Reverberation | Improved Reverb

[mildlyfrightenedboy]

If it's dealing too much damage to Rainbow, here's an idea that I came up with that limits the damage dealt, but still allows it to deal lots of damage:

Reverberation starts with X (some huge number, probably determined by OldTrees) stacks.  Every time that your opponent gains one quanta, one stack is removed and the opponent takes one spell damage.  Every turn, Reverberation loses some large number of stacks (also OldTrees).

[moomoose]

if he wants to offer his opinions on any of my cards, im certainly open to hearing what he, or just about anyone else, has to say.  but suggesting that i call on him to do work for me is insulting.  i am able to think critically and rationally on my own and you will not see me ever go running to oldtrees to do the thinking for me.

[OldTrees]

I am curious how you decided on the balance for this card moomoose.

[moomoose]

balancing mechanism 1) the basic card deals damage to both players, dis-swaying the player himself from using a rainbow or using quanta generating cards while this is in play. the upgraded only damages the opponent, but has an increased cost relative to the basic for this change, despite being upgraded.
balancing mechanism 2) low damage against most monos/duos, if the opponent is not going to use quantum pillars, this card is less effective than a creature or creatures of relative cost.  this functions similarly as black hole, the only anti-rainbow focused card, which does little against monos/duos but thrive against rainbows. reverb can do damage or dissuade the opponent from using nova/immo/etc, while black hole removes quanta and generates healing.  dissuading vs removing i considered a wash and for damage vs healing i felt damage would be more useful, so the cost of this card was increased relative to that of black hole. (it is also important to highlight that black hole removes *and* heals, while reverb will do damage *or* dissuade, or a little damage *and* dissuade)
balancing mechanism 3) the opponent will be aware of the effect and can withhold use of nova/immo/etc until the effect is over, or take the damage and use the quanta if they feel it is worth it
balancing mechanism 4) three turn duration is in line with phase shield, and one turn longer than SoSac, with aether being a quanta-hungry element, the costs are not trivial to maintain upkeep of this

potential adjustments could be:
capping it at around 20 damage per turn
reducing the duration by one turn (doesnt feel like it would be worthwhile using if so)
have the upgraded continue to deal damage to both players (would result in the upgraded card's cost also decreasing)

[OldTrees]

I was more interested in why 4|5 instead of less(3|4) or more(5|6)?

[mesaprotector]

Here's what I figure (just the upped version):

Against rainbows, this card probably does 18 damage per turn on average. That's 54 total damage for 5 ... actually, come to think of it, that is a bit strong.

Against monos/duos, this card probably does 6 damage per turn, or 18 total. That's similar to unstable gas, even a bit weaker because there's no CC.

[oblivion1212]

pretty awesome, except for the scary fact that once it's cast, it's a sure-fire 3-turn X damage

why not make it a 3-turn perm? so it could be targeted by PC?

[The_Mormegil]

Here's what I figure (just the upped version):

Against rainbows, this card probably does 18 damage per turn on average. That's 54 total damage for 5 ... actually, come to think of it, that is a bit strong.

Against monos/duos, this card probably does 6 damage per turn, or 18 total. That's similar to unstable gas, even a bit weaker because there's no CC.

Well, you're exaggerating the damage a bit. A normal PvP rainbow generates 4-7-10 quanta per turn without novas. That's a bit stronger than Unstable Gas, but that is supposed to be like that, and it dissuades from using Nova. I think this card could very well aid in balancing the metagame. However, I also believe it needs extensive testing.

[moomoose]

I was more interested in why 4|5 instead of less(3|4) or more(5|6)?

i kinda covered this, cost was made in relation to black hole, costing more due to damage rather than healing, and then the upgraded removed the first balancing mechanism, and the cost increased by one for that.

However, I also believe it needs extensive testing.

definitely, i dont think any amount of theorycrafting will do much more than a ballpark figure for the cost/power of this card, which is essentially already done.  ineffective against monos-duos, powerful against rainbows, i think most people should be able to agree on that.

[OldTrees]

I was more interested in why 4|5 instead of less(3|4) or more(5|6)?

i kinda covered this, cost was made in relation to black hole, costing more due to damage rather than healing, and then the upgraded removed the first balancing mechanism, and the cost increased by one for that.

I was used to a more quantitative approach so I thought you were holding back your full thought process. That was an interesting way to use Black Hole as a standard. Thanks for the lesson.

[Elite arbiter]

It occurs to me that a similar issue to black hole comes up with this card. Namely, that of the interaction with discord. mechanically, discord takes 10 quanta away and then recreates it within the pool. There is a chance for it to be placed in the same pool, moreso with rainbows. But this would effectively raise the damage done by discord by 8-10 each turn this card is on the field. Is this intended? Would it be balanced to let this interaction work out?

[moomoose]

"intra-player swapping quanta will not deal damage (in other words, discord-like effects will not cause damage, this includes rustler)"