Arcane Wonders Forum
Mage Wars => Strategy and Tactics => Topic started by: zorro on October 03, 2014, 02:40:53 AM
-
Hi!
I wanted to take this topic apaprt from its father since it went pretty off topic. Original post can be found here (http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=14710.15), but ere is the start of the discussion on the mana crystal:
To break the values down further I'll explain it like this.
Mana Crystal gives the controller increased channeling, not mana. Channeling by extension gives you mana. So the (time of game-5) does give you it's effectiveness on a simple terms level. However, don't confuse channeling with just getting mana because Channeling has another benefit. That is, it increases the amount of mana you may cast on any given turn. In the long run my opponent may have gained much more mana than I but I was still able to cast larger spells earlier because I'm gaining mana faster, as opposed to slower but consistent.
Here's a turn by turn count.
Lets say 2 mages have 10 channeling.
Turn 0 = 10 mana <------ for the sake of removing values we don't need because the starting value is the same for everyone and it doesn't change the math at all.
Turn 1 = Channels 10 mana.(10) Plays mana crystal (-5). End Turn = 5 mana left. [For the sake of simplicity each turn both mages will spend 5 mana so that I can illustrate the concept of acceleration and not simple mana totals]
Turn 2 = Channels 11 mana.(16) Plays card (-5) End turn = 11 mana left
Turn 3 = Channels 11 mana.(22) Plays card (-5) End Turn = 17 mana left
Turn 4 = Channels 11 mana.(28) Plays card (-5) End turn = 23 mana left
Player 2
Turn 1 = Channels 10 mana.(10) Plays card (-5) End turn = 5 mana left
Turn 2 = Channels 10 mana.(15) Plays card (-5) End turn = 10 mana left
Turn 3 = Channels 10 mana.(20) Plays card (-5) End Turn = 15 mana left
Turn 4 = Channels 10 mana.(25) Plays card (-5) End turn = 20 mana left
Hopefully you see the pattern by now as the ever increasing ratio starts to benefit the owner of mana crystal. This ratio is described by the clause in my equation being (X*1) where x = the amount of rounds that the mana crystal is in play. "1" is a placeholder because these equation could describe the same relationship if multiple were in play.
So in conclusion, not only does the card grant you mana after turn six (which really is just a bonus for the main benefit), you gain a rate of gain bonus over your opponent which allows you to play larger more quickly. Even though you "wasted" 5 mana. Though by my calculations the "value" of mana crystal is zero after 2 and a half turns so each turn after turn 3 is when you start to reap benefits.
Now let me jump the gun here and ask myself, "why is the ratio bonus as equal to the flat mana gain bonus that takes place after 6 turns?" Well, the fact that the ratio bonus is equal is only relative to how much of an advantage it gives me over the other player. So in my opinion the values are equal, but maybe you aren't like me and think the ratio increase is worth only half that of the bonus mana crystal gives you after 6 turns. So plug in ".5" where the "1" is on the equation. The result is that it still only takes 3.33 turns to "pay itself off." Even if you put in ".25" its still a better outcome than the typical 6 turns that people think.
I hope that long winded explanation helps you to understand my point of view a bit. The old simple model isn't really wrong it's just not completely right and downplays the effects of mana crystal and the benefits.
Duh man, you maths are wrong again.
You make both mage cast 5 mana spells, but the thing is that 1 of these spell for first mage is the mana crystal. You need to compare with someone not casting a mana crystal.
So it is:
Turn 0 = 10 mana <------ for the sake of removing values we don't need because the starting value is the same for everyone and it doesn't change the math at all.
Turn 1 = Channels 10 mana.(10) Plays mana crystal (-5). End Turn = 5 mana left.
Turn 2 = Channels 11 mana.(16) Plays card (-5) End turn = 11 mana left
Turn 3 = Channels 11 mana.(22) Plays card (-5) End Turn = 17 mana left
Turn 4 = Channels 11 mana.(28) Plays card (-5) End turn = 23 mana left
Player 2
Turn 1 = Channels 10 mana.(10) (not casting mana crystal) End turn = 10 mana left
Turn 2 = Channels 10 mana.(20) Plays card (-5) End turn = 15 mana left
Turn 3 = Channels 10 mana.(25) Plays card (-5) End Turn = 20 mana left
Turn 4 = Channels 10 mana.(30) Plays card (-5) End turn = 25 mana left
You see, player 2 has 2 more mana.
I do minus 5 for all turns because this model assumes that the player plays something. Of course he will have more mana if he doesn't cast anything and I do. That's just how the game works. If he says he's not casting and waiting for a bigger turn that's fine, that is one of the strategies, but it's not pertinent to the acceleration model because in this case, as you suggest, I have gained my action back and potentially have more cards in play than he does. I just use 5 as a place holder. In a real game the turn values would be 5,2,7,13,etc.... but the model still holds as it refers to the ratio of mana gained in total over the opponent without other influences.
Does that make sense?
-
I also dont thing the return of mana cristal is #turns-5, for the same reasons as DaFurryFury, but with opposite conclusion. I think on turn 6 if you have played mana cristal first turn you are still way behind the player who did not casted it.
Let's consider 10 base channeling, and playing two mana crystal first turn (for maximizing example value)
No-Crystal-Player
turn 1: 20 mana and 2 actions - for whatever
[...]
turn 6: 70 mana - for whatever
Crystal-Player
Plating two mana crystals you have:
turn 1: 10 mana and no actions - for whatever
[...]
turn 6: 70 mana - for whatever
First of all, is not (number of turns - 5), but (number of turns - 6) since the turn casted does not provide channeling. On turn 6 you are on par mana wise (just two lacking quickcast later). You have no exponential value increase, since no-crystal-player may not use its 10 mana advantage and just keep it for getting high availability, if you value that. If you want to consider high mana availability as a bonus on turns 7+, i think you have to take into account less mana availability during turns 1-5, during no-crystal-player has an advantage.
| turn | Crystal | No-Crystal | diff |
| 1 | 10 | 20 | +10 |
| 2 | 22 | 30 | +8 |
| 3 | 34 | 40 | +6 |
| 4 | 46 | 50 | +4 |
| 5 | 58 | 60 | +2 |
| 6 | 70 | 70 | +0 |
| 7 | 82 | 80 | -2 |
| 8 | 94 | 90 | -4 |
| 9 | 106 | 100 | -6 |
| 10 | 118 | 110 | -8 |
| 11 | 130 | 120 | -10 |
| 12 | 142 | 130 | -12 |
I think the double mana crystal does not really breaks even until turn 11. Then the crystal-player have 10 more mana availble, but yat the cost of being on disadvantage during turns 1-6... which i consider have more impact than turns 7-11.
No-crystal player have 10 mana to cast a creature first turn. That creature have 6 turns to run onto the opponent and hit him (or even the crystals!) three times before the end of turn 6. It can be Timber wolf, Skeletal Sentry, or even a General Signet Ring plus Orc Butcher (you even got a discount ring then!). You have to take into account the 4-dice hitter actions during first turns. Sure, by turn 6 crystal player can cast it's own 4-dice creature, and by turn 10 a second one... But all in all i consider first turnhs more important and having more impact (you can disturb opponent's plan)
-
I think the double mana crystal does not really breaks even until turn 11.
I think there is a slight error in your comment. It does not matter how many mana crystals you cast. After 5 rounds, you will have more mana than without the mana crystals.
Meaning: When you cast them in round 1 and start to benefit from additional channel in round 2, you will have more mana in round 7.
I consider the other effect from more channeling more important though.
You always want to spend the mana you have per round as effective as possible. That means, you want to spend it all (bring it on the board). If you do not cast mana crystals, you have (only) 10 mana per round. The saved mana from the crystal lets you cast something big in round 1. Assuming you spend all your mana for that, in round 2 you channel 10 mana. But this is limiting your options, you cannot cast something for 11 mana.
The crystal mage is only limited in round 1, because he casts a crystal, but in every round that follows, he may make use of 11 mana, so he has more options to react to his opponent.
-
I think you have to look at this game more from a turn by turn perspective.
Meaning, what did my opponent do this turn and how did I counter it ?
Did I get ahead in this exchange ?
Mage Wars is very much about reacting to what your opponent does and trying to get ahead in this exchange.
Opening the game with a Crystal/Flower can be a good play for instance to counter a situation where you're channeling less than the opposition.
Suppose you channel 9 and your opponent channels 10 mana.
This means that in ( for example ) a 15-turn game you will channel 15 mana less than your opponent.
By playing a Crystal/Flower on T1 you make a 1-time 5-mana investment to even the channeling from T2 on. Sure you invested 5 mana on it but you countered an opposition's advantage with it for every following round.
Following that same Logic, playing a Crystal/Flower can also give you an advantage if you had the same channeling rate to begin with.
As I already mentioned, the game is about making the best plays in any given round, countering your opponents's actions and trying to get an edge on him and playing a Crystal/Flower at some point may be just that play.
EDIT ADDED
And consider this situation :
A Mage Channeling 9 mana per turn wants to spend 10 mana every turn.
He can do this for 10 turns ( until his starting 10 mana are used up )
From turn 11 on he will no longer be able to spend 10 mana a turn as his mana pool is empty and he channels only 9/turn.
That same Mage playing a Crystal/Flower on T1 upping his channeling to 10 can spend 10 mana every turn all game and has 5 remaining mana to boost.
-
I think there is a slight error in your comment. It does not matter how many mana crystals you cast.
Yeah, you are right. I used double mana crystal just to have mana to cast a lvl 2 creature with the no-crystal-mage :)
When you cast them in round 1 and start to benefit from additional channel in round 2, you will have more mana in round 7.
[...]
I consider the other effect from more channeling more important though. [...] Assuming you spend all your mana for that, in round 2 you channel 10 mana. But this is limiting your options, you cannot cast something for 11 mana.
Let's asume the no-crystal-mage don´t spend it's extra mana first turn, and he just keep the mana as extra chaneling. In my table (with double crystal), it's equivalent to having +10 channeling turn 1 for the non-crystal mage, +8 turn 2, +6 turn 3, etc. On turn 6, both mages have virtually the same channeling. (non-crystal mage can spend two of the ten mana saved from first turn on turn's 2-6). Starting from turn 7, crystal mage has extra channeling. On turn 11 crystal-mage will have an (acumulated) 10 chaneling advantage, and then he compensates the first turn 10 channeling advantage of no-crystal-mage.
The crystal mage is only limited in round 1, because he casts a crystal, but in every round that follows, he may make use of 11 mana, so he has more options to react to his opponent.
Thats my point! crystal mage has little extra options to react from turn 2 (+1 mana), but non-crystal mage has huge extra options on turn 1. Non- crystal mage keep having extra options until turn 6, and crystal mage will not have an edge of extra options until turn 11, where he would have compesated the first 1-5 turns with less options with the last 7-11 turns with more options.
Mage Wars is very much about reacting to what your opponent does and trying to get ahead in this exchange.
I almost agree, is about getting ahead... but i think generally better make your opponent react your moves, and that's why I value more the virtual +5 channeling on the first turn (plus action!), than a +1 channeling from turn 2 that will not give you an advantage until 5 turns later.
Since i consider pretty more critical the first turns, i find really difficult to find usefull the mana crystal - specially, when you have different options as discount ring who are cheaper, or spawnpoints, who offer a great advantage in actions.
Of course, i tend to consider start the most critical point, and then to play traying to finish my setup as early as possible.
-
Really it is not the mana that is the point but the strategy of your mage. Wizard has a lot of spells to increase their mana and reduce the mana or channeling of the other. Note that Mana flowers or crystals will also be more expensive for some to add into their books.
Beastmaster will swarm, perhaps with his lair or not
Warlock will rush possibly, (or not)
-
Thats my point! crystal mage has little extra options to react from turn 2 (+1 mana), but non-crystal mage has huge extra options on turn 1. Non- crystal mage keep having extra options until turn 6, and crystal mage will not have an edge of extra options until turn 11, where he would have compesated the first 1-5 turns with less options with the last 7-11 turns with more options.
I don't agree that the crystal mage has less options.
He still picks 2 cards per round and as long as his ideal choices can be paid for he loses no options at all.
-
Non- crystal mage keep having extra options until turn 6, and crystal mage will not have an edge of extra options until turn 11, where he would have compesated the first 1-5 turns with less options with the last 7-11 turns with more options.
I don't agree that the crystal mage has less options.
He still picks 2 cards per round and as long as his ideal choices can be paid for he loses no options at all.
