Round 7: Radiance | Radiance

[rob77dp]

Thanks for the feedback!

Hmm, I felt that the increase in quantity was a stronger effect than reducing the chance would be. If it is too weak, which it might be, then I might bump up the chance to 30. I also considered making the chance increase over time-- 20% on turn 1, and then multiply by 1.2 each successive turn.

For your second point, each target is independent-- each has a 20% to be destroyed, and the chances are calculated separately. Added to notes.

So unupgraded... 40% * 1-card = 40% chance each turn a perm is destroyed and 6-max in a deck = 6 perms
Upgraded... 20% * 2-cards = 20% + 20%*80% = 36% chance each turn at least one perm destroyed, 12 perms total

Unupgraded	40% chance	1 target/perm	0.4 * 1 = 40% chance per turn 1 perm is destroyed 60% chance NO perm destroyed	6 per deck	1 * 6 = 6 max perms per game
Upgraded	20% chance	2 targets/perm	0.2 * 1 + 0.2 * 0.8 = 36% chance per turn at least 1 perm is destroyed 0.2 * 0.2 = 4% chance TWO perms are destroyed 0.8 * 0.8 = 64% chance NO perm destroyed	6 per deck	2 * 6 = 12 max perms per game
Upgraded Tweak-1	30% chance	2 targets/perm	0.3 * 1 + 0.3 * 0.7 = 51% chance per turn at least 1 perm is destroyed 0.3 * 0.3 = 9% chance TWO perms are destroyed 0.7 * 0.7 = 49% chance NO perm destroyed	6 per deck	2 * 6 = 12 max perms per game

I think that dropping from 40% to 36% chance per turn and the jump from 6-max to 12-max is good for 1-cost to 3-cost but then accounting for upgraded should be generally-better than unupgraded a 2-cost might fit. I mean, it's your card but now that I don't have one to design I guess I've picked yours out to interact with - .

{I may dare to say that using your Tweak-1 _and_ decreasing upgraded card's playing cost might be in order.}

{Another thought -- did you try to balance these in relation to Butterfly Effect at all?}

[Aves]

Responding to your points in reverse order!

Butterfly effect is infinite uses of one per turn, but high cost, and that doesn't really mesh with simpler forms of PC-- you need two cards, and 5+3X quanta, where X is the # of permanents you're targeting, ignoring the low atk creature's cost. It doesn't help that BE is almost never used and often considered underpowered or too niche to really be a viable option.

SoFo is a much closer analogue, with 3 permanents over 3 turns, assuming the most basic usage, and if you're making a PC spell of course you can't discount explosion(or steal, I guess), so I modeled things around those two.

The problem with a 2-cost card is that I can't make a 2-cost card I haven't been mentioning the rulesets in my notes because I've wanted these cards to stand on their own, as if they weren't restricted. So we'll just have to settle for an increased chance, heh. Rules? What rules? Don't give me no rules, no sir!

In retrospect, 20% chance does seem to leave the target alive for far too long on average, so back up to 30 it is. Further adjustments may be implemented, like interpreting the "Gain this effect per turn" differently.

Your tables are correct.  (And very pretty! Can I steal them for my notes? ^^) For the upgraded, it's important to take into account that the chance of a permanent being destroyed goes down from 51 to 20 after one is destroyed.

[rob77dp]

Responding to your points in reverse order!

Butterfly effect is infinite uses of one per turn, but high cost, and that doesn't really mesh with simpler forms of PC-- you need two cards, and 5+3X quanta, where X is the # of permanents you're targeting, ignoring the low atk creature's cost. It doesn't help that BE is almost never used and often considered underpowered or too niche to really be a viable option. Adequately answers my question of if you thought of BE.

SoFo is a much closer analogue, with 3 permanents over 3 turns, assuming the most basic usage, and if you're making a PC spell of course you can't discount explosion(or steal, I guess), so I modeled things around those two. I think you've showed homework here and ignoring BE and even SoFo in favor of Steal/Deflag is strong choice of strategy for balancing.

