Azthor

I would like to direct the discussion towards point II, first and foremost. I'd ill advise discussing alternative concepts without first properly contending with the present system's desirability. Is it reasonable to still consider those creatures rare, and justify their might by such? Whether or not is so, should every creature, max level assumed, be somehow feasible in a highly competitive environment, or should the system culminate in a given limited number of them, with others being steps in the ladder? Additionally, changing Target (All) to anything else will have a very significant impact in combat, as Target (All) is an absolute ability, devoid of chance. Changing it to some variant of Target: (Multiple: Greater) is no minor readjustment, though it may, nevertheless and ironically, do nothing to make other creatures more desirable. Finally, I'd like to note: outright winning a battle is not the sole purpose for which a creature may be used.

@DarkDemon: I suspected that to be the case, from my own experience with other auras and Frozen creatures. While I will wait for another confirming test before updating the first post, we should, by now, mostly work on the assumption that Frozen creatures cannot proc Antifreeze. Of course, if that is true, and given the current order for the tokens, the attacker can potentially freeze every single creature of the opponent's with no resistance at all; note, however, that, all things considered, all of six creatures being Frozen is overwhelmingly unlikely, and hence the defender is still the primary beneficiary, despite the possibility of a hopeless defeat.

The divergence between Ary Endleg and DarkDemon is the very reason I brought said point III up. Further testing is, indeed, required. The tokens, according to the tests conducted within the other thread, would be nigh entirely useless. While that might be working as intended, I find it more likely they simply aren't well integrated with the action order, going by Chewett's previous comments. Finally, concerning Bloodrop2, are you positive of which it in no way or fashion implies an initiative bonus might come as a result of a given combination of principles?

Disclaimer: I have not, in any way or fashion, checked the veracity of the data below, it being taken directly from http://magicduel.inv...92-combat-talk/. Should you find any factual mistakes, inform me of such within this thread and this post will be edited accordingly. New suggestions, where pertinent to the topic, will likewise be added. I - With the inherent stats of creatures supposedly reduced in value in view of significantly greater personal and token-derived stats, the targeting variant concentrates much of a creature's worth within a ritual. Target: All, being able to target every creature of the opponent's with no drawbacks, has been criticized to make other choices, and creatures lacking it, something of a foregone conclusion. II - Concurrently, the concern has been raised that Target: All is present as it is, as the most advantageous option, and found in some of the creatures that would be among the most powerful even in lieu of it, as a way of bolstering the worth of those creatures and their upgraded forms, which were, accordingly, meant to be ultimate choices of a kind, and hence foregone conclusions as intended. Whether that remains desirable, or is in line with their former rarity, is up to debate. III - Tal's tests, available on the Unit Limits thread (link below), seemingly indicate that there is some measure of competitive balance between the potential damage of most creatures, if properly supported by premium or rare creatures. In that regard, it might be more interesting to modify those abilities that imbalance said template, as is the case with Freeze, rather than Target: All itself, as long some creatures with single targeting maintain some modicum of usefulness, as has been demonstrated to be the case. Index: http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/15716-aurasbonuses-creature-boost-skill-drain-vitality-drain-freeze-antifreeze-tokens-availability-order-opportunity-value/ http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/15721-target-all-creature-diversity-creature-upgrade-value/ Defend, Intoxicate, Martyrism & Protect: Availability, Opportunity Value & Targets Heal & Regenerate: Opportunity Value, Targets & Upper Limit http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/15734-rustgold-drachorns-reindrachs-wind-dragons-mutual-creature-boost/ http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/15733-unit-limits-angiens-drachorns-archers/ http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/15748-weaken-defense-lower-limit/ Honor & Negative Stats: Lower Limit Honor & Balance: Intended Function & Current Application http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/15763-reducing-the-power-of-freezes/ Discussion status: undefined.

A few things, if I may, so I can edit the present topic. I - Has Chewett been sent the details on the token descriptions, or can anyone otherwise check them and pass them forward? The only ones I have access to are the following: But I do not know to what extent they are correct. II - Am I correct in understanding that the two relevant tokens apply: for the attacker, before the defender's auras, and, for the defender, after the attacker's auras? III - Does the Antifreeze aura of Frozen creatures proc on themselves, or does being Frozen prevent the aura from firing off, as I can confirm to be the case with Skill and Vitality Drain?

