Ask the Idea Guru

[Silver]

Here I am being presumptious again but why do you use comparitive cost when looking at balance? Wouldn't a more accurate assessment be looking at potential applications rather than cost in a void?

I think the cost model of balance analysis is simpler and more concrete, but decks are more than the sum of their parts and it's decks that imbalance the game, not cards.

[OldTrees]

Here I am being presumptious again but why do you use comparitive cost when looking at balance? Wouldn't a more accurate assessment be looking at potential applications rather than cost in a void?

I think the cost model of balance analysis is simpler and more concrete, but decks are more than the sum of their parts and it's decks that imbalance the game, not cards.

This is a good question.

However I do not look for balance merely once. Rather I use a series of estimates starting with theoretical and progressing through practical for the cards that enter the game.

Theoretical:

We start with a vanilla comparative cost. This gives an estimate of the power/cost ratio in a void.

Then we compare the strength of abnormally* strong combos for that card. Fractal would be balanced off above average fractal fodder not average fractal fodder.

*Only abnormally strong combos need to be checked. If the synergy is sufficiently low (Horned Frog + Cockatrice) then the strength of the combo can be predicted without a comparison.

Practical:

If a card makes it to the trainer we start testing the card at the deck level. Sometimes a card has gone through some preliminary playtesting before this point. However almost nothing can compare to the amount of manpower the In Development section can muster. At this point the decks are compared to similar decks.

Finally the card has been in the game for several months. The only source of manpower to dwarf the In Development playtesting is the Metagame. Now the card's impact on the metagame (complete with backlash and blowback) can be observed and critiqued. This normally happens in the Game Suggestion and Feedback (Buff this Card/Nerf this Card) sections.

In conclusion:
"Why do you use comparitive cost when looking at balance?" Because it is an efficient tool for balancing that can be done sooner than the more accurate methods. However the more accurate methods are still used later when they become available.

Sidenote: An imbalanced card can create an imbalanced combo. An imbalanced combo can create an imbalanced deck. An imbalanced deck can unbalance the metagame. However each of these imbalances can also arise simultaneously from balanced materials assuming the synergy is strong enough. This chain of effect along with the branches is what makes a multiple tiered balancing approach required.

Sidenote 2: Additionally the single card comparison theory is meant to adapt and change as the standard of the game changes. Dragonfly was the last change that caused the theory to shift. Shard of Integrity is likely to cause another shift.

[Silver]

:thumbsup:

That is a really good answer.

[waterzx]

I would like hear some comments from you. Not only for the cost balance, bu also for the whole mechanics. Do you think this card is a good idea ?

Divine Protection | Divine Force
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,37461.0.html

[OldTrees]

I would like hear some comments from you. Not only for the cost balance, bu also for the whole mechanics. Do you think this card is a good idea ?

Divine Protection | Divine Force
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,37461.0.html

This card would protect creatures from damaging CC, by redirecting that damaging CC at the player.
Is mass anti-CC a good idea? Yes. There should be answers to everything even to answers.
Does it fit in Light? Yes. Light likes to be able to ignore the opponent. It also is the element most associated with martyrdom. A leader sacrificing for the sake of the followers fits the theme well.

The final part of the card is the bonus you receive per creature protected. This is not per creature per turn. If Shard of Divinity and Shard of Gratitude are to be believed, regeneration is worth about 4 times as much as healing. Empathic bond gives 1 regeneration per creature. Divine Protection gives 1 healing per creature.

The value of Divine Protection is
Mass anti damaging CC + 2 healing per creature (EB/2=3cu) + CC redirected towards the player.

Divine Force gives you  per creature. This effectively reduces the casting cost of all creatures by 1.

The value of Divine Protection is
Mass anti damaging CC + creatures cost 1 quanta less + CC redirected towards the player.

Now one would merely need to estimate the magnitude of these components.
I do not have a good guess yet as to the value of (Mass anti damaging CC + CC redirected towards the player). However Lightning is usually used as CC and not as direct damage. This would indicate that the redirection is a net positive. Perhaps around 1-5cu.

The reducing creature costs by 1 was done before as Lotus (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,26904.0.html) for 1cu.

This would result in value totals of
3+(3+/-2)|-1.5+1+(3+/-2) = 6|4  +/-2 = 5 |2 + 1 card +/-2

However remember these are very rough estimates. I am much more confident on the structure of the estimate then I am on the estimates involved.

[waterzx]

Seems there won't be definitely correct balanced cost. So maybe I should remain the current low cost because this card, after all, is a risky card. A simple rain of fire can cost you the whole game.

*Submission to Crucible*

[Drake_XIV]

Can I get your thoughts on:
  Diode (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,37524.0.html) and  Short Circuit (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,37507.0.html)?

[OldTrees]

Can I get your thoughts on:
  Diode (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,37524.0.html) and  Short Circuit (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,37507.0.html)?

Diode is a 2 turn two sided form of Silence. As all two sided cards, the user would minimize costs and maximize benefits during deckbuilding. Unexpected side effects include unupped pandemonium acting like it was upgraded and unstable gas acting like thunderstorm (one sided rather than 2 sided).

Using Silence as a basis for estimation, Diode seems balanced at 2 turns.

Diodes do prevent the flow of electricity from reversing however, that does not explain why the flow of energy cannot go from the elemental towards their creatures. This is a minor issue.

Short circuit will be a mass buff that does not target. It will usually be used in Gravity duos, Voodoo duos or with Phase Dragons. However it accepts a broad range of triggers including almost all forms of damaging CC from both sides. This seems to give it a very self destructive feel. While the name's theme is undoubtedly Aether, the mechanical theme is more reminiscent of Fire (Mass fury).

Whether it is balanced is hard to tell. It has more impact than a Eclipse but gives the opponent a bonus Thunderstorm with each CC card. It would reccomend playtesting the card. Both as Aether and as Fire at 4 |3 and at 6 |5 . I suspect the card to be weaker in Fire due to the lower hp. This would incentivize making a duo (higher cost for higher benefit).

[waterzx]

How should it be balanced ? I'm not sure how much the "absorbed" quanta count, as compared to normal quanta consumption.

http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,37525.0.html

If you have a lot of quanta, you are basically using 3 quanta to gain a temporary creature with massive attack and HP. But it does take some risk to use this card.

[OldTrees]

How should it be balanced ? I'm not sure how much the "absorbed" quanta count, as compared to normal quanta consumption.

http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,37525.0.html

If you have a lot of quanta, you are basically using 3lots of quanta to gain a temporary creature with massive attack and HP. But it does take some risk to use this card.

It costs all your quanta and thus has a cost of X [X=total quanta]

1.5 * (1 + Y ) ~= X
(X - 1.5) / 1.5 = Y

Then, since it is possible to get the quanta back, reduce the power of the creature after it is balanced according to the above equations.

[waterzx]

May I know how you obtain the equations ?

And I assume  means attack, am I right ?

if  means attack, then assume X is 12.

Y = (12-1.5)/1.5 = 7....

attack gained by 4 quanta = 7/3, well, not a good looking number, round it down ?

[OldTrees]

May I know how you obtain the equations ?

And I assume  means attack, am I right ?

if  means attack, then assume X is 12.

Y = (12-1.5)/1.5 = 7....

attack gained by 4 quanta = 7/3, well, not a good looking number, round it down ?

I obtained the equations by comparing Tower Shield, Titanium Shield, Quantum Pillar and Earth Pillar.
2 ~~= 1

  means elemental quanta cost. +1 attack costs +1 casting cost.

When X is absorbed, the creature should be worth slightly less than (X-1.5)/1.5 elemental quanta.