Quantum Pendulum | Quantum Pendulum

[Phaser]

Well, all I think this card needs to do is instead of generating 3 random quanta , It needs to generate 1 random quanta like the other pendulms.

[OldTrees]

Well, all I think this card needs to do is instead of generating 3 random quanta , It needs to generate 1 random quanta like the other pendulms.

The other pendulums generate 1 specific quanta not 1 random quanta.
1 specific is more valuable than 1 random.

[Chapuz]

Well, all I think this card needs to do is instead of generating 3 random quanta , It needs to generate 1 random quanta like the other pendulms.

The other pendulums generate 1 specific quanta not 1 random quanta.
1 specific is more valuable than 1 random.

Or maybe, just to balance the thing, change it for "Alternatively generates 2 random quanta and 1 quantum matching your mark."
The reason is that 2 of the actual quantum pendulum would do the same as an element pilar and a quantum pilar,counting every 2 turns. The difference is that 2 of the actual quantum pends would guatantee having specific and random quanta and having element and quantum pilars in a deck is less likely to get than having only quantum pendulums. So if a player wants to make a rainbow (or quartet or whatever) he will have to decide between putting element and quantum pilars or just quantum pendulums, which guarantee the specific element quanta but gives less random ones. Interesting idea, huh?

[OldTrees]

Well, all I think this card needs to do is instead of generating 3 random quanta , It needs to generate 1 random quanta like the other pendulms.

The other pendulums generate 1 specific quanta not 1 random quanta.
1 specific is more valuable than 1 random.

Or maybe, just to balance the thing, change it for "Alternatively generates 2 random quanta and 1 quantum matching your mark."
The reason is that 2 of the actual quantum pendulum would do the same as an element pilar and a quantum pilar,counting every 2 turns. The difference is that 2 of the actual quantum pends would guatantee having specific and random quanta and having element and quantum pilars in a deck is less likely to get than having only quantum pendulums. So if a player wants to make a rainbow (or quartet or whatever) he will have to decide between putting element and quantum pilars or just quantum pendulums, which guarantee the specific element quanta but gives less random ones. Interesting idea, huh?

Interesting idea, but that logic would claim all Pendulums are too powerful because they all represent 2 types of quanta in one card without quanta loss.

[Chapuz]

That's the reason of the 1 specific - 2 random. Making it 1-1, no one would use it. It's too weak and with 10 quantum pends you would maybe never ever het 4 or 5 quantum of an element untill the oponent kills you. It's matter of power balancing and comparison with the existing cards.
2 element pendulums = 1 of each pilar, counting every 2 turns.Pros: get both elements you want at the same speed. Cons: 2 and only 2 elements per pendulum.
2 3-1 quantum pendulums = 1 element pilar and 1 quantum pilar, counting every 2 turns. Pros: No element restrictions and guarantee getting the mark quanta you want. Very very likely to get.
6 2-1 quantum pendulums = 3 element pilars and 2 quantum pilar. Pros: Has no element restrictions and still gets random quanta. It must have cons. The cons are that 6 of them produce an amount of quanta equal to 5 cards, as the normal pends produce quanta equal to the same amount of pilars.

[OldTrees]

That's the reason of the 1 specific - 2 random. Making it 1-1, no one would use it. It's too weak and with 10 quantum pends you would maybe never ever het 4 or 5 quantum of an element untill the oponent kills you. It's matter of power balancing and comparison with the existing cards.
2 element pendulums = 1 of each pilar, counting every 2 turns.Pros: get both elements you want at the same speed. Cons: 2 and only 2 elements per pendulum.
2 3-1 quantum pendulums = 1 element pilar and 1 quantum pilar, counting every 2 turns. Pros: No element restrictions and guarantee getting the mark quanta you want. Very very likely to get.
6 2-1 quantum pendulums = 3 element pilars and 2 quantum pilar. Pros: Has no element restrictions and still gets random quanta. It must have cons. The cons are that 6 of them produce an amount of quanta equal to 5 cards, as the normal pends produce quanta equal to the same amount of pilars.