Same way, as long as his ideal choices can be paid without the extra mana from the crystal, he not need the crystal either at all. But since you don´t know in advance wich will be to maximun cost of your ideal choices, and usually expensive cards bring bigger effect... i think we both agree that having more mana increases your options (that's the whole point in casting mana crystal, isn´t it?).
Once that is stablished, I also consider that having more options during firsts turns is more important than to have them during last turns.
Really it is not the mana that is the point but the strategy of your mage. Wizard has a lot of spells to increase their mana and reduce the mana or channeling of the other. Note that Mana flowers or crystals will also be more expensive for some to add into their books.
Also i agree partially. Mana is not the strategy, but a way to bring out your strategy. My point is that mana flower-cristal (almost always) just delay your strategy, and i think there are (almost) always better alternatives, since the opportunity cost of casting a mana crystal is usually understimate. Whatever your strategy is, as soon as you bring it out, the better, be it rush, swarm, or whatever, the sooner you bring it out, the sooner your opponent has to deviate from their plans to cope with you.
PS: my replies are just because i consider this topic interesting - specially since same arguments bring us to totally opposite conclusions :)
-
I'm with Schwenkgott here.
Hypothetical arguments about players for some reason setting aside ten mana on round 1 in order to drip-feed it into their usage over the next 10 rounds feel contrived to me.
I think that in a regular game I'm likely to have very little mana in reserve by the end of round 3 - the rest will have gone into assets of some sort (creatures, conjurations, enchantments...) or attacks/incantations. Arguing about long-term disposal of starting mana may be missing the point.
What I get if I put 5 of my initial mana into a mana crystal instead of some other asset is added ongoing flexibility. The Crystal provides not so much extra mana as extra liquidity of mana. My extra channelling means that every round after casting it I get extra flexibility in my casting decisions. I doubt I'm alone in preparing a contingency Teleport, Agony or something in order to react to an enemy's moves, or keeping back mana so I can reveal a Nullify or Rhino Hide at the last minute. Keeping back a contingency mana supply for those spells is an overhead on my total mana supply, and reduces my flexibility - worse than that, not keeping back that contingency mana tells my opponent that he can cheerfully drop a lightning bolt on that creature of yours with a face-down enchantment because I can't do anything to stop him.
So, if I have a Nullify lying around, and am waiting for the opportunity to reveal a Rhino Hide or possibly cast a Teleport or Force Push, maybe 5 of my mana is being held for that over most of the turn. I could use some of that reserve during final quickcast, but I'm probably going to want it back next round. My channelling in real terms is down at 7 or 8. In these terms, getting 1 extra channelling is a much bigger deal - I may only have to save for 2 turns to bring out that Iron Golem, instead of 3. And as noted above, it's not a case of saying 'If you hadn't spent that mana on a Crystal you'd have your Golem by now' - that mana would have gone on a Hand of Bim-Shalla (or maybe I summoned a Basilisk instead of a Blue Gremlin - the point is that my initial mana gets spent on something).
Saying that casting a Mana Crystal gives you less options in your early turns is only true in as much as any 5 mana spell you cast gives you less options - whatever you cast is your option. The payoff of a Crystal is greater channelling, the payoff of a Bitterwood Fox is a fast but vulnerable creature, the payoff of Agony is that one enemy creature is made less effective. They all cost 5 mana and an action, they all give you something. The crystal is harder for the opponent to remove than the others, and its benefit is more flexible.
On reflection, another issue here is that all these calculations only look at the RoI on the Crystal, not the RoI on the other spells that might be cast. That's not an even playing field - everything you cast gives you something, or you wouldn't be casting it in the first place. Just because the RoI on channelling boosters looks like it can be easily calculated doesn't mean you can gloss over the RoI of the alternatives. The only spells you cast that provide an instant return on their investment are incantations and attacks - to compare the numbers on the Crystal with an empty assumption of an instant RoI on the alternatives isn't good practise.
-
:'(
I do minus 5 for all turns because this model assumes that the player plays something. Of course he will have more mana if he doesn't cast anything and I do. That's just how the game works. If he says he's not casting and waiting for a bigger turn that's fine, that is one of the strategies, but it's not pertinent to the acceleration model because in this case, as you suggest, I have gained my action back and potentially have more cards in play than he does. I just use 5 as a place holder. In a real game the turn values would be 5,2,7,13,etc.... but the model still holds as it refers to the ratio of mana gained in total over the opponent without other influences.
Does that make sense?
No. Because in your example:
Player 1: Cast 1 mana crystal and 3 Acid Ball
Player 2: Cast 4 Acid Ball
Then you tell me player 1 has more mana than player 2. Of course, you casted 1 less Acid Ball than player 2.
Player 2 has done more than Player 1.
That's the probleme with people thinking Mana Crystal give you some hidden mana-generation, they always give example where Player 1 cast the crystal and player 2 cast something else. But the thing is if you want to compare casting mana crystal vs not casting mana crystal... well, compare casting mana crystal vs not casting mana crystal, NOT casting mana crystal vs casting something else.
-
Well you can't say this and maintain your argument. What is the persuasive argument here?
Should I cast a Mana Flower to increase my channeling and leverage it benefits vs. it is a cost sink and you don't make a return on you investment for 6 turns.
If you choose not to cast Mana Flower this means you will cast something different I am guessing that Acid Ball was chosen as an example as it has the same mana cost as the Mana Flower. So:
1 * Mana Flower (5 mana) + 3 * Acid Ball (5 mana ea.) = 20 Mana
4 * Acid Ball (5 mana ea.) = 20 Mana
the next round the player who cast the mana flower would have 1 more mana than the other player (assuming their base channeling rate was the same).
-
...no. My choice in the deployment phase is between Mana Crystal and one of 50 other cards, not between Mana Crystal and no card. If I want to think about comparative benefits between one card and any other card, I don't want to compare one card with nothing. That doesn't let me make a value judgement. It doesn't even let me judge some sort of absolute benefit, unless and until I have evaluated every other card in the same way. Comparing Mana Crystal with a non-specific 5 mana spend doesn't say much either, but at least it doesn't pretend that the only other choice I have is sitting on my behind waiting to be eaten by zombies.
Edit: ninja'd by sIKE...
-
If you're going to quote me please do so completely. You're missing the most important point that I made when breaking down the equation. I also explain that the values of cards are only relative to each other. Since this is NOT actually an exact value, and is only a representation of what the value might be, I gave an estimate of when the card "actually" pays itself off because that is where the discussion started when you said you thought it started to pay off at round 6. My theory is the it pays itself in under half that.
My original post
It's clearly a common fallacy on these forums that the returns for a mana crystal is only directly related to the mana it gives you back. That is true only in the sense of counting mana. To properly evaluate the "value" of mana crystal you must look at it's "real" returns. I define "real" as the return a spell gives you after it pays itself off plus it's immediate effects. This manifests itself in many ways but mana crystal is pretty simple in that it just gives you mana back.
So to boil it down, the total converted value of mana crystal is (Length of Game - 5 [Mana Cost] + [Increased amount of Channeling * Length of Game]. If you're a math nut you will like this expression; (X-5)+(1*X) So if you put that expression into a graphing calc (https://www.desmos.com/calculator) you can see the "x intercept" which shows approximately how many turns it would take for it to pay itself off. (2.5) Which is less than 3 turns if you calculate it this way.
Now I'm going to try to answer a question which I think several of you will have. "Why/Where are you getting the second half of the equation which adds an originally un-thought of positive?" Well, it represents the value of increased channeling that you gain because it's not just a card to give you more mana. It's a card to allow you to summon 1 mana worth of a larger spell during that turn. Plus it's effects stack when you play a small turn to save because you gain more with the larger channeling.
Side-note: If you put the equation into the graphing calc I linked you to, you will see the "y-intercept" which represents the amount you spend on the spell. Yay Mathmatics and Game Theory!
Now I understand this is a really big rant that several of you maybe didn't read, but people keep telling me the effectiveness of cards based off of it's effect on the surface without taking into account a card's value over time.
Wildhorn
The formula is wrong because you add twice X, which gives 2 mana per turn while crystal only gives one.
The right formula is ((X*1)-5)
If you want an example:
Give 5$ to a djinn and 1$ will appear every day in your pocket. That's how mana crystal work.
But your formula is: Give 5$ to a djinn, 1$ appear in your pocket every day... But the djinn also give you 1$ per day.
Me again
My equation does not calculate how much mana it gives you. It's a more abstract representation of the overall value. Both mana gain and action potential of the increased channeling. Since it increases channeling and does not give you just flat mana, it's value is exponential based on the amount of turns taken and the increase of mana per turn instead of mana per game. If you calculate just mana per game yes you are correct but that's not where the true value of mana crystal lies.
You have to realize that it doesn't matter what you play or what the opponent plays. So long as you both are playing the game then the equation works. You don't even have to equate it to mana crystal. You can put the same idea toward a mage with 9 channel and another with 10. The only difference is that the mage with 10 didn't pay for his extra channeling and pays off at turn zero.
-
This doesnt even make sense. You can't compare apple and orange.
Your example make as much sense as if I was comparing Acid Ball and Mana Crystal to see which one give a better armor reduction ratio.
What I am telling you is, if both mage have 50hp and start with 0 mana and have a channeling of 10 and we cast a spell that deal X dmg and cost X mana (where X is the amount of mana you have) you will die before me because on 5th turns I will have 50 mana while you have 49.
-
This doesnt even make sense. You can't compare apple and orange.
Your example make as much sense as if I was comparing Acid Ball and Mana Crystal to see which one give a better armor reduction ratio.
What I am telling you is, if both mage have 50hp and start with 0 mana and have a channeling of 10 and we cast a spell that deal X dmg and cost X mana (where X is the amount of mana you have) you will die before me because on 5th turns I will have 50 mana while you have 49.
I don't understand what you mean here at all. 50 mana while you have 49?
-
This doesnt even make sense. You can't compare apple and orange.
Your example make as much sense as if I was comparing Acid Ball and Mana Crystal to see which one give a better armor reduction ratio.
What I am telling you is, if both mage have 50hp and start with 0 mana and have a channeling of 10 and we cast a spell that deal X dmg and cost X mana (where X is the amount of mana you have) you will die before me because on 5th turns I will have 50 mana while you have 49.
I don't understand what you mean here at all. 50 mana while you have 49?
Mage 1 cast mana crystal on turn 1, so at 5th turn he will have 49 mana, while player 2 will have 50.
-
So is anyone casting any spells here in-between? I am guessing that the answer is no.
Lets try it this way take and generically named spells:
Player 1 - Channels 10 - Starts game with 10 mana. Casts 1 Spell Round 1 spends 5 mana to gain channeling +1 and 5 mana to gain Armor +1 (ends round with 0 mana)
Player 2 - Channels 10 - Starts game with 10 mana. Casts 1 Spell Round 1 spends 5 mana to gain armor +1 and spends 5 to gain Charge +2 and Piercing +1 (ends round with 0 mana)
Player 1 - Channels 11
Player 2 - Channels 10
At this point Player 1 has the better capability to cast larger cost spells each round, while Player 2 is ahead on offensive capabilities. After Round 6 Player 1's investment is paid back to him, also between rounds 2 and 6 he is able to get out better spells due to the increased spending capabilities provided by the increased mana generation.
-
I think it means "in a specially chosen artificial situation which cannot happen in a real game, it is a bad idea to cast Mana Crystal".
-
So is anyone casting any spells here in-between? I am guessing that the answer is no.
Lets try it this way take and generically named spells:
Player 1 - Channels 10 - Starts game with 10 mana. Casts 1 Spell Round 1 spends 5 mana to gain channeling +1 and 5 mana to gain Armor +1 (ends round with 0 mana)
Player 2 - Channels 10 - Starts game with 10 mana. Casts 1 Spell Round 1 spends 5 mana to gain armor +1 and spends 5 to gain Charge +2 and Piercing +1 (ends round with 0 mana)
Player 1 - Channels 11
Player 2 - Channels 10
At this point Player 1 has the better capability to cast larger cost spells each round, while Player 2 is ahead on offensive capabilities. After Round 6 Player 1's investment is paid back to him, also between rounds 2 and 6 he is able to get out better spells due to the increased spending capabilities provided by the increased mana generation.
That is what you have wrong. You again made player 2 cast something more that player 1 and then say player can cast more.
Both player start at 10 mana and 10 channeling.
Turn 1:
P1(20) cast mana crystal + Bridge Troll: (2)
P2(20) cast Bridge Troll(7)
Turn2:
P1(13) Cast Bridge Troll(0)
P2(17) Cast Bridge Troll(4)
Turn3:
P1(11) Bam can't cast a troll
P2(14) Cast Bridge Troll(1)
Now P2 has 1 more troll attacking your ass where is your mana benefit now?