The problem with a 2-cost card is that I can't make a 2-cost card I haven't been mentioning the rulesets in my notes because I've wanted these cards to stand on their own, as if they weren't restricted. So we'll just have to settle for an increased chance, heh. Rules? What rules? Don't give me no rules, no sir! Drat - I was going to make a poke in my first comments here about asking for others to drop the challenge/assignment in their card posts but ... ... yeah, I didn't so no worries.  2-cost out the window!!!!

In retrospect, 20% chance does seem to leave the target alive for far too long on average, so back up to 30 it is. Further adjustments may be implemented, like interpreting the "Gain this effect per turn" differently. (nod) yup.

Your tables are correct.  (And very pretty! Can I steal them for my notes? ^^) You may have it for unrestricted use with no requirement for credits. For the upgraded, it's important to take into account that the chance of a permanent being destroyed goes down from 51 to 20 after one is destroyed.

[Aves]

Bump for round 5!

[JonathanCrazyJ]

If you had 3 Devourers, a stack of 3 unupgraded darkness pillars, a stack of 3 upgraded darkness pillars,  stack of 3 darkness pends and a darkness mark, does the effect trigger:

- once per turn
- 7 times per turn
- 13 times per turn
- or another amount?

Does this trigger when you play an upgraded pillar/pendulum?

[Aves]

Currently, it would have each devourer counting separately, each stack counting once, and then the mark, for a total of 3+1+1+1+1. So 7 total. Towers should also trigger it once when played, as would nova/SN/Immo. As is, it's definitely not balanced, (Imagine this with devtal!) but I'm not sure yet how to finetune the numbers. So far, my thoughts have been to do one/some of the below:

- Adjust the HP gain per effect
- Cap the number of times the effect is counted per turn(if we look at adrenaline as a basis, twice per turn)
- Ignore Marks/Pillars/Pendulums
- Count only unique sources of generation per turn

[Silver Emerald]

Would definitely suggest switching to counting only unique sources, given that unupgraded/upgraded versions of the same quanta-generating card are counted as a single source.

I wouldn't want to take the example JCJ just gave, add the rest of a hand of devourers, and kill off the upgraded version of this card in a single turn.

[andretimpa]

Currently, it would have each devourer counting separately, each stack counting once, and then the mark, for a total of 3+1+1+1+1. So 7 total. Towers should also trigger it once when played, as would nova/SN/Immo. As is, it's definitely not balanced, (Imagine this with devtal!) but I'm not sure yet how to finetune the numbers. So far, my thoughts have been to do one/some of the below:

- Adjust the HP gain per effect
- Cap the number of times the effect is counted per turn(if we look at adrenaline as a basis, twice per turn)
- Ignore Marks/Pillars/Pendulums
- Count only unique sources of generation per turn

When I read it I thought Rise was a single use ability. That's definitely another way of balancing it.

[Aves]

Thanks for the feedback all!

The issue with counting unique sources is that it'd be pretty annoying to code in every single possible source of quantum generation-- you'd have to account for every possible source, versus just checking the change in quantum pool or whether or not the ability has been procced yet. Killing the upped in a single turn is a strong thing! That's 9 direct damage! Throw in a BB, and that's 29 direct damage!

With regards to making Rise a single use, that's great idea! Adding that to the notes. My main concern is that the HP stacking might still be too strong-- if you have 6 devs, towers/pends+mark, that's 27 hp a turn on the unupped. Cue the catapults. Granted, it's probably not going to be much faster than catatitans in that case, but it still seems a bit much.

[Aves]

Round 6 up! Hope you don't mind, JcJ-- I hid it under 4 spoilers, so people will only see it if they really want to. I'll remove it if you tell me to.

[JonathanCrazyJ]

Not that it matters, as this submission is for fun, but the rule says "Card and Abilities must cost "

The ability of this card is , so you lose 10% of... zero votes.

[Aves]

Not that it matters, as this submission is for fun, but the rule says "Card and Abilities must cost "

The ability of this card is , so you lose 10% of... zero votes.

REDACTED has heard your complaints, and modified itself to comply with arbitrary restrictions.

Run. Run for your lives!