Shard of Integrity | Shard of Integrity

[Silver]

My apologies.

[OldTrees]

My apologies.

It was partially my fault. I accidentally cut when I meant to copy.

[Sevs]

@ old trees

Your comparison to chimera is not totally accurate, chimera costs much more and requires you actually pay for all the cards you combine, here they are played straight from the hand.

I think we must see how this plays out before we can actually make any sort of balance comparisons. we don't even know what abilities it can get.

[OldTrees]

@ old trees

Your comparison to chimera is not totally accurate, chimera costs much more and requires you actually pay for all the cards you combine, here they are played straight from the hand.

I think we must see how this plays out before we can actually make any sort of balance comparisons. we don't even know what abilities it can get.

My comparison was not to chimera. It was to a chimera made of 0 cost creatures. Note that 0 cost creatures cost the same amount to play as it costs to have shards in your hand.

However my point was that the Shard Golem should not be made ridiculously powerful because the cost involved will be too low to justify such a "ultra mega hyper powerful" card.

[Marvaddin]

Oh, yeah. So I will spend 5 cards from my hand, cards that could be used by themselves, and get a just ok creature? If this is the case, then I assume this wont be really used. There are ok cards that can be used alone, and that arent totally destroyed by a rewind. Chimera of 5 photons, what a good comparison, lol. If this was the single use of Chimera, who would use it?

[zhangvict]

Seriously, to compensate you use all shards in your hand, and they can be something like 4-5, for example, the creature should be ultra mega hyper powerful. I already used to think about this shard invasion as a bad thing. Soon all elements will have healing, draw acceleration, card generation, stall... and now a possibly super powerful creature you dont need to pay quanta for. Add some TU... now you can replicate the creature you just used 5 cards to create (Exodia? lol).

You overestimate the cost involved. The creature must not be "ultra mega hyper powerful"

Imagine a Chimera of 4-5 Photons.
Cost: 4-5 cards + Chimera

Consider Shard Golem
Cost: 4-5 cards + Shard of 

Lol are you comparing 4/5 photons with 4/5 shards? Photons are infinitesimally worthless compared to the power of shards. Much better cast the shards to get their benefits than sacrificing them into some worthless creature that can be rewinded. The creature must be damm worth it for one do choose to do so. At the very least casting shard golem with 1 SoF in your hand should generate a creature of greater ability than a single SoF by itself. It must be better than something with 3 free perm destruction and a black hole.

Plus 4-5 Cards is no small cost by themselves. You see, a chimera of 5 photons is an incredibly weak chimera, with less atk than an elite charger that costs less than chimera. Sacrificing that many shards for a creature comparable to a chimera of 5 photons is UP.

[SnoWeb]

Nice. Now if you combine and you can have an hourglass ...

[OldTrees]

Seriously, to compensate you use all shards in your hand, and they can be something like 4-5, for example, the creature should be ultra mega hyper powerful. I already used to think about this shard invasion as a bad thing. Soon all elements will have healing, draw acceleration, card generation, stall... and now a possibly super powerful creature you dont need to pay quanta for. Add some TU... now you can replicate the creature you just used 5 cards to create (Exodia? lol).

You overestimate the cost involved. The creature must not be "ultra mega hyper powerful"

Imagine a Chimera of 4-5 Photons.
Cost: 4-5 cards + Chimera

Consider Shard Golem
Cost: 4-5 cards + Shard of 

Lol are you comparing 4/5 photons with 4/5 shards? Photons are infinitesimally worthless compared to the power of shards. Much better cast the shards to get their benefits than sacrificing them into some worthless creature that can be rewinded. The creature must be damm worth it for one do choose to do so. At the very least casting shard golem with 1 SoF in your hand should generate a creature of greater ability than a single SoF by itself. It must be better than something with 3 free perm destruction and a black hole.

Plus 4-5 Cards is no small cost by themselves. You see, a chimera of 5 photons is an incredibly weak chimera, with less atk than an elite charger that costs less than chimera. Sacrificing that many shards for a creature comparable to a chimera of 5 photons is UP.