You missed my point.
P1) Pillars are balanced
P2) Elemental Pendulums are Balanced
P3) Pillar A + Pillar B and 2 A/B Pendulums produce the same quanta
P4) Pillar A is a Quantum Pillar
C) 3:1 Quanta Pendulums are balanced in the same manner as Elemental Pendulums.
Which premise are you disagreeing with?

[Chapuz]

That's the reason of the 1 specific - 2 random. Making it 1-1, no one would use it. It's too weak and with 10 quantum pends you would maybe never ever het 4 or 5 quantum of an element untill the oponent kills you. It's matter of power balancing and comparison with the existing cards.
2 element pendulums = 1 of each pilar, counting every 2 turns.Pros: get both elements you want at the same speed. Cons: 2 and only 2 elements per pendulum.
2 3-1 quantum pendulums = 1 element pilar and 1 quantum pilar, counting every 2 turns. Pros: No element restrictions and guarantee getting the mark quanta you want. Very very likely to get.
6 2-1 quantum pendulums = 3 element pilars and 2 quantum pilar. Pros: Has no element restrictions and still gets random quanta. It must have cons. The cons are that 6 of them produce an amount of quanta equal to 5 cards, as the normal pends produce quanta equal to the same amount of pilars.

You missed my point.
P1) Pillars are balanced
P2) Elemental Pendulums are Balanced
P3) Pillar A + Pillar B and 2 A/B Pendulums produce the same quanta
P4) Pillar A is a Quantum Pillar
C) 3:1 Quanta Pendulums are balanced in the same manner as Elemental Pendulums.
Which premise are you disagreeing with?

C) 3|1 quanta pends are balanced in quanta generating/turns, but unbalanced in the way you get high random quanta + mark quanta (which you want).

[OldTrees]

You get moderate random quanta (1/2 pillar) and moderate mark quanta (1/2 pillar).
Elemental Pendulums get moderate specific quanta and moderate mark quanta.
Why is 1/2 of a Quantum Pillar > 1/2 an Elemental Pillar?

[Chapuz]

You get moderate random quanta (1/2 pillar) and moderate mark quanta (1/2 pillar).
Elemental Pendulums get moderate specific quanta and moderate mark quanta.
Why is 1/2 of a Quantum Pillar > 1/2 an Elemental Pillar?

Elemental pilars are 1|1 or we are not using the same notation xD
1|1 for me means "Generate 1quantum one turn and 1 quantum the other one."
It's just a matter of balance and I think this card must be in the game so prople can say how usefull it is being 1|2 and 1|3.

[OldTrees]

You get moderate random quanta (1/2 pillar) and moderate mark quanta (1/2 pillar).
Elemental Pendulums get moderate specific quanta and moderate mark quanta.
Why is 1/2 of a Quantum Pillar > 1/2 an Elemental Pillar?

Elemental pilars are 1|1 or we are not using the same notation xD
1|1 for me means "Generate 1quantum one turn and 1 quantum the other one."
It's just a matter of balance and I think this card must be in the game so prople can say how usefull it is being 1|2 and 1|3.

A Fire Pendulum produces 1/2  and 1/2 Mark per turn. Therefore it is 1/2 Fire Pillar and 1/2 Mark. (I count per turn not per 2 turns.)

2 Fire Pendulums (with Aether mark) are balanced replacing a Fire Pillar and an Aether Pillar.
Quantum Pillars are balanced with Fire Pillars
Why can we not use substitution to show two 1|3 Quantum Pendulums (with Aether mark) as a balanced replacement for a Quantum Pillar and an Aether Pillar?

[Chapuz]

I just thought a 3|1 quantun pend would be used far much more than quantum pilars, that's it.

[OldTrees]

I just thought a 3|1 quantun pend would be used far much more than quantum pilars, that's it.

I do not see why it would. Using a Quantum Pendulum instead of a Quantum Pillar slows down the production of  . Sometimes it will be worth it for the +.5 Mark quanta per turn. Sometimes it would not.