Shard of Sacrifice | Shard of Sacrifice

[CCCombobreaker]

I keep hearing crazy stuff about SoSac, wouldn't it be legit if we made it a permanent with a timer like sundial, but it's effect ends at end of turn like sanctuary.  So you always get at least 1 turn of the effect, but packing PC reduces its effectiveness.

[Atico]

But if all this arguments aren't so good for You, then look on Leaderboard in Platinum. Girlsgeneration's deck with SoS has got >200 points more than 2nd player.
What is more - I have no idea how beat this deck. You probably say that I must hold 6 HolyFlash

500 HP EM stallout deck? Perhaps with some way to splash in purifies? That might honestly start becoming really cost-effective if Death Stall becomes 'that' effective.

Purify solve only half problem and solve only against Poison+SoS. Today I played against Mummy+SoS and here Purify do... nothing
The best info about SoS is that not to much players use it... But after 2-3 months it will be problem.

[OldTrees]

48/40 doesn't solve problem with this card... Ability should be changed, not cost.
Using sacrifice when You have 50HP doesn't looks well-considered

The ability does not need to be changed. Adjusting the cost changes the minimum damage per turn threshold that this is useful. If we look at two ridiculous minimum damage per turn thresholds (0 or 100) we can see that a 0 damage per turn minimum threshold would be OP but a 100 damage per turn minimum threshold would be UP. By definition any continuous function that goes from OP to UP will have at least 1 point where it is Balanced.

I don't know why You defend this card
This card costed 12/8 (or something like this), 32/24, 40/32, 48/40... We still change cost, so it is sign that something goes wrong with this card. I don't remember more changes with other card. Cost is 4x higher than earier (with the same ability), it is absolutely record. It is like changing cost of Mitosis from 4 to 16 
Is losing 48 HP a good against rush decks? Absolutely no. Higher HP cost SoS= less power against rush. Sorry, I don't understand this idea now. My idea with swapping damage into healing for both players (without losing 48HP) is much better against rush. Shields aslo can do more and faster (against rush). I never used this card against rush. Never. I use it when I see that this card can give me 2-3 turns and I can end game.

But if all this arguments aren't so good for You, then look on Leaderboard in Platinum. Girlsgeneration's deck with SoS has got >200 points more than 2nd player.
What is more - I have no idea how beat this deck. You probably say that I must hold 6 HolyFlash

Why do I defend this card? Because it is too late for the critiques I have about the structure to matter. I suppose I should have said "Unfortunately the ability doesn't need to be changed to be balanced and therefore won't be changed." It could have been better, however now all it will be is tweaked until it is balanced. I agree that a two sided effect would be a more valuable addition to the game. In that case it would also be Anti-Healing/Regen Stall.

I would point out that this was/is/will be best against Offensive decks (Rushes). Higher HP cost SoS = less power against any deck where SoS wasn't already a dead draw. So higher HP cost SoS = less of an added value against Rushes compared to Stalls however SoS will still heal more against the deck with the stronger offense. Though it is good to note that Spell based healing like SoD is useful for enabling the more potent use vs more powerful offenses.

Finite duration shields, Sundial and SoS are comparable. Permanent Shields are not as easily compared to SoS. SoS can hit the field pretty quick vs an Immolation Rush. Permafrost or even Skull Shield take longer. The slower the opposing Rush the slower SoS and therefore the better Shields would compare.

I would never recommend adding HolyFlash in case of SoS. I would rather suggest recognizing if a deck would have SoS and cause the SoSs to be dead cards in their hand. The most common offenses joined with SoS are particularly vulnerable to Regeneration. I would also point out that despite SoS having counters, fewer people are aware of the counters than are aware of the counters for the various other top tier decks. One should expect this to artificially inflate the points of SoS arena decks.

I would finally say that Arena skills and player input has interactions with cards that were never considered during the original balancing. This should be investigated more. People might say that Arena should not be considered during balancing. However Arena is a form of PvP and all PvP is important to consider when balancing cards for this primarily PvP game.

[PuppyChow]

The break even point is now 10 damage per turn, right? If the opponent has 10 damage per turn, then once the SoS's effect is over you will have the same exact health you would have had if you hadn't played it. It starts blocking damage at 11 per turn, but at that point it is hardly worth its cost unless you're a mono death. It really only starts getting useful once its at around 15 damage per turn, when you save 20 health overall (you get a net 10 instead of net 30 done to you). But you can't start chaining them until the opponent has 20 damage per turn, right?

I'm not seeing this card being as good anymore. To be able to chain them your opponent needs to have 20+ damage on the field before you get down to 40 health. Won't happen very often and at that point its cost isn't worth it; even if those conditions are satisfied, it's just 12 turns where you won't be playing much either unless you're mono death. Not saying its underpowered, but now rather than being a great card that could be used to help decks that normally wouldn't be viable viable, it's now a bit more limited. Oh well.

