MArcomage

Free multiplayer on-line fantasy card game

Please log in

sillenia on 18:55, 3. Jul, 2014
i like it - nice idea ... a bit like Regulator for facilities ...
DPsycho on 21:51, 3. Jul, 2014
I think it could use some tweaking.

Altruism, Rare 0-cost
Sets your and your opponents facilities to 3/3/3

It seems to me that for the most part, this is going to be used to decrease your opponent's facilities. Nearly every deck includes cards to increase at least one of the three facilities. Some decks go for a lot of facility gains, and this would hit those the hardest.

Far less likely is that this would be used to counter your own facilities being reduced. I say far less likely because, first of all, unless a particular opponent is known to play a crippling deck (which makes for long and tedious games of discarding and turtling), you wouldn't expect to need facility recovery options, something the Restoration keyword does without relying on a Rare draw. Secondly and alternately, if you're playing a deck to reduce your own facilities, this isn't going to be a superior option to cards that simply grant you stock. This is particularly true since some of those facility reduction cards hit both players and you'd be likely to increase your opponent's facilities as well.

So this could come to be seen as an obnoxious card, being that it's most probably being used to reduce facilities, which could be fine for a Rare that only comes up occasionally. But could it be better?

What if, instead of just resetting the facilities, it adjusts both players' facilities based on one of the players? If the player of this card had facilities 2/5/3, it gives both players +1/-2/+0. Perhaps choose the mode to determine which player's facilities are being looked at for the adjustment. And perhaps keep resetting both to 3/3/3 as an option as well?

People are allowed to disagree, of course. I just think something like that would be more interesting and strategic than simply leveling the values to 3.
Zaton on 10:28, 16. Apr, 2015
I only object to the name - what is altruistic in the reduction or readjustment of the other player's Facilities?
Coolis on 10:41, 16. Apr, 2015
It's like Robin Hood's version of Altruism - steal from the rich, give to the poor
Zaton on 11:00, 16. Apr, 2015
But- who are the poor?*-*
Coolis on 11:17, 16. Apr, 2015
The ones, whose facilities were lowered ?
Zaton on 13:09, 16. Apr, 2015
Ah. I see. Thank you for the clarification. However, the card effect doesn't make sense then. The card's current effect cannot be free, and doesn't fit the intended theme.
For one, the more the 'rich' invested in their facilities, the more is the card worth - In the case of Dwarven Wall, Wizard and Angry Mob, the effort YOU placed into the development of your facilities (and the occassional Mentor or Enlightenment) pays for the bonus effect. Here, the exact opposite happens. What makes the above not imbalanced makes Altruism double as imbalanced.
As for the theme, more facilities may be reduced than facilities are gained by the poor - the facilities gained by any side might even be zero.
Coolis on 17:12, 16. Apr, 2015
The point of the card was to counter facility-crippling decks, but we have Order Of The White Lotus already.
I decided to change the card a bit, so it will fit the theme better.
Zaton on 17:15, 16. Apr, 2015
Golden<3
dimitris on 20:11, 17. Apr, 2015
I think it's kind of OP. It's 0-cost and possibly heavily reduces opponent's facilities while heavily increasing own player's facilities. I think it should have some negative e.g. prod x0 or it should not be 0-cost.

And yes, this is definitely not Altruism :)
Coolis on 08:39, 18. Apr, 2015
It may also be like: Switches value of one highest facility with one lowest facility. It will be less reliable then
Zaton on 09:40, 18. Apr, 2015
As in, the highest of one random side switched with the lowest of another side? Are you... sure you don't just fish for a mage deck counter?

Half serious accusations aside, your last proposal has no relation to altruism again.
Coolis on 12:22, 18. Apr, 2015
It may also include switching only one player facilities. The same values will be chosen at random.
dimitris on 14:44, 18. Apr, 2015
I think if it has prod x0 it will be OK.
Better yet, if it's not 0-cost, with some relatively small cost. In this way we avoid spamming it with Halfling Rogue.
Zaton on 14:56, 18. Apr, 2015
Does anyone play zero cost decks anymore since you can't abuse cards with Halfling Rogue?
Coolis on 15:41, 18. Apr, 2015
Since when? Its still posible