Post by: Naii_the_Baf on August 26, 2017, 08:45:55 pm
There are some irregularities in creature's stats relating to their costs(in a spoiler):
| Card | Card | Irregularity |
 |  | Why is Damselfly free, whilst being a copy of a card in another element that has a cost of 1 :fire? Don't tell me it's because :fire Brimstone Eater has a period in it's description where as :air Damselfly's does not. |
 |  | I believe that 3 stat points should cost 1 quanta at least. Why are these two cards the same cost, then? |
 |  | I get :entropy Purple Nymph's ability is quite powerful, but it is also one of the most expensive and Aflatoxin can be just as powerful. The difference in stats is uncanny, and, to add insult to injury, the most powerful is also the cheapest. |
 |  | This one speaks for itself. Look at the abilities if it doesn't for you. Although this one is quite minor, in reality. |
 |  | Speaks for itself. You knew I was going to bring this pair up. |
 |  | Don't tell me it's because :death Skeleton has mass is the reason it has the cost :light Photon does not. And its passive is quite useless, so... |
 |  | ... I get this one's a joke, but seriously? |
I decided to work out a system for giving a regular value to each stat point, based off of vanilla creature's stats.
The following is the result:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19xlgM-AKTxGW5BIPkKOO3myX8tIFzah7vC6cQwac0ts/edit#gid=0
I put every single creature currently in-game inside of that spreadsheet, including unobtainable creatures such as :entropy Singularity or :chroma Malignant Cell, and even weapons(only taking in count their attack, marked in red). Of course, abilities haven't been taken on count.
It looks this would balance the game nicely, that is, until we apply abilities(which would pretty much make every single creature in-game more expensive).
Of course, some cards with very high stats are horribly imbalanced, such as Armagio or Massive Dragon. That's only because of how the system works, though.
Post by: kaempfer13 on August 26, 2017, 09:37:58 pm
The original cost theory was as follows: atk+floor(health/5)-1(if upgraded)-up to 1(if it matches the stated strength of an element that is clearly lacking in other aspects, most notably life getting a 1 cost discount on all creatures), with further discounts for cards costing 4 or less. It is true that many creatures fail to match this.
damselfly is just plain op, especially with sofree (I think a plain 2|1 for 0 is playable and this card also acts as a pillar (meaning that the added 2|1 is essentially a 1 quanta draw and play a pillar without thinning your deck)). Before shards however fire was stronger than air and had more uses for excess quanta (firebolt, fahren).
I don't really get why all good air cards become so much stronger when upgraded (ok the shields stay about the same but they where really good from the get go) and sofree pushes this further. Unless you count air as getting a 1 quanta discount on anything related to airborne it is too strong.
These dont really compare, aflatoxin is much weaker cc then antimatter. It is true though that :death is really aggressively stated for what it does, while :entropy falls way behind and doesnt even deal with pesky abilities, no matter how many times it uses its ability.
Nah not really. Shrieker is vulnerable when it needs to be invincible the most, it is in fact weaker while invincible and it has less synergies. Anubis requires more/stronger cc to be dealt with, has synergy with SoR and can give invulnerability to other creatures. However its ability costs more and its much less suitable to be used as a hitter. Given your emphasis on the ability it seems you actually think anubis is stronger. the meta thinks otherwise (though its mostly because it fits better into graboid decks)
worst water creature vs strongest life creature. As I mentioned above life is simply supposed to have the most costefficient creatures and blue crawler only gets usefull once upgraded.
There is also synergy with eclipse and the one you mentioned with rt/eternity, neither of which are worth an extra quanta (especially since its a big deal whether you can play it immediately or only after turn 1), but explain why zanz thought he couldn't make it cost 0.
Yh well unobtainable cards are balanced differently. Your spreadsheet isn't much use until you factor in abilities and whether you can actually put it in your deck.
Post by: Captain Scibra on August 26, 2017, 10:58:53 pm
I agree with the above, somewhat. I don't think it's strictly OP (because technically, it simply gets the bigger -2 upgrade bonus). Rather, Brimstone Eater should be 3|1 to compensate for it retaining a cost; because, while this only applies to restricted PvP, Fire does not deserve a free creature to combo with Immolation.
Dragons are... weird. To also include the many remembered attempts at cards with themes like "Heroes" and "Titans", dragons have that awkward place in which every element has notably different direct synergies with different sizes of creatures. I respectfully point the finger at Phase Dragon being the only non-vanilla dragon because of Parallel Universe. My thought would be to add some sort of passive to every dragon, since I do think Parallel Universe is fairly priced so long as it cannot combine with Phase Dragon, which the only solution to that is its Immateriality.