With 32 damage done the threshold was 16 damage before 32 health left, which happens much more often than 20 damage before 40 health left. I'd say 36 damage would be a happy medium but at that point its splitting hairs I suppose. It's still a good card. Just won't be *as* good.

Break even at 12|10 damage per turn. Thus it will be played at 13|11 damage per turn. At 13|11 damage per turn (4hp healing per SoSac) it is slightly less efficient than Heal or Holy Light.

How are you calculating how much quanta SoSac takes? It's different for every deck. For some decks the cost of using it is a lot, and only in mono death decks is it *slightly* less efficient than Heal or Holy Light.

So what you're saying is that at its threshold of usefulness, it is still not as useful as heal or holy light and is only usable for mono death. That means SoSac is basically a useless card, since I'd rather use the more efficient holy flash if that's what we're going on.

And if we aren't going on that, you're only going to be able to chain one, maybe two. Let's say the opponent gets 15 damage out by the time you're at 55 health. A completely reasonable expectation. You play SoSac. After using its healing up, you're down to 45 health. You play another. After it gets used up, you're down to 35 and can't chain another. So the rest in your deck are useless.

AKA, I'm not looking at this card in terms of its "efficiency" because it uses a different quanta cost for every thing. I'm looking at the unique terms when this card is truly worth a spot in your deck. Yes, it may heal some damage if the opponent has 12 damage out, but in no way would I use it as the stall card of choice if I knew the opponent would have 12 damage out. Think an upgraded sundial: If the opponent has 15 damage out, playing a sundial "heals" 15 damage per dial. At zero cost, unless you want to draw an extra card. SoSac would cost all quanta besides death and only heal 5 more than the dial.

Here are the conditions in which I would say this card is useful as of right now:

• Opponent has 20 damage on the field. This ensures you will be able to chain them as long as you have them.
• You have played the majority of your combo unless you're mono death. Chaining SoSac = not getting much quanta and not playing many cards.
• You have at least 41 health.

To me, that means this card is not as useful as it should be. Yes, it's a fairly good card, but definitely not as good as I'd like it to me. Making it cost 36 health wouldn't make it overpowered, but it'd be much more usable.

[OldTrees]

The break even point is now 10 damage per turn, right? If the opponent has 10 damage per turn, then once the SoS's effect is over you will have the same exact health you would have had if you hadn't played it. It starts blocking damage at 11 per turn, but at that point it is hardly worth its cost unless you're a mono death. It really only starts getting useful once its at around 15 damage per turn, when you save 20 health overall (you get a net 10 instead of net 30 done to you). But you can't start chaining them until the opponent has 20 damage per turn, right?

I'm not seeing this card being as good anymore. To be able to chain them your opponent needs to have 20+ damage on the field before you get down to 40 health. Won't happen very often and at that point its cost isn't worth it; even if those conditions are satisfied, it's just 12 turns where you won't be playing much either unless you're mono death. Not saying its underpowered, but now rather than being a great card that could be used to help decks that normally wouldn't be viable viable, it's now a bit more limited. Oh well.

With 32 damage done the threshold was 16 damage before 32 health left, which happens much more often than 20 damage before 40 health left. I'd say 36 damage would be a happy medium but at that point its splitting hairs I suppose. It's still a good card. Just won't be *as* good.

Break even at 12|10 damage per turn. Thus it will be played at 13|11 damage per turn. At 13|11 damage per turn (4hp healing per SoSac) it is slightly less efficient than Heal or Holy Light.

How are you calculating how much quanta SoSac takes? It's different for every deck. For some decks the cost of using it is a lot, and only in mono death decks is it *slightly* less efficient than Heal or Holy Light.

So what you're saying is that at its threshold of usefulness, it is still not as useful as heal or holy light and is only usable for mono death. That means SoSac is basically a useless card, since I'd rather use the more efficient holy flash if that's what we're going on.

And if we aren't going on that, you're only going to be able to chain one, maybe two. Let's say the opponent gets 15 damage out by the time you're at 55 health. A completely reasonable expectation. You play SoSac. After using its healing up, you're down to 45 health. You play another. After it gets used up, you're down to 35 and can't chain another. So the rest in your deck are useless.

AKA, I'm not looking at this card in terms of its "efficiency" because it uses a different quanta cost for every thing. I'm looking at the unique terms when this card is truly worth a spot in your deck. Yes, it may heal some damage if the opponent has 12 damage out, but in no way would I use it as the stall card of choice if I knew the opponent would have 12 damage out. Think an upgraded sundial: If the opponent has 15 damage out, playing a sundial "heals" 15 damage per dial. At zero cost, unless you want to draw an extra card. SoSac would cost all quanta besides death and only heal 5 more than the dial.

