Shard Golem | Shard Golem

[Essence]

1) For 1 card, you can get 1 quanta of each color.

Sources:
Nova.


Alternately:

1) For 1 card, you can get 1 per round for the rest of the game.

Sources:
Time Factory.

[OldTrees]

1) For 1 card, you can get 1 quanta of each color.

Sources:
Nova.


Alternately:

1) For 1 card, you can get 1 per round for the rest of the game.

Sources:
Time Factory.

I was informing you that you mistook a question about a quanta cost as a question about quanta production.

1 card cost -> 1 quanta production of each color
1 card cost ~= 1 quanta cost of 1 element

Or do you consider these results to be mutually exclusive for some reason?

[Essence]

No, I really just think that your logic is lowest-common-denominator and rather arrogant.

I could just as easily say that for 1 card + 1 quanta you can get 1 attack per turn (Skeleton), and therefore a cost of +1 quanta is equal to zero.

Or I could just as easily say that for 1 card +1 quanta you can get 3 attack per turn (Short Sword), and therefore points of attack are less valuable than elemental quanta per turn, despite your attempts to equate them on a one-to-one level to both card-cost and quanta-cost.

Or I could extend your logic onward to say that, if card-cost and quanta-cost are identical, we should totally be able to create a "knowledge pillar" that allows you to draw a card every turn without any cost.


tl;dr:  There are far too many factors in play to make a logical leap like the one you're attempting to make, plain and simple.

[OldTrees]

No, I really just think that your logic is lowest-common-denominator and rather arrogant.

I could just as easily say that for 1 card + 1 quanta you can get 1 attack per turn (Skeleton), and therefore a cost of +1 quanta is equal to zero.

Or I could just as easily say that for 1 card +1 quanta you can get 3 attack per turn (Short Sword), and therefore points of attack are less valuable than elemental quanta per turn, despite your attempts to equate them on a one-to-one level to both card-cost and quanta-cost.

Or I could extend your logic onward to say that, if card-cost and quanta-cost are identical, we should totally be able to create a "knowledge pillar" that allows you to draw a card every turn without any cost.


tl;dr:  There are far too many factors in play to make a logical leap like the one you're attempting to make, plain and simple.

Or you could note the following abilities that your counterexamples leaves out:
1) Undead which was added because a 1|1 for 1 + 1 card was underpowered
2) Expending the weapon slot

3) Equating quanta cost and card cost is not the same as equating quanta production and card production. Good proof about Card Production being more powerful than quanta production.

I disagree about there being too many factors especially when starting with examples without extraneous variables like Undead.

Additionally usually when one is faced with a question about how two types of costs relate, it usually is answered with an opinion relating the two costs not relating a cost and an effect nor is it answered with a blank post due to a possibility of the opinion being wrong.

[Essence]

OK, so how about some other examples.  How about contrasting Gnome Rider instead of Dragonfly to reach the conclusion that +1 quanta production and +1 toughness are worth about the same as +1 attack, and therefore 1 card is worth 1 quanta production and one toughness?

Essentially, no matter what cards you're using, you're cherrypicking from a set large enough that examples that run contrary to your 'logic' are available, and it belies the authority thereof.

[OldTrees]

OK, so how about some other examples.  How about contrasting Gnome Rider instead of Dragonfly to reach the conclusion that +1 quanta production and +1 toughness are worth about the same as +1 attack, and therefore 1 card is worth 1 quanta production and one toughness?

Essentially, no matter what cards you're using, you're cherrypicking from a set large enough that examples that run contrary to your 'logic' are available, and it belies the authority thereof.

Obviously not all hp increases are the same. +1hp to Spark is significant. Damaging CC has peaks.
Dragonfly is 1|1 Gen  for 1 + 1 card
Gnome Rider is 1|2 Gen  for 1 + 1 card
Since neither is seen as OP or UP, I would conclude that there is very little difference in creature resilience between 1 and 2 hp.

The theory is based on starting with the cards with the fewest variables and building up from there.

It derives its authority from 3 factors: Fairly accurate predictions, explanatory ability and my efforts to get others to make a better one.
It does a good job at predicting if a card will be judged OP or UP by the community.
It does a good job of explaining why creatures seen as overpowered / underpowered creatures are overpowered or underpowerd. (Almost no counterexamples, even theoretical ones, exist that are not considered UP/OP)
I have continuously encouraged members to create better theories to replace the current one. You know how long I have been here doing that.

However we can use an accurate pillar based test (cost compared to cost) to see if it matches your intuitions about balance.
A Pillar that cost 1 elemental quanta to play but replaced itself (drew a card) when cast would be UP, Balanced or OP?
Also consider a Tower that replaced itself (drew a card) rather than generating a quanta when cast.

[Essence]

A Pillar that cost 1 elemental quanta to play but replaced itself (drew a card) when cast would be UP, Balanced or OP?
Also consider a Tower that replaced itself (drew a card) rather than generating a quanta when cast.

The first one sounds reasonable to me.  The second one sounds strong enough that it would probably end up replacing most Towers in most decks.

[OldTrees]

A Pillar that cost 1 elemental quanta to play but replaced itself (drew a card) when cast would be UP, Balanced or OP?
Also consider a Tower that replaced itself (drew a card) rather than generating a quanta when cast.

The first one sounds reasonable to me.  The second one sounds strong enough that it would probably end up replacing most Towers in most decks.

In the upgraded environment, regular towers give you a 1 turn head start. Tempo is important for and against Rush decks. I would be ambivalent towards using regular towers or this variation.

[Essence]

Good for you. I'd rather quanta-balance my deck to not rely on the extra quanta, and use the extra cards (which are by far the harder-to-get resource) to drive toward the victory.

[OldTrees]

Good for you. I'd rather quanta-balance my deck to not rely on the extra quanta, and use the extra cards (which are by far the harder-to-get resource) to drive toward the victory.

Tempo means playing first not merely getting quanta first. An early Silence / Discord is the nice advantage of the tempo. However I personally do prefer stall decks (which would usually prefer the card advantage).

Those two example variations on pillars | towers seem to indicate (to me at least) that as far as different types of costs are concerned, +1 card cost is roughly similar to +1 elemental quanta cost. Although I would be amiss to not remember that Shard Golem will be an excellent test of whether this pattern holds and whether it can be extrapolated to +2 card cost ~= +2 elemental quanta cost.

[pisul]

This golem is great, i cant wait to win more shards. I like very much the general idea of this card.

[Rutarete]

Is it supposed to lose passives when PU'd?

Edit: Forgot that passives purposely don't carry over.