Lol?
I am comparing 5 draws to 5 draws. I am comparing 0 quanta to 0 quanta. I am comparing 5 cards to 5 cards. The value of shards is paid for with their cost. That cost is mostly bypassed with Shard of . We both agree on this point that the cost of the card draws is minuscule. Hopefully we both agree that benefit should reflect cost. Therefore my conclusion that a shard Golem should not be a ridiculously powerful creature still stands. Remember the shard golem sacrifices shards in the hand not on the field. 5 cards is 5 cards is 5 cards.

I understand that a 5 photon chimera is weak. I picked it to demonstrate the correlation between cost paid (practically nothing) and benefit reaped (practically nothing).

Please reread a few times. I am willing to go into more depth but I expect you will understand once you read for comprehension.

[zhangvict]

Seriously, to compensate you use all shards in your hand, and they can be something like 4-5, for example, the creature should be ultra mega hyper powerful. I already used to think about this shard invasion as a bad thing. Soon all elements will have healing, draw acceleration, card generation, stall... and now a possibly super powerful creature you dont need to pay quanta for. Add some TU... now you can replicate the creature you just used 5 cards to create (Exodia? lol).

You overestimate the cost involved. The creature must not be "ultra mega hyper powerful"

Imagine a Chimera of 4-5 Photons.
Cost: 4-5 cards + Chimera

Consider Shard Golem
Cost: 4-5 cards + Shard of 

Lol are you comparing 4/5 photons with 4/5 shards? Photons are infinitesimally worthless compared to the power of shards. Much better cast the shards to get their benefits than sacrificing them into some worthless creature that can be rewinded. The creature must be damm worth it for one do choose to do so. At the very least casting shard golem with 1 SoF in your hand should generate a creature of greater ability than a single SoF by itself. It must be better than something with 3 free perm destruction and a black hole.

Plus 4-5 Cards is no small cost by themselves. You see, a chimera of 5 photons is an incredibly weak chimera, with less atk than an elite charger that costs less than chimera. Sacrificing that many shards for a creature comparable to a chimera of 5 photons is UP.

Lol?
I am comparing 5 draws to 5 draws. I am comparing 0 quanta to 0 quanta. I am comparing 5 cards to 5 cards. The value of shards is paid for with their cost. That cost is mostly bypassed with Shard of . We both agree on this point that the cost of the card draws is minuscule. Hopefully we both agree that benefit should reflect cost. Therefore my conclusion that a shard Golem should not be a ridiculously powerful creature still stands. Remember the shard golem sacrifices shards in the hand not on the field. 5 cards is 5 cards is 5 cards.

I understand that a 5 photon chimera is weak. I picked it to demonstrate the correlation between cost paid (practically nothing) and benefit reaped (practically nothing).

Please reread a few times. I am willing to go into more depth but I expect you will understand once you read for comprehension.

I understand now you aim to demonstrate how weak the shard golem should be in terms of cost of cards and quanta. Firstly, I have an issue with yout bias of demonstration.

I understand your reasoning is something like this:

1. 5 photons + chimera generates a horrendously weak creature at the cost of 6 and 6 cards
2. Therefore 5 shards + golem should also generate a horrendously weak creature for 5 and 6 cards.

My issue is that your choice of photon is a biased choice. A creature with over 4 times the attack of a 5 photon chimera can be obtained by 4 ball lightnings and 1 dameselfly + chimera. That is a 22 attack 1 health creature generates by the same cost of 6 and 6 cards. Additionally, longsword + flying weapon will generate a 6 atk creature for the cost of 2  and 2 cards, much less than chimera + 5 photons in terms of both quanta and cards. Not to mention 3 gravity towers + titan + flying weapon generates 3  , 3  producers, and a 8 atk creature with 50 health for 1  and 8 and only 5 cards. Just because there is an ineffective way to generate a weak creature (5 photon + chimera) does not mean that shard golem should mimic this ineffectiveness. After all, shard golem is a rare that should some better abilities than normal cards.

