Devourers's Quanta Drain is messed up

[LongDono]

Quick question, if there is a thread out there that explains how random works in this game or for each card then can you please PM me the link? I would really love it and you forever. lol
On topic..... I use shriker rush unupped at the moment for farming top 50, and it is rather annoying how time quanta is stolen almost every time. ( lol pun ) Is there a fix that can lower the chance of a certain element being stolen without killing the card and chaning how random in this game works?

[Pineapple]

I don't understand what you're saying but:

Devourers drain quanta by picking a random element and taking 1 quanta from that element. Elements of 0 quanta are not included.

Therefore, 1 devourer has a 50/50 chance of stealing 1 time quanta when you have 99 earth quanta and 1 time quanta.
2 devourers have a 75% chance
3 have a 87.5% chance
etc.

Everyone thinks this is reasonable, no changes should be made because a certain group of decks would be amazing if it was changed.

[LongDono]

But see it is not 50/50 from what I have seen. The time quanta seems to get drained far more often than the earth quanta.

[Rainmaker]

Well, something is messed up here.

I didn't really know how "randomness" for devourers worked, but now that I know, I think it should be changed. Though it isn't, I would suggest the description to be rewritten.

I mean, you are:
1. playing a 2 quanta card
2. gettings 1 quanta every turn for every devourer (as long as the enemy has quanta in his pool)
3. You are denying of quanta production to your enemy.

when looking other "quanta producing" creatures we see they don't have any special features. Plus they seem pretty harmless:
damsfly, rustler, ash eater.

Devourers can burrow, they have attack 0, which makes them untargettable by other means like Procrastination, Thorn Caparace, Fire Buckler.
More over they ignore Bonewall, Phase shields, Permafrost Shields.

So yes, IMHO, the quanta draining as how "randomness" is taken should be modified.
They should use the total pool and drain from there, and not take first from element.

Doubt: adrenaline devourers steal 1 or more quanta? (dune add more poison as it work with attack, same as puff fish, or other poison creatures)

[Rainmaker]

But see it is not 50/50 from what I have seen. The time quanta seems to get drained far more often than the earth quanta.

They just explained this:
Random works this way:

1. check elements which you have quanta
2. Pick any of the one that have quanta
3. drain 1 quanta

So if you run a duo deck (RoL/Hope for example), and you 've got:

10x 
3x

and enemy has 1 devourer:
Devourers has 50% of either draining 1 aether or 1 light.
This way you will see you run WAY faster of light quanta (this si perceptive, as you have more of one quanta then the other); but devourers picks EQUALLY BETWEEN ELEMENTAL QUANTA, and not EQUALLY BETWEEN QUANTA.
This slight difference makes Devourer look OP in relation to other "quanta producing" creatures from other elements.


Now, if you run with 3 diff quanta:

10 
5 
4

Devourer picks a random of those 3 with 33.33% each.


The new suggestion is to do as follow:
For Rol/Hope:
10x
3x 

13 quanta:
each quanta has a 7,69% of getting drained:
that means that "you as RoL/Hope player" see at devourer has 7.69%*10 = 76,9% of getting 1  drained, and 23,1% of getting 1  drained.

For the 2nd example:
each quanta has 5,26% of getting drained; so you 've got:
52,6% of being drained
26,3% of being drained
21,1% of being drained


This way, the shutdown of devourers works WAY better against more spash quanta decks, as Rainbow, trio and duo decks, than against mono decks.
(obviously if you run a 14 pillar mono deck, 6 devourers cut your quanta production to the 60%)

[Pineapple]

Well, something is messed up here.

I didn't really know how "randomness" for devourers worked, but now that I know, I think it should be changed. Though it isn't, I would suggest the description to be rewritten.

I mean, you are:
1. playing a 2 quanta card
2. gettings 1 quanta every turn for every devourer (as long as the enemy has quanta in his pool)
3. You are denying of quanta production to your enemy.

when looking other "quanta producing" creatures we see they don't have any special features. Plus they seem pretty harmless:
damsfly, rustler, ash eater.