Happy Birthday!

Disclaimer: I have not, in any way or fashion, checked the veracity of the data below, it being taken directly from http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/15492-combat-talk/. Should you find any factual mistakes, inform me of such within this thread and this post will be edited accordingly. New suggestions, where pertinent to the topic, will likewise be added. I - Antifreeze tokens (Antifreeze & Blooddrop2, with the appropriate Principle combination) are applied before Auras, hence being only useful in extremely circumstantial scenarios (Out-of-MP Creature & Prot-Freeze) for the attacker. They also contradict their shop description as a direct consequence and Blooddrop2 comes with an unstated 10% initiative bonus. II - The set order for the Auras, where the attacker's are applied first, leaves the attacker completely vulnerable to the defender's Freeze, as their Antifreeze is applied before the defender's Freeze. Likewise, Skill Drain and Vitality Drain would favor the defender, if both sides employ them. However, should the defender lack Antifreeze, or luck favor the attacker, the attacker may have a small chance of disabling all of the defender's creatures with no resistance. III - Freeze (http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/15763-reducing-the-power-of-freezes/) pigeonholes rituals into having as many creatures as possible, so as to avoid its absolute effect. That has been both praised and criticized for the same reason: making one creature rituals undoable in any competitive environment. IV - Antifreezes are more abundant than Freezes, point II duly observed, with as many as 15 of the earlier, and as many as 8 of the later, available in a ritual. Were point I not true, then there'd be as many as 21 Antifreezes, and 6 guaranteed Antifreezes, with the appropriate Principle combination. V - Frozen creatures, if unfrozen after their aura should have applied, lose the opportunity to apply their aura altogether; the Freeze mechanic is, hence, a dual roulette for the attacker and the defender alike, making any remotely accurate prediction as to what will go into effect impossible. Such may add an undesirably strong aspect of luck to combat. VI - The initiative order for auras, within a player's aura phase, is based on each creature's ID. While such could allow for some measure of advantage through foresight, by having those creatures with Antifreeze have an older ID than the rest, hence minimizing the amount of auras that are halted by Freeze, the desirability of such is, again, debatable. VII - Skill Drain is seemingly unable to truly match two players' stats; instead, its use is circumstantially connected to Freeze and the amount of VE in a fight. That is not in and of itself undesirable, as the player with higher personal stats or the better set of tokens must have an advantage, but if the Freeze mechanics are changed, Skill Drain's precarious position may be unhinged. Index: http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/15716-aurasbonuses-creature-boost-skill-drain-vitality-drain-freeze-antifreeze-tokens-availability-order-opportunity-value/ http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/15721-target-all-creature-diversity-creature-upgrade-value/ Defend, Intoxicate, Martyrism & Protect: Availability, Opportunity Value & Targets Heal & Regenerate: Opportunity Value, Targets & Upper Limit http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/15734-rustgold-drachorns-reindrachs-wind-dragons-mutual-creature-boost/ http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/15733-unit-limits-angiens-drachorns-archers/ http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/15748-weaken-defense-lower-limit/ Honor & Negative Stats: Lower Limit Honor & Balance: Intended Function & Current Application http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/15763-reducing-the-power-of-freezes/ Discussion status: undefined.

Which section of New Ideas, Get Involved and General Forum would be most suitable for the following topics to placed in? - Auras/Bonuses (Creature Boost, Skill Drain, Vitality Drain, Freeze & Antifreeze) & Tokens: Availability, Order & Opportunity Value - Target (All): Creature Diversity & Creature Upgrade Value - Defend, Intoxicate, Martyrism & Protect: Availability, Opportunity Value & Targets - Heal & Regenerate: Opportunity Value, Targets & Upper Limit - Rustgold Drachorns, Reindrachs & Wind Dragons: Mutual Creature Boost - Unit Limits: Angiens, Drachorns & Archers - Weaken Defense: Lower Limit - Honor & Negative Stats: Lower Limit - Honor & Balance: Intended Function & Current Application A small summary of what was proposed and discussed will be added to the opening of each topic. Please, tell me if I've missed anything.