Here are the conditions in which I would say this card is useful as of right now:

• Opponent has 20 damage on the field. This ensures you will be able to chain them as long as you have them.
• You have played the majority of your combo unless you're mono death. Chaining SoSac = not getting much quanta and not playing many cards.
• You have at least 41 health.

To me, that means this card is not as useful as it should be. Yes, it's a fairly good card, but definitely not as good as I'd like it to me. Making it cost 36 health wouldn't make it overpowered, but it'd be much more usable.

I was referring to the minimum threshold for usefulness in a duel. (Mono deck with 13|11 damage per turn incoming) I was expanding on what you said since you only mentioned the upgraded break even point. Sundial stalls 1 turn for both players and has a minimum threshold of being at least as valuable as 10hp healing would have been. Again these are minimum thresholds. The points where players should be mostly ambivalent about whether to play the card or not. Players typically wait beyond these thresholds because they built their deck to enable higher value average usages through synergies.

[Atico]

48/40 doesn't solve problem with this card... Ability should be changed, not cost.
Using sacrifice when You have 50HP doesn't looks well-considered

The ability does not need to be changed. Adjusting the cost changes the minimum damage per turn threshold that this is useful. If we look at two ridiculous minimum damage per turn thresholds (0 or 100) we can see that a 0 damage per turn minimum threshold would be OP but a 100 damage per turn minimum threshold would be UP. By definition any continuous function that goes from OP to UP will have at least 1 point where it is Balanced.

I don't know why You defend this card
This card costed 12/8 (or something like this), 32/24, 40/32, 48/40... We still change cost, so it is sign that something goes wrong with this card. I don't remember more changes with other card. Cost is 4x higher than earier (with the same ability), it is absolutely record. It is like changing cost of Mitosis from 4 to 16 
Is losing 48 HP a good against rush decks? Absolutely no. Higher HP cost SoS= less power against rush. Sorry, I don't understand this idea now. My idea with swapping damage into healing for both players (without losing 48HP) is much better against rush. Shields aslo can do more and faster (against rush). I never used this card against rush. Never. I use it when I see that this card can give me 2-3 turns and I can end game.

But if all this arguments aren't so good for You, then look on Leaderboard in Platinum. Girlsgeneration's deck with SoS has got >200 points more than 2nd player.
What is more - I have no idea how beat this deck. You probably say that I must hold 6 HolyFlash

Why do I defend this card? Because it is too late for the critiques I have about the structure to matter. I suppose I should have said "Unfortunately the ability doesn't need to be changed to be balanced and therefore won't be changed." It could have been better, however now all it will be is tweaked until it is balanced. I agree that a two sided effect would be a more valuable addition to the game. In that case it would also be Anti-Healing/Regen Stall.

I would point out that this was/is/will be best against Offensive decks (Rushes). Higher HP cost SoS = less power against any deck where SoS wasn't already a dead draw. So higher HP cost SoS = less of an added value against Rushes compared to Stalls however SoS will still heal more against the deck with the stronger offense. Though it is good to note that Spell based healing like SoD is useful for enabling the more potent use vs more powerful offenses.

Finite duration shields, Sundial and SoS are comparable. Permanent Shields are not as easily compared to SoS. SoS can hit the field pretty quick vs an Immolation Rush. Permafrost or even Skull Shield take longer. The slower the opposing Rush the slower SoS and therefore the better Shields would compare.

I would never recommend adding HolyFlash in case of SoS. I would rather suggest recognizing if a deck would have SoS and cause the SoSs to be dead cards in their hand. The most common offenses joined with SoS are particularly vulnerable to Regeneration. I would also point out that despite SoS having counters, fewer people are aware of the counters than are aware of the counters for the various other top tier decks. One should expect this to artificially inflate the points of SoS arena decks.

I would finally say that Arena skills and player input has interactions with cards that were never considered during the original balancing. This should be investigated more. People might say that Arena should not be considered during balancing. However Arena is a form of PvP and all PvP is important to consider when balancing cards for this primarily PvP game.

I don't think that it is too late for little ability change. We don't need change all mechanism of this card, but something should be done. Now a lot of us didn't want to see SoS in Elements. This game is for players, also for weaker, which will never have SoS.
I don't want to tell that my proposition with working SoS for both players is the best, we should test it and maybe we will find better option. But making SoS like "better Sundial" seems much better especially against rush (what was original idea SoS).

Personally I suppose that HP card cost hurt more normal decks, than ArenaDecks. So we have bigger disproportion after this change. When ArenaDeck have 150-200HP there is no problem to play card for 40HP. When You have only 100HP, You have a problem, because You must use it after 3-5 turns.

Cards should be balanced in AI, Arena and PVP. I played over 7000 games here and maybe only 5% was in PVP. Rest is FG, Arena and some AI3.