Turn4:
P1(22) Cast Bridge Troll(9)
P2(11) can't cast
Now both player are even on amount of trolls but P5 has an extra attack over P1.
Turn5:
P1(20) Cast troll(7)
P1(21) cast troll(8)+Fireball(0)
P2 has a fireball over P1 now.
Turn6:
P1(18)Fireball + Fireball (2)
P2(10)Fireball(2)
Both player are finally even
But P2 has an extra attack over P1 and an extra burn tick.
You see, until now P2 had the upper hand over P1.
Believe what you want, give bad example where player 2 spend its mana on something the other player won't, but the facta remain. A mana crystal give 0 benefits until the beginning of the 7th turn it has been cast.
-
Wildhorn, you are getting to hung up on spell names and the effect of them. Acid ball has a different return than mana crystal even if you argue that it has equal return. Pay attention to the language I'm using here. If you use acid ball 10 times on me, yes I will die. but now you seem to be flipping your argument that the player playing mana crystal is all he does and then just sits and waits the be hit by several acid balls.
If you want to try to explain it using your terms with real cards think of it like this:
Turn 1: Player playing mana crystal can only afford to play mana crystal plus an acid. brings him to zero mana. (this is an example not including the starting 10 mana that everyone gets.)
Player 2 plays 2 acid balls because he chooses not to play mana crystal
Turn 2: Player 1 now has the option to play Devil's Trident AND Throw Rock (together worth 11) [which is arguably better than 2 acid balls because they cost more and supposedly are more effective.]
Player 2 plays 2 acid balls because he has 10 mana
Turn 3: Repeat of turn 2
Turn 4: Repeat of turn 2
Turn 5: ad infinitum
In this example player 2 has a 1 attack advantage because player 1 played the mana crystal, BUT on each successive turn player 1 is playing an attack sequence that, in theory, is better than 2 acid balls because it costs more.
I try to use real card examples so that you can understand that the latent benefit of mana crystal is not that it gives you more mana after 6 turns but allows you to use combinations that are unavailable to you before. If I am understanding your confusion you are getting too hung up on the cards themselves. This is an abstract model to show how 1 or more mana crystals gives you access, not more mana in the grand scheme of things.
I hope this helps some. I also hope this isn't coming across as mean or condescending. I'm am simply saying there is a flaw in your thinking when assessing the true value of a card.
EDIT- I wanted to point out something that I haven't mentioned yet. In my overall argument, I'm basically saying that if a game only lasts 6 turn and not a turn longer, then mana crystal still has beneficial qualities even though the extra mana quality has been eliminated.
-
One more thing to note. I remove the beginning 10 mana in my examples because, i believe, that it is there to slightly weaken the effects of things like mana crystal. Higher channeling is an increasing benefit that when left unchecked will lead to one sides, almost undoubted, victory. The 10 mana is put there so that the player wth less channeling will have something to react with and isn't fighting an uphill battle the whole time. Once that original 10 mana is spent though, it's gone forever and you are solely relying on your channeling values.
@zorro - Thanks for moving the discussion by the way.
-
DaFurryFury your examples are bad because the players in your examples do not cast the same stuff. It is like saying 1 dog + 3 horses = 4 horses.
-
But that isn't the point. It doesn't matter what is cast. Given infinite mana the players will cast the biggest things they can as soon as possible, but since you don't get infinite mana, you have to choose to wait to cast big stuff or cast smaller things more frequently. A card like mana crystal gets you 1 channeling closer to having infinite mana so you can cast the bigger stuff faster. My equation doesn't take into account what the opponent casts because it doesn't have to, it only is pertinent to the mana crystal and your channeling.
-
But that isn't the point. It doesn't matter what is cast. Given infinite mana the players will cast the biggest things they can as soon as possible, but since you don't get infinite mana, you have to choose to wait to cast big stuff or cast smaller things more frequently. A card like mana crystal gets you 1 channeling closer to having infinite mana so you can cast the bigger stuff faster. My equation doesn't take into account what the opponent casts because it doesn't have to, it only is pertinent to the mana crystal and your channeling.
Bad players will use all their mana as soon as they have some past the 3 first rounds. Smart player will save some to give the finishing blow when needed.
Also, you can't remove the 10 initial mana from your examples. It corrupts the datas.
And yes you need to make both players cast the same stuff (beside casting mana crystal and not casting mana crystal) if you want your comparaison to be valide. Else I will just say
You cast Grizzly Bear, I cast Goblin Grunt... haha I have more mana than you... yeah but guess what? Can't compare.
-
But we aren't comparing grizzly vs goblin. We're comparing mana crystal vs no mana crystal and how long it takes for the crystal to benefit you enough for it to have paid itself off. If I play goblin and you play grizzly, I may have more mana but your grizzly has much more health and effect on the field. Where mana crystal vs anything else that doesn't give you channeling shows how mana crystal is a good choice and pays for itself after 3 turns.
And you have to take out the initial 10 because both player have it so it's an unneeded variable. You could include it but whether or not its spent has no effect on the ratio outcome. All you would do is add 10 to the mana clause in the equation. It's poibtless because this discussion isn't actually about man, it's about a ratio of speed in casting.
-
But we aren't comparing grizzly vs goblin. We're comparing mana crystal vs no mana crystal and how long it takes for the crystal to benefit you enough for it to have paid itself off. If I play goblin and you play grizzly, I may have more mana but your grizzly has much more health and effect on the field. Where mana crystal vs anything else that doesn't give you channeling shows how mana crystal is a good choice and pays for itself after 3 turns.
And you have to take out the initial 10 because both player have it so it's an unneeded variable. You could include it but whether or not its spent has no effect on the ratio outcome. All you would do is add 10 to the mana clause in the equation. It's poibtless because this discussion isn't actually about man, it's about a ratio of speed in casting.
No it is not unneeded variable. +11 channeling when you have 10 mana is a 110% gain, but 11 channeling when you have 20 mana is 55% gain. It makes a huge difference.
-
But since the card reads "the controller gets plus 1 channeling" and not "controller gains 10 percent of mana of whatever he currently has during upkeep", the percentage point is rendered moot. It doesn't matter how much the controller has, he will always gain 1 extra mana in addition to any he would get before.
-
Gregstrom
Saying that casting a Mana Crystal gives you less options in your early turns is only true in as much as any 5 mana spell you cast gives you less options - whatever you cast is your option. The payoff of a Crystal is greater channelling, the payoff of a Bitterwood Fox is a fast but vulnerable creature, the payoff of Agony is that one enemy creature is made less effective. They all cost 5 mana and an action, they all give you something. The crystal is harder for the opponent to remove than the others, and its benefit is more flexible.
I like your points here. This is a good explanation of why in my first examples I just used -5 for both players regardless of name. This is part of why the cards you cast don't matter. It's all relative to strategy and the value you put on the benefits of different cards.
Shwenkgott
I consider the other effect from more channeling more important though.
You always want to spend the mana you have per round as effective as possible. That means, you want to spend it all (bring it on the board). If you do not cast mana crystals, you have (only) 10 mana per round. The saved mana from the crystal lets you cast something big in round 1. Assuming you spend all your mana for that, in round 2 you channel 10 mana. But this is limiting your options, you cannot cast something for 11 mana.
The crystal mage is only limited in round 1, because he casts a crystal, but in every round that follows, he may make use of 11 mana, so he has more options to react to his opponent.
This is also a good example of what I am trying to explain using the equation. The benefit that people ignore is that it gives you 11 per turn regardless of what you had before. The bonus of having a greater total mana pool than your opponent is the "extra" benefit, but people zero in on it too quickly because it's more apparent.
Kiwipaul
Really it is not the mana that is the point but the strategy of your mage. Wizard has a lot of spells to increase their mana and reduce the mana or channeling of the other. Note that Mana flowers or crystals will also be more expensive for some to add into their books.
Beastmaster will swarm, perhaps with his lair or not
Warlock will rush possibly, (or not)
I dabbled with this concept in the original post because my original question had to do with spell points not channeling. Where one day I will try to adapt my equation to consider "cost to use." it isn't relevant in the current model when finding it's value vs mana spent.
Zorro
Let's asume the no-crystal-mage don´t spend it's extra mana first turn, and he just keep the mana as extra chaneling. In my table (with double crystal), it's equivalent to having +10 channeling turn 1 for the non-crystal mage, +8 turn 2, +6 turn 3, etc. On turn 6, both mages have virtually the same channeling. (non-crystal mage can spend two of the ten mana saved from first turn on turn's 2-6). Starting from turn 7, crystal mage has extra channeling. On turn 11 crystal-mage will have an (acumulated) 10 chaneling advantage, and then he compensates the first turn 10 channeling advantage of no-crystal-mage.
I think you are also having trouble understanding my original points. There is definitely the benefit of having more mana in general but that doesn't appear until round 7. However, the point I was making is that there is the benefit of having mana crystals that start to benefit you on turn 2. Since you have 12 channeling if you summoned 2, then that is 2 extra mana that you have over your opponent. This is not to say that your opponent didn't save his mana for the next turn so he still has more mana than you, but if he did that means he withheld his action advantage so that his would keep the upper hand on the mana front. In my humble opinion that choice would be kinda silly unless he was trying to get Adramalach or similar cost creature. At which point, he has simply cast cheap spells or no spells before then, and he has been payed in return the value of those spells which is lower because the cost is lower. (obviously)
The biggest thing to take away from all this is that the benefit of mana total is not the main benefit of Mana Crystal, the action potential that it gives you on future turns is the true benefit.
-
DaFurryFury you are spot on with your math and your common sense.
However, I think Gregstrom's comment earlier in this thread sums it up very concisely:
What I get if I put 5 of my initial mana into a mana crystal instead of some other asset is added ongoing flexibility
It is too simplistic to see value in the Mana Crystal/Mana Flower over a long game (i.e. more mana) just as it is to shut the idea down as a wasted turn vs. other options (i.e. 5 mana + 1 action wasted). The real RoI of a small sacrifice in turn 1 for added capability from turn 2 onward is just not as apparent for some as it is for others.
To myself, DaFurryFury, Gregstrom, and others the concept is easily grasped. Wildhorn and others see lost opportunity and prefer more direct options. Disagreements like these validate this game and help ensure a long life of enjoyment to its fans. If all spells had obvious value, or lack of value, then the game would be boring and die a quick death.
For me, I nearly always stock my spell book with 2 Mana Crystals/Mana Flowers depending upon my Mage. I usually open playing 1 or 2 of these conjurations within the first 3 rounds. Obviously an aggressive opening by my opponent will influence what I really do, but most players tend to spend the first few rounds "setting up" and the real action doesn't happen until rounds 4+. My experience also shows that most games will last at least 14 rounds. The advantage of the early mana conjuration gets realized early and continues as I am in a better position to control the game tempo. "Early", as I have the potential of a better response to my opponent's opening, and "continues" as I have more mana = more options later when my opponent is stressed trying to manage the little mana he has.
BTW - If my overall strategy is to try to force a long game then I might have a third that gets played by round 6/7.
-
I disagree with your proposal that a game would be boring if the cards are all easy to understand. If you think about a game like chess where it had been "solved" meaning it has so many possible positions and all the peices value are clear and easy to understand but it's still a very in depth game. The only difference is that discussions like this would be about combonations of peices/cards rather than a singular card/piece.
Anyway, in my perception, people who disagree with mathematical value just because they don't understand it completely seem ignorant to me. Not to be mean... However, I do not mind at all if the evidence isn't enough for someone to put the card in a spellbook because that is all up to the indevidual to decide if it's worth it. I don't have mana crystals in all decks I just wanted to show how the value of the card can be expressed by a different model.
I'm ranting again so I'll stop now. Thanks for your post though. It helps to clear up some of the fog like that.
-
Anyway, in my perception, people who disagree with mathematical value just because they don't understand it completely seem ignorant to me. Not to be mean... However, I do not mind at all if the evidence isn't enough for someone to put the card in a spellbook because that is all up to the indevidual to decide if it's worth it. I don't have mana crystals in all decks I just wanted to show how the value of the card can be expressed by a different model.
Coming up with a formula like Z+2X-Y (Z=mana when casted, X=number of round since casted, Y=mana cost of the mana crystal) to represent the value of mana crystal is ignorant. The formula is Y+X-Z.
-
Anyway, in my perception, people who disagree with mathematical value just because they don't understand it completely seem ignorant to me. Not to be mean... However, I do not mind at all if the evidence isn't enough for someone to put the card in a spellbook because that is all up to the indevidual to decide if it's worth it. I don't have mana crystals in all decks I just wanted to show how the value of the card can be expressed by a different model.
