[Study] How should Spell cards be balanced?

[majofa]

Hm. Given the trend of this thread, is it feasible that spells don't have any set values and are best designed on a more individual basis?

Maybe more towards types of Spells.

Fractal against creatures isn't the same as Lightning against creatures.

[OldTrees]

majofa has the right of it.

Both creatures and permanents are more predictable since those categories define the vehicle for the effect. Spells do not have a notable vehicle at that level(excluding Eternal spells and ZB's new shuffle spells) and thus we end up with less similarities across spells than we do across creatures or permanents.

And yet there are similarities within small groups of spells. Sometimes these groups overlap to allow island hopping(like using AoE CC, CC, and Blessing to determine a AoE buff spell).

However the vast diversity of spells would make it very hard(maybe impractical) to make a spell cost theory. (I mean look at the creature cost theories that we know to be inherently inaccurate)

[serprex]

Consider spell theory with the scope of all creature cards being spells of "Summon X"

[dawn to dusk]

on the quint point, how does quint fare against cloak? they both cost the same but cloak protects all creatures while quint only protects the 1. is the PC protection and AoE protection that important that it warrants them to cost the same?

[Higurashi]

Cloak is strong in the right circumstances, but it's much more situational than Quint. Since it only lasts 3 turns, you need a reasonably fast deck that has ways to gets its offense through (Steal). In addition, you need fragile creatures to warrant its use AND you need to be certain your opponent isn't bringing AoE. This is why we only ever see it in Adrenavamps in the competitive setting; usually only in restricted metas but sometimes it does see use unrestricted for the surprise factor.

As for Quint, there will almost always be CC for your precious 3 creatures in your stall. That's something you can count on. Of course, it's still situational in that you need to compensate for the slowness of Quint, but it's a lot less situational.

Even with a lower cost, Cloak would probably not see much more play because Monodark with Dragons is resistant to CC and has both Vagger+Siphons for backup offense, while Monodark with Vamps can't afford to spend card space on non-essential cards. Dragoncloak deserves an honorable mention, but it's an average deck against human players and Arena. Cloak has the problem of not fitting into a stall because Quint and EA do a better job in a majority of cases, so it's no wonder most see it as a weak card. I'd tend to agree.

If it drew one card, everything would basically be solved and Monodark would probably always pack it, but there's the issue. Maybe two copies would work alright in a Ghostmare with Golden Nymphs or HG's, which isn't a terrible idea, just usually redundant.

[dawn to dusk]

my main argument against quint is that for the protection of the creature, you either want the opponent not to have card advantage or for you to have it. quint is 2 cards to protect against 1 card (creature + quint vs CC) so in that sense it isnt too great. so you play it on a creature that would give you the card advantage, eg a high-hp creature for the opponent to use 2 cards to kill it, but in that case, not using the quint is the better option since you have the card advantage anyway.

the only uses i see with it is SoW reflect and as assurance for a steamie in a stallbow or something

(trying to link it to the actual discussion at hand, the intentions are there  but im kinda unsure how to do it)

[theelkspeaks]

I've also seen Cloak used to protect UGs in a UG deck, especially against Pulvy decks.

[OldTrees]

my main argument against quint is that for the protection of the creature, you either want the opponent not to have card advantage or for you to have it. quint is 2 cards to protect against 1 card (creature + quint vs CC) so in that sense it isnt too great. so you play it on a creature that would give you the card advantage, eg a high-hp creature for the opponent to use 2 cards to kill it, but in that case, not using the quint is the better option since you have the card advantage anyway.

(trying to link it to the actual discussion at hand, the intentions are there  but im kinda unsure how to do it)

The high level tie in: Cards, Quanta, Turns, and HP are the resources we can spend to gain effects (although you only examined one of these) and spells have some of the most diversity in cost compositions.

Usually CC is a 1card:1card trade. If we only looked at the card economy then it would seem to only favor the side that is already winning by preventing upsets. However it is not a fair trade in the other economies. The quanta costs of CC is usually smaller but the creature gets 1 free attack(thus depleting some of the CC player's HP resource). Reverse Time can even impact the Turns economy is border cases. However remember than the CC player acts unilaterally and acts last. If using the CC is worse than not using it, the CC player will not use the CC. Quint shows up as a way to remove this option for a cost. So using Quint makes sense if the benefit of using it (benefit to the CC player for using the CC - benefit to the CC player for not using the CC - Quint's cost) is greater than the benefit for not using it (not paying Quint's cost). In general this is characterized by a high value play that is vulnerable to low cost removal(like Fallen Druid or Ruby Dragon but not like Colossal Dragon or Photon).

However Quint has a weakness(and thus is less valuable) when you have more creatures than they have CC. Since then the benefit of using Quint changes to (benefit to the CC player for using the CC on best target - benefit to the CC player for using the CC on 2nd best target - Quints cost). So for some kinds of card advantage Quint is actually weaker due to your advantage. Not so strangely this weakness of Quint is a strength of Cloak.

Note: CC above is referring to single target CC that can remove/disable creatures with a single casting. AoE CC makes it much more complicated.

[OdinVanguard]

Mass target CC has a different economy then single target CC, however. While single target CC is typically a 1-1 trade, mass CC (like firestorm, thunder storm, etc.) can often provide much better yields.

I think there is some additional distinction needed at the high-level.
Cards as a resource come in two flavors. Cards in hand, and cards in deck. This distinction is important because depleting your deck results in an automatic loss. Thus, in a sense, your deck count is like a secondary HP meter that ticks down every turn.

I.e. providing cards directly to a players hand is different than adding cards to a players deck and also different than causing a draw event.

So the deck count should be added as a resource.
This is a tricky resource to assign relative value to, however, because it is strongly linked to both the turn and card resources.
Drawing is essentially a conversion of deck count into cards in hand.
Currently, there are no 'milling' cards in EtG so that makes this a little easier to handle at least.

Lastly, thanks to mindgate, cloak and precognition, information is a potential additional resource, albeit a very weak one. Knowing what is coming next can help ensure optimal usage of other resources.

[ZephyrPhantom]

Expanding on what's been currently said : what would a types system look like?

E.g.
Removal Type : Lightning | Reverse Time | Deflagration etc... (cheap cards designed to eliminate another card)
Bolt-Type: Fire Bolt | Ice Bolt | Drain Life
Tempo Swing : Miracle | Fractal | etc... (huge cost for sudden swing on board state)
Card Advantage : Precognition | Silence | Nightmare | Etc... (Give you cards or deny opponent getting/playing cards)
Buff: Momentum | Blessing | Adrenaline | etc... (Seems to vary wildly but I'm willing to guess ATK | HP advantage granted by the card has something to do with the final cost)
Healing : Heal | Holy Light | Purify | etc...

It seems Spells in general could be classified into their overall effects.

Additionally : We may want to work backwards from Nymphs and Alchemy. How does Purple Nymphs compare up against Antimatter, cost-wise?

[serprex]

Something to note: spells can't be 1:1 compared to on-a-stick effects on cost. Heal-on-a-stick is much scarier than Heal-as-a-spell than Steal-on-a-stick compared to Steal-as-a-spell

[OldTrees]

Something to note: spells can't be 1:1 compared to on-a-stick effects on cost. Heal-on-a-stick is much scarier than Heal-as-a-spell than Steal-on-a-stick compared to Steal-as-a-spell

"Can't" is a bit strong. A comparison can be made but would need to take this into account and would have larger error margins.