But, ark defined what it does, last time it was suggested noone said what it did. This is an interesting idea.

I think the rules about element suggestion are a little loose. I do not believe that simply because you explain what a new element would do or how you would use it that it should be counted as a "good" suggestion.

What really needs to happen is what we did in the before-times - make s**t work. From the last few (Read: from 40.0 til now) updates, I don't believe any great strides have been made other than NEW ELEMENTS WOOYAY. This is, of course, excluding the code separation and general program refinement. The ONLY thing that I have seen that has absolutely made me ecstatic (and changed the game in any noticeable way) was the change to the COAL code that allowed it to spawn more fire than 1:1. That's AWESOME; "burn" actually means more now than "If FIRE touches it, change it into FIRE based on this scale of probability."

Don't take this as a NEVER SUGGEST ELEMENTS rant, simply remember that a new element at this stage of development should offer something much more than "I'll use it to make a bigger bomb" or "If we had this it would be super awesome."

--
EDIT: And by "rules" I, of course, mean "how users interpret the guidelines for suggesting an element."