Coming up with a formula like Z+2X-Y (Z=mana when casted, X=number of round since casted, Y=mana cost of the mana crystal) to represent the value of mana crystal is ignorant. The formula is Y+X-Z.
Okay, dude, really.... I think you're the only one left that disagrees. And that's fine. Think what you want but it seems at this point you are just ignoring facts because you don't want to be wrong. I've done all I could to try and reasonably explain my points to you. Whether or not you change your mind is not important to me. I just like valuating cards using theoretical mathematics because it helps ME understand the game at a deeper level. I just felt like sharing my findings to see what other people could gain from it. I plan on applying the same theories to other cards and when I present my findings im sure you will be there to contradict me for fun. Until then I'll stay silent on my discussion to you.
If anyone else has any questions about how I set up my equations and what it means I will be happy to oblige.
-
To put some fuel on the fire, I'm not sure I agree with any one of you. :)
1. It is quite obvious (apperently not every one here) that the crystal will give you bennefits directly from the trun after it is cast. Thus, you don't have to wait 5 turns for the crystal to pay of. Basically you can use the first earned mana the secound it is obtained.
2. Howerer, to say you would gain some leverage instantly (turn after it is cast) isn't correct either in my oppinoin. Think about it. How can a "stored" mana reserve be percived as worse then mana that will will be gather later? It is just don't add up. To have mana available is way better then recive mana in the future.
I give you a few exampels:
Let's flip the thinking (it might be easier to see that way)
Let's say you have a incantation that cost you 0 to cast. If you could choose between these tow options what would you take:
- Gives you 5 mana (the no crystal example).
- Gives you 1 mana turn 1, 1 mana turn 2, ... , 1 mana turn 5 (the crystal example)
I bet no one will take option 2?
Question is; how many turns would you say option 2 requier for you to pick it over option 1?
Note: you will not save an action in the "no crystal" since it forces you to save the mana in order to make the example accurate, thus passing the action.
On the other hand, if you make a large net earn early by casting a crystal why not cast as amny as you can? Why not cast 6 crystals and 6 flowers? If the theori is correct that you will get the upper hand for each point extra channeling you have against your oponent no matter what, well just keep cast your crystals. To my this can't be true. Why? Not one signel crystal will put any threat to your oponent.
After I have been thinking about this for a while, my thoughts on this would be that it depends what you do and when you do it with your alternative action/mana instead of casting the crystal. If you just store it the crystal option will be superior earlier then 5 turns. If you invest in the mana for your strategy imideatly (turn 0, same turn as crystal would have come out) the gain over casting a crystal is at its maximum. With this said; if you are in between the two exampls and save these five mana to counter your oponent you have to do so prior to turn 5 to gain from it, otherwise the crystal is better.
Conclution: It depends when the 5 mana you have not cast the crystal with is used to know if it is better or not.
The discussion with starting mana pool can easily be see through if play with it a bit.
Let's say all mages start with 1000 mana, who would cast a crystal then? Correct, on one would since it would impact the game at all. Now we can reduce it to 500, and then 250, and then 100.... The closer to zero the better the crystal gets. So saying 10 is equalt to 0 is just not correct.
That was my 0.02$.
Hope it didn't offend anyone. :)
(Sorry for all the spelling errors. It is early here in Sweden)
-
Hi guys, I just followed this thread loosely. Anyways, in my opinion (and that has been said) it makes little sense to look at calculations "in vacuum". Investing in channeling can give you a "game advantage" (besides the fact that it might get you a channeling advantage over your enemy). But that is not necessarily the case.
As already mentioned, there can be other advantages to aim for, i.e. "tempo" or "action" or "decision" advantages. You have to play to your mages/strategy's strengths.
Don't get me wrong, I really like theorycrafting or abstract scenarios to evaluate a card's impact. But in this case, I am not sure if it is helpfull (or outright possible) since the above mentioned side effects.
When planning a book, I tend to build around openings (and tradeoffs). I often ask myself:
- How can I get the most tempo/pressure on the enemy, while stay on par with his actions?
- How can I get the most actions while stay on par with channeling?
- How can I surprise my enemy? (force bad decisions)
- How can I be fexible to my enemie's actions?
according to my gameplan, a mana crystal might be a good or a horrible conjuration to play. You can't mold that into a formula.
As little sidenote (since this is theorycrafting), I think forcing hard decisions (playing unpredictable) is the way to win games.
-
Actually... option 2 as given has a place, but it's pretty niche. If you know your opponent has ways of destoying your stored mana, the drip feed is likely a better bet.
-
The reason that the original 10 mana that everyone gets has to be removed from the equation is because it increases the action potential of all mages and is equal between mages no matter what. Though you are correct in saying that the more mana you have the less impact mana crystal will have. You have to consider mana crystal on its own on any one turn, not just first turn. Thus, you must remove the original 10 from the equation when calculating its value.
However, since you mentioned it I will go over what the 10 mana does to the effect of the card. Mage wars is game almost completely centered around "action potential." That is what you can do in one turn. So in this example I won't be talking about mana crystal I will be talking about two mages, one with 9 channeling and one with 10 channeling.
On any one turn now matter what round it is the increased action potential is equal to the channeling of each mage. If you have any mana more than your channeling on your turn its because you chose to withhold some potential on a previous turn to use it this turn. But in the end it always equals out. The mage with 9 channeling might have more mana than the mage with 10 but that will only happen in a case where the Mage with 9 decided to not use his potential and the Mage with 10 played a larger turn than the Mage with 9.
What the 10 mana does is increase both mages action potential for the first turn. However this 10 mana is non replenishable. Only the 9 or 10 you channel is replenishable. So lots of people tend to hold on to this mana for later turns. Once that 10 mana is spent you are completely reliant on your channeling. So basically instead of mana crystal allowing you to play more than the opponent, it allows you to play more than your opponent without dipping into that non-replenishable supply. So even though an opponent could potentially play more than you, you still come out on top since you spend less than your opponent out of the original 10. So that's why you have to remove the 10 from the equation. It doesn't change any of the actual math. It simply adds a little to each side without advantage to one or the other, even if it changes how you might spend your first couple turns.
So I understand your confusion. Hopefully this clears it up some more.
-
[...] Mage wars is game almost completely centered around "action potential. "
I like this viewpoint. What methods are available to evaluate decisions we make about potential actions?
-
The reason that the original 10 mana that everyone gets has to be removed from the equation is because it increases the action potential of all mages and is equal between mages no matter what. Though you are correct in saying that the more mana you have the less impact mana crystal will have. You have to consider mana crystal on its own on any one turn, not just first turn. Thus, you must remove the original 10 from the equation when calculating its value.
No you can't consider mana crystal on its on on any one turn, because a game has a finite number of turns. You can't manipulate data to fit your needs.
If a game last 6 turns, no matter what you can say, mana crystal will have zero benefits. You spent more mana than you will ever get back.
And what you do not seem to understand is that a player not spending the mana on a mana crystal can fake the equivalent of a mana crystal for the 5 next turns, but if needed, can spend the "remaining" mana.
That's why a mana crystal doesnt give any benefit before the 7th turn, because the same result can be simulated until the 7th turn but in case of emergency the stored mana can be spent.
-
[...] Mage wars is game almost completely centered around "action potential. "
I like this viewpoint. What methods are available to evaluate decisions we make about potential actions?
This is a concept that is as wide as the amount of cards available to play in the whole game. It's quite daughnting to think about and here's why. In all the examples that I've given to now are limited to the mage's action potential and only with respect to his ability to cast cards. Though we all know that casting is not all a mage is good for. He/she has abilities to support other units and "boost" their potential or even boost their own potential but in respect to attacking or defending.
In reality, when I am calculating the "value" of a card I have to take into consider every trait that the card has including its type, life, armor, even its sub-types. However, in the mana crystal example I am judging its value based solely on its channel return. This relates to action potential in that mana crystal, instead of having action potential on its own, it boosts the mages action potential.
Now when discussing action potential with creatures is yet another complete conversation. You have to take into account what the average damage is and its survivability and tons of other stuff that I'm not ready to conquer yet. In addition a creature's action potential can be manipulated by incantations and enchantments. It's just a whole other ball game when calculating theoretical values of other card types.
Does that explain a little more on what I mean by action potential?
When choosing a base method of finding the value of a card I use the basic equation -M+R
M=mana spent
R=Return
The problem is that "r" can mean 1000 different things. In mana crystal's case the return is based over time and how much it gives you with both mana and action potential. So that's where I get (-M+time)+(1*time). How you evaluate this from an action potential standard is often up to the player and how he uses the gain from the card.
So maybe that can help guide you when making your own calculations?
-
On the other hand, if you make a large net earn early by casting a crystal why not cast as amny as you can? Why not cast 6 crystals and 6 flowers? If the theori is correct that you will get the upper hand for each point extra channeling you have against your oponent no matter what, well just keep cast your crystals. To my this can't be true. Why? Not one signel crystal will put any threat to your oponent.
You bring up an interesting point as it is true that mana crystal has no payoff if you don't use the mana you're given. Though, I think the answer is in that sentence. "No payoff if you don't use the mana." By the same respect my channeling value has no meaning unless I spend it meaningfully. If I spend it on more mana crystals I will simply be gaining more mana to spend on what we would assume are other things to meet my ends.
It's like investing in the stock market. I give money away so I can gain money with which one would assume that I spend on food, living, and entertainment. But i leave a little so I can continue to gain more money to spend on other things.
-
I think you are also having trouble understanding my original points.
If i undestand what you say, your calculations try to include not only the mana cost, but the ongoing flexibility. But please accept different points of view as not just ignorance, my point is that your math does not include the reduced flexibility of bringing the flowers, that's why i challenge your math.
As a (naiff) example, if you drop two flowers first turn, you can not drop adramelech second turn. If you are a warlock and drop 1 crystal fist turn, you can´t drop Lord of Fire protected with Nullify second turn. That's reduced flexibility. Anyway, having more mana allows you to use more and/or more powerfull spells.
Hypothetical arguments about players for some reason setting aside ten mana on round 1 in order to drip-feed it into their usage over the next 10 rounds feel contrived to me.
[...]
Arguing about long-term disposal of starting mana may be missing the point.
But I think we all agree that, in a given turn and considered alone, haven X+Y mana is always better, and provides for mor flexibility, than having just X. So hypothetical arguments can be usefull to avouid the incredible complexity of considerign every posible card.
Long-term disposal of starting mana is just the point in dropping mana crystals, isn't it?. You dispose your starting mana in order to use it long term in a different distribution. You spend mana early to have mana later.
...
I will post again my table :
| turn | Crystal | No-Crystal | diff |
| 1 | 10 | 20 | +10 |
| 2 | 22 | 30 | +8 |
| 3 | 34 | 40 | +6 |
| 4 | 46 | 50 | +4 |
| 5 | 58 | 60 | +2 |
| 6 | 70 | 70 | +0 |
| 7 | 82 | 80 | -2 |
| 8 | 94 | 90 | -4 |
| 9 | 106 | 100 | -6 |
| 10 | 118 | 110 | -8 |
| 11 | 130 | 120 | -10 |
| 12 | 142 | 130 | -12 |
We can´t go into specific plays (minotaur, acid ball, whatever), since they are too many. We can look at available mana, wich will give us available options (we all agree?).
Of course a crystal will give you more options (more mana) in the future, but not during turn 2, 3, 4 or 5. If you value the extra mana provided by 1 crystal during turn 2, you have to value the extra mana of not casting it turn 1, of the potential value of saving that mana from turn 1 to 2.
By casting mana crystals, you reduce your total mana during turns 1-5, get in par turn 6, and get an advantage in mana and flexibility starting from turn 7. And will not be on par with the advantage provided by not casting them until turn 11.
Of course mana crystall gave you flexibility in other order, they give you mana for whatever (while a discount ring, for example, is more efficient, but lessflexible in that regard). But even while they can be usefull for some specific builds and plans, the do no pay off until at least turn 6 (and in my opinion, generally even later).
PS: typos...
-
So, I'm with Wildhorn and zorro.
The thing is, Mana Crystal doesn't affect the game state in any way (well, it blocks one zone in its exclusivity, but I don't think that is important). It gives you mana, which give you more options, but it doesn't threaten your opponent, nor does it negate any of the threats made by him.
There were many different models presented in the thread, so I'll try to talk a bit about some of them.
In the model where each mage spends 5 mana each turn, mage who cast the crystal indeed has more mana, but you have failed to mention the effect of the 5 mana card, that the other mage cast.
