Elemental Clockwork | Elemental Chronometer

[Boret]

Well, about the RT thing, you can even Quanta production in early turns, which could sometime be an advantage, for an additional cost 2 . You could RT it as soon as you play, and the production would be something like this:

Compared Quanta Prod, using ,  ,  ,  as a cycle. Turn 2 EC CW 1EC CW + 1 EC CCW +0 2 2 +1 2 +2   +  + + +2 2 + 2 + 2 + + + + + +3 2 +2 + 2 + 2 + +  + +  + + + +4 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 (+2x Nova Effect) 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 (+2x Nova Effect, same as above because CCW/CW crossing) At a clockrate of 6, 1 EC CW+1 EC CCW is equivalent 1 Nova per turn, and you get the equivalent of 3 Nova the other turn. At the same clockrate, 2 EC CW needs 2 turns where you'll receive something like 2x( ,  ), and get the remaining prod at the other turn (i.e. equivalent to 4 Novas. It's just a matter of preference, but I think that sometimes, it could be useful to even your production so you're not waiting for the last missing Quantum another turn, or if you want to toss in specific creatures without waiting 3/4 turns. The only thing is, I don't want to make this card too complicated, but as it is, you can play it, speed it up, and harvest your Quanta in a simple way. I just though that it could be fun to add more advanced strategy, without ruining its "simplicity"...

[OldTrees]

Ah. I see what you mean now.
I still feel that simple is better in this case.

[joebob777]

i like the idea for the game, i think it would be useless without the spped up but also OP with it, so here is my solution. for each speed up add a 5% chance (5 speed ups = 25% chance) at the end of each turn to revert it back to speed 1, because after 12 turns it basically a nova each turn. the 5% chance could change to 10% but i think that would nerf it a little to much

PS: although i do get oldtrees analytical work, having boret and oldtrees analyize 1 card 50 different times makes my head spin, so i decided to skip alot of the discussion (95%)

[AnonymousRevival]

Epic art man, I like it. I suggest not to make the speed up ability too fast though. Just maybe one quanta at the start and one quanta at the end of the turn.

[Boret]

Card characteristics & mechanism updated, see 1st post.

OldTrees => Maybe you're right. I'll just drop the RT-combo thing to focus on balancing the card for now.

joebob777=> Thanks About the analytic things, I do understand that it's quite hard to get at first glance. Basically, most of the discussion was a comparison vs Quantum Tower production. However, I think that doing some maths here put up some facts, versus the feeling I had when designing this card.

True, it would be useless without Speed Up. OP with it, I'm not sure. Like you said, after turn +11, it's like a Nova every turn. But what I think is, a card is OP only within a context, and not in itself. For instance, I think that a 1|1  creature (cost  ) with a skill like ( : Generate  ) (like a  / Rustler) is, in itself, not overpowered. Within a Graboid context, it is way more questionable.

If you consider the average game length (I would say 15-20 turns for a 30~35 cards deck), +11 turns is a very long time to wait. But if I get more tangible facts about it being (un)balanced, the stackable probability of reverting its speed to 1 could indeed be a way to put something like a cap to the clock speed. I also thought making it a creature (0|3~5), which would make it "CC-compliant" by the opponent.

Anonymous => Thanks too That was an occasion to "un-dust" (?) my PS/3DSMax skills
I however think that a cap of only 2 Quanta will make EC completely useless (or maybe you mean something else). The idea behind this card is to have a slow-starting (of course, "slow" is kinda subjective, for it depends of your deck) Quanta engine with low stability (for elements at the end of the clock), which progressively becomes a Quanta factory.

Anyway, the more comments there are, the easier (well, I hope so...) it'll be to balance it.

[The_Mormegil]

I completely misunderstood the card. Anyway, I agree with OldTrees, you should take away the Supernova effect. Just focus on balancing it as a quantum producer.

I don't like the speed up ability, though, and I think taking it away would be best... But it's your idea, so. I think max speed should be 4, and that it should speed up by itself once per turn. If you do that, you should probably reduce the cost to 2|1.

Following the OldTrees' format, that way you would have:

Turns	Quantum from QT	Quantum from EC
1	6	0 (1-1)
2	9	2
3	12	5
4	15	9
5	18	13
6	21	17
7	24	21
8	27	25

That is probably a bit UP. BUT, then you could add a small effect when the clock fully revolves (each time is produced), like... Dunno, drawing a card could be OP for rushes and terrible for stalls, I think (no Eternity trick there...). Showing opponent's hand has nothing to do with clockworks... maybe give a random quanta boost, like one to three random quanta are generated that turn...

[OldTrees]

I completely misunderstood the card. Anyway, I agree with OldTrees, you should take away the Supernova effect. Just focus on balancing it as a quantum producer.

I don't like the speed up ability, though, and I think taking it away would be best... But it's your idea, so. I think max speed should be 4, and that it should speed up by itself once per turn. If you do that, you should probably reduce the cost to 2|1.

The speed up ability is the card. Otherwise it would have to start at 3 quanta and cost 0 like quantum pillars.

Checking if removing Nova is possible/useful and if a max speed is needed.

