Ask the Idea Guru

[OldTrees]

Is this card balanced, mechanic-wise?

Spoiler for Hidden:

If it's OP, will reducing the effect to 1 turn balance it?

Shard of Sacrifice has lots of available counters. The question is the efficiency of SoSac and the efficiency of the counters. This is really hard to predict in theory to this degree. (Theory only complains about the real SoSac not having a cost) If this version were imbalanced then it would be imbalanced by inches not feet. This means cutting the duration in half would probably be over reacting. The max hp loss is hard to increase and the casting cost is near the ideal limit for  .

So in this case I would refer you to the balance opinion of PvP experts.

[furballdn]

Please excuse this large deluge of questions. These popped up while I was analyzing creature cost theory. Started here if you were curious by the way.

Is the upgrade bonus consistent? I think there are times they are a -1 bonus, most of the time it is -2, and occasionally we have the probably OP -3 bonus.

If a creature has 0atk, do they get a -1 bonus, or is it still 0?

Is it okay to make say, gravity dragon slightly OP to give gravity (one of the least offensive elements) some offense? It is pretty expensive so it doesn't get to be abused by rainbows, and the high cost will mean that someone playing them will most likely be using mono gravity, already a handicap to offense.

How much exactly do you feel duo cost ability and how much ability costs add on to a creature? I feel a 1 upkeep is worth +1 card.

How much is a "drain all left" side-effect on a spell worth?

Should elite immortal cost 6 ? It'd cost around 6.5 with a -1 upgrade bonus, and 5.5 with a -2 upgrade bonus.

How is seraph? A 10|1 immortal creature would probably cost 15 +1 card. Seraph for invincibility is 9 +2 cards and a one turn delay before it can protect itself. There is also quite a difference in 1hp and 3hp even when immortalized. How much is that worth exactly?

Why is crimson dragon not linear? 12|3 seems like it should be worth 11 instead of 10 .

When balancing creatures, should they only be balanced individually or should their combos (adrenaline) and element be taken into account? How should it be taken into account?

Seems all the dragons are a bit wonky. Devonian dragon has 10|5 stats and costs 10 . Seems balanced. Silurian dragon has 13|4 stats and costs 12 . Where'd the upgrade bonus for silurian go?

Should certain elements give benefits to their own creatures? i.e. gives all its creatures -1 cost. gives its creatures +1atk. and give their creatures free hp boost.

If we go by mechanics and the creature cost theory already, it seems a lot of darkness creatures are UP, yet in actual game play, they're balanced, if not pretty powerful? Why is this? Is this because of nightfall? If a card like nightfall was in other elements, would that warrant a tiny nerf to that element's creatures? How come death creatures don't seem to be UP?

How would you price passives? (mummy, voodoo, airborne, swarm, possessive)

How is vampire calculated? I originally had it set at +2, but I assume it is closer to something like immateriality, with attack times a number (*1.5 perhaps?)

Can you hold something that is not being held?

[choongmyoung]

drain all quanta - can mean.. no use twice a turn. (blitz or possibly 2~3 fractals in a turn) or no other action after(miracle)
3~6 creature hp worth 1 quantum maybe.
vamps attack can considered by: 2X-1 is considered as real atk. reason? 2x is quite implicit, -1 is from possible DR shield.
really, really brilliant and sexy questions, maybe I can think about it when with my laptop

[OldTrees]

Please excuse this large deluge of questions. These popped up while I was analyzing creature cost theory. Started here if you were curious by the way.
This motive means I need to go more in depth to support my opinions such that the author can judge for themselves. I will answer some but you will need to submit the rest again more slowly. You could resubmit some right after you read this. I just need the unread posts reminder.

Is the upgrade bonus consistent? I think there are times they are a -1 bonus, most of the time it is -2, and occasionally we have the probably OP -3 bonus.
We have an interesting range of metagames for EtG. Unupped and Upped of course but also some metagames that are partially upgraded. To maintain balance in these metagames we would need a relatively consistent bonus per upgrade. Additionally all in game cards have the same upgrade price. This implies that the optimal design move would be to have a consistent upgrade bonus. (With some variance due to the gut feel and playtest balance system Zanz uses) I have interpreted cards to have a range of +0 to -3 bonus with a significant portion having -1 to -2.