If you look at the crystal on turn by turn basis, assuming both mages spend all of their available mana each turn, mage without crystal gains huge boost in round 1, because he spend his mana on something stronger and more expensive, than the mage with crystal, who in turn gets a small advantage every turn afterwards by having one more mana available and thus having more options.
If one mage casts a mana crystal and the other mage doesn't cast anything and moves forward, thus improving his board position (more zones to target, more space to run away etc) and then spends one mana of the saved mana each turn afterwards, thus simulating the channeling +1, both mages will have spend the same amount of mana by turn 6
The table made by zorro is the best representation IMO, because it doesn't omit anything and is perfect in it's simplicity, it just says how much mana has each mage available to invest into altering the game state by any given turn.
The meat of the argument is this : mana is more valuable in the beginning of the game than in the later phases. If you can get a stronger board position and advantage early, it is likely that your opponent won't be able to pull back, even though he has more mana.
It is as fas723 has written (or at least what I think was his point), if you can use the 5 mana and action to get decisive board advantage, then you are better of without the crystal. If not, then the crystal will give you the advantage in time.
-
my point is that your math does not include the reduced flexibility of bringing the flowers, that's why i challenge your math.
It does actually. The negative clause of the mana spent is the reduced flexibility, because every card has this. As zorro was mentioning that if you drop 2 mana crystals you can't summon Adramelech on second turn, however this is also true of any card that you can cast. If you cast 2 of something else that effects the board differently you also don't have any more reduced flexibility than casting mana crystal. So, in the long run what this says is that whether or not you cast mana crystal did not make it so you cant summon that other big card, it's that you spent any mana at all. That is an effect of playing cards not playing mana crystal, thus the only negative inclusion needed is the mana spent on mana crystal.
The table made by zorro is the best representation IMO, because it doesn't omit anything and is perfect in it's simplicity, it just says how much mana has each mage available to invest into altering the game state by any given turn.
The reason his model is not good is because it assumes that the opponent mage doesn't spend any mana. Where in a real game this is, in fact, possible, it mean that the other mage has sacrificed board presence to save his mana for what we can only assume is a really big spell that could possibly equal the board presence of everything the other mage played beforehand. Since the board presence is another variable when comparing two mages we have to equal them out by having both mages play cards that have similar board presence, and the only measure we have of that is mana cost since we see the function of smaller cards having less action potential and more expensive ones having more.
If one mage casts a mana crystal and the other mage doesn't cast anything and moves forward, thus improving his board position (more zones to target, more space to run away etc) and then spends one mana of the saved mana each turn afterwards, thus simulating the channeling +1, both mages will have spend the same amount of mana by turn 6
In the long run what mana crystal REALLY does is allow for one player to play cards with larger potential. Although, as we have mentioned, there is a secondary way to get cards out with larger potential which is saving mana turn by turn. This is where the actual value of mana crystal comes into play because it allows for the +1 channeling each turn to get out a creature or other spell with larger potential than before. Even if both players spend the same amount of mana then the player with mana crystal will still come out on top because he will have either played larger potential cards faster than the other would have, or he will have more mana left over.
Now since were talking about the subtle reductions in flexibility, I want to show you this. It is true that playing mana crystal (as well as any other card) reduces your flexibility, but the original argument was about how quickly mana crystal "pays itself off" before giving you only positive benefits. The original model was after turn 6 but I argued that it pays itself off sooner because of the benefit of having 1 extra mana each turn. So I used a Valuation of the card to functionally express the benefits over time. If you go to this calculator (https://www.desmos.com/calculator) and input this expression (X-5)+(1*X) which represents my model, you will see the x-intercept of 2.5 which represents how many turns after it is cast to "pay itself off." This even allows for some room for error if you think the benefit of having 1 extra channeling is less than the actual mana gained. If you do think this try putting in .5 where the "1" is and you will see it takes only a little over 3 turns instead of 2.5.
Of course a crystal will give you more options (more mana) in the future, but not during turn 2, 3, 4 or 5. If you value the extra mana provided by 1 crystal during turn 2, you have to value the extra mana of not casting it turn 1, of the potential value of saving that mana from turn 1 to 2.
In my model it does actually benefit you turn 2-5 because you have 12 mana to spend on those turns instead of 10. If you save your mana than you are simply moving the action potential of one turn to the action potential of the next, you aren't adding anything you just end up moving it because you have forgone the potential of a previous turn. So you cannot simply "simulate" the mana crystal as you say. There just happens to be another means of getting those larger cards out. Does that make sense?
But please accept different points of view as not just ignorance,
I'm sorry, I do try my best. Both you and Mortuss have shown care and thought in your arguments against me and I respect that, but I'm sick of it when others just re-iterate what they've said while just ignoring any new evidence that I come up with. That's what true ignorance is.
-
The reason his model is not good is because it assumes that the opponent mage doesn't spend any mana. Where in a real game this is, in fact, possible, it mean that the other mage has sacrificed board presence to save his mana for what we can only assume is a really big spell that could possibly equal the board presence of everything the other mage played beforehand. Since the board presence is another variable when comparing two mages we have to equal them out by having both mages play cards that have similar board presence, and the only measure we have of that is mana cost since we see the function of smaller cards having less action potential and more expensive ones having more.
That is not what the table says. The table shows how much mana you have available so far to alter the board state, including the mana you have spent to do so. By altering board state, i mean playing a card that either presents a threat to your opponent or negates a threat made by him. That means when I play a creature, it is mana invested in changing the board state, while mana invested in playing the crystal is not, since it is neither a threat nor a solution, it just allows you to play bigger threats later. So, for example, by the end of turn 4, the mage with crystal could have spent up to 46 mana to alter the board state, while the mage without the crystal could have spent up to 50 and that is why he has the advantage.
In the long run what mana crystal REALLY does is allow for one player to play cards with larger potential. Although, as we have mentioned, there is a secondary way to get cards out with larger potential which is saving mana turn by turn. This is where the actual value of mana crystal comes into play because it allows for the +1 channeling each turn to get out a creature or other spell with larger potential than before. Even if both players spend the same amount of mana then the player with mana crystal will still come out on top because he will have either played larger potential cards faster than the other would have, or he will have more mana left over.
No, the player with crystal cannot play larger potential cards faster. Lets take the turn 4 as an example again. The player with crystals could have invested up to 46 mana into threats so far, while the player without crystals could have invested 50 mana into threats. I think its obvious that 50 mana can buy bigger threats than 46 mana.
-
The table made by zorro is the best representation IMO, [...] it just says how much mana has each mage available to invest into altering the game state by any given turn.
The reason his model is not good is because it assumes that the opponent mage doesn't spend any mana. Where in a real game this is, in fact, possible, it mean that the other mage has sacrificed board presence to save his mana for what we can only assume is a really big spell that could possibly equal the board presence of everything the other mage played beforehand.
Well, i tried to assume nothing, as mortuss said, appart from including the cost and direct effect of the mana crystal (which is very straight forward). I tried to abstract from specific cards and plays. My example of adramelech may have induced to think you the opossite - my bad.
I just value available mana, since I think more mana means more and more powerfull options anytime, be it bigger creatures, a more powerfull heal, or the chance of your face down enchantments being more things for your opponent to worry. If we ignore the potential of extra mana for no-crystal player on first turns, it would be the same as ignoring extra mana of crystal player later turns - both players would try to cast the best possible spells for the current situation (and available mana) and get an edge from it.
Of course if your plan involves not using mana first turns mana crystal, it can be a great play - but assuming than casting it first turn lets you in a better position right from second turn is too much.
On a side note, the mana crystal as an advantage, the great flexibility of it's effect, but that come at a cost - which is that mana crystal is way less efficient than other spells, like discount rings or spawnpoints. I think most of the time a more focused option will be always more efficient.
-
Mana Crystals make the game easier to play in some sense, as your operating budget turn to turn is larger (if you try to spend all of your mana every round you have more for each round), but in order for this to translate into greater tactical or strategic flexibility, you need to have more mana available to invest in the board state than you would have had without casting the Mana Crystal. This only happens after 6 more rounds. If you plan to end the game within the next 5 rounds, you are better off doing something to impact the board state rather than casting a Mana Crystal.
While playing, you may have the illusion of greater tactical flexibility from the additional channeling provided by a Mana Crystal before that point, but that's all it is. An illusion. Now, it can also give you a greater sense of security about having a strong followup in case you can't close out the game quickly, but your near term tactical options will always be stronger without Mana Crystals.
-
Good luck guys arguing with DaFurryFury. I personally gave up. It is like arguing with a believer about existence of god or something similar. It is pointless. He believe in some greater good and will stick with his illusions no matter what.
-
@ Zorro and Mortuss
I'm gonna try to respond to all your posts at once.
I understand your model and when representing available mana you are correct in assessing the potential power in each mage. What my model tries to express is the more subtle power of being able to summon the larger cards. I am going to try and make a video about this later today because I think a visual will go a long way in explaining my perspective.
It's important to understand that my model still includes yours with the (x-5) clause. [x=time/turns] I simply add the (x*1) clause because it represents the power of being able to summon 1 mana higher than the opponent per turn. I even allow for some error if you don't value this ability as much as the base additional mana when I mentioned that you can replace "1" with ".5"
Now I don't want you to misunderstand that this is a turn by turn model. The fact that there is another way of summoning larger creatures has to be modeled in a different way because that process removes action potential from one turn and moves it to the next without changing the end amounts of available mana over the time of the game. In your model, zorro, it assumes that the other mage saves his mana which means that he is using a different model than the mana crystal mage.
I hope that the video I make will go a long way in explaining my perspective. It's just that to explain the "actual" advantages you can't use both models which there are benefits and cons of both.
-
All models aside, I think the way that Mortuss explains it makes the most sense:
Lets take the turn 4 as an example again. The player with crystals could have invested up to 46 mana into threats so far, while the player without crystals could have invested 50 mana into threats. I think its obvious that 50 mana can buy bigger threats than 46 mana.
The amount of mana a player can spend makes more intuitive sense to me as a resource metric than the amount they can channel, even if the two are equivalent. Devoting 5 mana (and a quick action) to a mana crystal means you have 5 less mana and 1 fewer action to spend on other spells. The crystal player is 5 mana behind on the turn that they play the crystal, 4 mana behind on the next turn, and so forth. The mana crystal is easy to take into account because it only has one significant impact on gameplay, which is the channeling boost. And there is simply no way to deny that until 5 channeling phases have passed since the casting of the crystal, the non-crystal player is able to spend more mana than the crystal player, and has an extra quick action to do so.
DaFurryFury, I'm afraid I don't understand your logic or this idea of action potential. Mage Wars has 4 resources - cards, actions, mana, and life/damage. Mana crystal decreases your mana and repays its cost over the next 5 turns. It also consumes 1 action. It has no other benefits. In terms of economics, resources now are worth more than resources in the future, so it arguably takes even longer than 5 turns to pay back.
I think if you want to make your point, you will need to provide an example of something that you can do with a mana crystal (within the first 5 turns of casting) that you could not do had you not cast the crystal, because it has already been pointed out that there are things you can do without the crystal that you cannot do with it. If you cannot find an example, it means that during the first 5 turns, not casting a crystal is better, since the options it provides encompass all the options the crystal provides and more. You need such a counterexample to make your point convincing.
-
I think if you want to make your point, you will need to provide an example of something that you can do with a mana crystal (within the first 5 turns of casting) that you could not do had you not cast the crystal, because it has already been pointed out that there are things you can do without the crystal that you cannot do with it. If you cannot find an example, it means that during the first 5 turns, not casting a crystal is better, since the options it provides encompass all the options the crystal provides and more. You need such a counterexample to make your point convincing.
I am going to film my example video soon and here are the things I'm going to go over.
My perspective (of added channel ability)
The opposed perspective (Primarily the mana bonus)
The things that mana crystal allows that you didn't have access to before. (Which is what you have just asked.
Basically there is a rundown of three major elements you work with at the beginning of the game.
Your channeled mana
You starting mana (10)
The ability to carry over mana between turns
These are all elements that change the model used if you incorporate any of them.
Basically my conclusion will be this;
Mana Crystal allows you to summon larger creatures and cards without the need to use your starting, non-replenishable mana, or the need to sacrifice action potential from one turn to carry to the next.
I define action potential, literally, as the stuff you can use to do things. In respect to casting, the primary measurement of action potential is mana. I use the term action potential over mana because it is more clear in the respect that mages do not have to use it and that the value of action potential does not change when it is used, it simply is moved.
