[Study] How should Spell cards be balanced?

[ZephyrPhantom]

"Balance" by Knight-Curator Zblader, ft.  two more guys I don't know and art by vrt (genre kung fury)

If you look through the CI&A's Design Theory section, you'll often find attempts by designers to create theories to balance creatures and permanents, most notably OldTrees's Card Cost Theory. Oddly enough, there seems to be little to no focus on a guide to balance spells. We have some rough guidelines like creature protection effects (e.g. Quintessence) being generally more expensive than creature destruction effects (Lightning) and vice versa for permanents (Protect Artifact vs Explosion), but no real concepts drawn for designers to balance around.

So thus, I'd like to the ETG player crowd out here today: How do you feel spells should be balanced?

[Espithel]

Quick note:

There is only one true counter to spells.
Quintessence.

I think that's going to be very important.

[ZephyrPhantom]

I think it's more like Quint is the only hard counter to spells - any other method puts the owner of the creature at a possible disadvantage. (E.g. Burrow) Don't forget Protect Artifact, for that matter; it seems to be cheaper because permanent control is generally less common and some methods of permanent control don't even involve targeting permanents. (SoFree, Momentum, SoW)

Also, SoW Reflect.

[iDaire]

Besides Quintessence, more cards should be added to Elements that directly counter the spells that are already currently in the game. It may be a bad idea to add more hard counters, but that's why we should give the hard counters flexibility so that their only use won't be to counter say Ice Bolt or Fire Bolt. Also, Enchant Artifact is also a counter to spells. Please don't forget Enchant Artifact.

[ZephyrPhantom]

Besides Quintessence, more cards should be added to Elements that directly counter the spells that are already currently in the game. It may be a bad idea to add more hard counters, but that's why we should give the hard counters flexibility so that their only use won't be to counter say Ice Bolt or Fire Bolt. Also, Enchant Artifact is also a counter to spells. Please don't forget Enchant Artifact.

What about cards that are a mix of Yugioh Traps and MtG Counterspells? That seems to have been a fairly popular theme over the years. (When [X spell is played], [remove this permanent and negate that spell].)
=======================
Just from observing how Spells work in general, unupped control spells seem to be typically designed to be 2-3 [Quanta] to go 1-for-1 - Lightning, Rage Potion, Shockwave, Reverse Time, and Basilisk Blood all attempt to take a creature off the field for a significant amount of time (or permananently) and Explosion attempts to completely get rid of permanents, while Momentum tries to ignore a shield. The exceptions I can find to this so far to this are Freeze, which is usually somewhat weaker than BB, and Earthquake, which has a narrower range of targeting but also tries to go 1-for-3 to compensate. Silence is also notable for negating an entire hand for one turn.

[seulintse]

I think that a good way to keep spells from being too powerful is to attach them to usually vulnerable creatures, but not quite like BE, because if one would so wish, someone could modify a DBH deck with a couple BE's and a few armagios or something, but even so a single RT or an arctic squid (or BB's, for that matter) would delay it too much for it to have a real effect on the match. fallen elf is a good example because while it doesn't cost terribly too much for EQ's and a few RTs to ruin it, you can still eat it with an unupped otyugh or kill it with thunder storm, if it would serve no better use in the opponents deck. I know its kinda fringing on a creature ability balance post, but... yeah.

Also, didn't VRT leave?

[ZephyrPhantom]

I think that a good way to keep spells from being too powerful is to attach them to usually vulnerable creatures, but not quite like BE, because if one would so wish, someone could modify a DBH deck with a couple BE's and a few armagios or something, but even so a single RT or an arctic squid (or BB's, for that matter) would delay it too much for it to have a real effect on the match. fallen elf is a good example because while it doesn't cost terribly too much for EQ's and a few RTs to ruin it, you can still eat it with an unupped otyugh or kill it with thunder storm, if it would serve no better use in the opponents deck. I know its kinda fringing on a creature ability balance post, but... yeah.

Also, didn't VRT leave?