If a creature has 0atk, do they get a -1 bonus, or is it still 0?
A 0|1 has very little value. It is not worthless in that it can power immolation, feed Otyugh, power bonds, be flung, destroy permanents or be buffed. Assuming Photon is balanced then a 0|1 has a value between 0 quanta + 0 cards and 0 quanta + 1 card.

Is it okay to make say, gravity dragon slightly OP to give gravity (one of the least offensive elements) some offense? It is pretty expensive so it doesn't get to be abused by rainbows, and the high cost will mean that someone playing them will most likely be using mono gravity, already a handicap to offense.
If we do it then we have no reason not to repeat it for similar circumstances like Life CC. This would increase the time and complexity of balancing cards. Ideally we can give Gravity ways to use its own offense (Like Dim Shields do for Phase Dragons). Additionally we can add more offensive cards like Acceleration. However this hints at another topic. What about creatures that have dis-synergy with their element? Cards that are more powerful in duos than in monos even after adjusting for the duo cost? If we make the duo usage OP enough we enable the mono usage. However in doing so we have moved the goal that it needed to reach for the mono usage to be viable compared to the duo usage. In general it is better to have UP usages that are never used rather than OP usages which drain players from other strategies in addition to preventing the weaker usage.

How much exactly do you feel duo cost ability and how much ability costs add on to a creature? I feel a 1 upkeep is worth +1 card.
Abilities come with an investment and a per use cost. The investment is usually the casting cost - the stat value + the turn delay + the risk of wasting the investment to removal. Duo cost ability is usually as expensive as a duo combo. I have made a gut estimate of +1 quanta per additional quanta type. However this is merely a gut estimate. Ability costs might be worth a card the turn before the effect is used. However the real question is either how much does a 0 cost activated ability increase the cost of a photon or how much would an activated ability cost if it did not affect the casting cost. Also remember that cost transferred from the activation cost to the casting cost slows down the rest of the card and increases the investment being risked (and thus the risk cost of investment).

How much is a "drain all left" side-effect on a spell worth?
The casting cost is how much cost is usually paid not what it printed in the upped right corner.

Can you hold something that is not being held?

If I could hold something that is not being held it would become held as a result of my holding it.

[choongmyoung]

Well, little-bittle thoughts from me.

When balancing creatures, should they only be balanced individually or should their combos (adrenaline) and element be taken into account? How should it be taken into account?
Combos should be considered, yes. If there was no Max HP increasers, miracle should be cost little under.

Seems all the dragons are a bit wonky. Devonian dragon has 10|5 stats and costs 10 . Seems balanced. Silurian dragon has 13|4 stats and costs 12 . Where'd the upgrade bonus for silurian go?
Upped bonus can still be -0. See SN. Lost its free cost, but it can power 12 instead of 6 total. This is kinda big difference. It is actually seems OP to me but see the super duper Instosis combo. Devonian cannot support them. Generally dragons don't have good ATK/Cost Ratio, but it is the main of OTKs. Sometimes its own existence have meaning.

Should certain elements give benefits to their own creatures? i.e. gives all its creatures -1 cost. gives its creatures +1atk. and give their creatures free hp boost.
It's about the concept of the elements. Like, is more aggressive so gaining ATK boost while losing some HP. gained HP but ATK. Exchanging of Equivalent HP and ATK.

