Card Design: An attempt at a comprehensive guide (A community effort I hope)

[OldTrees]

That math wouldn't disprove my theory though. It would just point to a range where certain attack values could go. What it doesn't do is point to where attack values can't go, which is the basis of my idea that costs comes before attack value. What I'm saying is that if you consider the base attack above the cost you can theorize a 4|5 with burrow for free, however if you consider the cost above the base attack value and the cost value says that 4 attack can't happen on a free guy than you'd default to bumping up the cost until you're in a range where 4 attack can happen.

Very true your theory is indeed a possible one. In fact it would be a more restrictive one which probably would be a nicer guideline.

I would like to remind you that the disadvantages that creatures can have are as important as their advantages. Are you suggesting that there should be a maximum and minimum advantage-disadvantage modifier?
If so what ballpark to you want to set these limits at? and why?

For instance
Casting Cost 0 Fire
Effect: Sacrifice two creatures when this enters play.
Stats 4|2
This card has a significant enough disadvantage to warrent 4 attack at 0 quanta cost.

[az4rel]

reading the discrepances, maybe the Mummy (Passive) could be considered a duo ability thus giving it a -1 making it fit into the formula.

[OldTrees]

reading the discrepances, maybe the Mummy (Passive) could be considered a duo ability thus giving it a -1 making it fit into the formula.

That would work. To trigger the ability it does indeed take a second element. Thank you.

[doublecross]

You should add in the bit about random effects.

[OldTrees]

The random effects and other missed theory side details will be covered in my next attempt.
This was mostly an explanatory attempt to dissect what balance was assuming the balance was near perfect.
I will during this winter or spring make a new thread discussion balance from theory to practice to complement this practice to theory attempt. Also while this theory is still better than its previous attempt it has been shown to be flawed by the current card changes to Gnome and Dragonfly.

Speed value vs Deck Slot value will be the major topic of my next thread.

[Werdbooty]

I'm interested to see your "random" calculations.

[doublecross]

Well, being comprehensive might be very difficult.

As someone trained in game theory, I am used to having two very different approaches to analysis.

The first is a straight up logical approach, that tends to more or less be descriptive.

The second is the comprehensive approach that takes everything else into account.
I have only done the second for much, much simpler games, and, trust me, for any given card, to do this properly, you would have to devote about a paragraph to every other card, and much to each rule.

For instance, the auto-mulligan have to factor in to balancing. 
You would have to consider every nuance of every card.

This goes way beyond impractical.

[OldTrees]

Yeah. Comprehensive died when too few people were interested.
However if sufficient interest is sparked then I will try to guide the process to achieve a comprehensive guide.
I doubt that much enthusiasm will be found though so my next thread will have a much less prestigious title.

[doublecross]

Well, you could re-name it "An attempt at formulaic balancing".

Essentially, the goal would be to create a formula that, for the most part, would tell the appropriate cost.

We then could, from that starting point, make fine adjustments based on the hundreds of things our formulas can't afford to take into consideration every time.

[OldTrees]

It has more in it than just PhantomFox's formula that I modified. This thread also included thematic tips and talked about the components of quanta generators

[doublecross]

Ah. Very nice.

[Hyroen]

I think you may have to include a new factor OldTrees, seeing that with the inclusion of Catapult, HP becomes more relevant, a new formula I'm sure will rise that gives understanding to the current cost of playing a Massive Dragon for example.