Shard of Focus | Shard of Focus

[mwaetht]

However, a card that just has an ability to gain HP would not be very useful... unless you suggest it's a passive (and so you could put Overdrive on it)?

[OldTrees]

How about we make it so Shard of Focus does not itself have the ability to destroy permanents? But rather, upon the destruction of any permanent, it gains HP? That way you would need to combo it with PC cards like Steal, Destroy, BE, or Pulverizer (more on that later).

And permanent destruction in this case would also include such things as Sundial, Cloak, or Dimensional Shield expiring, or Bone Shield and Diss Shield being "broken" by creature attacks. Even something like Flooding expiring due to not enough upkeep could trigger SoF's ability.

This solves two things I've been worried about the current SoF:
1) No PC for all elements. I know some people have been calling for more PC besides just , , and /:gravity, but I've seen a lot of complaints (which I agree with) that rainbows would benefit more than mono elements would.
2) This gives Gravity an additional benefit besides the extra Black Hole, namely that Pulverizer, being one of two reusable PC cards in the game, is powered by . Rainbows would still be able to use it, but Gravity would be better off than Rainbows, unlike the current situation (which I believe SoF would find more uses in rainbows than mono- or duo-Gravity decks).
EDIT: Adding a third thing:
3) SoF would no longer overshadow BE, IMO.

I see only 1 problem.
Shards are meant to be usable by any element.
If destruction of permanents is required then only a subset of elements would be able to increase its hp.
  Phase Shield
  Wings
  Steal
  Bone Wall
  Earthquake
  Butterfly Effect
  Deflagration
  n/a
  n/a
  n/a
  Sundial
  n/a
So 4 of the 12 elements would be unable to use the Shard without assistance and worse of all, the Shard's allied element Gravity is one of those 4 unlucky elements.

[Bhlewos]

I don't see a reason not to make it a passive in that case. In fact that could even give a use for BE in Entropy decks: you would need BE to give SoF the ability to destroy permanents rather than have that ability already and leave BE obsolete.

Unless making the ability a passive would make it OP (I can't think of a reason off the top of my head). IMO it would still be less OP than if it went into the game as is.

EDIT:

I see only 1 problem.
Shards are meant to be usable by any element.
If destruction of permanents is required then only a subset of elements would be able to increase its hp.
  Phase Shield
  Wings
  Steal
  Bone Wall
  Earthquake
  Butterfly Effect
  Deflagration
  n/a
  n/a
  n/a
  Sundial
  n/a
So 4 of the 12 elements would be unable to use the Shard without assistance and worse of all, the Shard's allied element Gravity is one of those 4 unlucky elements.

What about if flying weapons counted (replacing a weapon with a creature)? Or if replacing a weapon with another (or replacing a shield with another) also qualified? Granted it would be tough to base a strategy off the second option, but if we consider that it would still make the effect more inclusive.

And I personally think this option would benefit Gravity better than the original -- mostly because it would be less available to Rainbow decks. As it is right now, the Black Hole isn't enough of a benefit to the element that I could see people preferring to use the shard in Gravity decks rather than other elements.

[OldTrees]

I see only 1 problem.
Shards are meant to be usable by any element.
If destruction of permanents is required then only a subset of elements would be able to increase its hp.
  Phase Shield
  Wings
  Steal
  Bone Wall
  Earthquake
  Butterfly Effect
  Deflagration
  n/a
  n/a
  n/a
  Sundial
  n/a
So 4 of the 12 elements would be unable to use the Shard without assistance and worse of all, the Shard's allied element Gravity is one of those 4 unlucky elements.

What about if flying weapons counted (replacing a weapon with a creature)? Or if replacing a weapon with another (or replacing a shield with another) also qualified? Granted it would be tough to base a strategy off the second option, but if we consider that it would still make the effect more inclusive.

And I personally think this option would benefit Gravity better than the original -- mostly because it would be less available to Rainbow decks. As it is right now, the Black Hole isn't enough of a benefit to the element that I could see people preferring to use the shard in Gravity decks rather than other elements.

Flying Weapon requires Air.

Replacing a weapon or shield would enable the remaining 4 elements to have access but I think that is a bit too suboptimal. Not to mention that Mono Gravity is entitled to a decent synergy with its Shard of Focus. Forcing it to replace Titans or Gravity Shield is not appropriate. The Black Hole version is a better return for Mono Gravity from its Shard.

[Atico]

My suggestion was much more detailed than just an increase in the casting cost by 2 .
I suggested:
Increase casting cost by 2 ,
Increase activation cost by 3 ,
Decrease uses of PC from 4 to 2, and
Decrease hp from 15 to 5

BE gets more than 2 uses and is more secure in getting at least 1 use. Also BE is considered as possible UP unlike Pulvy or 2 Deflagrations. Since my modification was more akin to 2 Deflags than to BE I expect 2 Deflagrations to be a better comparison.