-
I think if you want to make your point, you will need to provide an example of something that you can do with a mana crystal (within the first 5 turns of casting) that you could not do had you not cast the crystal, because it has already been pointed out that there are things you can do without the crystal that you cannot do with it. If you cannot find an example, it means that during the first 5 turns, not casting a crystal is better, since the options it provides encompass all the options the crystal provides and more. You need such a counterexample to make your point convincing.
I am going to film my example video soon and here are the things I'm going to go over.
My perspective (of added channel ability)
The opposed perspective (Primarily the mana bonus)
The things that mana crystal allows that you didn't have access to before. (Which is what you have just asked.
Basically there is a rundown of three major elements you work with at the beginning of the game.
Your channeled mana
You starting mana (10)
The ability to carry over mana between turns
These are all elements that change the model used if you incorporate any of them.
Basically my conclusion will be this;
Mana Crystal allows you to summon larger creatures and cards without the need to use your starting, non-replenishable mana, or the need to sacrifice action potential from one turn to carry to the next.
I define action potential, literally, as the stuff you can use to do things. In respect to casting, the primary measurement of action potential is mana. I use the term action potential over mana because it is more clear in the respect that mages do not have to use it and that the value of action potential does not change when it is used, it simply is moved.
It seems like we are talking about concepts covered in Investment Theory. i.e. Present and Future Value of Mana (rather than cash) and Option Theory to understand the value of a potential decision at a future time. A key element in these types of analysis is to understand the time horizons involved for the analysis. In Mage Wars this will vary by player expectations and their spellbook design. i.e. a player whose spellbook and strategy is designed for a fast kill is not going to value longer term investments over other spell options.
-
I think if you want to make your point, you will need to provide an example of something that you can do with a mana crystal (within the first 5 turns of casting) that you could not do had you not cast the crystal, because it has already been pointed out that there are things you can do without the crystal that you cannot do with it. If you cannot find an example, it means that during the first 5 turns, not casting a crystal is better, since the options it provides encompass all the options the crystal provides and more. You need such a counterexample to make your point convincing.
I am going to film my example video soon and here are the things I'm going to go over.
My perspective (of added channel ability)
The opposed perspective (Primarily the mana bonus)
The things that mana crystal allows that you didn't have access to before. (Which is what you have just asked.
Basically there is a rundown of three major elements you work with at the beginning of the game.
Your channeled mana
You starting mana (10)
The ability to carry over mana between turns
These are all elements that change the model used if you incorporate any of them.
Basically my conclusion will be this;
Mana Crystal allows you to summon larger creatures and cards without the need to use your starting, non-replenishable mana, or the need to sacrifice action potential from one turn to carry to the next.
I define action potential, literally, as the stuff you can use to do things. In respect to casting, the primary measurement of action potential is mana. I use the term action potential over mana because it is more clear in the respect that mages do not have to use it and that the value of action potential does not change when it is used, it simply is moved.
It seems like we are talking about concepts covered in Investment Theory. i.e. Present and Future Value of Mana (rather than cash) and Option Theory to understand the value of a potential decision at a future time. A key element in these types of analysis is to understand the time horizons involved for the analysis. In Mage Wars this will vary by player expectations and their spellbook design. i.e. a player whose spellbook and strategy is designed for a fast kill is not going to value longer term investments over other spell options.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying because to me the only thing you invest is mana and the action. Since I have yet to compare mana power to actions and the possibilities within I don't have a basis to convert the ideas. Though if I'm understanding I think you are correct in that this is theory, it relates to the options available to each mage using mana. But I don't want to go more complicated than that because i don't thinknit needs to be.
Anyway, my video is uploading and hopefully it might help explane the application of my equation.
-
It seems like we are talking about concepts covered in Investment Theory. i.e. Present and Future Value of Mana (rather than cash) and Option Theory to understand the value of a potential decision at a future time.
Wow... i think not it's way too much complicated. I better let it go before we start dangling into quantum mechaniccs, which i can´t discuss properly in a foreing languaje :D
-
It seems like we are talking about concepts covered in Investment Theory. i.e. Present and Future Value of Mana (rather than cash) and Option Theory to understand the value of a potential decision at a future time.
Wow... i think not it's way too much complicated. I better let it go before we start dangling into quantum mechaniccs, which i can´t discuss properly in a foreing languaje :D
Haha hopefully we can keep it in understandable terms. You speak really well if English isn't your first language. I think its just that this conversation can be as complicated as we want, but I prefer to keep it simpler so I talk about primarily mana and its uses.
-
I'd like to see a breakdown on Option Theory, because I know nothing about it and it sounds interesting.
-
Here's the video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqMV0wBFu54&feature=youtu.be
I'm not sure that I accomplished what I wanted to with the visual, but maybe you will be able to see what I'm saying with the different situations described.
P.S. I'm by no means a pro editor or on screen actor. It's kinda a bad take. I correct myself at times with the text so I hope you'll excuse messiness. I have some trouble putting my thoughts into words sometimes so it might be a little awkward.
-
Socialism Woo!! haha!!!
-
Nice vid DaFurryFury - unfortunately be ready for those that will get hung up on the cards you chose to play in your examples and miss the message.
BTW - I liked wtcannonjr two-cents worth, you are both spot on!
It seems like we are talking about concepts covered in Investment Theory. i.e. Present and Future Value of Mana (rather than cash) and Option Theory to understand the value of a potential decision at a future time.
-
Nice vid DaFurryFury - unfortunately be ready for those that will get hung up on the cards you chose to play in your examples and miss the message.
BTW - I liked wtcannonjr two-cents worth, you are both spot on!
It seems like we are talking about concepts covered in Investment Theory. i.e. Present and Future Value of Mana (rather than cash) and Option Theory to understand the value of a potential decision at a future time.
Thanks I appreciate it. Yeah I like Wtcannonjr's comment too. Any chance we can get a little built upon that Jr? =)
-
First of all, you could have come up with examples that the mage could have actually cast (a Forcemaster can't cast 3 spells in a round without a Spawnpoint or Familiar, and can't cast 2 creatures in a round), but that really doesn't matter.
As to your points:
You are drawing an arbitrary distinction between stored mana, starting mana, and channeled mana that I still don't see any value in. The timing of when you get mana is important, but it's much more useful to keep track of mana available to invest in developing the board state than trying to separate these 3 pools of mana into distinct entities.
You keep going back and forth on whether you include Mana Crystal as mana available to impact the board state. It is not available to develop the board, you've invested it in increasing your channeling already.
You talk about losing action potential in storing mana, but then talk about having an advantage due to not using your starting mana. This is fundamentally inconsistent. Either you are wasting action potential by not using that starting mana immediately, or you are not wasting action potential in storing mana. If you look at your example where your opponent has used their starting mana and you have not, by the end of turn 3 your opponent has a significant board advantage.
In terms of investment theory, a Mana Crystal is a perpetuity. You can talk about the rate of return and your investment horizon, but that boils down to what I've already said.
-
First of all, you could have come up with examples that the mage could have actually cast (a Forcemaster can't cast 3 spells in a round without a Spawnpoint or Familiar, and can't cast 2 creatures in a round), but that really doesn't matter.
In what turn did I have her cast 3 spells, and I'm aware on the multiple creature business. I didn't want to deal with the spell speed differences.
You are drawing an arbitrary distinction between stored mana, starting mana, and channeled mana that I still don't see any value in. The timing of when you get mana is important, but it's much more useful to keep track of mana available to invest in developing the board state than trying to separate these 3 pools of mana into distinct entities.
The three mana distinctions are not created by me, they are by design in the game. Channeled mana is a result of the separate element of channeling, starting mana is just something they added, and saved is any that isn't spent by the player. They all end with the result of giving you more mana to spend but they are all different sources. If you are going to determine what mana you have to invest, you have to see the sources of that mana to find the mana's inherent value.
You keep going back and forth on whether you include Mana Crystal as mana available to impact the board state. It is not available to develop the board, you've invested it in increasing your channeling already.
The reason I removed it in each situation is because several people stated that mana crystal shouldn't be included due to the fact that it doesn't change the board state. But, what I'm saying is that the current board state and potential change in board state have to be equated equally because mana crystal changes the rate at which you can change the total board state.
You talk about losing action potential in storing mana, but then talk about having an advantage due to not using your starting mana. This is fundamentally inconsistent. Either you are wasting action potential by not using that starting mana immediately, or you are not wasting action potential in storing mana. If you look at your example where your opponent has used their starting mana and you have not, by the end of turn 3 your opponent has a significant board advantage.
I don't understand why you think it's inconsistent. I separated the two concepts of stored mana and starting mana because one is a result of choice and the other is the result of what the game gave you. In the example where I didn't spend the starting mana, you are correct that the board advantage is to my opponent, but at the cost of spending all of the starting mana which will never replenish. In the case of the stored mana, the action potential is not lost but rather "moved" to the next turn.
In terms of investment theory, a Mana Crystal is a perpetuity. You can talk about the rate of return and your investment horizon, but that boils down to what I've already said.
I don't understand what you mean by this statement. Yes mana crystal "lasts forever" and gains value per turn, but I'm talking about (mostly) the first 6-7 turns and the benefit that I believe people ignore.
-
You don't have to see the source of the mana to see the mana's inherent value. That's the whole point. It matters WHEN you gain access to it, not where it comes from. You seem to think that the 10 starting mana is somehow more valuable. It is only more valuable in the sense that you gain access to it earlier, but it is no more valuable than the 10 mana a Wizard channels the first round. If you want to build up some mana after depleting your mana pool, just spend less. It's not like you can't save mana later to build up a reserve again.
You can do analysis of when you should try to save some mana, and when you should try to use all of your mana, but that's not what you're doing. At the level that you're looking at this, and for the purposes of evaluating Mana Crystal, that's not necessary. All you have to do is look at how much mana you have available to invest in developing the board state on a round by round basis. That's what Zorro demonstrated with the table of available mana.
Also, your equation is wrong, as Wildhorn stated. You can come up with whatever equation you want, but unless your equation corresponds to the situation you're using it to model, it will give you gibberish.
-
Nice vid DaFurryFury - unfortunately be ready for those that will get hung up on the cards you chose to play in your examples and miss the message.
BTW - I liked wtcannonjr two-cents worth, you are both spot on!
It seems like we are talking about concepts covered in Investment Theory. i.e. Present and Future Value of Mana (rather than cash) and Option Theory to understand the value of a potential decision at a future time.
Thanks I appreciate it. Yeah I like Wtcannonjr's comment too. Any chance we can get a little built upon that Jr? =)
Work has me busy, but i will follow up in a few days. I am thinking along the lines of actions and mana are resources available to invest in changing the game state. Spells provide different capabilities that help a player achieve a desired outcome (kill the mage). Some spells provide direct benefits, such as attack dice and additional actions while other spells provide indirect benefits, such as increased channeling.
More to follow when i have time...
Perhaps others here can connect some of these dots as well. It sounds like we are all dancing around with related ideas but focusing on different aspects of the overall game play.
-
First of all, your video is very clean and well put together, so kudos for that. That being said, I think you kind of shoot yourself in the foot with the examples you give. The forcemaster seems to have a better position in the video, since she has significantly more creatures, especially early on (partially due to summoning 2 per turn), even if they are slightly weaker.
Despite your explanation of mana potential, I am still very unclear on how it is measured. Sometimes, it seems to simply be the mana a mage can spend on their turn but other times - maybe I just can't wrap my mind around it. My failure to understand your metric prevents me from understanding your argument, so you would do well to explain your point in other terms.
I strongly encourage you to consider my suggestion for how to make your point more clear: demonstrate a clear example of a strategy with a payoff in the first 5 turns (where the mana crystal itself is not included in that payoff) that absolutely requires mana crystal (or an equivalent spell like mana flower) to work. To give you an example, here is a strategy that proves that the Lair has a unique payoff at most 2 turns after it is cast:
Beastmaster:
Turn 1 (19) : Lair + Ring of Beasts + <Move Mage> (2)
Turn 2 (11+2) : Fox + Fox + <Move mage> + Harmonize Lair (0)
Turn 3 (9+3) : Fox + Fox + <Double Move Mage> (3)
Now your mage has 4 foxes and a ring of beasts on turn 3 and has moved 4 zones. This is impossible to achieve with any other strategy - if you do not cast the lair, you can only summon 1 fox per turn if you are moving. This means that Lair has a unique advantage over the status quo 2 turns after it is cast, since it allows you to achieve a combination of resources (excluding the lair itself) that are impossible without it. The closest you could get is Teleporting twice:
Turn 1 (19) : Fox + Teleport twice ( 8 )
Turn 2 (17) : Fox + Teleport twice (6)
Turn 3 (15) : Fox + Fox (5)
You have 2 more mana, but you don't have the ring of beasts (or harmonize, though that is attached to the lair so it is difficult to account for it precisely) (also, you just used up 8 spellpoints worth of teleports, which seems a little wasteful...), so the lair strategy still has a unique advantage over this. (Note that this is not claiming that the lair has paid for itself, merely that you can do something with the lair by turn 3 that you cannot do by turn 3 without it) In other words, I am not asking you to show that the strategy you demonstrate with the mana crystal is superior to similar strategies, just that it provides a combination of resources (excluding the crystal from the list of resources, of course) by turn X that is impossible to achieve any other way. I think this is a fair test of whether the mana crystal really does have any advantage over the status quo before turn 6, and (more importantly) one that can be easily understood by everybody.
