What is the value of a permanent vs a creature? (A question. No answer yet)

[OldTrees]

Assume a creature with 0|1 stats and a permanent that both have the same skill.

Like a 0|1  :Infect vs a permanent with  :Infect.

What should the relative casting cost difference be?
If there should be a difference, how large of a cost increase should there be?
Are there any skills that would deviate from that standard and for what reason?

[Ryli]

In a case as simple as this, I would say the permanent has more value, as there are far less control cards to deal with it.

For the other uestions, I'll have a think and come back when I've got some answers.

[Hyroen]

Permanents may be protected fully with an EA. Once protected, there's no getting rid of them.

[Kamietsu]

Permanent is more valuable, since there is less perm control than creature control. But I think that's one of the reasons why there aren't so many permanents with the same or similar ability as the creature. Take a powerful ability from a creature, put it onto a permanent, you've now got something a lot more powerful. The casting cost difference and ability cost difference should be larger, and relevant to the individual ability. Obviously, a Luciferin ability on a permanent isn't that big of a deal at all, but put Black Hole on a permanent and you've suddenly got something very powerful, possibly too powerful.

[Acsabi44]

critters halp you win the game.
well, maybe not a 0/1, but usually critters with useful abilities are valued high related to permas if they have decent stats.

[OldTrees]

This is a question of how much more valuable a permanent is compared to an otherwise equal creature.
Is it a question of 1 quanta, 2 quanta, 3 quanta, more?

[Kamietsu]

It's not so much a hard value, it's relative to the ability in question.

[Ryli]

Depends on the ability. Going by Kamietsu's example. Luciferin, the cost shouldn't go up by more than 1 or 2 from the spell. For Black Hole, that's absolutely lethal, so you'd be looking at upping the cost by possibly more than 5 from the nymph.

[OldTrees]

So, since the difference is dependent on the value of the skill we should next determine if it is a simple linear function or more complicated.

The skill :Infect is worth 2 on a creature.
How much is it worth on a permanent?

I theorize that skills are worth double on permanents

[Hyroen]

Upon contemplating a bit more, this does indeed disregard the fact that creatures can be affected by Fractal and Parallel Universe, nothing can affect a Permanent like this, except for maybe Mindgate and it's a stretch.

[Kamietsu]

Imagine a Steal permanent. I say that since the Steal ability can be gained by a creature, and that already is somewhat OP since the cost for it is usually really low. So a steal permanent would probably be at least 50% more than the Steal spell, so about 7-8 unupped, and 6-7 upped, with an ability cost probably equal to the Steal spell. It's have to be expensive to overthrow its OPness, but even then, could you really say that a Steal Permanent for 8 Cost and 5 Ability cost wouldn't still be somewhat OP?

So, since the difference is dependent on the value of the skill we should next determine if it is a simple linear function or more complicated.

The skill :Infect is worth 2 on a creature.
How much is it worth on a permanent?

I theorize that skills are worth double on permanents

Skills should be worth at the least the exact cost or somewhat more than a creature with the ability. Doubled is a bit much, at least as a fix all for creature abilities on Permanents.

[Ryli]

Skills should be worth at the least the exact cost or somewhat more than a creature with the ability. Doubled is a bit much, at least as a fix all for creature abilities on Permanents.

Yeah. 8 cost for Nymph's tears as a permanent skill seems a little OTT. I'd put it at 6.
I also agree that it should be at least the cost of a creature, so the creature isn't penalized, and removed from decks.