Metronome | Metronome (Lucky! Series)

[Uppercut]

You think Lobotomize is worth 0? Why do you assume no reserved quanta? Maybe they're playing an entropy/x duo.

[doublecross]

Ok, firstly, 1.5 > 1 , so by your logic over on clover, this would be mildly OP.

Secondly, I do not think is is fair, nor correct to count effects that cost other elements as 0 for the purpose of this calculation.


I know it is technically true that ice bolt costs 0 ,   however, that doesn't make it free.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that in any given deck, effects of a non-dominant element are more expensive, because of the difficulty of getting the quanta involved.


To call PU as having a cost of 0 , and thus actually bringing DOWN the average value of this card is just plain silly.



Edit: You also can't assume no excess quanta.

OldTrees, I respect you immensely, but in this instance (arguing that random effect shouldn't lower cost), you are wrong.

[ZephyrPhantom]

Spell Cost is determined by relation to other cards.
50 | 50 Chance of being weakened Precog | Reverse Time
Therefore chance value is 0.5  | 2  .
Average cost becomes 1.25, which is rounded down to 1  .
Final Value : 1 

Permanent Cost
Type: Standard Permanent, + 3 
Ability Threat : +3, total value is actually 2.5 since ability is now on a stick.
Upgrade Bonus : -1 / -2
Final Value : 5  / 4 

Conclusion :
The Spell is slightly OP, if you squint sideways.
The Permanent is balanced. 

What I'm seeing:
OT is using the correct argument. It's impossible to compare this to Chaos Seed because there are too many variable effects, while here you have a simple average of two effects.

I haven't seen the clover argument yet, but nothing beats statistics.

[OldTrees]

You think Lobotomize is worth 0? Why do you assume no reserved quanta? Maybe they're playing an entropy/x duo.

0+1card.
1 draw is still an important cost.

However you are right that assuming no reserve quanta was foolish.

Ok, firstly, 1.5 > 1 , so by your logic over on clover, this would be mildly OP.
You will note I said it was <1.5 thus it would round to 1. There is good evidence for this with burrow.
Secondly, I do not think is is fair, nor correct to count effects that cost other elements as 0 for the purpose of this calculation.
I admit this is true. I trust Uppercut more on these cards than myself.

I know it is technically true that ice bolt costs 0 ,   however, that doesn't make it free.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that in any given deck, effects of a non-dominant element are more expensive, because of the difficulty of getting the quanta involved.
You have been confused. I was saying that I would only pay 0quanta and 1 draw to deal a 1 icebolt.

To call PU as having a cost of 0 , and thus actually bringing DOWN the average value of this card is just plain silly.
7 + 1card was what I wrote. The normal price of the spell.


Edit: You also can't assume no excess quanta.
I have admitted this 3 times in this post.
OldTrees, I respect you immensely, but in this instance (arguing that random effect shouldn't lower cost), you are wrong.

I maybe wrong. However I do not see a convincing counter argument yet. Randomness does not necessarily entail a lower cost. If a particular example of randomness deserves a lower cost then so be it but the default is that a lower cost is not deserved just because it is random.

[doublecross]

If nothing else, the cost of lobotomize + PU would mean that the cost of chaos seed should be at least 1 & 1 , based on your logic.


I think that purely averaging the costs is not a fair way to calculate cost of a "diluted" card, and, furthermore, that you did not even apply that technique correctly in this example.




Chaos seed is balanced, or even weak at it's cost of 1 .

The average would suggest it be more expensive.




Furthermore, pandemonium cast chaos seed on every enemy.


That is not OP, despite its cheap cost.

[ZephyrPhantom]

Spell Cost is determined by relation to other cards.
50 | 50 Chance of being weakened Precog | Reverse Time
Therefore chance value is 0.5  | 2  .
Average cost becomes 1.25, which is rounded down to 1  .
Final Value : 1 

Permanent Cost
Type: Standard Permanent, + 3 
Ability Threat : +3, total value is actually 2.5 since ability is now on a stick.
Upgrade Bonus : -1 / -2
Final Value : 5  / 4 

Conclusion :
The Spell is slightly OP, if you squint sideways.
The Permanent is balanced. 

I quote this because you two went right by and ignored it. Please argue in relation to these statistics rather than using a card from an entirely different element.

