Shock Absorber | Recoil Absorber

[Espithel]

So sanctuary is also better than half of the shields in the game.
Okay.

I've actually estimated how much damage shields reduce.
This is above average than most shields, BUT it doesn't scale.

[Fippe94]

wat?

Most other shields block a lot more than 4 damage.

[skyironsword]

Look at SoSac decks. Why do they work? Because in general, decks have enough damage sources to deal 20+ damage in one turn. Using dim shield, which is in the same element as this card, you can block ~60 damage.

The main reason you would use a shield is because shields scale.

[Espithel]

SoSac tends to be more late-game in comparison to shields.
Dim only prevents up to 60 damage late game. (And really needs to horribly die in a fire, but that's a story for another day.)
Okay, sure, then one could argue that the card should cost less if it's supposed to be an early game shield.

I've played... many different kinds of decks, and I tend to have 4-5 creatures out when I finish, and about 1-3 creatures in the first few turns. For a shield to prevent as much damage as this card, you need four creatures out, upped or unupped.
With other shields, they're trickier but the idea still applies.

... Although, in retrospect, those are all terrible shields, so I might as well just buff it to 8 | 13.
But this card is most certainly not as weak as you claim it to be.

[Espithel]

Enjoy your buff.

[OdinVanguard]

... hmm... most decks seem to average no more than about 4 to 6 creatures. At this price, this shield is on par with diamond shield's cost.
Diamond shield would prevent 12 to 18 damage every turn if there are 4 to 6 enemies in play.
So I think this card is still slightly overpriced / underpowered.

The upgraded version should probably get bumped a little at the very least.

For the unupped version... I think it would be relatively balanced if you drop the cost to 4 or else buff the damage absorption a little.

My suggestions:
Unupped: 10 damage absorb, 4 cost.
Upped: 16 damage absorb, 6 cost

[Espithel]

Best case scenario diamond shield should be better than shock absorber.
Different cards, different purposes. I don't want the damage to be better than diamond later on.
Note that aether has lightning and lobo, not to mention how easy it is to splash in chaos seed or upgraded lances into a deck.

If a deck on average only has 4-6 creatures, then I highly doubt that on average, that best case will happen constantly.
Which is why I feel it's fine at the price it is.

It's a lot easier to stop the enemy dealing 13 damage a turn, too.

[OdinVanguard]

Best case scenario diamond shield should be better than shock absorber.
If a deck on average only has 4-6 creatures, then I highly doubt that on average, that best case will happen constantly.
Which is why I feel it's fine at the price it is.
I think it may happen quite alot. The only place where this card outshines diamond shield is when the opponent only has one or two strong hitters. In cases where the opponent has a mix of weak minions and heavy hitters or where the opponent relies on large numbers of weak creatures, diamond shield outshines this by far. So saying "best case scenario diamond shiled is better" is a bit backwards. Diamond shield will probably be better in a large number of situations. So its really "best case scenario, this card MIGHT be better than diamond or titanium shield"

It's a lot easier to stop the enemy dealing 13 damage a turn, too.
That statement supports my argument that this card is underpowered

In any case, this card is also cost ineffective compared to SoFo + GP. Which is a very close analogue since it effectively blocks 15 physical damage per turn for a cost of 6 and 2 cards unupgraded or 5 and 2 cards upgraded... I know, shards are disliked but I doubt they will be disappearing anytime soon.
With regard to SoFo, its biggest reason for hate is that it eats permanents at the same time as growing. The hp growth alone isn't imbalanced. Even a lot of the nerfs proposed only include adding some kind of a cost or limiting the permanent destruction. So the point is a valid one.

I think cost efficiency wise, this should be at least on par with a toothless GP'd SoFo...
So starting with that,

Unupped: 6 + 1 extra card -> ~8 for 15 absorb and 1 permanent destroy per turn via cost theory.
Permanent destroy per turn should be valued at about 3 in unupgraded meta (pulverizer and butterfly effect as reference)
So for a toothless unupgraded SoFo + GP, you would pay 5 for 15 absorb per turn.

Upgraded: 5 + 1 extra card -> 7
Permanent destroy is worth about 2 to 3 in upgraded meta (use upped pulvy as reference)
So once again, a toothless upgraded SoFo + GP is worth about 5 for 15 absorb per turn.

Your shield is underpowered in both cases.