I, too, would like to participate.

Betelgeuse: http://storenow.net/my/?f=7e0ea272d92a0353647b58f5f48cc669 AmberRune: http://storenow.net/my/?f=116c53154d8ed1c0cd00d95661830dba Time: 10:00 - 10:30 ST. Betelgeuse, a new MP3 player, first presented the problem as the Lesser Regeneration Ritual failing to heal his dead creatures; he was asked to repeat the attempt and, should it fail, take a screenshot so that it could be submitted as part of the report - as is. AmberRune, upon emulating the occurrence for verification, instead arrived at the error presented in the second screenshot.

Are you looking to appoint a number of individuals, or do you wish for the general public to submit title descriptions for consideration?

Unlike many features, the reputation system has no underlying purpose other than that of the myriad votes that gave birth to its current incarnation. Given the looseness of its purpose, it is outright unlikely that all will agree upon a given format. Resolving this through discussion alone may as well be an exercise in futility. Myself, I see no reason to alter it in any form or fashion. We can ill agree on what constitutes misuse in many cases, and the clearly abusive cases are much more a symptom than the cause of the problem. If someone retroactively assigns negative reputation to a hundred or more posts of another user in a couple of days, clearly, they'd just as easily search for another outlet if barred from doing so. If it has to be changed at all, or not so, given the unspecified premise of purpose under which the previous vote took place, I suggest the following votes be later undertaken to settle the matter: A: Should the usage of the reputation system be held to any specific standards? [Y/N]. B: Which format should the reputation system take, if any? [List of the different formats available, per Chewett's availability]. If A has a majority for No, there is nothing to be done on that account. If the majority is for Yes, refer to C. B is a reiteration of the 2013 poll. C: Which standards should the use of the reputation system be held to? [List of variants suggested in the pertinent thread].

If I may, once five points are awarded for a correct reason, as opposed to a very close one, can they still be bested by an exact phrasing of the reasons, or are they good enough that even the exact phrasing would not supersede them?

Brown team.

Happy birthday! I, for one, salute your death-evading, life-saving ways. :))

It took me two hours to try and come up with a way of expressing the following without making an ass out of myself. I've probably failed. The discussion on the two relevant threads is on the verge of shifting to be one and the same. In a sense, it was always one and the same, and one in the same with countless others, and most know that well enough, even as we continue to avoid facing it for what it is as though it were the Black Death. Contained, it has become a discussion over whether or not titles should come at the exclusion of tags. Much more so, however, it is an evident reiteration of the arguments contained within http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/14462-worst-thing-about-mur/ and a number of other such occasions. As I see it, that kind of dialogue has consistently proved to be quite the frustrating and fruitless experience: A. MD is Mur's legal property and creation - that is an innate source of reverential deference, even it goes unannounced - though I've never seen that used as an argument by Mur. It is my understanding that, if anything, Mur is more likely to leave than to wield such as an argument himself. B. Most of MD isn't wary of Mur retaliating against them. Most of MD is wary of hurting or offending Mur, because they value him and wish for him to remain around. C. There can be no proper dialogue under emotional duress. Every time someone claims to be feeling neglected, or pressured to leave, over a discussion, they are effectively burying the entire conversation. D. Mur's creative talents are many. His managerial talents, on the other hand, are tentative at best. E. Mur prioritizes symbolism. Many see it as impractical. It is also my understanding that these two perspectives may, at times, prove irreconcilable. F. Mur can be arbitrary and whimsical. That unavoidably leads to conflict, whether moral or strategic. The matter of privacy is an example of the earlier. The freezing of the tags is an example of the later. Mur, the vast majority of MD appreciates that you have not capitalized on A in the past, and B is there in the first place because, even were you to say otherwise, most care; though they will not always agree with your decisions, players expect and encourage you to take the mantles of D and E within MD. C is not solely about you, C is both the frailty of those with a weak self-image and the tool of those habituated to evading accountability by using other's emotional ties as a weapon, presenting their well-being as a hostage; that does not mean they necessarily understand what they are doing. Can you, or even should you ever try and wholly circumvent the behavior denoted in F? Is that mentality unsustainable, or can everything keep going as is? I don't have the answer. But, unless you are perfectly content with this recurring situation, and I don't believe you are, there is some merit in reflecting upon it. What I can already tell you, however, is that, from our own perspective, leaving is among the worst answers you can possibly come up with. Were you wholly arbitrary, the answer would be an easy one: MD is your creation. Were you unappreciated or undesired, likewise: leave us be. Were you a fool, all the more so: leave him be. The answer, alas, is not an easy or short one, and it cannot be handed down to you, unless you'd rather merely have another's. Minor edit: typo corrected, clarification added to A.