Increase casting cost by 2 , - Still cost less than BE (3 vs 5 )
Increase activation cost by 3 , - Still cost less than BE (3 vs 3 )
Decrease uses of PC from 4 to 2, and - here is a great advantage of BE
Decrease hp from 15 to 5 - still is better than BE (SoF didn't need second card to use like BE+creature and most of <3 attack creatures has got <5HP).

If You compare it with Explosion it looks sometimes better, but personally I think that better card to compare is BE, because it need creature and 1 turn to activate.

Balanced cards should be used in comparisons. BE is not a great example of balance unlike Pulvy or the recently nerfed Deflagration.
1) BE is considered by some to be UP compared to other forms of PC including reusable summoning sickness affected skill based PC like Pulvy.
2) Deflagration has recently been nerfed to what I consider balanced.

The number of usages and the existence of limits on usage is a vital variable to equate in comparisons.
1) Butterfly Effect gets 1 use per turn with no maximum.
2) Deflagration is limited to 1 usage.
3) My suggested nerf restrict normal usage of Shard of Focus to 2 usages.
4) Therefore on this topic Shard of Focus is more similar to 2 Deflagrations than it is to Butterfly Effect + 1 creature.

Butterfly effect can be played on the turn the Destroy ability is used. In this manner Pulvy is a better match for the 1 turn delay.

I concede that Butterfly effect does require a creature and is similarly vulnerable to CC. However the number of uses is a much more important variable to equate in this comparison and I believe you underestimated the difference between limited (Spark) and reusable (Horned Frog). Note that the difference in cost between 1 use and reusable for such small effects like 3 damage results in a change of +2 cost. I believe you will find that with larger effects like PC, the cost change between limited and reusable is drastic.

Sorry but WE mixed unupped with upped To sum up:
ButterflyEffect card cost is 4 upped. SoF is 3  .
BE skill cost 3 vs 3
Great advantage for number of uses? Hmm, creatures with BE are easy to kill so they didn't damage more than 2 permaments so often. Of course here is advantage of BE, but no huge and great

But remember that we are talking about Your offer, which didn't exist. Orignal offer is with less card and ability cost, with more destroying permaments and bigger HP. Remember also, that in Your version player get BH (You forgot about it in compare). It is also huge difference in compare with Defla or BE. Sorry, but there are too much advantages for me.

The main question is what Shards should really do. Shards should be:
a) normal cards with new ability?
b) powerful cards?
c) little OP cards when we compare with other cards from Bazaar?
d) OP and very powerful

I prefer answer A or between A and B. Your concept is like C because it is better than normal cards like BE. Original concept is like D. And maybe it should be like C or D, but I prefer A.
We should also remember that this Shard will be only for the best players. Weaker players didn't reach it. So if we really want to give PC for or it will be better to do this by normal card. In poll for the best card idea won fantastic idea (Rejuvenation) and it is PC for Life. Give for this card and change this Shard to fine buff for Gravity (other skill) - this is my proposal to solve the problem of PC in few Elements

[mega plini]

  pc? I like it! But probably not for only 3 , a bit to inexpensive?

[OldTrees]

My suggestion was much more detailed than just an increase in the casting cost by 2 .
I suggested:
Increase casting cost by 2 ,
Increase activation cost by 3 ,
Decrease uses of PC from 4 to 2, and
Decrease hp from 15 to 5

BE gets more than 2 uses and is more secure in getting at least 1 use. Also BE is considered as possible UP unlike Pulvy or 2 Deflagrations. Since my modification was more akin to 2 Deflags than to BE I expect 2 Deflagrations to be a better comparison.

Increase casting cost by 2 , - Still cost less than BE (3 vs 5 )
Increase activation cost by 3 , - Still cost less than BE (3 vs 3 )
Decrease uses of PC from 4 to 2, and - here is a great advantage of BE
Decrease hp from 15 to 5 - still is better than BE (SoF didn't need second card to use like BE+creature and most of <3 attack creatures has got <5HP).

If You compare it with Explosion it looks sometimes better, but personally I think that better card to compare is BE, because it need creature and 1 turn to activate.

Balanced cards should be used in comparisons. BE is not a great example of balance unlike Pulvy or the recently nerfed Deflagration.
1) BE is considered by some to be UP compared to other forms of PC including reusable summoning sickness affected skill based PC like Pulvy.
2) Deflagration has recently been nerfed to what I consider balanced.

The number of usages and the existence of limits on usage is a vital variable to equate in comparisons.
1) Butterfly Effect gets 1 use per turn with no maximum.
2) Deflagration is limited to 1 usage.
3) My suggested nerf restrict normal usage of Shard of Focus to 2 usages.
4) Therefore on this topic Shard of Focus is more similar to 2 Deflagrations than it is to Butterfly Effect + 1 creature.