How would you price passives? (mummy, voodoo, airborne, swarm, possessive)
Mummy + RT = Pharaoh.
1. Mummy + RT = 2 Cards + 3 + 1 = 4(card itself) + 3 + 1 - 1(duo) = 7 cost total, without RT 5 ATK. Even better than the Pharaoh but much less HPs.
Pharaoh = 11 cost total.
Mummy+RT seems little better than Pharaoh.
1-1. Skeleton + RT = Egg.
Skeleton + RT = 2 Cards + 1 + 1 = 4(card itself) + 1 + 1 - 1(duo) = 5 cost total, without RT 2 ATK.
Egg = 6 cost total. Skeleton+RT seems little better than the egg.
2. Voodoo passive is just in Golem and Dolls. I will ignore golem part since voodoo golem is just anti-CC mechanism. (Or just for fun)
With dolls, voodoo passive should be count as card strategy itself. It has lots of HP to get along with. Its damage bypasses anything (but SoSac ) and the poison is doubled. Doubles the GP and BB synergy (not only blocking all damage but reflecting to your opponent). Hard but it seems the best balance.
3. Airborne..? Blitz, SoFre, Wing/web, Wardens. Anyway airborne is better than nothing so cost 1 quantum...
Though, creatures with airborne is pretty natural, and others synergy should be in duo(Okay okay SoFre but let's think in the out of the way of Shards), so 1 quantum - 1 duo bonus seems zero for me.
Like.. If it's airborne, good. If not, well, okay.
4. With swarm ability, it must swarm. or it's nothing. (not counting Blessing kinda thing)
So like voodoo-passived dolls, let's see Scarabs.
Scarab costs 2 and 3 ATK. 1 devour ability but cannot be done without swarm.
Cost ATK ratio is same with Poison so without swarm is is worse than poison maybe. Swarm is the potential. So like... 0.5 ?
5. You meant poisonous? Well this is just an anti-specific CC mechanism. Too specific so like airborne, I see zero cost.
Btw I think virus should be poisonous.. Maybe it is so petty to make infect in the digesting system.

How is vampire calculated? I originally had it set at +2, but I assume it is closer to something like immateriality, with attack times a number (*1.5 perhaps?)
Answering again sure with my guess. X ATK with vamp ability = 2X-1 actual ATK point.

[furballdn]

A lot of dragons (and their upped counterparts) don't fit into my current model. Why is this? Are they supposed to be like this?

When balancing creatures, should they only be balanced individually or should their combos (adrenaline) and element be taken into account? How should it be taken into account?

Should certain elements give benefits to their own creatures? i.e. gives all its creatures -1 cost. gives its creatures +1atk. and give their creatures free hp boost.

If we go by mechanics and the creature cost theory already, it seems a lot of darkness creatures are UP, yet in actual game play, they're balanced, if not pretty powerful? Why is this? Is this because of nightfall? If a card like nightfall was in other elements, would that warrant a tiny nerf to that element's creatures? How come death creatures don't seem to be UP?

How would you price passives? (mummy, voodoo, airborne, undead, poisonous [causes poisoning if eaten], swarm, possessive [ghost ability])

How is vampire calculated? I originally had it set at +2, but I assume it is closer to something like immateriality, with attack times a number (*1.5 perhaps?) 1.5*attack seems to fit the model I have now.

Comparing certain cards makes me feel that there is some disparity. In all cases, the last is better.
Virus = 1|1 + infect for sacrifice + 1
Bloodsucker = 1|1 + for infect + 2
Toadfish = 6|4 + for infect + 5

Forest spirit = 1|1 + for growth + 2
Lava golem = 5|1 + for growth + 5

lycanthrope = 1|1 + for +5/+5 + 1 turn + 2
Graboid = 2|3 + immaterial + for +6/+0 + 1 turn + 3

[TheAccuso]

Seems like we got a new guru in da house.

[ZephyrPhantom]

Seems like we got a new guru in da house.

Several, if the activity here is any indication.
Kitsune Trickster | Kitsune Trickster

Is the card accurately priced for its disruption abilities?

[OldTrees]

A lot of dragons (and their upped counterparts) don't fit into my current model. Why is this? Are they supposed to be like this?
Would you pay 49 + 1 card for a 50 attack creature? I would not yet I would pay 1 card for a Photon or 2 + 1 card for a Horned Frog. This indicates that the balance is not indefinitely linear and deviates from linear as cards get more expensive/powerful. However dragons are old cards and do not significantly deviate from the theory. They might be slightly imbalanced and thus not corrected.

When balancing creatures, should they only be balanced individually or should their combos (adrenaline) and element be taken into account? How should it be taken into account?
The rational usage should be considered. The rational player would use cards optimally. This would include their combos unless their combos are worse than the individual card. This would include individual cards unless they are worse than the combo.

