Hearthpwn

Quote from DKPaladinMDL jump

Okay, here's the card I'm planning on submitting tomorrow, although I don't know exactly what I want to do with it. So, I have a general concept that I want the card to accomplish, and to fit this week's theme, I've made 7 possible versions of this card that I'm considering submitting (two of them are unnamed, they will get a name with 7 letters). I don't think any of them are perfect, each one does something that I want to do while falling short somewhere else, so I wanted to see which you guys think is the best, if any of them are any good at all.

The idea: Ever since the release of implosion, and now imp gang boss, as well as cards like haunted creeper, I've more and more found myself playing my modified zoolock having a really large number of tiny minions on the board, more so than any other class. I really wanted to synergize with this, but unfortunately, cards like Raid Leader or Stormwind Champion just aren't strong enough for me to run. The closest I've gotten to a card that synergizes with a huge board is Sea Giant, but that got pushed out of the way by Dr. Boom.

When this contest came up, I realized that a nice way to include the number 7 was through controlling 7 minions, a completely full board. This is pretty hard to achieve, even with warlock, but getting it should give you a massive tempo swing, value play, or even become a likely win condition, like voltron.

If this card were to be introduced, it would be pretty easy to see coming from a zoolock, and have a decent amount of counterplay given that most of the board is just imps that can easily be trimmed out.

The following cards are all aimed at causing a truly epic effect if you get 7 minions. This isn't some "costs 1 less for each minion you control" hedging your benefits, this is an all-in, all-or-nothing chance to push for victory.

v1

Cool in that it's really simple. The problem I have with it is that it's actually rather weak - rather than being a stronger effect when you have 7 minions, it's just easier to play, because you can play 7 mana worth of minions while you have this card and then end your turn with it instead of having to already have a full or almost full board from the previous turn. Still, it's a huge tempo swing and a hard thing to achieve.

v2

I think this one is okay. It is an absolute game-changer if you pull it off, so that's one good thing. The idea isn't really to use this to wipe a massive enemy board as much as it is to swat away one or two minions to clear the way to victory, since it would be kind of strange to expect to get high value out of this card from your opponent having a lot of minions, but even though they had a lot of minions they let you get 7. It might be a little on the strong side but not that much, the only problem with it is that like mentioned above it is stronger when your opponent controls a lot of minions, but in situations that they do you probably won't be able to play this.

v3

This one I think isn't very fair. It's a lot more on the strong side, but it much better accomplishes the damage of a finisher. The problem I have with it is that it's too strong, but there's no way to nerf it. Nerfing the damage bonus at 7 minions makes it feel less epic when you get 7 minions, nerfing the base damage makes the card far too weak at a base value, and changing the mana cost can't be done. 

v4

Next, we move into the buff variation. This one, like the first one, is simple, and I like it. The problem is that while it is a huuge tempo swing, we all know that whatever you buff is going to die to any number of the million ways of removing something with high attack. It can get 7 damage in on the turn you play it, it can be crazy powerful if it survives, but this card will mostly end up being sadness for you when it gets bghed and all you got out of your epic 7 minion setup was 7 damage. This problem is present in all of the tempo swing variants, because a tempo swing isn't really that epic, especially if it can get counteracted by 1 card.

v5

Another tempo swing variant for an AoE buff. I think this one is pretty nice. At a base value the card is pretty hunky because of its mana cost of 7, even if it does give a nice board solidification. However because you can play a bunch of minions in one turn, then solidify your board for 0 mana and attack for some extra damage, it actually accomplishes all tasks really well. 

v6

Harder to play than the previous version, but more rewarding. This card is supposed to be pretty much "if you manage to play it, you probably win unless your opponent has a hard board wipe" (which only paladins and warlocks do). The massive health buff as well as attack is supposed to dodge pretty much everything, while not being a literally "win instantly" card.

v7

Another single target buff variant. I really don't like this one. It's either win on the turn you play it or else it gets popped and you are sad, it's really hard to pull of and somehow feels both OP and UP.

 

 

 

 

 

 You're smoking some dank shit man

#7 in card text or name only counts as a 7 instance once

ZergRex's Tania Falan card to me seems like more of a Warlock card. Doesn't seem too flavorful.

I want to discuss a flaw that I noticed about the scoring formula for this competition. The way it's layed out, it makes it so that a submission's success is too heavily reliant on its position within the thread. A card that has a substantial amount of up votes can be taken out the contest if it's on the same page as other well-supported cards. For instance, take two cards, one with 20 up votes, and another with 10. The former card is on a page where the other submissions have a total of 20 up votes, while the latter is on a page where the other submissions have a total of 5 up votes. With all other things being equal, the card with the lower up vote amount would have double the score of the one that had twice the support. That doesn't seem fair to me.

Quote from DKPaladinMDL jump

Actually, forget the whole 7 minions thing, I got a really cool idea.

