Well, I find it odd that, after expressing concern about the cards that would need to be created under my proposal, several of your solutions in your last post also involve the addition of more cards. It would seem that in both cases additional cards are needed (no surprise there). While there may be a greater quantity for one of our positions than the other, I doubt it varies by a significant amount. What I am attempting to demonstrate is that under my proposal there is a greater thematic and balance value, along with better control when designing cards.
Higher redundancy is a cost type. Quanta is a cost type. Draws are a cost type. Hp is a cost type. All costs are included for accurate benefit/cost ratio comparisons. Most people focus on only the quanta cost and not the draw cost or additional costs like the Weapon slot. Even different quanta cost types exist [ 
>> 
]
Yes, destruction targets the card with the most valuable effect. [Side note: The AI uses the quanta cost as a metric.] However there is no inherent thematic or mechanical rule of EtG that says Items should have more valuable effects (with higher total costs). Solution: Add more Artifacts to the game with varied costs.
There seems to be a disconnect between your premise and the solution you ended with. There is already a range of 1-5 quanta cost for artifacts, and considering how powerful a 4 quanta cost card like Hourglass is, I'm afraid to see what costlier artifacts would be capable of. Of course, other types of costs could be included, but I fail to see how this would address much of anything in regards to this discussion.
I understand the different costs you listed, and when I take cost into account I consider more than just quanta. Heck, my entire proposal is built around the cost of uniqueness for items, and the negative aspects that result from it. You say that there isn't a mechanical rule increasing item costs, but that uniqueness sure seems to counter your claim, and you listed it in your response ("weapon slot").
You dislike dead draws as a cost and given the option would avoid them in favor of another cost type. Solution: Add more Artifacts to the game with varied effects similar in usage to Items to give people like you another option while still allowing people access to dead draw costs when they prefer. Some people like games with lots of variance (see Entropy) while others like less variance (see Aether). Let's pander to both.
Ok, first off, my entire proposal
increases variance. Second, let's not make this a personal matter. In the discussions we have had (which I have enjoyed) I think it should be clear that I am a champion of increasing options available to players. But, to say that players "prefer" dead draws? Come on. We may settle on them because a better option doesn't exist, but we don't ever prefer them. A dead draw means one less option; i.e., less in-game variance, less player interaction. There are a myriad of other options available for increasing variance that would be more desirable than dead draws. Of course, dead draws will never be completely eliminated, but where this can be reduced, it should be.
If your proposal to add items with effects similar to weapons were to make its way into the design, it would homogenize the game and ruin the wonderful feel that currently exists for weapons and shields. By following my proposal, it would further distinguish weapons and shields from other permanents, which I believe most would see as making the game more interesting. It also, as I seem to be unable to demonstrate to you, would ease balance by reducing the range of controlled cards that need to be taken into account.
You were suggesting splitting existing PC into IC and AC with the result that some PC elements would lack AC and be more dependent on the AC elements and vice versa.
Well, this exists right now, so what's the problem?
With the weapons and shields that are currently in the game, it is already clear that every elements needs some form of IC. Personally, I don't think the same is true for AC, although this point is certainly debatable. Two scenarios result:
1) We decide that every element needs AC. Fine, just create those cards, and by splitting them up you allow them to more appropriately control their respective groups in a more finely-tuned thematic manner.
2) We decide they don't. This creates a more distinct feel and play-style for each element, which I'm pretty sure you would agree is a great thing.
Either way, it works out well.
Since we agree that the value of Removal is related directly with the average value of the target when used, the number of targets to consider when balancing is mostly irrelevant after the average value is calculated. The more targets the less change to the average each new target would cause when added to the game. The balance of PC is more stable than the balance of IC or AC.
No, this is completely off. The values of the targets still varies widely, hence why items are frequently targeted (with the aforementioned exception of Hourglass). Additionally, it isn't the
average that is the concern, but the
range. IC and AC, if split, will have a smaller range than PC, which makes balance easier during design.
I did not claim no one would use searching. I claimed that some people would not. I personally would use searching but I recognize that good design would be evident in the community as a whole being ambivalent about whether searching should be added to a generic deck. (aka balanced relative pros and cons)
Agreed.
With all this talk of PC I would like to emphasize the value of considering the broader category of Defenses against permanents rather than the small category of PC. All elements should have mono defenses against offensive permanents and counterdefenses/evasion against defensive permanents but not every element should have PC.
Agreed. Although I would argue that this works just as well, if not better, under my proposal.
Something that targets any creature or permanent
Basic theory: The value of EffectX is related to the average results of EffectX.
So, it seems our repeated disconnect is that you are focusing on average, whereas I am emphasizing the impact of range.
Using average is a way of determining cost and mitigating imbalance during gameplay.
Limiting range is a way of increasing the ease and accuracy with which costs are balanced, along with creating more appropriate thematic interactions between cards (e.g., you'd disarm a weapon or shield, but never an hourglass).
I agree that average has value. I would hope that you can see the value in range.
The reason I posed a control card for both creatures and permanents is bring to light this vast range (every non-action card in the game). The result would be that its actual cost would rarely match its value when used.
The desired effect's value can be calculated easily if it does not change the creature/permanent resilience ratio too much by using the average converted total cost of the targets
Easily? Every time a new non-action card is added, you must take it into account for the hypothetical card we are discussing. That's on top of, what, the 150 cards that already exist? Inversely, this card must be taken into account every time you design a new non-action card, or change an existing non-action card. I believe it's obvious how this relates to the PC vs IC/AC discussion.
One last important note here that I think we have lost from earlier in our discussion: even if permanents were split into items and artifacts, you could still create a card that targets both. What the division allows for is greater control during card design.Having items start equipped would remove itemless decks from the meta. Decreases in the meta are undesired unless they are linked to equal or greater increases in the meta.
As I mentioned, that was a distant vision. By that time, the variety of control and items would be enough that a minor reduction in the total meta would be outweighed by the increased uniqueness of starting 'hands' and the speed with which matches would pick up. It would also greatly reduce the potential dead draws, which I think it a good thing, but it seems you would disagree for reasons I don't understand. This is really a side point though, so we can simply disagree on this and focus on the more relevant and interest discussion points.