Butterfly effect can be played on the turn the Destroy ability is used. In this manner Pulvy is a better match for the 1 turn delay.

I concede that Butterfly effect does require a creature and is similarly vulnerable to CC. However the number of uses is a much more important variable to equate in this comparison and I believe you underestimated the difference between limited (Spark) and reusable (Horned Frog). Note that the difference in cost between 1 use and reusable for such small effects like 3 damage results in a change of +2 cost. I believe you will find that with larger effects like PC, the cost change between limited and reusable is drastic.

Sorry but WE mixed unupped with upped To sum up:
ButterflyEffect card cost is 4 upped. SoF is 3  .
BE skill cost 3 vs 3
Great advantage for number of uses? Hmm, creatures with BE are easy to kill so they didn't damage more than 2 permaments so often. Of course here is advantage of BE, but no huge and great

But remember that we are talking about Your offer, which didn't exist. Orignal offer is with less card and ability cost, with more destroying permaments and bigger HP. Remember also, that in Your version player get BH (You forgot about it in compare). It is also huge difference in compare with Defla or BE. Sorry, but there are too much advantages for me.

The main question is what Shards should really do. Shards should be:
a) normal cards with new ability?
b) powerful cards?
c) little OP cards when we compare with other cards from Bazaar?
d) OP and very powerful

I prefer answer A or between A and B. Your concept is like C because it is better than normal cards like BE. Original concept is like D. And maybe it should be like C or D, but I prefer A.
We should also remember that this Shard will be only for the best players. Weaker players didn't reach it. So if we really want to give PC for or it will be better to do this by normal card. In poll for the best card idea won fantastic idea (Rejuvenation) and it is PC for Life. Give for this card and change this Shard to fine buff for Gravity (other skill) - this is my proposal to solve the problem of PC in few Elements

I did cover the value of delayed card advantage that SoF's Gravity boon gives. I felt (and you did not appear to disagree) that the delay and vulnerability of the card advantage paid for the card advantage. We did discuss that SoF should only turn into a balanced card. Thus any rebalancing was to be done on the generated card's end.

You still seem skeptical about the value difference between 2 uses and unlimited uses.
BE + Photon is a usually combo that has a resilience of 1hp
Photon has a resilience of 1 hp
Deflagration is a spell-like version of BE's Destroy effect
Spark is a spell-like version of Photon's damage
The 1 use spark has 3x the magnitude of effect to balance it compared with Photon having 1 use per turn for 1hp turns. (3:1 ratio between 1 use and 1hp)
My nerf suggestion of SoF gets 2 uses indicating that BE(if it were balanced, which it is not) should probably cost 150% as much as SoF. Or looking the other way, my nerf suggestion for SoF should cost 67% of a balanced BE.

Reminder: If we balance new cards to cards that currently are UP then the new cards would also be UP. BE is UP compared to the PC standards of Pulvy, Steal and Deflagration.

Yes it is good to remember we are discussing nerf suggestions rather than the original that everyone knows is OP.

I think your options a-d are too limited. Shards are not special nor are UP cards like BE special. All cards should be balanced compared to other balanced cards. The range of balance permits normal and powerful cards while excluding UP and OP cards. This is what Cards should really do.

PS: I agree that fitting PC should be added individually to each element. However I have a self imposed rule of never trying to convince the author to reject the core of their idea. Since I suspect "Devour permanent" to be the core of the idea, I am personally refraining from recommending great alternative forms of PC.

[mega plini]

Also if you gravity pull this creature, you get a nice stall thing going. It heals himself for 10 while destroying permanents.

[Atico]

@OldTrees - When we talk about 1 turn delay (if I good understand) You should remember that putting Photon+BE in one turn = the same effect like SoF, here also is one turn delay. Of course in next turn when I use BE I didn't need to wait (and it is useful mechanism). So sometimes advanatage has got SoF (because it is 2in1), sometimes BE. I don't want to say which advantage is better, because it depends on situation. Probably card 2in1 will be better for most of players (You can have then more space in deck and it is easier to draw 1 card instead 2 for combo).

In overall I can agree with You less or more, but I saw one important different point. For You in general 1 =1 ? Personally I think that we can't say that when Explosion cost 2 then skill from should cost also 2. It is difficult to say what ratio we should make, but it musn't be (in my opinion) 1:1. BE cost is 4, skill effect is 3, creature cost is 1 = 8 . When we make ratio only 1:1,5 then the same card+ability as Shard should cost 12 . Why 1,5? I think that it should be more... QT generates 3x more than simple Tower. What is the conclusion - I think that Shards should never be the same (or nearly the same) like normal cards from bazaar. Here we have got fantastic PC, big HP and bonus like BH and all of this is generally cheaper than cards from Bazaar.

