Wish | Wish

[joebob777]

and i am saying that we cant find out the need until it gets itnto the game, if it gets into it, for now, out of the game, we cant include that factor

[doublecross]

We can actually. The "need" will be based on any given match. We can say right now that not every match would have use for every possible effect at every time.   
You don't price cards based one the most useful situation that card could ever be in ever. You price it based on normal circumstances. Normal match circumstances don't have a need for all those effects at every time during the match.


Here is one way that utility will tend to decrease for one effect as it increases for another, showing that they are unlikely to both be full value (and thus appropriate to be counted as full value in the calculation)

A creature would be more useful earlier, because it does damage every turn.
Miracle would be more useful towards the end, because it is likely to heal more health.


By this logic, in any calculation of cost, at least one of the two is obviously below full utility, and should have a modifier.  This is just one example of why an appropriate cost is below that of the average cost of every ability.

[joebob777]

your logic makes sense actually, so should 2-4 random effects be -1 cost, 5-7 be -2, and 8+ be -3, does that seem fair?
i think that set percentages should also be a factor in determining cost, like this card

[doublecross]

Well, a set numerical deduction doesn't make sense either. I much prefer a percentage.

Also, if you followed my logic there, then this part should also make sense.
The deduction doesn't need to be based on the number of effects, but rather the number of types of effects.
All healing can be one.  All summoning can be one (I know different creatures have different utility, but that, all things considered, is minor right now). All drawing can be one.       

The reason for breaking based on classes of effect and not just number of effects is that, if one healing will be useful, so will another, so they don't need to both subtract. [If you were doing a super detailed analysis (as I do in my classes. I study game theory.) you would have to make a distinction between different amounts of healing, because healing 20 is less useful if you are at 90.... but that is not necessary right now]


Sorry. That is getting away from the point. This point is that, unless both effects are always useful, there should be a cost that is mildly less than just the average cost.   What that deduction is, can't be done by a simple calculation.

your logic makes sense actually, so should 2-4 random effects be -1 cost, 5-7 be -2, and 8+ be -3, does that seem fair?
i think that set percentages should also be a factor in determining cost, like this card

I would say that, although mathematically, it won't always work, most of the time, that will be fair.    Would you mind showing OldTrees this post? Maybe this may finally convince him.

[joebob777]

http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,20498.new.html#new

[Hyroen]

While I agree with you doublecross that this has to have a reduced cost for its situational effects, the issue here is that they are all beneficial no matter how you look at it and you --can-- time when you play the card.

It's not hurting you, it's not poisoning you, heck it's not even slowing you down (much), and at a cost of 2 | 1 , you can pretty much splash this in anywhere and it's a good addition.

If anything I'd put it up to 3 | 2 solely because of this fact: it has a:

• 50% chance to do what Holy Light does, and a
• 50% chance to do that + a purify counter, or to let you draw a card (similar to Precognition), or to bring out a nymph or Crusader, and last but not least the Miracle

I think that cost changes would do it good.

[doublecross]

I should have clarified. My argument was not that the current cost was appropriate (it was an error not saying that).

My argument is that the cost should be lower than the approach of a pure average suggests.

3|2 seems fine.

[joebob777]

i'll agree with 3|2 due to the randomness of need

[Hyroen]

I love it when everyone agrees c:

[joebob777]

doublecross, and anyone else who would like to join, lets take our discussion about how randomness should affect new cards to the link 5 posts above

[doublecross]

Sure. However, people in that thread should really read what was posted here.

[ZephyrPhantom]

doublecross, and anyone else who would like to join, lets take our discussion about how randomness should affect new cards to the link 5 posts above

Okay, enough debating and creating a new Pseudo-CCC.

Card Updated:
Cost Raised to 3  | 2