I dunno, maybe a quanta-generating creature count as half a pillar, or more if it has more HP? Devourer/Pest is probably slightly different, because it can only generate 
if your opponent's quanta is greater than zero.
I like the idea of quanta-generating creature counting as half a pillar. Yeah, a great idea. Taking HP or other things into consideration might make it a bit too complex though. But the half a pillar thing has to be definitely tested.
You could even make quanta generating creatures "75% Pillars" (make them 0,75). We can use any number we want really.
For Immolation/Cremation, I think each should count as half of what it generates; however, the amount of immolatable creatures must be greater than the amount of Immolation cards you have (if you have 6 Immolations but only 5 Photons, one Immolation is a dead card). It could depend on the number of those small creatures, and it could also depend on the COST of those creatures (free VS not free), or if they generate quanta or not (Photon VS Ray of Light), or even what element of quanta they generate (Ray of Light VS Brimstone Eater)...
The problem is of course: what are "immolatable creatures"? What is the cost or HP when a "immolatable creatures" becomes a regular creature?
But yeah.. the number of creatures have to be taken into consideration somehow.
But as for Miracle and Fractal, I think it should simply depend on the number of pillars you have. With more pillars, it gets easier to gather that 10 or so quanta; but after you use the spell, more quanta are wasted if you have more pillars. Maybe we need to do some sort of limit thing, like the limit of card effectiveness as the number of pillars approach infinity (or 60)...
Maybe I'm looking this the wrong way but I don't really see how Miracle would need any special rules. As for Fractal.. I have no idea what to do with that.
We need more math nerds on this thread. 
Yep. Where are they? This is supposed to be the freaking internet!
I think we should add the expected number of turns to the formula.
For example take a pillarless golem rush, we expect to win in about 5-6 turns, so an estimate of 2.5 uses of growth per golem played is a good estimate.
On the other hand take an FFQ deck with bonds and/or shields so that we can stall a bit, so let's assume 10 turns is the average. We can expect to use queens ability ~5 times on average (probably less, but still it's a closer approximation than 2 or 3).
I think a simple formula of
expected_number_of_turns / 2
would be a good approximation for abilities with a cost that you usually use each turn.
That's an interesting point. I have to think about it.
As for immolation the fact you have to sacrifice a creature should not affect it's cost in formula, because the creatures already affect the formula with their cost, and if it's a free creature like photon it costs you only a card, not quanta, so I don't see how would that affect quantum balance of the deck.
Yes, but the number of creatures is significant because the more creatures you have, the more likely you get to play those Immolations. No creatures, no quanta.
I think novas and immolations could be calculated as negative cost with a formula like
novas: -1*number of elements used by the deck
supernovas: -2*number of elements used by the deck
similar for immolations/cremations but with an additional -7/-9
I have drank way too much coffee to even begin to understand that. I'll try again tomorrow.
As for quantum pillars/towers I guess the best solution for now would be to simply find the best QI for rainbow decks, which will probably be a different number than for mono/duo but still it will be useful to balance quantum usage in rainbows until a more complex formula is found.
Yep, this what I'm thinking too. Not only could you find the optimal QI for different decks, but you could also find the optimal QI depending on the opponent (lower against AI3, higher against FG's).
I didn't see this thread until today, but I've already been doing something similar with the decks I've been using -- keeping the QI near 5, and usually below (since most of the starter decks seem to have QIs between 4 and 5). To be exact:
- The number of
pillars in my deck is 1/5 of the number of quanta in the costs of my non-pillar cards and their abilities, rounded up. (Likewise for each other element, but only quanta are in my current deck's card costs.) I haven't been counting any abilities twice, though. - Quantum pillars count as 1/4 of a pillar of each element -- so if I have mono-element pillars of four or more elements, I run one less pillar of each element and four more quantum pillars. So far this has only happened with (
for chrysaora, 
for mind flayer, 
for toadfish). - I don't include any pillars to support cards that cost random quanta -- but I usually run only one. Right now it's a sword.
I think counting abilities twice is closer to true usage, although I'm just guessing.
Quantifying Quanta. Interesting!
Um... can we also think of what to do with Novas and Supernovas?
Xinef already suggested something but I've drank too much coffee to understand it.
I take it that this doesn't take fractal into account?
At the moment, no.
This is very good for an objective look on decks. As Puppy pointed out the purpose of a deck can ask for a different QI, so claiming that a QI of 5 is optimal only goes for most speed decks I believe. Perhaps stall decks are better off suited with a QI of 7? Would SG's unupped rainbow give a QI of 7, assuming you count Quantum Pillars as 1/4 of each element. It would be a decent check.
I think I talked about this earlier. And like I said, that 5 was only a guess. And Yes, Quantum Pillars have a different optimal QI.
