The next generation of Cost Theory- Net effectiveness?

[eaglgenes101]

The current generation of cost theory is long overdue.
So here's my idea: The basic idea behind this is that a card, on average, does so much for one card. Cards that can do the same effect on average have equal power (as in, equally overpowered, equally underpowered, or equally balanced).

There are 3 main variables to this:
Attack equivalent (The ability to do things while it is still on the board, equal to the attack of a vanilla creature)
Defense equivalent (The ability to stay on the board, equal to the HP of a vanilla creature)
Speed (The speed at which the card can do things, equal to the inverse of the quanta cost+1 for a vanilla creature)
Each variable adds to one of the main variables, then the main variables are combined to give the average effect of the card.

For example, let's take ash eater.
It has 2 attack and no abilities, so its attack equivalent is 2.
It has 1 HP and no abilities, so its defense equivalent is 1.
It has a cost of 1 fire and no abilities, so its speed is 1/2.

Can others help me refine this basic framework into a usable cost theory?

[Pineapple]

Cards that can do the same effect on average have equal power (as in, equally overpowered, equally underpowered, or equally balanced).

Let's say there are 10 cards that exist for Effect A and 1 card that exists for Effect B. Would one of the cards with Effect A be equally as "effective" as the card with Effect B? (Introducing 1 more card for Effect A is the same as increasing the cap on the maximum number of copies by 6.)

There are 3 main variables to this:
Attack equivalent (The ability to do things while it is still on the board, equal to the attack of a vanilla creature)
Defense equivalent (The ability to stay on the board, equal to the HP of a vanilla creature)
Speed (The speed at which the card can do things, equal to the inverse of the quanta cost+1 for a vanilla creature)
Each variable adds to one of the main variables, then the main variables are combined to give the average effect of the card.

Let A = the attack of a vanilla creature
Let B = the HP of a vanilla creature
Let C = the cost of a vanilla creature

By the current definitions, a unit increase in effectiveness would be A+1 = B+1 = 1/C - C
This may work for Ash Eater, where 1 for 3|1 = 1 for 2|2 = 0 for 2|1
It may not work later will finish later bye.

[eaglgenes101]

Cards that can do the same effect on average have equal power (as in, equally overpowered, equally underpowered, or equally balanced).

Let's say there are 10 cards that exist for Effect A and 1 card that exists for Effect B. Would one of the cards with Effect A be equally as "effective" as the card with Effect B? (Introducing 1 more card for Effect A is the same as increasing the cap on the maximum number of copies by 6.)

There are 3 main variables to this:
Attack equivalent (The ability to do things while it is still on the board, equal to the attack of a vanilla creature)
Defense equivalent (The ability to stay on the board, equal to the HP of a vanilla creature)
Speed (The speed at which the card can do things, equal to the inverse of the quanta cost+1 for a vanilla creature)
Each variable adds to one of the main variables, then the main variables are combined to give the average effect of the card.

Let A = the attack of a vanilla creature
Let B = the HP of a vanilla creature
Let C = the cost of a vanilla creature

By the current definitions, a unit increase in effectiveness would be A+1 = B+1 = 1/C - C
This may work for Ash Eater, where 1 for 3|1 = 1 for 2|2 = 0 for 2|1
It may not work later will finish later bye.

I mean if card A can do more than card B, then it is overpowered.

[OldTrees]

Observing.

A good cost theory is predictive and accurate.

[Silver]

I mean if card A can do more than card B, then it is overpowered.

You're probably just using this system as a quick reference like QI (not a hard and fast rule) but I'd just like to pipe in and say that I think it's ok for a card to be under or overpowered, as long as it doesn't harm the fun and diversity of the metagame while still having a niche.

[OldTrees]

I mean if card A can do more than card B, then it is overpowered.

You're probably just using this system as a quick reference like QI (not a hard and fast rule) but I'd just like to pipe in and say that I think it's ok for a card to be under or overpowered, as long as it doesn't harm the fun and diversity of the metagame while still having a niche.

If a card is underpowered then it will be overlooked and potential fun / diversity will be missed.
If a card is overpowered then other cards will be overlooked and potential fun / diversity will be missed.
The idea is not to compare an imbalanced card to the lack of that card. Rather the idea is to compare an imbalanced version with a balanced version.