Secondly, your reasoning fails to address the problem of opportunity cost. Shard golem will generate a creature for 5 AND some valuable shards. Unlike a 5 photon chimera, the resources allocated to the shard golem could have been used elsewhere for potentially a greater effect. For example, instead of using 5  and 6 cards, I may choose to use 4 and only 1 card to cast Shard of Focus, which is a very powerful creature by itself with 3 charges of perm destruction and a free black hole. Additionally, I can use 3 and 1 card to cast SoSe to gain three additional cards. The utility of the shard golem generated by sacrificing 5 shards + 5 should reflect the opportunity cost as well as the quanta and card cost.

Please explain why you still think shard golem should still generate a creature of comparable power of a 5 photon chimera.

[sunyata]

Another thought on the name: How about "shard of accretion".
Accretion refers to either (1) the process by which planets are formed from matter joining together and also (2) the increase in size of a tectonic plate by addition of material along a convergent boundary.

Both very earthy  and apt concepts

[OldTrees]

Seriously, to compensate you use all shards in your hand, and they can be something like 4-5, for example, the creature should be ultra mega hyper powerful. I already used to think about this shard invasion as a bad thing. Soon all elements will have healing, draw acceleration, card generation, stall... and now a possibly super powerful creature you dont need to pay quanta for. Add some TU... now you can replicate the creature you just used 5 cards to create (Exodia? lol).

You overestimate the cost involved. The creature must not be "ultra mega hyper powerful"

Imagine a Chimera of 4-5 Photons.
Cost: 4-5 cards + Chimera

Consider Shard Golem
Cost: 4-5 cards + Shard of 

Lol are you comparing 4/5 photons with 4/5 shards? Photons are infinitesimally worthless compared to the power of shards. Much better cast the shards to get their benefits than sacrificing them into some worthless creature that can be rewinded. The creature must be damm worth it for one do choose to do so. At the very least casting shard golem with 1 SoF in your hand should generate a creature of greater ability than a single SoF by itself. It must be better than something with 3 free perm destruction and a black hole.

Plus 4-5 Cards is no small cost by themselves. You see, a chimera of 5 photons is an incredibly weak chimera, with less atk than an elite charger that costs less than chimera. Sacrificing that many shards for a creature comparable to a chimera of 5 photons is UP.

Lol?
I am comparing 5 draws to 5 draws. I am comparing 0 quanta to 0 quanta. I am comparing 5 cards to 5 cards. The value of shards is paid for with their cost. That cost is mostly bypassed with Shard of . We both agree on this point that the cost of the card draws is minuscule. Hopefully we both agree that benefit should reflect cost. Therefore my conclusion that a shard Golem should not be a ridiculously powerful creature still stands. Remember the shard golem sacrifices shards in the hand not on the field. 5 cards is 5 cards is 5 cards.

I understand that a 5 photon chimera is weak. I picked it to demonstrate the correlation between cost paid (practically nothing) and benefit reaped (practically nothing).

Please reread a few times. I am willing to go into more depth but I expect you will understand once you read for comprehension.

I understand now you aim to demonstrate how weak the shard golem should be in terms of cost of cards and quanta. Firstly, I have an issue with yout bias of demonstration.

I understand your reasoning is something like this:

1. 5 photons + chimera generates a horrendously weak creature at the cost of 6 and 6 cards
2. Therefore 5 shards + golem should also generate a horrendously weak creature for 4 and 6 cards.

My issue is that your choice of photon is a biased choice. A creature with over 4 times the attack of a 5 photon chimera can be obtained by 4 ball lightnings and 1 dameselfly + chimera. That is a 22 attack 1 health creature generates by the same cost of 6 and 6 cards. Additionally, longsword + flying weapon will generate a 6 atk creature for the cost of 2  and 2 cards, much less than chimera + 5 photons in terms of both quanta and cards. Not to mention titan + flying weapon generates a 8 atk creature with 50 health for 1  and 8 and 2 cards. Just because there is an ineffective way to generate a weak creature (5 photon + chimera) does not mean that shard golem should mimic this ineffectiveness. After all, shard golem is a rare that should some better abilities than normal cards.