Devourers can burrow, they have attack 0, which makes them untargettable by other means like Procrastination, Thorn Caparace, Fire Buckler.
More over they ignore Bonewall, Phase shields, Permafrost Shields.

So yes, IMHO, the quanta draining as how "randomness" is taken should be modified.
They should use the total pool and drain from there, and not take first from element.

Doubt: adrenaline devourers steal 1 or more quanta? (dune add more poison as it work with attack, same as puff fish, or other poison creatures)

As direct attacks against your points, which prove that devourers are drmatically better than other quanta-producing creatures have less benefits

1. they cost only 2 quanta
RoL costs 0 and produces light quanta and has great symmetry with hope
every other one costs 1 quanta. That's half the quanta.

2. yet they produce the same amount of quanta as the other cards
rustler can generate a lot more quanta than devourer

3. they ignore shields with 0 attack
yet they do no damage with 0 attack, while brimstone eater does 2, dragonfly does 2, etc.


4. they ignore spells with burrow
yet it costs 1 to burrow. That means, at the very least, you need a few earth pillars, pendulums, or mark. Then you're not really producing quanta with devourer anymore, right?

And yet, even though your points have no basis, i'm confused as to how making them steal 1 random quanta from all the quanta available would change any of these.

Now, for why this way is the best:

1. It's not unfair. Fog shields has a 40% chance that all monsters miss. It doesn't have a 20% chance that the monster with 24 attack misses and a 60% chance that the monster with 1 attack misses, nor does it have a 60% chance that the monster with 24 attack misses and a 20% chance that the monster with 1 attack misses.

2. As said by QuantumT:

It does makes one devourer rather useless. One devourer would only really be able to do something if the person you were facing was already having quanta problems.

Ultimately, just because a card is good against your deck doesn't make it OP.

3. It's easier to code this way.

[Rainmaker]

1. they cost only 2 quanta
RoL costs 0 and produces light quanta and has great symmetry with hope
every other one costs 1 quanta. That's half the quanta.

Photon is an upgraded card, devourer isn't.
If you look BOTH upped version (RoL and upped.devourer) you will see that devourer is more powerful than RoL
Rol:
1 attack
1 HP
1  per turn

Devourer:
0 attack
4 HP
1  quanta per turn (as long as enemy has quanta)
1  quanta destroyed from enemy

upped.devourers HP is 4: making it impossible to 1 hit kill with thunderstorm, rain of fire, owl's eye or with oughty (only upped oughty can 1 hit kill a devourer.

I don't see how a devourer is on the same level as any other quantum generation creature.

2. they produce the same amount of quanta as the other cards
rustler can generate a lot more quanta than devourer
Rustler needs of synergy with light to produce quanta, the only way to get light is with RoL's or Bioluminiscense.
The advanta of the synergy is that they can produce 2  for every  , and that the skill can be used multiple times (as long as you don't run out of   )

3. they ignore shields with 0 attack
yet they do no damage with 0 attack, while brimstone eater does 2, dragonfly does 2, etc.
Dark element has eclipse, though i still think that the 0 Attack makes them better than having 1 Attack.
Increasing the cost by 1 and giving them 1 Attack would balance it out in someway, making them targetable by shields.

4. they ignore spells with burrow
yet it costs 1 to burrow. That means, at the very least, you need a few earth pillars, pendulums, or mark. Then you're not really producing quanta with devourer anymore, right?
Yes they are.
Burrow cost 1 , and has no upkeep
A devourer generates 1 as your opponent has quanta in his pool. This means you generally generate 1 per turn per devourer. And devourer doesn't need earth to generate the  quanta, just to make him untargetable; in other words it is as is if was quintessenced.
Well, that as long as none of the players uses an Eclipse.