[Zaealix]

The problem with Attack equvilant, and Defense Equivlant, that I see, is Spells.
No spell lasts for more than one turn, yet the effects of a spell, depending on the situation, can be quite powerful.
I think that as far as Defense Equivilant, Spells have one of two settings;
For spells that modify a creature, the spell lasts as long as the creature does-i.e, the defense Equivilant of buff spells =Defense Equivilant of Creature target.
Something to note, is that the Attack equvilant effect of the spell can modify the defense Equivilant- for an example:
 's Blessing.
Attack Equivilant +3 to creature attack equvilant& defense equivilant.
in this case, it's a simple +3.
Now, for a more complex example, we have  's Adreniline.
Attack Equivilant is creature's Attack Equivilant (I'm starting to not like how this sounds...) multiplied by the number of extra attacks scored minus the 'decay' penalty.
However, this spell also renders the target creature vulnerable to poison effects, while granting 'resistance' to delay effects.
Now, that said and done, on to spells that do a 1-time thing, like  's fire bolt, the defense Equivilant is 0.
The spell does not last beyond the cast time, and it's effects are only felt once.
It seems the system does indeed work for spells, but application of spells to the card theory is tricky.

[darkrobe]

wouldnt something like firebolt which removes health have a negative defense equivalent?

mostly posting to watch.

[mesaprotector]

This reminds me of a rough way I came up with to determine the rushiness of creatures, only uses Attack but seems to make sense:

AQ = ((Atk_5)^1.5)/Cost

Where Atk_5 is the total damage over 5 turns and Cost is total cost (so that growing creatures like Lava Destroyer and Graboid can be determined as well). Elite Graboid, for example, does 2+10+10+10+10 = 42 damage over 5 turns and costs a total of 4, so its AQ is (42^1.5)/4 = 68.0.

Btw, this makes it by far the best upped rusher in the game. The top 6 are:
1. Elite Graboid 68.0
2. Giant Frog 62.5
3. Flesh Recluse 54.8
4. Ruby Dragon 54.1
5. Phase Recluse 51.8
6. Lava Destroyer 49.0
 

[Pineapple]

Cards that can do the same effect on average have equal power (as in, equally overpowered, equally underpowered, or equally balanced).

Let's say there are 10 cards that exist for Effect A and 1 card that exists for Effect B. Would one of the cards with Effect A be equally as "effective" as the card with Effect B? (Introducing 1 more card for Effect A is the same as increasing the cap on the maximum number of copies by 6.)

There are 3 main variables to this:
Attack equivalent (The ability to do things while it is still on the board, equal to the attack of a vanilla creature)
Defense equivalent (The ability to stay on the board, equal to the HP of a vanilla creature)
Speed (The speed at which the card can do things, equal to the inverse of the quanta cost+1 for a vanilla creature)
Each variable adds to one of the main variables, then the main variables are combined to give the average effect of the card.

Let A = the attack of a vanilla creature
Let B = the HP of a vanilla creature
Let C = the cost of a vanilla creature

By the current definitions, a unit increase in effectiveness would be A+1 = B+1 = 1/C - C
This may work for Ash Eater, where 1 for 3|1 = 1 for 2|2 = 0 for 2|1
It may not work later will finish later bye.

I mean if card A can do more than card B, then it is overpowered.

What I was getting at was that your method would assume that an obviously unbalanced card B, when compared to card A, seems balanced.

For example, if we assume Ash Eater is balanced, the we assume that any card with a net effectiveness of 3.5 is balanced, and therefore a vanilla creature with the stats 100|0 and that generates 0.1 quanta when played is underpowered because it has a net effectiveness of 0.

Basically, the most important things you need to fix are that the ATK-to-HP scaling ratio isn't 1:1 and that you are missing a way to handle quanta generation (negative cost).

[Rutarete]

Posting to keep track. Will likely post more in-depth later

[Zaealix]

wouldnt something like firebolt which removes health have a negative defense equivalent?

mostly posting to watch.

No. Defense equivilant is how much staying power the card has. Spells therefore automatically have a defense equivalent of 0.
The Effects of a spell, however, can last for a long time, if it's a buff, then the defense equivilant of the spell is dependant on the creature. For attack spells, it's pretty much as long as the damage lasts. In some cases, Damage taken can be removed  's Holy light or Angel or effectivly nullified  's Quintessense.
Another pressing issue, is Creature abilites. This strikes me as more likly to break the formula, though it has the weakness of having already been quantified by OldTrees.
In this case, I suppose one could more or less use the data from his tables to calculate abilites, and their respective 'attack worths' Plus, we can use that chart to calculate the worth of a spell.
I'm basically trying to break this theory any way I can, if I fail, it proves the success of it. Otherwise, if I win, it's back to the drawing board.