-
You don't have to see the source of the mana to see the mana's inherent value. That's the whole point. It matters WHEN you gain access to it, not where it comes from. You seem to think that the 10 starting mana is somehow more valuable. It is only more valuable in the sense that you gain access to it earlier, but it is no more valuable than the 10 mana a Wizard channels the first round.
The 10 starting mana IS more valuable because it doesn't replenish. It's finite and cannot be gained again thus cannot be spent willy nilly. You are correct that it does no more for you than the 10 channeled mana, but it is different in nature because it doesn't replenish. That's why it's not included into my equation. Remember that I'm valuating mana crystal based off of the channeling bonus you receive and all benefits therein. This being the case I believe both when and where the mana in question comes from is important. You say it's not more valuable but don't you wait to cast all of it in case you need some of it later for a bigger later turn? If I use the starting 10 mana early it's usually because I'm casting something like mana crystal, beast ring, force orb, and the like. All of which increase the action potential of cards.
If you want to build up some mana after depleting your mana pool, just spend less. It's not like you can't save mana later to build up a reserve again.
Remember that to do this you must sacrifice action potential on a previous turn. My argument was that I have the ability to summon the same or similar card while using no or less sacrificed potential.
You can do analysis of when you should try to save some mana, and when you should try to use all of your mana, but that's not what you're doing. At the level that you're looking at this, and for the purposes of evaluating Mana Crystal, that's not necessary. All you have to do is look at how much mana you have available to invest in developing the board state on a round by round basis. That's what Zorro demonstrated with the table of available mana.
I agree, and that's what my equation ultimately expresses. (value of gained mana*number of turns in play-cost of card)+(value of gained action potential*number of turns in play)
Also, your equation is wrong, as Wildhorn stated. You can come up with whatever equation you want, but unless your equation corresponds to the situation you're using it to model, it will give you gibberish.
Hopefully I've convinced you that it does apply when I stated it above. (value of gained mana*number of turns in play-cost of card)+(value of gained action potential*number of turns in play) This translates to (1X-5)+(1X) though, since the "1s" don't change anything you can boil it down further to (X-5)+(X). In the second clause I leave the "1" to emphasize that I believe that the "value" of the increased action potential is equal to that of the gained mana.
-
First of all, your video is very clean and well put together, so kudos for that. That being said, I think you kind of shoot yourself in the foot with the examples you give. The forcemaster seems to have a better position in the video, since she has significantly more creatures, especially early on (partially due to summoning 2 per turn), even if they are slightly weaker.
The idea is that seems like the forcemaster has an advantage due to the number of spells it casts, but if we assume that two cost 5 creatures are the same as one cost 10 creature, then the wizard has an advantage because he was able to cast cost 11 creatures that the forcemaster was unable to.
Despite your explanation of mana potential, I am still very unclear on how it is measured. Sometimes, it seems to simply be the mana a mage can spend on their turn but other times - maybe I just can't wrap my mind around it. My failure to understand your metric prevents me from understanding your argument, so you would do well to explain your point in other terms.
Let me try to explain action potential this way; all cards have a certain amount of action potential, and this is usually equal to that of their mana cost. Mages are included in that they have action potential but they are unique in that they gain a certain amount of action potential back due to their channeling. When a creature is cast, the action potential is not lost, it is simply moved from the mage to the creature and translated to it's health, attack, abilities, etc.... So at any one point in the examples Ive shown, the mana crystal mage is able to have more total action potential after it is cast.
I strongly encourage you to consider my suggestion for how to make your point more clear: demonstrate a clear example of a strategy with a payoff in the first 5 turns (where the mana crystal itself is not included in that payoff) that absolutely requires mana crystal (or an equivalent spell like mana flower) to work. To give you an example, here is a strategy that proves that the Lair has a unique payoff at most 2 turns after it is cast:
Beastmaster:
Turn 1 (19) : Lair + Ring of Beasts + <Move Mage> (2)
Turn 2 (11+2) : Fox + Fox + <Move mage> + Harmonize Lair (0)
Turn 3 (9+3) : Fox + Fox + <Double Move Mage> (3)
Now your mage has 4 foxes and a ring of beasts on turn 3 and has moved 4 zones. This is impossible to achieve with any other strategy - if you do not cast the lair, you can only summon 1 fox per turn if you are moving. This means that Lair has a unique advantage over the status quo 2 turns after it is cast, since it allows you to achieve a combination of resources (excluding the lair itself) that are impossible without it. The closest you could get is Teleporting twice:
Turn 1 (19) : Fox + Teleport twice ( 8 )
Turn 2 (17) : Fox + Teleport twice (6)
Turn 3 (15) : Fox + Fox (5)
You have 2 more mana, but you don't have the ring of beasts (or harmonize, though that is attached to the lair so it is difficult to account for it precisely) (also, you just used up 8 spellpoints worth of teleports, which seems a little wasteful...), so the lair strategy still has a unique advantage over this. (Note that this is not claiming that the lair has paid for itself, merely that you can do something with the lair by turn 3 that you cannot do by turn 3 without it) In other words, I am not asking you to show that the strategy you demonstrate with the mana crystal is superior to similar strategies, just that it provides a combination of resources (excluding the crystal from the list of resources, of course) by turn X that is impossible to achieve any other way. I think this is a fair test of whether the mana crystal really does have any advantage over the status quo before turn 6, and (more importantly) one that can be easily understood by everybody.
I feel like the examples I've shown are sufficient. In the previous examples the benefit within turn 6 is that I cast larger cards than the opponent. I feel like this is explained quite thoroughly in the video. I gave you an example that only uses the benefit of mana crystal and tried to show most situations in that it is still helpful. Your example with the lair uses multiple cards, and multiple sources of channeling. Harmonize is almost identical to mana crystal except that it can target something other than the mage. So your example did not exemplify the usefulness of lair but rather the usefulness of lair+harmonize (or even mana crystal with a similar effect)+ring of beasts. My example judges mana crystal on it's own terms. I could further the effects of mana crystal by attaching a ring or gate of voltari or anything else that in creases channeling but then I am not judging the value of a single mana crystal. So anyway, other than the examples I've already given, I'm not sure how else I can physically show the benefit and that is a failing of myself so I'm sorry I can't help you more. It's just that if I'm to make an example that isn't nearly identical to the previous ones I would just be reaching and I'm afraid they wouldn't make much sense. Maybe someone else has an idea who understands what I'm talking about?
-
I gave you an example that only uses the benefit of mana crystal and tried to show most situations in that it is still helpful. Your example with the lair uses multiple cards, and multiple sources of channeling. Harmonize is almost identical to mana crystal except that it can target something other than the mage. So your example did not exemplify the usefulness of lair but rather the usefulness of lair+harmonize (or even mana crystal with a similar effect)+ring of beasts. My example judges mana crystal on it's own terms. I could further the effects of mana crystal by attaching a ring or gate of voltari or anything else that in creases channeling but then I am not judging the value of a single mana crystal
My point with the Lair (of, if you prefer, with Lair + Harmonize) is that you can achieve something with that strategy that is impossible without it, namely having 4 foxes, 1 ring of beasts, and moving 4 zones by round 3. There is no other card (or combination; whether you consider the lair alone or with harmonize is irrelevant) that will allow you to do that, so we can conclude that the lair has a unique payoff by the 3rd round of play.
None of your examples with mana crystal demonstrate a unique payoff before the 6th round because it is always possible to achieve at least the same game state (ignoring the physical crystal itself) without using a mana crystal. To look at your example:
With crystal:
Turn 1 (10): Crystal + Caltrops + Move Once (0)
Turn 2 (11) : Dwarf (0)
Turn 3 (11) : Dwarf (0)
Without crystal:
Turn 1 (10): Mangler caltrops + Move twice (5)
Turn 2 (15): Dwarf + Enchanter's Ring (2)
Turn 3 (12): Dwarf + Arbitrary Enchantment (0)
At turn 3, the crystal user is 1 move, 1 enchanter's ring, and 1 enchantment behind the non-crystal user, and both have the same stored mana. There is no unique benefit to having the crystal by turn 3.
If we look at whether there is a benefit by turn 4:
Crystal
Turn 1 (10): Crystal + Caltrops + Move Once (0)
Turn 2 (11) : Dwarf (0)
Turn 3 (11) : Dwarf (0)
Turn 4 (11) : Dwarf (0)
Non-Crystal
Turn 1 (10): Mangler caltrops + Move twice (5)
Turn 2 (15): Dwarf (4)
Turn 3 (14): Dwarf (3)
Turn 4 (13): Dwarf + Enchanter's ring (0)
Both players have the same number of dwarves and mana, but the non-crystal player has 1 move and 1 enchanter's ring over the crystal player. And if we consider 5 turns:
Crystal
Turn 1 (10): Crystal + Caltrops + Move Once (0)
Turn 2 (11) : Dwarf (0)
Turn 3 (11) : Dwarf (0)
Turn 4 (11) : Dwarf (0)
Turn 5 (11) : Dwarf (0)
Non-Crystal
Turn 1 (10): Mangler caltrops + Move twice (5)
Turn 2 (15): Dwarf (4)
Turn 3 (14): Dwarf (3)
Turn 4 (13): Dwarf (2)
Turn 5 (12): Dwarf (1)
Now they have the same number of dwarves, but the non-crystal player has 1 move and 1 mana over the crystal player. By Turn 6, of course, the crystal has paid for itself, but the non-crystal player still has the advantage of 1 move.
My point is this: If, without a crystal, I can achieve everything by turn X that can be achieved with a crystal, then it is incorrect to say that the crystal provides a benefit by turn X. The examples you have given so far fail this test because in each case it is possible to achieve the same thing (and more) without needing a mana crystal. If you can show me an example where you can reach a game state that is impossible without a crystal, then I will be convinced; otherwise, I still am certain that the crystal has no net benefit until 5 turns after it is cast.
-
I gave you an example that only uses the benefit of mana crystal and tried to show most situations in that it is still helpful. Your example with the lair uses multiple cards, and multiple sources of channeling. Harmonize is almost identical to mana crystal except that it can target something other than the mage. So your example did not exemplify the usefulness of lair but rather the usefulness of lair+harmonize (or even mana crystal with a similar effect)+ring of beasts. My example judges mana crystal on it's own terms. I could further the effects of mana crystal by attaching a ring or gate of voltari or anything else that in creases channeling but then I am not judging the value of a single mana crystal
My point is this: If, without a crystal, I can achieve everything by turn X that can be achieved with a crystal, then it is incorrect to say that the crystal provides a benefit by turn X. The examples you have given so far fail this test because in each case it is possible to achieve the same thing (and more) without needing a mana crystal. If you can show me an example where you can reach a game state that is impossible without a crystal, then I will be convinced; otherwise, I still am certain that the crystal has no net benefit until 5 turns after it is cast.
You are still disregarding the fact that in the last example when you have both mages cast 4 dwarves that the mage without mana crystal used "saved mana" to summon all her dwarves where the Mage with mana crytal didn't. You have proven my point further because in that case the other mage did indeed keep pace with the mana crystal mage but had to sacrifice action potential on the first turn to do so.
As far as the value of moves are concerned, those are much trickier in converting it to value because movement is rather arbitrary in the game as a whole since the game is more about the pacing mana usage anyway. I don't concider movement as extremely relevant as moving toward the enemy might mean you can attack him but will also mean he can attack you. It's an even win-loss situation in my perception. But I don't want to get too off track here as we are talking about casting and speed of casting. I'm not trying to devalue your point of the moving because you are correct that moving does have value, but it's a separate entity that has its pros and cons as well that cannot be included into my current equation.
-
You make no sense with your "action potential".
-
You are still disregarding the fact that in the last example when you have both mages cast 4 dwarves that the mage without mana crystal used "saved mana" to summon all her dwarves where the Mage with mana crytal didn't. You have proven my point further because in that case the other mage did indeed keep pace with the mana crystal mage but had to sacrifice action potential on the first turn to do so.