I really hate to take the 7 mana 7/7 route, but there's no other way...

What do you guys think?

Is it ment to refill hand of an agro player and give him "last chance" to win or something?:) i dont like it very much.

Quote from DKPaladinMDL jump

What do you guys think?

I'm glad I swung by to see if you had posted this here. I upvoted it, and I actually like it a lot. The card art is badass, and the effect is really niche and specific, which I appreciate. Stats might be too low, but then again a 7/7 at the tail end of a game is just fine. Minor nitpick: the J in Kil'jaeden isn't capitalized. Aside from that though, it's a rare card that feels "real" to me, like I could actually see it being added.

I think they'd have to add a special animation of your deck just melting or something once your hand was full, though. Watching your deck burn away one card at a time would get tedious, especially if for some reason you played this earlier than normal.

Quote from YahOkay jump

Quote from rdeegan jump

Quote from TheAtticus jump

I want to discuss a flaw that I noticed about the scoring formula for this competition. The way it's layed out, it makes it so that a submission's success is too heavily reliant on its position within the thread. A card that has a substantial amount of up votes can be taken out the contest if it's on the same page as other well-supported cards. For instance, take two cards, one with 20 up votes, and another with 10. The former card is on a page where the other submissions have a total of 20 up votes, while the latter is on a page where the other submissions have a total of 5 up votes. With all other things being equal, the card with the lower up vote amount would have double the score of the one that had twice the support. That doesn't seem fair to me.

 The reason for this is that some pages receive more views than others, especially because later pages are created later than others. The total page votes is used as a proxy for weighting the pages according to this bias. It's not perfect, but it does a job and means that later entries have the same chance of reaching the finals as those on page 1.

If we assume that the average quality of the cards on each page is roughly the same, then it follows that if each page had the same view count, they would have roughly the same amount of votes per page, hence we take each page as a sample. If we take your example, then the entry with 10 votes is more "above average" than the entry with 20 votes. Of course, it might be that the page with 20 votes is actually filled with better cards which is why the voting is higher, rather than because it has more views, but it's not perfect.

 There is a statistically significant difference in "voting behavior by page" for pages 1 and 2 only.  All other pages are not statistically significantly different.  Therefore, weighting should only be applied to the first two pages.

 What mainly confuses me is e. Does that also count your votes, or only those on other submissions. Because if it does also count the likes on your submission, then  c might as well be useless, because your own votes are already divided back to two and all that matters then is the amount of votes on other cards. In which case, that seems unfair, because page 12 has a submission with more then triple its votes as any other submission, whereas I'm at the disadvantage due to other cards on my page being in the 20/30 reach. I would lose even if half the people in the contest liked my card. (The kicker being that my card is the second highest voted card in the contest and the highest that isn't a troll)

I don't know whether having e not include your own submission is a good idea, but even page 1 has cards with 1 vote while mine doesn't, even though I feel as if my spot would be taken by a card with 40 less votes the mine because that card was the only one that had more than 15 votes on it.

Believe me, would you be happy if your card has the highest votes yet lost to cards with 20 votes because your page was full of cards with 50 votes (and non of the cards on your page were chosen)? 

Again, it all comes down to whether your own submission should count towards e.

@Asylum_Rhapsody

So, going on that formula, do you think I have a chance on finalists based on page? Because while I'm in the lead, My page has a lot of likes and thus (a:d:e) feels like it makes my submission seem not worth a lot. I think my page actually will have the lowest weight.

Too late for the submissions, but I said I'd post a final iterations of Nobby here. Just a really interesting mechanic that I had a lot of fun with.

I started to think that getting a big gain of mana on, say, T10, where you could effectively get 2 extra Mana, was unbalanced but Overload doesn't really work to balance him. So I came up with 2 possible inhibitors:

(1.) - "Only playable as the first card per turn''.       (2.) - ''Only playable as the first minion per turn.''

            OR            

I preferred ''minion'' instead of ''card'' as it feels like it fits with his Far-seer, first of the Dreneai + Alliance Shaman theme etc, but would Shamans be affected enough?

So, I'm un-enthusiastically veering toward 1 ("Only playable as the first card per turn'') as best as it has a pretty big influence on the mechanic -

• Now he can't be coined T4.
• After T7 you can only totem first before casting Nobundo any other extra mana would be lost. (You couldn't Totem first with N2)
• Now you can't Hex for ''free'' on T10. You've only 2 Mana to use after he's cast.

He could still remove Overloads and be a solid influence on tactics. I definitely think he's stats are probably right now, as 5/6 was too impactful, along with the effect.

But would he still be effective enough? Which would you go for?

Anyway, vote for 2 week competitions from now on please :). Gl all.

What do you think about a new controll card for Rouge? Is the effect too strong? I thought about giving it one less attack but that would be so boring!

possible 10 damage aoe for 5 is too strong :/