And yet, even though your points have no basis, i'm confused as to how making them steal 1 random quanta from all the quanta available would change any of these.
It changes the splash effect of the drain, I explained how probability changes and done the math for you.
If it wasn't clear enough I can display more examples


1. It's not unfair. Fog shields has a 40% chance that all monsters miss. It doesn't have a 20% chance that the monster with 24 attack misses and a 60% chance that the monster with 1 attack misses, nor does it have a 60% chance that the monster with 24 attack misses and a 20% chance that the monster with 1 attack misses.
Strawman falacy
I m saying that its "randomly weighted" the way the devourers picks quanta.


2. As said by QuantumT:

It does makes one devourer rather useless. One devourer would only really be able to do something if the person you were facing was already having quanta problems.

Ultimately, just because a card is good against your deck doesn't make it OP.

False.
Duo quanta decks usually depend on 1 of the quanta (primary), and have 2nd for support (secondary).
Usually, one of the quanta is indispensable for the deck to work, the 2nd is for boost. Again, generally, the secondary quanta is produced at a slower rate.
Devourer criples the quanta of the slowest production rate.

3. It's easier to code this way.
How is this relevant?
I think that that is zanz decision. As i remember, the code hasn't been released (nor it will be), so you have no way to know that.

[Pineapple]

Replies to your replies on your points:
1. Because, by itself, it can't do any damage. That's a world of difference. The lack of damage balances it out. The devourer/pest has high survivability, no damage, and a net quanta gain of 2. And devourer costs double the quantum. That means you can't have a quick start just by powering it by a mark, unlike the other quanta generation cards.

2. Again, devourers cost 2 quanta to play, and they take and make 1 quanta per turn. That's 2. The others cost 1, produce 1, or cost 0, produce 1. Rustler costs 1, produces much more than 2 for a few light pillars, fireflies, wtv. When you look at quanta cost vs. quanta generation, it's right where everything else is.

3. Do you mean current quantum selection method, drain 1 quanta per turn, 1 :dark to play? that just sounds very OP if you ask me. And now, you've made me utterly confused on what you are trying to prove.

4. But what will you use to create the ? Earth mark? Each turn, that's -1 of what your :dark could have been. Pendulums? Pillars? That's a waste of cards that obelisk pillars or other dark cards could have been. I'm saying burrow is useless in this topic, and therefore your points extending upon it hold no relevance.

I know how it changes the splash effect. I'm wondering why the points above have anything to do with this. WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO PROVE? Are you trying to prove that the devourer card is OP? Then what reasons do you base off of this? Because you're basically, saying that every part of it is individually OP, but if you change one of the OP parts the card won't be OP.
WHY will the devourer having a lower chance to drain the quanta with the lower quantity have ANYTHING to do with how it has a net quanta creation of 2, how it ignores shields, etc.?

My points:

1. You haven't placed an argument against this. To extend it, I would like to point out that wanting a lower chance for the devourer to drain the lesser quanta is like asking "I got a 50% on a test and my friend got a 100% on a test, so why don't we both get A+'s?"

2. a) it does not cripple it. In the scenario of 1 devourer in play against a duo, there is a 50% chance of the devourer NOT taking quanta from the second source.
 b)  WHO CARES IF IT CRIPPLES THE RESOURCES USED FOR SUPPORT? As you stated yourself, the secondary quanta is used as a "boost." Therefore, you admit that devourers are not as powerful as the change needs. You did not place my quote into context. QuantumT was explaining how devourers were only good against decks that use quanta from elements where they maintain quanta at low quantities. If the devourer itself doesn't completely destroy a deck with no cc, unlike a dimensional shield itself completely destroys any deck without momentum/deflag/steal/pulverizer, then how exactly does it need this change? If devourers lost this edge, they would be WORTHLESS. They would BARELY slow down the opponent, as they have a much higher chance to drain quanta that the opponent has excess of.

