyyy
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by -Manwe-
However I think making it cost 1 entopy would have more of an effect than you anticipate. It would slow nova down more than 1 turn. There would be no possibility of playing nova's on the first turn which would mean a pure nova deck would have a guaranteed forced discard. And after that with no pillars you could pnly play 1 per turn. plus it would nerf the poison nova decks because they use mark of death to have enough death quata to be effective. I use nova firefly queen usually and if I had to use mark of entropy instead I could no longer use the firefly queens effectively. It would still be possible to design a strategy using novas but they wouldn't be absolutely dominant.
Plus it is not a linear system. The reason nova works well is it can usually get more creatures out than it is possible to counter. I have tried a nova deck with all creatures and no defence. The tactic there is to get more creats out than the opponent can kill/freeze etc. It is very effective except against the mass kills and dimention sheild, so slowing it down just a little bit would give the opposing player that much more time to counter in some way. Further reducing the effectiveness of the strategy.
Actually, aside from hurting entropy based spells a bit (You'd have to wait X turns to recover the X you spent per Nova, where X = number of Novas) it would only make you wait one turn -- each Nova would give 2 entropy, one of which could be used to cast the next Nova.Quote:
Originally Posted by kethaq
And there are some 0 cost cards out there that could be put into decks if desired, or else they'd just have to discard the card they wanted to keep least.
Considering the sheer power and flexibility of Nova, this is not an unreasonable penalty. It's just too good right now.
hi,
Nova - since the beginning, when i start playing, i look at Nova and "wow .. a BlackLotus and i can have 6! on the deck not only 1! woah..." .. and i did my starting economy to get all 6 Novas ... and yes it seems overpowered .. BUT .. then i start thinking that Novas only allows a restricted fast-forward with some control deck ... i mean ... it work 9/10.. only if you are against (some) Nova's decks .. or against (a lot of) slower decks with few control .... and before on nerfing Nova I'd try a litle more strategies .. I have in mind a few that I'll wish to try before that modification... [Anyways, if it got to be modified i don't really agree about 1 Entropy cost .. i would like more - Cost:2 generic (of any quantum mana) it will give away the first 2 turns and so to be necessary at least a pillar, with the not "all go to Entropy mark" after]
i really need help zanzarino.................
i dont know y but......
my account got resetted....
i log off and then when i log in again my account got reset- -
this happened while it was raining so i dont know if it happens because of this
point = 0
win = 0
lose = 0
- -
can u do a roll back or something ?
plz answer this afap
I noticed. It's just that, for a deck of 3 or 4 elements, it's not great odds of getting what you need. With 12 elements total and 4 needed by your deck, you only have a 33% chance of getting any of the right elements. Even with it being doubled effect, it's still less effective on average than just placing a regular pillar.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bianary
I agree that they are somewhat balanced by their initial weakness and by being multi-element... but they still seem much stronger than most multi-element cards of a similar cost, and if you get one out quickly (first to third turn), it can be very hard for the opponent to kill it (whether the opponent is the human or the AI).Quote:
Originally Posted by Bianary
Doesn't exactly help that a lot of the Nova decks I've seen can frequently manage one to two on the first turn, when they are essentially invulnerable to anything except maybe another Nova deck...
Would be nice, although I can understand why it doesn't happen. Keeping the cards rare gives the game a better longevity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfyyy
What I would prefer would be increasing the potential electrum gains from victories, or even an increase in the average gains (such as making it so that the minimum gain is about half of what you can lose on that level, or higher, instead of being 0). If you are a new player, it can be hard to get a decent deck, especially if you picked a bad element for your playstyle, simply because money can be so hard to get at first.
Also, why is the cost of changing elements so high? That truly baffles me, as it doesn't seem to give anywhere near the benefits I would expect from something that costs about two-and-a-half dragons...