[PuppyChow]

The break even point is now 10 damage per turn, right? If the opponent has 10 damage per turn, then once the SoS's effect is over you will have the same exact health you would have had if you hadn't played it. It starts blocking damage at 11 per turn, but at that point it is hardly worth its cost unless you're a mono death. It really only starts getting useful once its at around 15 damage per turn, when you save 20 health overall (you get a net 10 instead of net 30 done to you). But you can't start chaining them until the opponent has 20 damage per turn, right?

I'm not seeing this card being as good anymore. To be able to chain them your opponent needs to have 20+ damage on the field before you get down to 40 health. Won't happen very often and at that point its cost isn't worth it; even if those conditions are satisfied, it's just 12 turns where you won't be playing much either unless you're mono death. Not saying its underpowered, but now rather than being a great card that could be used to help decks that normally wouldn't be viable viable, it's now a bit more limited. Oh well.

With 32 damage done the threshold was 16 damage before 32 health left, which happens much more often than 20 damage before 40 health left. I'd say 36 damage would be a happy medium but at that point its splitting hairs I suppose. It's still a good card. Just won't be *as* good.

Break even at 12|10 damage per turn. Thus it will be played at 13|11 damage per turn. At 13|11 damage per turn (4hp healing per SoSac) it is slightly less efficient than Heal or Holy Light.

How are you calculating how much quanta SoSac takes? It's different for every deck. For some decks the cost of using it is a lot, and only in mono death decks is it *slightly* less efficient than Heal or Holy Light.

So what you're saying is that at its threshold of usefulness, it is still not as useful as heal or holy light and is only usable for mono death. That means SoSac is basically a useless card, since I'd rather use the more efficient holy flash if that's what we're going on.

And if we aren't going on that, you're only going to be able to chain one, maybe two. Let's say the opponent gets 15 damage out by the time you're at 55 health. A completely reasonable expectation. You play SoSac. After using its healing up, you're down to 45 health. You play another. After it gets used up, you're down to 35 and can't chain another. So the rest in your deck are useless.

AKA, I'm not looking at this card in terms of its "efficiency" because it uses a different quanta cost for every thing. I'm looking at the unique terms when this card is truly worth a spot in your deck. Yes, it may heal some damage if the opponent has 12 damage out, but in no way would I use it as the stall card of choice if I knew the opponent would have 12 damage out. Think an upgraded sundial: If the opponent has 15 damage out, playing a sundial "heals" 15 damage per dial. At zero cost, unless you want to draw an extra card. SoSac would cost all quanta besides death and only heal 5 more than the dial.

Here are the conditions in which I would say this card is useful as of right now:

• Opponent has 20 damage on the field. This ensures you will be able to chain them as long as you have them.
• You have played the majority of your combo unless you're mono death. Chaining SoSac = not getting much quanta and not playing many cards.
• You have at least 41 health.

To me, that means this card is not as useful as it should be. Yes, it's a fairly good card, but definitely not as good as I'd like it to me. Making it cost 36 health wouldn't make it overpowered, but it'd be much more usable.

I was referring to the minimum threshold for usefulness in a duel. (Mono deck with 13|11 damage per turn incoming) I was expanding on what you said since you only mentioned the upgraded break even point. Sundial stalls 1 turn for both players and has a minimum threshold of being at least as valuable as 10hp healing would have been. Again these are minimum thresholds. The points where players should be mostly ambivalent about whether to play the card or not. Players typically wait beyond these thresholds because they built their deck to enable higher value average usages through synergies.

Yes, and I'm saying that this minimum threshold is not a useful tool to measure a card by, or at least this card anyway. I'm just saying that this card isn't worth it except for mono death, meaning I don't think it's that great a card... I don't think we're really arguing about anything here haha.

[OldTrees]

snip

Yes, and I'm saying that this minimum threshold is not a useful tool to measure a card by, or at least this card anyway. I'm just saying that this card isn't worth it except for mono death, meaning I don't think it's that great a card... I don't think we're really arguing about anything here haha.

We were not arguing. I was stating the minimum threshold because it is a useful fact to know when countering the card and was where you started. You were trying to measure the balance of the card using the minimum threshold as a start but providing reasons for why it is not sufficiently valuable to be included if the minimum is all to be expected.

[Brontos]

Maybe a card that prevent any modifications of the way mecanisms are in the game could be good.

Anything like:

"Ancient Chess Board"
It's chess rules; healing and damage mecanisms can't be altered.
  : draw a card

(just quickly proposing something ^^)

[RRQJ]

I doubt this card is getting changed to a completely different effect.

[darkrobe]

I think it would actually be better if it was something like 45|37 or something like that. but that it took into account max health. I think just raising the cost doesnt fix all the problems because it doesnt mean the same to lose 48 health in a 100 hp deck as it does to lose 48 hp in a 200 hp deck.

[poperekov]

draw in element?