3. The status quo is usually the easiest to maintain

[Rainmaker]

1. Because, by itself, it can't do any damage. That's a world of difference. The lack of damage balances it out. The devourer/pest has high survivability, no damage, and a net quanta gain of 2. And devourer costs double the quantum. That means you can't have a quick start just by powering it by a mark, unlike the other quanta generation cards.

When analising, keep perspective of relatives and absolutes. You stated "it costs double as others", yet is only 2 quanta. I know what you mean you can't play them like towers; its not the purpose, it is to produce quanta, over 8 turns (most matches go over the 10 turns) you have produced 6 quanta, it cost you 2, that is 0,5 per turn (on average). On a longer match, the cost of playing a devourer is null, as the relative value: quanta cost / (quanta produces-quanta costs) tends to 0 (or a very low number).
Its like comparing that "damsfly" costs 1 quanta, and only produces 1 quanta. Why would i play it instead of a pillar?
Well, damsfly has 2 ATK and 1 HP.
Well, in this case, Pest has 0 ATK, 4 HP, its pretty hard to get rid of as it has 4 HP.  Burrowed its untargetable.
Moreover in a mono/dua darkness deck, Eclipse would provide more dmg.

2. Again, devourers cost 2 quanta to play, and they take and make 1 quanta per turn. That's 2. The others cost 1, produce 1, or cost 0, produce 1. Rustler costs 1, produces much more than 2 for a few light pillars, fireflies, wtv. When you look at quanta cost vs. quanta generation, it's right where everything else is.
Yes, i agree that in the case of quanta generation they all do almost the same, even devourer/pest is a little disadvantage.
But it has a lot more attributes than that. As I 've stated before (I don't wanna keep repeating myself).

3. Do you mean current quantum selection method, drain 1 quanta per turn, 1 :dark to play? that just sounds very OP if you ask me. And now, you've made me utterly confused on what you are trying to prove.
quoting my self: "increasing the cost by 1 ...."

4. But what will you use to create the ? Earth mark? Each turn, that's -1 of what your :dark could have been. Pendulums? Pillars? That's a waste of cards that obelisk pillars or other dark cards could have been. I'm saying burrow is useless in this topic, and therefore your points extending upon it hold no relevance.
I'm not talking about situational uses. I'm stating all the attirbutes the card has (devourer/Pest) compared to other card similars in other elements. From that point of view the card is OP, nevertheless, I don't think that being overpowered makes a bad card, I m sayings that, appart from that, the way it discriminates quanta makes it Overpowered in general for the game.

I know how it changes the splash effect. I'm wondering why the points above have anything to do with this. WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO PROVE? Are you trying to prove that the devourer card is OP? Then what reasons do you base off of this? Because you're basically, saying that every part of it is individually OP, but if you change one of the OP parts the card won't be OP.

Well thats the point, the card in general is a little overpowered, by making a little adjustion the card won't be overpowered.
Take for example what happened to Sundial:
Card costed 1 time, 1 light to draw a card, and did stasis for 2 turns.
modifying only one of those, the card became an average (or a little less powerful), to the point that some decks prefer precognition to sundial (but for the stasis effect).

WHY will the devourer having a lower chance to drain the quanta with the lower quantity have ANYTHING to do with how it has a net quanta creation of 2, how it ignores shields, etc.?
Because apart from cripling the deck, it's impossible to get rid of.
If the card crippled my quanta, but i was still managed to get it out of the field; I wouldn't mind.
The only way to kill it is:
a) Upped Oughty and Pest not Burrowed [Oughty and devourer not burrowed]
b) Use eclipse + Thorn Capparace/Fire Buckler (run a duo deck with no synergies, nor fire neither life match with dark)
c) 2 x  (shots from Owl's/Eagle eye or Fire Storm or Thunderbolt)

[Pineapple]

Argh...so many points to keep track of, I'll just put out a few points as overviews amongst what I think your major points are.

#1. One devourer can't do much.
Let's look at one devourer vs shrieker rush.
The chance that the devourer takes 1 time quanta each turn for 8 turns is .5^8, or close to 0 percent.