To be fair, creature abilities and spells can be quite closely linked at times - Nymphs/Alchemy being the most notable example. Probably worth asking in general - when does using a Nymph become preferrable to using an Alchemy spell?

(Yes, vrt is mostly lurking/afk, but I credited him because he did the Reverse Time art.)

[RootRanger]

Quick note:

There is only one true counter to spells.
Quintessence.

I think that's going to be very important.

That's absurd.

In few scenarios does Quintessence do anything better than merely breaking even. If a player has 6 creatures and 6 quints, while the opponent has 6 CC cards, the quints and CC basically cancel each other out, except that the player with the quints has to spend quanta on them, which isn't even breaking even. One of the very few conceivable ways in which Quintessence counters anything is if your opponent's deck has more CC than you have creatures and quintessences.

Of course, this isn't even addressing all of the non-CC spells, like Fractal, Poison, and Miracle. They still see a bit of play, don't they? And Quintessence does nothing to help you against them. Let's just say there's a good reason it's almost never used at top level PvP.

So, what actually counters spells? Well, nothing. Which is good, because there are a lot of different spell cards, and a card that countered them all would be OP. Instead you have to take it case-by-case.

By the way, I should mention that decks should be compared to decks, rather than cards compared to cards. For example, the best counter to Miracle depends on which deck Miracle is being used in. If it's used in a SBLAD, you can counter it with a fast Immo, but if it's used in a Firestall, your Immo won't fare so well. Trying to determine which cards counter each other is not a worthwhile pursuit at all; you should try to determine which decks counter each other. If a card cannot possibly be used in a good deck, it's UP, and if a card is crucial in the best deck(s), it's OP.

[ZephyrPhantom]

By the way, I should mention that decks should be compared to decks, rather than cards compared to cards. For example, the best counter to Miracle depends on which deck Miracle is being used in. If it's used in a SBLAD, you can counter it with a fast Immo, but if it's used in a Firestall, your Immo won't fare so well. Trying to determine which cards counter each other is not a worthwhile pursuit at all; you should try to determine which decks counter each other. If a card cannot possibly be used in a good deck, it's UP, and if a card is crucial in the best deck(s), it's OP.

For playtesting and using a card in an actual game, that logic is definitely sound, but for a theory guiding a card mid-creation, how would one condense the impacts of multiple decks on a (yet to be completed) card into formulas or guidelines?

[RootRanger]

By the way, I should mention that decks should be compared to decks, rather than cards compared to cards. For example, the best counter to Miracle depends on which deck Miracle is being used in. If it's used in a SBLAD, you can counter it with a fast Immo, but if it's used in a Firestall, your Immo won't fare so well. Trying to determine which cards counter each other is not a worthwhile pursuit at all; you should try to determine which decks counter each other. If a card cannot possibly be used in a good deck, it's UP, and if a card is crucial in the best deck(s), it's OP.

For playtesting and using a card in an actual game, that logic is definitely sound, but for a theory guiding a card mid-creation, how would one condense the impacts of multiple decks on a (yet to be completed) card into formulas or guidelines?

That's not really my concern. I just don't want people posting misinformation about counters, or other PvP terminology.

[Higurashi]

A counter to CC would be if Turquoise Nymph started out immortal. Then you're talking gaining more card value than your opponent is. The big problem is the utility of many of the CC spells, which is where immortality doesn't matter.

The biggest ones are the pump spells, of course, but I can't count the games I've finished with Lightning burst either. They even enable OTK. Besides targeting HP, there are weaker ones like GP protecting your own HP of course, though that one can be strong with the help of BB. I'll never forget the match Napalm won by playing BB+GP on a leftover Spark in ImmoPhoenix.

As Root says, it's case by case. Silence can bypass Miracle and even counter-based perms like Dims, Wings and Bone Wall. Though you're not gaining more card value, you do get the option of making them a lot worse or even nullifying them completely when you needed them most. Tempo vs. value, as always.

[ZephyrPhantom]

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?