For the sake of fairness, note: I - 1, II - 2, III - 3, IV - 4, V - 5 are paired as premise and conclusion. I - V were not meant to be actual entries on their own, though, in hindsight, I should have stated as much. If three out of the ten seem tautological, that is, more likely than not, because three from 1 to 5 are correct, and three from I to V mirror them in fashion.

I - lashtal sought to act in accordance with his True Will. lashtal's True Will is his Nature. II - lasthal sought to act in accordance with his True Will. The nature of lashtal's True Will is Love. III - lashtal sought to act in accordance with his True Will. lashtal's True Will is that of God. IV - lashtal sought to act in accordance with his True Will. As lashtal' True Will is that of God, lashtal is God. V - lashtal sought to act in accordance with his True Will. lashtal's True Will seeks the Transcedent, and as such he seeks his destruction. 1. lashtal killed Mur for it was his Nature to do so. 2. lashtal killed Mur out of Love. 3. lashtal killed Mur for it was Mur's own will. 4. lahstal killed Mur so that he would kill lashtal. 5. lashtal killed Mur so that he might learn his True Will.

1. To learn from Mur's death. 2. To fulfill the mandate of balance. 3. For the experience of the deed itself. 4. To discover what the denial of a god would entail. 5. To see how it would change him (the killer). 6. To bring god before their (god's) creation. 7. To free god from the world. 8. It was not a choice. It was his role to do so.

Not quite what I'd originally have gone with, but: 1. To deny the god of MD. 2. To deny Mur as the the god of MD. 3. To deny MD has a god. 4. To deny Mur's godhood. 5. To deny Mur regardless of whether or not he might be ultimately denied. 6. As an act of love for Mur. 7. To allow Mur to be reborn, or to be reborn himself. 8. Because love became desire. 9. As a form of self sacrifice. 10. To deny god so that he might not stray from god.

To pass Mur a message.

Generally, if I go as far as to express formal disapproval, I feel it is only fair that I address how and why so, likewise giving the other party an opening to address the complaint. While I certainly appreciate the gesture when others do the same, I do not presume upon it as a mutual obligation. I would not use the reputation system as you just did, against each other, for instance, but nor do I believe that to be an incorrect usage passive to public admonishment. (...) What occasion in particular brought forth BFH's comment is rather clear; likewise, from that comment, I can imagine how BFH believes the reputation system should be used. Yet so, in this case, imagining is the most I can do, and hence I'd very much rather read it from his own words.

It was likely meant as a figure of speech for how unusual the entire affair is. Quite frankly, it is verily nonstandard, which is also, often enough, a significant source of wariness.

As you probably had meant to link to the respective threads, note the links currently refer back to this thread. Here: http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/14781-announcements-quest-its-actually-a-bet/ http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/13983-dom-first-experience/ http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/15361-the-never-repeating-word-challenge/

Though I believe you had only meant to reinforce your position, I hope you will understand when I say you have come off rather unnecessarily condescending. That said, I can only emulate that which was said by Chewett and yourself, respectively. Those who have donated to the game are unlikely to be particularly bothered by this, as, regardless of their own opinion on the matter, only that amount specifically donated to this purpose will be used. I find that a rather important point, even if, in practice, the money is Mur's once donated. Those who have invested an exceptionally large amount of time in the game, on the other hand, do deserve a greater measure of liability from Mur, as the donations for the titles budget will overlap, at least to a minor extent, with the usual venues of donation. That is for them to present, however. Even then, as Kamisha has presented, the costs are unlikely to be astounding.