Turns of Consecutive Time Denial	Probability
1	50%
2	25%
3	12.5%
4	6.3%
5	3.1%
6	1.6%
7	0.8%
8	0.4%
9	0.2%
10	0.1%

That means that the shrieker deck will most like be able to evolve one, or even two, graboids. That's 16 damage per turn. Add the fact that devourers do next to nothing to stop the shrieker deck from getting earth quanta, he can also play 2 or 3 more shriekers. I hardly call this "crippling the deck."

#2. Two devourers can't do much

Turns of Consecutive Time Denial	Probability
1	75%
2	56.3%
3	42.2%
4	31.6%
5	23.7%
6	17.8%
7	13.3%
8	10.0%
9	7.5%
10	5.6%

Okay, a lot better, but it's still under 50% that the shrieker deck won't be able to evolve a graboid into a shrieker for 3 turns. Plus, what's the chance that the devourer deck plays 2 devourers before you can get a sizeable amount of quanta?

#3. You need a specific deck to mass summon devourers.
Fractal devourers is the only devourer tactic that can completely cripple duo rushes (and maybe half the decks being used right now).

#4. Duo rushes aren't the only decks in the world.
Other decks include the vast majority of rainbows, mono rushes, fire stall, etc.
Again, just because phase shields can beat every single deck without a steal, deflagration, momentum, or pulvy does not mean that it is overpowered because a vast majority of decks CAN beat monoaether (because they have steal, deflagration, momentum, or pulvy)

#5. 4 HP is not a lot. Upped Shriekers have 4 HP, and I think 10 damage per turn is a lot scarier than -1 quanta per turn.

A few, but probably not all, ways to kill them. I didn't include Chaos Seed, which can lobo it's burrow, rewind it, or (usually) kill it.

Devourer
0 Holy Light
1 Holy Flash
1 Freeze (3 turns without quanta drain)
1 Congeal (4 turns without quanta drain)
1 Ice lance
1 Siphon Life
2 Drain Life
2 Ice Bolt
2 Lightning
3 Rage Potion
3 Rage Elixir
3 Snipe
5 Firestorm
7 Rain of Fire

Pest
0 Holy Light
1 Holy Flash
1 Freeze (3 turns without quanta drain)
1 Congeal (4 turns without quanta drain)
2 Lightning
3 Rage Potion
3 Rage Elixir
6 Snipe x2

Note that most of these cost 1-3 quanta.

[Rainmaker]

#2. Two devourers can't do much

Turns of Consecutive Time Denial	Probability
1	75%
2	56.3%
3	42.2%
4	31.6%
5	23.7%
6	17.8%
7	13.3%
8	10.0%
9	7.5%
10	5.6%

Check your numbers:

Turns of Consecutive Time Denial	Total % of draining at least 1 quanta
1	75%
2	62,5%

For the 1st turn the math is pretty simple:
draining 2 time quanta: 25%
draining 1 quanta: 50%

For the 2nd turn math behind probability turn a little messy. The easiest way to calculate this is to calculate the chances of NOT stealing 1 time quanta on any of those 2 turns, and then find the complementary of that (1-*that probability*); which is:
0,25*0,25 : not draining on the 1st and 2nd turn
0,5*0,5 : not draining on the 1st turn
0,25*0,25 : not draining on the 2nd turn

0,0625 + 0,25 + 0,0625 = 37,5%
This means that at  1 time quanta wasn't drained in at least 1 turn (first, second or both)
That means that the chances of stealing AT LEAST 1 per turn is 1-0,375 = 0,625 = 62.5%

Analyzing for 3rd turn is something along the lines of ~50% (56,25% to be precise, but I might be mistaken)

[geekz_always_win]

Guys, remember, where there is one devourer, more is sure to follow. You guys have to consider 2 and 3 of them, it's not that hard to get 2 or 3 devourers in your opening hand  if you have 6 in a 30 card deck.