Secondly, your reasoning fails to address the problem of opportunity cost. Shard golem will generate a creature for 4 AND some valuable shards. Unlike a 5 photon chimera, the resources allocated to the shard golem could have been used elsewhere for potentially a greater effect. For example, instead of using 4  and 6 cards, I may choose to use 4 and only 1 card to cast Shard of Focus, which is a very powerful creature by itself with 3 charges of perm destruction and a free black hole. Additionally, I can use 3 and 1 card to cast SoSe to gain three additional cards. The utility of the shard golem generated by sacrificing 5 shards + 4 should reflect the opportunity cost as well as the quanta and card cost.

Please explain why you still think shard golem should still generate a creature of comparable power of a 5 photon chimera.

You are closer but still arguing against a strawman.

Marvaddin made the argument
1) Sacrificing 5 shards is a high cost.
2) High cost -> high benefit.
3) Shard Golem should be "ultra mega hyper powerful". (This quoted description is important. This does not merely refer to efficient. It also refers to large scale.)

I made the counterargument
1) Sacrificing 5 shards in the hand is similar in cost to sacrificing 5 0 cost creatures.
2) A chimera made from 5 0 cost creatures is not "ultra mega hyper powerful".
3) Shard Golem should not be "ultra mega hyper powerful".

You are right that a better (though more complicated example) would have been 4 sparks and 1 photon (balance starts unupped). This variation is not "ultra mega hyper powerful" either.

Opportunity cost:
1) If things are balanced there should be no significant opportunity cost difference between sacrificing different cards for 0 quanta.
2) Things should be made balanced
3) Opportunity costs should be equal

Rarity: One of the many improvements of EtG over other card games is that it does not fall for the fallacy that rare cards should be overpowered compared to common cards. Such practices in other card games result in discrimination against new players and create a pay to play atmosphere.

Remember: I am not claiming it should make something on the level of a 5 photon chimera. I merely am merely claiming it should not be "ultra mega hyper powerful" but rather should reflect the detail that sacrificing cards in the hand is a low additional cost.

[zhangvict]

Seriously, to compensate you use all shards in your hand, and they can be something like 4-5, for example, the creature should be ultra mega hyper powerful. I already used to think about this shard invasion as a bad thing. Soon all elements will have healing, draw acceleration, card generation, stall... and now a possibly super powerful creature you dont need to pay quanta for. Add some TU... now you can replicate the creature you just used 5 cards to create (Exodia? lol).

You overestimate the cost involved. The creature must not be "ultra mega hyper powerful"

Imagine a Chimera of 4-5 Photons.
Cost: 4-5 cards + Chimera

Consider Shard Golem
Cost: 4-5 cards + Shard of 

Lol are you comparing 4/5 photons with 4/5 shards? Photons are infinitesimally worthless compared to the power of shards. Much better cast the shards to get their benefits than sacrificing them into some worthless creature that can be rewinded. The creature must be damm worth it for one do choose to do so. At the very least casting shard golem with 1 SoF in your hand should generate a creature of greater ability than a single SoF by itself. It must be better than something with 3 free perm destruction and a black hole.

Plus 4-5 Cards is no small cost by themselves. You see, a chimera of 5 photons is an incredibly weak chimera, with less atk than an elite charger that costs less than chimera. Sacrificing that many shards for a creature comparable to a chimera of 5 photons is UP.

Lol?
I am comparing 5 draws to 5 draws. I am comparing 0 quanta to 0 quanta. I am comparing 5 cards to 5 cards. The value of shards is paid for with their cost. That cost is mostly bypassed with Shard of . We both agree on this point that the cost of the card draws is minuscule. Hopefully we both agree that benefit should reflect cost. Therefore my conclusion that a shard Golem should not be a ridiculously powerful creature still stands. Remember the shard golem sacrifices shards in the hand not on the field. 5 cards is 5 cards is 5 cards.

I understand that a 5 photon chimera is weak. I picked it to demonstrate the correlation between cost paid (practically nothing) and benefit reaped (practically nothing).