Honestly, Grey Nymph is by far the most overpowered. In just about any creature-cost theory (if not all), the stats alone make up for its playing cost. While in some light its ability is basically a double-poison, it's ability cost doesn't even compensate for that. A few of the nymphs have strong self-synergy, and I think we should consider that as their focal point, and then make tweaks to them or cards that they synergize with. Making Grey Nymph a glass cannon (2hp) so that (even though it won't be the main used strategy) it can kill itself with its own ability, summon a horde of Malignant Cells, and also we need a mass-sacrifice card for Death I think to synergize with this now one-card possibility.
Graboid aside, Shrieker is fine. Anubis does need a buff, for both grades. I'd reduce the non-upgraded ability cost to 1 :aether (making it that for both), and the upgrade gets better stats, maybe like 6|5 (now it's conveniently in range of being Lightning'd) and maybe a slight cost decrease.
The simplest one to answer. Blue Crawler vs Horned Frog. In my thread, I explain Life getting a creature and creature generation mechanic bonus. That is, creatures as well as spells or permanents that generate or allow the generation of creatures get a -1 cost. For Blue Crawler, it receives no bonus because Water's is perceived to be that of duality; so cards with a non-Water ability cost get cost even less for having an off-cost ability.
Another "token" comparison, I think that Photon needs to generate a single :light when played, but only when played. As for Skeleton, I do think it should have no cost, but just that. Light, from what I recall, might have a passive bonus for its creatures. (I think in the thread I initially noted that it was some sort of "ignorance" bonus).
Post by: Espithel on August 26, 2017, 11:14:57 pm
Otherwise, yeah, a lot of these costs are arbitrary AF.
Post by: ARTHANASIOS on August 27, 2017, 06:45:02 am
Moreover, due to an EtG's bug, Purple Nymph is the most common nymph in the game, so I think it needs its low stats. :P
Post by: Mr Muffin on September 01, 2017, 04:50:20 pm
And to some extend these.
So blue crawlers not just a bad creature compared to life's efficient creatures.
Post by: dawn to dusk on September 02, 2017, 09:35:38 am
Post by: Espithel on September 02, 2017, 09:59:56 am
Having to deal with cheap, beefy threats while also being incapable of significant offence for a time is a potent combination. Just ask darkness' Vagger/Drain life/Nighmare package.
Post by: ARTHANASIOS on September 02, 2017, 12:04:12 pm
Post by: Mr Muffin on September 02, 2017, 07:01:49 pm
About Blue Crawler, keep in mind that Adrenaline can be almost in-element for Water (due to Nymph Tears) and a deck featuring a few Emerald Pillars/Pends, NTs and Blue Crawler is more than viable.
Those decks are inferior to mono water nymph tear decks and/or mono life rushes.
Off this topic on main topic, it matters not if every card is balanced with every other card if the elements are balanced enough as a whole.
Post by: ARTHANASIOS on September 03, 2017, 07:46:59 am
Those decks are inferior to mono water nymph tear decks and/or mono life rushes.
It depends to what deck you face. Adrenaline decks lack CC protection in comparison to NT decks while NT decks lack speed in comparison to Adrenaline ones. These ones have something of both (for a cost) and more late-game massive damage from both.
About elements being balanced enough as a whole, as long as Zanzarino is inactive, I doubt it will ever happen (though I am quite happy with the current level of balance; it could be worse, much worse)...
Post by: JonathanCrazyJ on September 03, 2017, 09:27:39 am
Toadfish is an unupped midrange hitter, but when upped, it fills a very differen role, so blue crawler is there JUST to fill the role of a midranged hitter in the upped bracket.
If we only had one or the other it wouldn't be fair.
Post by: Captain Scibra on September 14, 2017, 03:02:08 pm
Blue crawler is balanced because we have toadfish.
Toadfish is an unupped midrange hitter, but when upped, it fills a very differen role, so blue crawler is there JUST to fill the role of a midranged hitter in the upped bracket.
If we only had one or the other it wouldn't be fair.
While this may be true in some sense, Zanzarino, though inactive, did agree that a true upgraded version of Toadfish and an unupgraded version of Pufferfish (therefore separating the cards) was something he wanted to do because of how each card would be useful in its opposite grade.