@doublecross : Any card with chance is unpredictable. Averages are the best attempt to try to calculate a medium cost value for a card.

[OldTrees]

If nothing else, the cost of lobotomize + PU would mean that the cost of chaos seed should be at least 1 & 1 , based on your logic.

11 possibilities 0+c+7+c/11 is not near 3+c ( duo + 1card) as you suggest.
I think that purely averaging the costs is not a fair way to calculate cost of a "diluted" card, and, furthermore, that you did not even apply that technique correctly in this example.
Maybe you should recheck and try to understand my theory again. I did apply my theory correctly. I just was foolish in assuming a lack of  and .



Chaos seed is balanced, or even weak at it's cost of 1 .

The average would suggest it be more expensive.

The average suggests that it should cost 1 but almost 2. However it was flawed calculation because I assumed reserves of 0. You seemed to have misunderstood the theory because you keep trying to correct me on non existent errors (the exception being my foolish ignoring of reserves)



Furthermore, pandemonium cast chaos seed on every enemy.


That is not OP, despite its cheap cost.
It costs 5+upgrade bonus+1card and targets only the enemy that is a multiple of 6-7 which fit the theory just fine.
The unupped also targets your creatures. If on average it hits 3 more enemies than allies then it would still fit the theory.

To repeat my theory so that it is clear just in case it wasn't
A card should be judged based upon its average value.
Average value is typically but not always the average of values.

ZBlader has shown up with his estimation and he too thinks that it is balanced as is. We are mainly debating why it is balanced as opposed to whether it is balanced now.

[joebob777]

Spell Cost is determined by relation to other cards.
50 | 50 Chance of being weakened Precog | Reverse Time
Therefore chance value is 0.5  | 2  .
Average cost becomes 1.25, which is rounded down to 1  .
Final Value : 1 

Permanent Cost
Type: Standard Permanent, + 3 
Ability Threat : +3, total value is actually 2.5 since ability is now on a stick.
Upgrade Bonus : -1 / -2
Final Value : 5  / 4 

Conclusion :
The Spell is slightly OP, if you squint sideways.
The Permanent is balanced. 

What I'm seeing:
OT is using the correct argument. It's impossible to compare this to Chaos Seed because there are too many variable effects, while here you have a simple average of two effects.

I haven't seen the clover argument yet, but nothing beats statistics.

i'm gonna have to disagree with you on the unupped, albiet a minor disagree, whle it is a weak precog, precog costs 2 time, making it 1, not .5 unupped, and second, it is also a prime example of hourglass 2 ability cost, those 2 together make
on average 1.5|2 or 1.75, 2 rounded, but the double choice gives it a -1 cost

geez i make a big deel out of nothing, oh and the random effect should have no effect on the cost, the average costs of the effects that can be chosren are the determining factors

[doublecross]

Right. We both agree it is balanced.


However, I am not willing to admit that averaging costs is a valid way to determine appropriate cost.

The randomness does come into play. It simply is less useful, since you can't control which effect.


In my mind, chaos seed is this on a larger scale.

We let chaos seed get away with costing only 1 , despite every effect costing an equal or greater amount, going as high as 7 , for the simple reason that which effect is random.


I hold that the same principle should apply here.

[joebob777]

if it is completely random than averaging costs is necessary, if it has set percentages than you need to factor in the percentage
Ex of set percentage: 50%, 25%, 15%, 10%, that would mean you multiply costs by 5, 2.5, 1.5, and 1 accordingly, then average it out

[doublecross]

Are you trying to tell me that choosing one of several effects at random doesn't decrease the utility of the card?



Imagine you are a starving hobo.


You need food to survive.


Say there is a box, that has a 50% chance of having a burger that costs 1$, and 50% chance of having a bottle of perfume that would cost 500$ in a store.



There is no way that he would say that averaging the costs of the two would be a fair cost for buying the box, since he needs 1 of the effects, and not the other.


He would not say it was worth $(500 +1 )/2



It is the same case here.
If you need another card, then paying 1 for a 50% chance of a card, in not as useful as paying 2 and guaranteeing a card.

[joebob777]

i will give that mass randomness should give some decrease, i say 3-6 random effects deserves -1 cost, 7 and above deserves -2 cost, and the cost is determined by the average costs, one point though, should i apply this to the percentage randomness as in the example above?

PS: why do you use so many enters?