[OldTrees]

@Atico
I theorize (based on calculations involving several shields) that:
X* ~= 1.5* + 1.5*X*
1 = 3
3 = 6
5 = 9
...

I also find BE to be UP and balancing cards based on BE would necessitate them being UP compared to the standards of PC like Pulvy. (Do you dispute this point?)

Pulverizer costs 4 + duo + weapon + expensive ability cost + 1 card ~= 10q
Pulverizer has 5 attack and the Shatter ability.
I theorize a mono version of Pulverizer would have casting/activation costs of
5 + expensive ability cost + 1 card/
I theorize that a creature version of Pulverizer would have casting/activation costs of
8 + expensive ability cost + 1 card/
I theorize that a 0 attack version would have casting/activation costs of
3 + expensive ability cost + 1 card [=5q]/
I theorize that an Other version would have casting/activation costs of
6 + expensive ability cost + 1 card [=5q]/4.5
I theorize a 1 use version would cost 1/3 as much and thus have casting/activation costs of
2.5 + 1 card [=1.67q]/1.5
I theorize a 2 use version would cost twice as much as a 1 use version and thus have casting/activation costs of
5 + 1 card [=3.33q]/3
Hence my nerf suggestion of a 2 use shatter on a 0 attack other creature was priced at 5 casting cost and 3 activation cost unupped.

PS: Using unupped cards in balance comparisions eliminates the 1500 /upgrade variable.

[Atico]

I don't belive that You count this earlier All looks fantastic, but You still forget about BlackHole. You still forget that big HP = damage from Catapult. For me it is hardly to compare SoF with Pulvy, because You can have only 1 Pulvy, SoF 6 and it isn't easy to count this as You do. You can have SoF + Titan. With Pulvy You can't have more... Difficult topic, but maybe someone with better English will talk here about it

Maybe easier compare will be with SoF (PC)+Titan (8/50 + Momentum) and EarthShard(??)+Pulvy(half PC because of duo + 5/12). If Earth Shard give creature like Titan +QuickSand for Earth and it will be cost around Your offer for SoF then I say that it is balanced (but still too powerful )

[OldTrees]

I don't belive that You count this earlier All looks fantastic, but You still forget about BlackHole. You still forget that big HP = damage from Catapult. For me it is hardly to compare SoF with Pulvy, because You can have only 1 Pulvy, SoF 6 and it isn't easy to count this as You do. You can have SoF + Titan. With Pulvy You can't have more... Difficult topic, but maybe someone with better English will talk here about it

Maybe easier compare will be with SoF (PC)+Titan (8/50 + Momentum) and EarthShard(??)+Pulvy(half PC because of duo + 5/12). If Earth Shard give creature like Titan +QuickSand for Earth and it will be cost around Your offer for SoF then I say that it is balanced (but still too powerful )

I made a rough guess at balance earlier. It was luck that it matched the long calculation.
Your concerns in order:
1) I ignored the card generated because I have already addressed that Black Hole should be balanced. None of the rest of the card would need to change if Black Hole were changed to Armagio or Gravity Pull.
2) The max hp my nerf suggestion could attain would be 13 (normally it would only be 10). It would deal 12(10) damage at a cost of
2 |1 and the loss of 1 use of PC. I see that benefit to be equal or less than the opportunity cost.
3) You think it is hard to compare Pulvy to Shard of Focus. I have build a theory based on cost comparisons that makes such a comparison easy.
4) You can only have 1 weapon in the weapon slot. If you notice my math there was a cost named "weapon". This variable was calculated in a comparison using Titan, Vampire Dagger, Lobotomizer, Chargers, Vampires and Mind Flayers. The result was that Weapons and Shield appear to have a -3 elemental quanta cost reduction to account for the cost of occupying the special slot. This was my 2nd Design Theory project and has not been refuted.

For reference:
Pulverizer costs 4 + duo + weapon + expensive ability cost + 1 card ~= 10q
Pulverizer has 5 attack and the Shatter ability.
I theorize a mono version of Pulverizer would have casting/activation costs of
5 + expensive ability cost + 1 card/
I theorize that a creature version of Pulverizer would have casting/activation costs of
8 + expensive ability cost + 1 card/
I theorize that a 0 attack version would have casting/activation costs of
3 + expensive ability cost + 1 card [=5q]/
I theorize that an Other version would have casting/activation costs of
6 + expensive ability cost + 1 card [=5q]/4.5
I theorize a 1 use version would cost 1/3 as much and thus have casting/activation costs of
2.5 + 1 card [=1.67q]/1.5
I theorize a 2 use version would cost twice as much as a 1 use version and thus have casting/activation costs of
5 + 1 card [=3.33q]/3
Hence my nerf suggestion of a 2 use shatter on a 0 attack other creature was priced at 5 casting cost and 3 activation cost unupped.