Should certain elements give benefits to their own creatures? i.e. gives all its creatures -1 cost. gives its creatures +1atk. and give their creatures free hp boost.
It is easier to balance cards if elements did not have separate balance theories. However it is wise to give a nod to thematic when crafting mechanics. A fire card would have more attack which would make it more expensive than a life card.

If we go by mechanics and the creature cost theory already, it seems a lot of darkness creatures are UP, yet in actual game play, they're balanced, if not pretty powerful? Why is this? Is this because of nightfall? If a card like nightfall was in other elements, would that warrant a tiny nerf to that element's creatures? How come death creatures don't seem to be UP?
There are differences between the elements based on the elemental favor (opposite of elemental hate) effects that exist in the game. If these differences are considered during balancing then forced combos with very weak force will be created. The other option results in inaccurate measurements of balance.

How would you price passives? (mummy, voodoo, airborne, undead, poisonous [causes poisoning if eaten], swarm, possessive [ghost ability])
How would you price abilities? Examine the ability to see how it operates. Mummy is an optional cost for a transformative effect. Luckily it is also an alternate cost for an effect with another default cost.

How is vampire calculated? I originally had it set at +2, but I assume it is closer to something like immateriality, with attack times a number (*1.5 perhaps?) 1.5*attack seems to fit the model I have now.
Vampire should be more valuable on Black Dragon than it is on Photon due to the higher attack. However healing is not as valuable as damage.

Comparing certain cards makes me feel that there is some disparity. In all cases, the last is better.
Virus = 1|1 + infect for sacrifice + 1
Bloodsucker = 1|1 + for infect + 2
Toadfish = 6|4 + for infect + 5
Sacrifice creates a death trigger and prevents a second use of infect. These are relevant. Either Toadfish or Bloodsucker is imbalanced.

Forest spirit = 1|1 + for growth + 2
Lava golem = 5|1 + for growth + 5
One of these is imbalanced.

lycanthrope = 1|1 + for +5/+5 + 1 turn + 2
Graboid = 2|3 + immaterial + for +6/+0 + 1 turn + 3
Graboid's ability is OP.

Seems like we got a new guru in da house.

Several, if the activity here is any indication.

If furballdn wishes to apply for Idea Guru he will need to send me a PM to initiate candidacy submission.

Kitsune Trickster | Kitsune Trickster
Is the card accurately priced for its disruption abilities?

Shuffling the opponent's deck while seeing their next draw is too powerful for the activation cost. It is similar to but not as powerful as a draw lock.
The transformation upon death seems unnecessary and would increase the cost beyond the other abilities.

[Drake_XIV]

I believe I may have given you my thoughts on the targeting of Imamterial creatures before.  So, disregarding the view of it so far, would you say that Machian Falcon is balanced?  Would the range of Immaterial objects count as being subjected to Elemental Hate?

Also, can I get your thoughts on Pesticide?

[OldTrees]

I believe I may have given you my thoughts on the targeting of Imamterial creatures before.  So, disregarding the view of it so far, would you say that Machian Falcon is balanced?  Would the range of Immaterial objects count as being subjected to Elemental Hate?

Also, can I get your thoughts on Pesticide?

1) The linked card does not necessarily target. (Nightfall effects "all creatures" and does not target)
2) 4 + 1 card + hp support => 4 attack +  : All creatures take 1 damage and Immaterial cards (Permanents and Creatures) are destroyed.
This is a powerful ability. Unupped the hp support is a trio. Upgraded it is a duo.
4 + 3|2 cards + 1 |0 + 3 => 5 attack + : All creatures take 1 damage and Immaterial cards (Permanents and Creatures) are destroyed.
The repeatable damage seems strong but fits the cost of the support.

However the destruction of Immaterial cards is a problem:
6 + 1 card => 2 |1 + 1 card : Destroy pillar stack

Yes "Destroy Immaterial cards" is elemental hate. It exhibits the large difference between non hate and hate usages that makes simultaneous balancing hard/impossible. (aka the Elemental Hate problem)


Destroying all 0-1 cost creatures is too situational for me to ever have a use for.

[ZephyrPhantom]

- Color Hate in MTG vs. Element Hate (Theorectical) in ETG
Are there any notable differences/similarities?