Turn	Quanta from QP|QT	Quanta from EC	Quanta from Novas	Converted Quanta Cost of EC	EC-Q	EC-nova-Q
+0	3|6	1	0	12|9	-14	-14
+1	6|9	3	0	15|12	-18	-18
+2	9|12	6	0	18|15	-21	-21
+3	12|15	10	0	21|18	-23	-23
+4	15|18	15	12	24|21	-12	-24
+5	18|21	21	12	27|24	-12	-24
+6	21|24	28	24	30|27	1	-23
+7	24|27	36	36	33|30	15	-21
+8	27|30	45	36	36|33	18	-18
+9	30|33	55	48	39|36	34	-14
+10	33|36	66	60	42|39	51	-9
+11	36|39	78	72	45|42	69	-3
+12	39|42	91	84	48|45	88	4
+13	42|45	105	96	51|48	108	12
+14	45|48	120	120	54|51	141	21
+15	48|51	136	132	57|54	163	31
+16	51|54	153	144	60|57	186	42
+17	54|57	171	168	63|60	222	54
+18	57|60	190	180	66|63	247	67
+19	60|63	210	204	69|66	285	81

I think from the above table we can conclude that a max speed is needed. The max speed will need to be lower in the presence of novas. However if we add a max speed and remove the novas then the starting speed will need to be increased.

Now the question to be answered is at what turn [+8?, +11?, +14?] should EC equal QT in cumulative production? After which EC will exceed QT and before which QT exceeded EC. Another way to answer this question is: What is the average last turn that quanta production is nigh irrelevant to stallbows?

[Boret]

The thing is, without Nova, this card will be pretty useless IMO, and I don't like very much the idea of having an initial speed of more than 1. But looking at your last table, it's true that EC-Q is way too high, but EC-Nova-Q is way too low. Also, I think that a ratio is much more relevant than a Delta. So, for a fist try, I set a max speed of 12, here it goes:





NOTE: Typo in title, the ratio is obviously EC Net. Prod/QT Prod


Basically, if speeded up every turn, this card is equivalent to
- 1 QT at turn +6
- 2 QT at turn +9
- 3 QT at turn +12
- 4 QT at turn +15
- 5 QT at turn +21

Considering its cost, I would say it'll be played in a rainbow deck at turn 2 in the best case, but overall I'd rather see turn 3-4. So, this card begin to become efficient (i.e. at least equivalent to 2 QT) around turn +11/+13. 2 QT isn't that much (even if it obviously count ) compared to the needed time to set it up.

About the stallbow thing, well I'm not sure. All I know is that EC = 1 QT at turn 8/10 (cumulative prod), for the time being, and I don't feel like it's too fast, but that's only my feeling...

[OldTrees]

You're right that ratio is a better balance tool than delta.

Changing the Max speed doesn't effect the time the EC equals 1 QT (unless you drop below max speed 5). By messing with max speed we are balancing the end game. The opening if fine so we shouldn't alter it without cause.
At the beginning EC = 1-2.33 QT
So at the end it should be EC = 1+2.33 QT
The ideal max speed is dependent on when the relevant end is predicted to be.

Ideal Max Speed	Relevant End
12	+14
11	+14
10	+15-+16
9	+15-+17
8	+17-+21
7	+22-+28

From this I think that a max speed of 9 (+15-+17 or 18-21) is a good balance point.

PS. Great graph!. I wish I knew how to make the colored gradient inside the graph.

[Boret]

I know that changing the Max Speed won't affect the beginning of the production, which I find good too by the way (hence the "Max" thing ).

But I didn't understand the "relevant" end part. Do you mean it is the point when EC=1+ 2.33 QT? In what is it the relevant end?

Here, I added graph ratio for Max Speed 9, along with another one from max speed 6 to max speed 12, so you can have an overview of what we can tweak:








P.S.: Thanks I can't tell you precisely how to do gradients in graphs because I don't use an english version of Excel, but in the 2007 version, right-click on the graph zone (not the curves), then you should have something like Formatting... Then you can choose from a menu if you want plain, or gradient fill, along with some other options

[OldTrees]

I know that changing the Max Speed won't affect the beginning of the production, which I find good too by the way (hence the "Max" thing ).

But I didn't understand the "relevant" end part. Do you mean it is the point when EC=1+ 2.33 QT? In what is it the relevant end?

Here, I added graph ratio for Max Speed 9, along with another one from max speed 6 to max speed 12, so you can have an overview of what we can tweak:

P.S.: Thanks I can't tell you precisely how to do gradients in graphs because I don't use an english version of Excel, but in the 2007 version, right-click on the graph zone (not the curves), then you should have something like Formatting... Then you can choose from a menu if you want plain, or gradient fill, along with some other options

The relevant end and the theory of irrelevant excess:
Games have a finite duration (usually). This finite duration changes based upon the decks involved and how the dice fall. If a card gives an unreasonable benefit but does so after the game ends, that benefit is irrelevant. If the only time a card is OP is when the card's benefit is irrelevant then it is not OP in the current metagame. This card, due to its unbounded nature which is a consequence of its slow start, has an unreasonable benefit at some point down the line. By adjusting the Max Speed we can place this excessive advantage just a hair past the end of the game. This maintains the balance and allows for a slow to start type of card to exist. So we need to estimate when the average end of the game is for games involving this card and then map that turn count to the +N turn count. This limit of relevance will allow the proper tuning of the max speed. I think your previous estimate of the mapping of turn count to +N turn count (played on turn 3-4) is accurate. The only question remaining is what is the distribution of last turns in games using this card?

I believe that EC=1+ 2.33 QT is the limit between acceptable and excessive benefit. We just need to place this limit on top of the limit between relevant and irrelevant as described in the paragraph above.

P.S.: Thanks for the info

[joebob777]

so far i have been able to keep up with you two, thanks for the earlier english boret, so i will try to do some quick math that will probably be irrelevant
on the basis of 13/12 quanta (4/3   9 ) we will get 9 semi random quanta a turn at the cards max. plus a nova effect every 1.25 turns, so for 5 turns we get 93 quanta (45 from effect, 48 from nova) which is about 18.15 quanta a turn or 6 quantum pillars. for a 13/12 cost, along with the time needed to get to a max, this card is actually really balanced. good work boret

CORRECTION: 18.6, my bad