Oldtrees,
1 shard in hand and 1 photon in hand dont have the same benefit or opportunity cost. This is the ideal situation, you are talking about perfect balance, with equal cost / benefit ratio. If we expand the idea, any deck with, lets say, 30 cards, should have equal efficiency, which we know its not true. Cards are used to create decks, that have strategies, that may or may not work vs the opponent. Are there decks that photons are more useful than Shards? Sure, cremation decks, for example, or RoL Hope. But this is not a rule.
Photons = pathetic free creatures. If there is a Photon Golem card, that gives you a 5/5 creature for removing your 5 photons in hand, you may think its ok, although it would need a plus for the 6th card + cost.
Random cards = anything. If there is a Random Golem card, that gives you a creature for removing 5 random cards from your hand, what would it be to be playable? This could include 5 photons, or a bunch of cheap spells you could use for great benefit (lets say, SuperNova, Explosion, Heal, Rewind and Thunderbolt), or 5 dragons (you may or may not have the quanta to play for them). Would the 5/5 creature with a small plus be enough? Maybe for you, in your perfectly balanced situation, but in practice it wouldnt be played.
Now a Shard Golem. By Shard we mean cards that have powerful effects, arent expensive and can use any quanta, being extremely easy pay for them, with a SuperNova, or even 1-2 Quanta Towers. I have a way to draw 2 more cards, create 3 random cards, heal 16, have 3 permanent destruction and a BH, and stall for 2 turns, getting healing for damage. Will I spend all these and a 6th card, and pay quanta, just to have a 5/5 creature? If I wanted a Charger, for example, I would put a Charger card. This one and some quanta sources would be better, less unstable, and I would still have 1 card or 2 in hand.
I understand, quanta cost is to play the card, not a cost to have it in hand. If it was a Dragon Golem, I could even put a Silurian Dragon in the deck, while having no way to produce time quanta. The same does not apply to shards, they are cheap and paid with generic quanta.
Seriously, how would you balance this Shard Golem? 2 Shards for an Hematite Golem? Lol, who would use it? I cant think a good way to balance it, maybe you can help. I think, if for each shard I add a good value due to the shard opportunity cost, with 5 shards it would be monstrous, maybe a 20/20 with momentum and rage potion as bonus skill. But this would be abused, because its too cheap, in terms of quanta, and still can be TUed. If we stop adding value to each shard, lets say, beyond 2, this would still be a just ok creature with a 3 (or more) cards cost, which makes me remember, why not just add Destroyer (or anything good and cheap enough)? If we consider this can 'absorb' any number of shards 1-7, theres no way to balance, it will be broken, or just a dead card.
Again, just to say my very own opinion, this shard invasion is the worst thing that could happen to Elements. But this idea, in particular, is so bad that I really cant understand why zanz is even considering it.
Slight nitpick: I am talking about balance within the margin of 1 quanta (not perfect balance). Most of Elements operates very close to this ideal. It is a goal to continue to advocate for (rather then advocate for multiple tiers of cards).
The photon golem (say 7|5 momentum unupped for 2
+6 cards) would give a cheap creature for the cost of card disadvantage which would allow the rest of the deck to use higher cost cards. It is not as bad as one might think.
I am going to skip over the random card section because we were talking about generic card not random cards. Random cards have uncertainty which is a cost multiplier.
I have a way to draw 2 more cards, create 3 random cards, heal 16, have 3 permanent destruction and a BH, and stall for 2 turns, getting healing for damage. Will I spend all these and a 6th card, and pay quanta, just to have a 5/5 creature?
No. Neither would I. The 5|5 body is merely worth the 5 cards discarded. The 6th card and quanta (5
~= 2
) are worth at least 3 more attack. However I would find a 8|5 body bland. I would rather get a creature that is worth 7
+1card from sacrificing the 5 shards and the Shard of
. Why I do believe that is just slightly less than what a Nymph is.
Next you agree that the quanta cost of a dragon is not relevant until played. However you then claim the quanta cost of a shard is relevant before it is played. I hold that costs only deserve to generate benefit if those costs are paid.
Seriously, how would you balance this Shard Golem? 2 Shards for an Hematite Golem?
No. I would balance it such that 5
+3cards ~= 4
+1card. I used the golem as a marker not as an example. The actual Shard Golem would have lower stats (more resilience) and possess a potent skill for a reasonable activation cost. Say 2|8 with
: Controller gains 5 max hp. Would that be worth 2 SoDs, a Shard of Earth + 5
to you?
Note my method for balancing would not leave it "too cheap, in terms of quanta" and the detail that it "still can be TUed" would be an option (at 3+ shards) but not a balance issue.
In conclusion:
You feel that all shard need to be balanced relative to non shard to maintain the competence of shardless decks. My method for balancing Shard of Earth would balance it relative to non shards as a step towards that goal. Certain shards are already there (SoD, SoG, SoV) while others need balancing (SoSac, SoF).