I agree. At first, I kind of liked it, as it helped differentiate this game even further from M:tG. Then your example happened to me. I went from winning to dead in two turns, when I had 50+ life left beforehand. =/Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfyyy
Possibly have it so that most of the weaker creatures have something akin to Haste from M:tG (ignoring summoning sickness)? That way, the bruisers have a chance to be reacted against, but the weaker creatures can still get a hit in before being taken down. Although this still doesn't sound good to me... maybe just "cloning sickness" instead? I dunno. It's a complex issue. =/
I've learned that playing anything strong against an Aether deck is very risky, as they frequently clone it one to three times and kill it in the same turn.
bug - just noticed that AI (sometimes) are mutating Lycantropes without paying the 2 Dark quantum mana necessary for it
Yeah, I wasn't thinking of Nova when I said that -- lycanthropes are pretty much designed to work perfectly with a Nova deck. Imo, raise them to 3 entropy and it will help with that while still leaving them viable for an entropy mark based deck to utilize nova to transform them.Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonBlood87
This sucks, but on the bright side you're still in the top 10 because Im playing against your deck right now(not sure how this is possible, but its happening).Quote:
Originally Posted by ziter
Nova (Continuation) - I'm able to construct 2 different decks that defeat Nova's Decks, and each of them with no Dimensional Shield
One of them have 6 Novas and can defeat quite easily Nova-Air, Nova-Death-poison, Nova-all attack ..etc
The other don't have Nova whatsoever and can defeat Novas as well
.. So my conclusion is that Nova is not overpowered because all Nova-based decks have resource-limitations - and that simple weakness can be exploited
... also the Dimensional Shield is not overwhelming - it wasn't necessary to breakdown any Nova-Deck
I wonder if the problem that everybody sees on the Nova-decks and on the Dimensional Shield over-usage are not in the cards it-selfs but on the almost strictly the same strategies that are tried
your are correct. So the question is would that be enough to soften nova decks. I think it would,Quote:
Originally Posted by Bianary
Well I do beat nova decks quite often, but usually not by much and against the poison decks I have the most trouble. If I was trying to build a deck specifically to go against nova decks and their weaknesses I would, butto build a deck specifically built to exploit the weaknesses of nova decks seems like it would weaken my strategy against other players(yes there are actually people in the top 50 that don't use nova and there are some who use nova and pillars and some who just plain don't know how to use nova right). Thing is for me to beat nova decks with my current build I usually need to get at least 4 pillars within the first two turns. Sometimes even if I do this the nova decks will win because they will get two novas first turn and have my life half way down before I'm able to even summon my first dragon. I'm not saying nova doesn't have weaknesses or limitations, but the sheer speed that nova decks can hit you with is the problem most of the times.
If you can have at least 2 different builds that can win a type of deck with one different of that type, then there is no need to soften that typeQuote:
Originally Posted by kethaq
If there was no way besides Nova to beat a Nova then Nova would have to be soften which is not the case
What matters is that you can win :)Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkGate
yes, specificaly building decks against one type of decks can damage the global strategy - but it is a test that has to be made - if there was no manner to win consistently one type of deck then it would be unbalanced - i think the strategy that is majoritary done now is the problem, is like a confortable local maximum...Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkGate
anyways, in the case of the 2 decks, they are quite capable of fighting others
The construction of a Nova Deck is the hability to dispose all ressorces that each Nova gives, is like a semi-combo, is not focuses and cannot relly on a particular combo - is a (tight) explosion! .. The pillar deck is completly different because it can manage the upcomming mana ressources more freely to construct the desire strategy or comboQuote:
Originally Posted by DarkGate
there is no one better than the other..
The 2 decks don't win sometimes... they can win consistentlyQuote:
Originally Posted by DarkGate
Samure, It seems like you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. And you are not even making sense. One of the decks you are claiming can beat nova consistently is a nova deck!Quote:
Originally Posted by -Samura-
And you have some other deck that you claim can win consistently but the goal is to have a bunch of different stategies that can win consistently.
You still play with a nova deck the last time I checked. When you start playing regularly with some other kind of deck then you arguments will have a bit more credibility.
ok