Shard of Integrity | Shard of Integrity

[Schlonz]

I like (in that order)

• Shard of Consolidation
• Shard of Amalgamation
• Shard of Coalescing

... all very 'earthy' to me :-)

[OldTrees]

-snip-

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.

A shard of gratitude has a cost 1 draw + 5 quanta.
A photon has a cost 1 draw + 0 quanta.
A shard of gratitude in the hand has cost 1 draw + 0 quanta.
The difference in benefit of a shard of gratitude and a photon should be on par with the difference in cost (5 ).
If both photon and shard of gratitude were perfectly balanced then the cost/benefit ratio of both would be equal.
Since all cards should ideally have equal cost/benefit ratios (when all costs are considered), then equal benefit should be gained for equal cost.
Drawing a shard and drawing a photon have the same cost (1 draw).
Having a card in the hand to sacrifice should have equal benefit for the equal cost (1 draw).
The opportunity of having drawn a shard should be of equal cost/benefit as the opportunity of any card.
Shard Golem should be compensated for the opportunity cost of not getting to use the shard for other purposes. (benefit gained for cost incurred)
This opportunity cost per shard should be equivalent to the generic opportunity cost incurred if a card in the hand were sacrificed.
This should achieve the point of balance that the player is ambivalent between using a shard or combining it in their shard golem.

I view the cost of the Golem as follows:
A shard golem of X shards costs 5 + 1 card + X cards ~= 3+X cost units ~= a creature that cost 1 card + 2+X . (a 2 shard golem has a cost equivalent to a Hematite Golem)

[zhangvict]

A shard of gratitude has a cost 1 draw + 5 quanta.
A photon has a cost 1 draw + 0 quanta.
A shard of gratitude in the hand has cost 1 draw + 0 quanta.
The difference in benefit of a shard of gratitude and a photon should be on par with the difference in cost (5 ).
If both photon and shard of gratitude were perfectly balanced then the cost/benefit ratio of both would be equal.
Since all cards should ideally have equal cost/benefit ratios (when all costs are considered), then equal benefit should be gained for equal cost.
Drawing a shard and drawing a photon have the same cost (1 draw).
Having a card in the hand to sacrifice should have equal benefit for the equal cost (1 draw).
The opportunity of having drawn a shard should be of equal cost/benefit as the opportunity of any card.
Shard Golem should be compensated for the opportunity cost of not getting to use the shard for other purposes. (benefit gained for cost incurred)
This opportunity cost per shard should be equivalent to the generic opportunity cost incurred if a card in the hand were sacrificed.
This should achieve the point of balance that the player is ambivalent between using a shard or combining it in their shard golem.

I view the cost of the Golem as follows:
A shard golem of X shards costs 5 + 1 card + X cards ~= 3+X cost units ~= a creature that cost 1 card + 2+X . (a 2 shard golem has a cost equivalent to a Hematite Golem)

Ahh, that arguement follows the assumption that all cards are absolutely equal in terms of opportunity cost. In the current metagame, I doubt they are. Since shards right now probably have higher opportunity costs than photons, it is highly unlikely that anybody will think it is worth it to use shard golem. Therefore for people to use shard golem, the resulting creature must give benifits greater than that of some photons.

[OldTrees]

A shard of gratitude has a cost 1 draw + 5 quanta.
A photon has a cost 1 draw + 0 quanta.
A shard of gratitude in the hand has cost 1 draw + 0 quanta.
The difference in benefit of a shard of gratitude and a photon should be on par with the difference in cost (5 ).
If both photon and shard of gratitude were perfectly balanced then the cost/benefit ratio of both would be equal.
Since all cards should ideally have equal cost/benefit ratios (when all costs are considered), then equal benefit should be gained for equal cost.
Drawing a shard and drawing a photon have the same cost (1 draw).
Having a card in the hand to sacrifice should have equal benefit for the equal cost (1 draw).
The opportunity of having drawn a shard should be of equal cost/benefit as the opportunity of any card.
Shard Golem should be compensated for the opportunity cost of not getting to use the shard for other purposes. (benefit gained for cost incurred)
This opportunity cost per shard should be equivalent to the generic opportunity cost incurred if a card in the hand were sacrificed.
This should achieve the point of balance that the player is ambivalent between using a shard or combining it in their shard golem.

I view the cost of the Golem as follows:
A shard golem of X shards costs 5 + 1 card + X cards ~= 3+X cost units ~= a creature that cost 1 card + 2+X . (a 2 shard golem has a cost equivalent to a Hematite Golem)

Ahh, that arguement follows the assumption that all cards are absolutely equal in terms of opportunity cost. In the current metagame, I doubt they are. Since shards right now probably have higher opportunity costs than photons, it is highly unlikely that anybody will think it is worth it to use shard golem. Therefore for people to use shard golem, the resulting creature must give benifits greater than that of some photons.

The argument follows the assumption that all significant imbalances should be fixed. I think we can all agreed that certain Shards should be nerfed. We should want the Shard Golem to still be balanced even after the broken shards are balanced. The last thing we want is to require Shard Golem to be broken just to give reason to sacrifice the 2 broken shards.

[Jenkar]

I had a few other names in my head for this shard:
Unity (self explanatory)
Majesty (it commands the other shards)
Integrity (Something unbroken and complete as opposed to a shard that is partial).

Feel free to discuss which name is more fitting

None of those really fit earth in my mind. I like the current name.

[Kuroaitou]

I had a few other names in my head for this shard:
Unity (self explanatory)
Majesty (it commands the other shards)
Integrity (Something unbroken and complete as opposed to a shard that is partial).

Feel free to discuss which name is more fitting

I say Integrity is the best bet; Fertility again feels to much connected to Life and breeding new things (which is kind of weird), whereas this shard is more of a 'ground' combination of all of the shards in one's hand. Unity is too basic of a name (and pretty boring... SoU?"), Majesty sounds pretentious, but Integrity seems much more accurate to Earth, as all of their cards have this type of 'perseverance' and dedication to do things the right way and with apt skill.

[EmeraldTiger]

Should there be a poll to determine name?

Golem of Shards = GoS

[Avenger]

Crystal Golem is a good name for the product.
Shard of Integrity is a good name for this shard.
Fertility is totally related.

[SnoWeb]

Definition of INTEGRITY (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/integrity)

• Firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values : incorruptibility
• An unimpaired condition : soundness
• the quality or state of being complete or undivided : completeness

It fits pretty well in my opinion. Integrity however sounds like it would have a bonus for being mono.

Crystal Golem is a good name for the product.

Yeah, a shard is small fragment (of a broken vessel for example). Crystal is something of the earth that might shatter. However, the golem part bothers me more. I would see it more as a permanent ... like a "crystal of integrity".

[~Napalm]

Kuro wants me to post this here... so I will.

What about Shard of Harmony? Could be a fitting name for Earth.

[burpcow]

What would happen if the shard golem was rewinded?  Would it turn back into a shard of fertility?  Or would it retain its stats?

[SnoWeb]

What about Shard of Harmony? Could be a fitting name for Earth.

Absolutely. Great name. Fitting the element and the effect. Better than the other terms for sure.