If its true that the game can't process the amount of something played than this card idea might have just died before any real discussion happened.
OldTrees, thanks for the mathematical breakdown. The costing with a card that scales is hard, so my question is how would you value a card? How many copies should be played before it becomes super efficient and how you cost it?
The game probably would be able to deal with this card. If not then it could always count the number of simulacra creates created and work based off that somehow.
Assuming the value progresses linearly (as it does in this case) I value a card based upon what the card does mid-game. This time period is dependent on the types of deck it would be used in, the combos involved and the weaknesses that deck type is subject too.
For this card it seems like a stall deck (reach all 30 cards) is ideal. However stall decks do not always succeed in stalling so somewhere between Rush deck victory and Stall deck victory would be the ideal balance point.
From this I would say that the 4th card should probably be the balance point. (However this would have to compete/replace fractal so make the 3rd card the balance point) From Mindgate I would theorize that each card gained should be balanced at 3
after the replacement card.
The first three cards created a total of 6 cards (6x3
=18
) replacing 3 cards(-3x3
=-9
) for an ideal total cost of 18-9=9
or 3
per Simulacra.
A better balance point would be at the 3.5th card
Total cards created (N)(N+1)/2=7.875
Total cards consumed N=3.5
Delta cards 4.375
Ideal cost per delta card [3
]
Ideal cost for 3.5 Simulacra [13.125
]
Ideal cost per Simulacra [3.75 or 4|3
]