Please reread a few times. I am willing to go into more depth but I expect you will understand once you read for comprehension.

I understand now you aim to demonstrate how weak the shard golem should be in terms of cost of cards and quanta. Firstly, I have an issue with yout bias of demonstration.

I understand your reasoning is something like this:

1. 5 photons + chimera generates a horrendously weak creature at the cost of 6 and 6 cards
2. Therefore 5 shards + golem should also generate a horrendously weak creature for 4 and 6 cards.

My issue is that your choice of photon is a biased choice. A creature with over 4 times the attack of a 5 photon chimera can be obtained by 4 ball lightnings and 1 dameselfly + chimera. That is a 22 attack 1 health creature generates by the same cost of 6 and 6 cards. Additionally, longsword + flying weapon will generate a 6 atk creature for the cost of 2  and 2 cards, much less than chimera + 5 photons in terms of both quanta and cards. Not to mention titan + flying weapon generates a 8 atk creature with 50 health for 1  and 8 and 2 cards. Just because there is an ineffective way to generate a weak creature (5 photon + chimera) does not mean that shard golem should mimic this ineffectiveness. After all, shard golem is a rare that should some better abilities than normal cards.

Secondly, your reasoning fails to address the problem of opportunity cost. Shard golem will generate a creature for 4 AND some valuable shards. Unlike a 5 photon chimera, the resources allocated to the shard golem could have been used elsewhere for potentially a greater effect. For example, instead of using 4  and 6 cards, I may choose to use 4 and only 1 card to cast Shard of Focus, which is a very powerful creature by itself with 3 charges of perm destruction and a free black hole. Additionally, I can use 3 and 1 card to cast SoSe to gain three additional cards. The utility of the shard golem generated by sacrificing 5 shards + 4 should reflect the opportunity cost as well as the quanta and card cost.

Please explain why you still think shard golem should still generate a creature of comparable power of a 5 photon chimera.

You are closer but still arguing against a strawman.

Marvaddin made the argument
1) Sacrificing 5 shards is a high cost.
2) High cost -> high benefit.
3) Shard Golem should be "ultra mega hyper powerful". (This quoted description is important. This does not merely refer to efficient. It also refers to large scale.)

I made the counterargument
1) Sacrificing 5 shards in the hand is similar in cost to sacrificing 5 0 cost creatures.
2) A chimera made from 5 0 cost creatures is not "ultra mega hyper powerful".
3) Shard Golem should not be "ultra mega hyper powerful".

You are right that a better (though more complicated example) would have been 4 sparks and 1 photon (balance starts unupped). This variation is not "ultra mega hyper powerful" either.

Opportunity cost:
1) If things are balanced there should be no significant opportunity cost difference between sacrificing different cards for 0 quanta.
2) Things should be made balanced
3) Opportunity costs should be equal

Rarity: One of the many improvements of EtG over other card games is that it does not fall for the fallacy that rare cards should be overpowered compared to common cards. Such practices in other card games result in discrimination against new players and create a pay to play atmosphere.

Remember: I am not claiming it should make something on the level of a 5 photon chimera. I merely am merely claiming it should not be "ultra mega hyper powerful" but rather should reflect the detail that sacrificing cards in the hand is a low additional cost.

I understand now your argument was merely "Shard golem should not be ultra mega hyper powerful" instead of "shard golem should be as weak as a 5 photon chimera". Without a clear definition of "ultra mega hyper powerful", I find it hard to disagree with this proposition. My only aim is that the power of shard golem should reflect the cost, albeit I think we differ on exactly what is the cost of shard golem. I presume your view on the cost of the golem is significantly lower than mine. I think one thing we agree on is that a 5 card shard golem should be at least significantly stronger than a 5 photon chimera.

Opportunity cost:
1) If things are balanced there should be no significant opportunity cost difference between sacrificing different cards for 0 quanta.
2) Things should be made balanced
3) Opportunity costs should be equal

I am not quite sure what this means. Can you please explain? I still think shard golem should be powerful enough to compensate for the loss of the abilities of the other shards used to feed it, or else it would be more worth it to simply use the other shards directly.