As far as the value of moves are concerned, those are much trickier in converting it to value because movement is rather arbitrary in the game as a whole since the game is more about the pacing mana usage anyway. I don't concider movement as extremely relevant as moving toward the enemy might mean you can attack him but will also mean he can attack you. It's an even win-loss situation in my perception. But I don't want to get too off track here as we are talking about casting and speed of casting. I'm not trying to devalue your point of the moving because you are correct that moving does have value, but it's a separate entity that has its pros and cons as well that cannot be included into my current equation.
In the example I gave, what I showed was that the mage without the mana crystal can do everything the mage with the mana crystal can do and more. Both mages are casting the same cards on the same turn - turn 1, they both get caltrops. Turn 2, they both get a dwarf. Turn 3, they both get a dwarf. They are taking all of the exact same actions at the same time except that the non-crystal user is able to do more. No matter how you are defining action potential, if your opponent is able to play all the same cards on the same turns as you plus extra cards that you are not playing and still ends up with at least as much mana as you, they are unambiguously ahead of you - there is no aspect of the game in which you are ahead of them. It doesn't matter how you value moves, or anything else - on every turn the non-crystal player has everything the crystal player has, and more.
Look:
Unique resources
Resources common to both sides
With crystal:
Turn 1 (10): Crystal + Caltrops + Move Once (0)
Turn 2 (11) : Dwarf (0)
Turn 3 (11) : Dwarf (0)
Without crystal:
Turn 1 (10): Mangler caltrops + Move twice (5)
Turn 2 (15): Dwarf + Enchanter's Ring (2)
Turn 3 (12): Dwarf + Arbitrary Enchantment (0)
With the exception of the crystal (which has no benefit besides the channeling, and whose payoff we are evaluating), the crystal mage has literally nothing that the non-crystal mage does not have, at any point. If you want to talk about wasting action potential, notice that the crystal mage wastes 2 quickcasts that the non-crystal mage makes use of (though I still do not think this metric is well defined enough to make an analysis based on that).
When evaluating a game state, how you got there isn't relevant. If the Lord of Fire is swinging his scythe in my face, I don't care if I roll 5 damage or fifteen, if both results kill him. Similarly, it doesn't matter where mana or any other resource comes from; all that matters in evaluating the state of the game on a given turn is the sum total of the resources that each side has. Mana is mana, whether it was channeled this turn or last turn.
-
Ah! I think I see what you mean with this example now. This example you just stated has both mages not using the original 10 mana but just channeled and saved mana. In this case for the situation to be equal you can't necessarily assume that the mana crystal mage spends all his mana on turn one. He might spend it like this:
With crystal:
Turn 1 (10): Crystal + Move Twice (5)
Turn 2 (16) : Dwarf (0) + enchanters ring (3)
Turn 3 (14) : Dwarf (0) + Arbitrary enchantment (2)
Without crystal:
Turn 1 (10): Mangler caltrops + Move twice (5)
Turn 2 (15): Dwarf + Enchanter's Ring (2)
Turn 3 (12): Dwarf + Arbitrary Enchantment (0)
In this case the mage with crystal may have 1 less card in play but he has a 2 mana advantage at the end of turn 3 because he didn't have to spend as much saved mana. He also could have played cards of higher value to further express the benefit. I had him play the same cards to be as consistent as possible, but I think the point is here is that instead of caltrops he plays mana crystal for the purpose of the 2 mana benefit. Though, caltrops has a different benefit, I think at this point the mages are relatively equal.
The same relationship can be described with mages of differing channeling rather than playing mana crystal.
The only difference is that the mage didn't have to spend anything on it and gains ALL of mana crystal's benefits immediately.
so basically, going back to your example:
With crystal:
Turn 1 (10): Crystal + Caltrops + Move Once (0)
Turn 2 (11) : Dwarf (0)
Turn 3 (11) : Dwarf (0)
Without crystal:
Turn 1 (10): Mangler caltrops + Move twice (5)
Turn 2 (15): Dwarf + Enchanter's Ring (2)
Turn 3 (12): Dwarf + Arbitrary Enchantment (0)
Mage 1 "sacrifices" his second move to get the mana crystal benefit, but mage 2 also sacrifices his 5 mana this turn to have if immediately next turn to get his enchanters ring benefit. So my model still works in respect to sacrifice vs gain. They are distinct in option and separate entities or abilities. Whether or not you believe one is better than the other is a personal distinction but the benefit is still there. Mage 1 didn't have to save mana on previous turns to get the larger cards he wanted, but mage 2 had to sacrifice 5 on his first turn, but the effect is more immediate than mana crystal. Mana crystal just happens to have a slower return, but still present in the first 6 turns. Does that make some sense? It's important to note here in your example, that mage 1 has spent 32 mana in total where mage 2 has spent 30. Also, in my example, both have spent 30 and mage 1 has a 2 mana advantage. I think that 2 mana, even though it hasn't made up for itself yet, is important because it's what allowed you to play larger cards faster than mage 2.
-
You still seem to be missing the point. Your equation double counts the mana generated by the Mana Crystal because this "action potential" you value so highly is just the mana generated by the Mana Crystal. If you double count the resources generated by the Mana Crystal, of course it will look like it returns your investment faster.
You have not given a clear definition of action potential.
In addition, in the example you just gave, the player with the Crystal is 2 mana ahead and a Mangler Caltrops Behind. Overall that means the Crystal player is still behind. He has less total mana available to invest in developing the board.
Of course your starting mana replenishes. That's what channeling IS! It's not like it's a different resource that you can never get back. This isn't Ginkopolis where you start with 2 tokens that let you get a new hand that can never be replaced.
Whenever you talk about saving starting mana or stored mana in the context of a Mana Crystal player, you put it in a positive light. Whenever you talk about a mage without a Crystal storing mana, you talk about it in a negative context. This is what is so inconsistent about your position.
As others have said, you need to compare casting a Mana Crystal to casting nothing, not to casting a particular spell. Comparing it to Mangler Caltrops in particular seems a little odd, as it's such a situational card.
-
Counterexample:
With crystal:
Turn 1 (10): Crystal + Move Twice (5)
Turn 2 (16) : Dwarf (0) + enchanters ring (3)
Turn 3 (14) : Dwarf (0) + Arbitrary enchantment (2)
Without crystal:
Turn 1 (10): Enchanter's Ring + Move twice (8)
Turn 2 (18): Dwarf + Arbitrary Enchantment (6)
Turn 3 (16): Dwarf + Arbitrary Enchantment (4)
Try again.
-
You make no sense with your "action potential".
I think 'action potential' is nice. I'm kind of thinking in the same way, though not so much in 'per round'.
What am I able to do by round x?
Especially when the opponent and I engage in combat (so to speak) then I wish to have maxed out my potential or close to.
I can manipulate this with different openings and adjusting to my opponent's opening in order to foresee when this will happen.
When you clash with the enemy:
The advantage of having maxed out on your 'potential':
Better cards on the board = more damage done and/or less damage taken
To sum it up: perform better right here and now.
The advantage of nearly having maxed out 'potential'
perform decent while being still being agile with option to adapt to your opponent with a little extra unspent mana.
The advantage of having tons of 'potential' left:
None - lose the game due to lack of board control.
I still strongly disagree with FuryFurrys view on the value of starting mana and even more on the 'turn by turn' view on action potential.
IMO: The only time starting mana truly changes value is when mages with different channeling plays against each other.
-
You still seem to be missing the point. Your equation double counts the mana generated by the Mana Crystal because this "action potential" you value so highly is just the mana generated by the Mana Crystal. If you double count the resources generated by the Mana Crystal, of course it will look like it returns your investment faster.
See this is why I mentioned earlier that if you don't value the action potential as highly as the mana count, you can reduce it's value within the equation to .5 or even .25. In both cases the result is that it still pays off earlier than most people say. I think it is wrong, though, to say it has no value because on a turn where I have 11 mana and the opponent has 10, there is an advantage. Small though it may be.
You have not given a clear definition of action potential.
I have given several versions of an action potential definition. I can only assume you have not read the posts carefully enough or do not understand all of the versions I have given. If the later is true please help me to help you.
In addition, in the example you just gave, the player with the Crystal is 2 mana ahead and a Mangler Caltrops Behind. Overall that means the Crystal player is still behind. He has less total mana available to invest in developing the board.
This is only true if you aren't including the value spent on mana crystal. Since I feel it is, basically, unfair to say some cards are worth their mana and others aren't I have to include or exclude both values. I only did both in the video by popular demand, even though I don't agree with it.
Of course your starting mana replenishes. That's what channeling IS! It's not like it's a different resource that you can never get back. This isn't Ginkopolis where you start with 2 tokens that let you get a new hand that can never be replaced.
Whenever you talk about saving starting mana or stored mana in the context of a Mana Crystal player, you put it in a positive light. Whenever you talk about a mage without a Crystal storing mana, you talk about it in a negative context. This is what is so inconsistent about your position.
I talk about them in positive light because, by observation, I see no negatives when I don't use the starting or stored mana. The opponent using starting or stored mana does have negative effects. In a real game I would be using a combination of all three but I need to exaggerate the examples to help emphasize my points.
As others have said, you need to compare casting a Mana Crystal to casting nothing, not to casting a particular spell. Comparing it to Mangler Caltrops in particular seems a little odd, as it's such a situational card.
The reason I have the opponent cast a card is because I have to assume he is playing the game and not just sitting there. In the first example of the video I have her cast cards to simulate using channeled mana and not starting or saved mana. This is to show all the differences that I go into at the end half of the video. I agree, mangler caltrops is kinda weird but it also emphasizes my point that the cards cast don't really matter so long as mana is being spent.
ACG
Counterexample:
With crystal:
Turn 1 (10): Crystal + Move Twice (5)
Turn 2 (16) : Dwarf (0) + enchanters ring (3)
Turn 3 (14) : Dwarf (0) + Arbitrary enchantment (2)
Without crystal:
Turn 1 (10): Enchanter's Ring + Move twice (8)
Turn 2 (18): Dwarf + Arbitrary Enchantment (6)
Turn 3 (16): Dwarf + Arbitrary Enchantment (4)
Try again.
I feel like we are spinning in circles and just coming up with examples that each mage is using less and less mana to show an advantage. So this isn't going to go anywhere because it's getting too hung up on the actual cards being cast. The point is that if a card requires payment in mana equal to that of its action potential then mana crystal, I believe, is a good choice due to it's enhanced ability to summon the larger cards faster.
jacksmack
When you clash with the enemy:
The advantage of having maxed out on your 'potential':
Better cards on the board = more damage done and/or less damage taken
To sum it up: perform better right here and now.
The advantage of nearly having maxed out 'potential'
perform decent while being still being agile with option to adapt to your opponent with a little extra unspent mana.
The advantage of having tons of 'potential' left:
None - lose the game due to lack of board control.
This is why, in the video, I had both mages play almost all of the mana they had available or explained how the mages could spend it and the mana crystal mage comes out on top. I do agree that unspent potential is still simply potential and not yet effecting the game. Though, presumably, if you are saving mana to the point where you literally can't spend it by casting the two most expensive cards in the game, then you are only hurting yourself because it then become "potential" that can't be used.
-
Counterexample:
With crystal:
Turn 1 (10): Crystal + Move Twice (5)
Turn 2 (16) : Dwarf (0) + enchanters ring (3)
Turn 3 (14) : Dwarf (0) + Arbitrary enchantment (2)
Without crystal:
Turn 1 (10): Enchanter's Ring + Move twice (8)
Turn 2 (18): Dwarf + Arbitrary Enchantment (6)
Turn 3 (16): Dwarf + Arbitrary Enchantment (4)
Try again.
I feel like we are spinning in circles and just coming up with examples that each mage is using less and less mana to show an advantage. So this isn't going to go anywhere because it's getting too hung up on the actual cards being cast. The point is that if a card requires payment in mana equal to that of its action potential then mana crystal, I believe, is a good choice due to it's enhanced ability to summon the larger cards faster.
On the contrary; these examples are extremely important to this discussion. I claim that anything you can do with a mana crystal, you can do better without it prior to the 5th turn after casting. You claim that there is a unique benefit to a mana crystal before the 5th turn after it is cast. Disproving my claim is simple; find a single counterexample. Show me a game state in the first 5 turns that you can achieve only with a mana crystal. Without a concrete example, your argument is not persuasive, because if there truly is an advantage to any strategy, it will be made clear in the state of the game. To prove your point, post an example to which I cannot find a counterexample.
Any good hypothesis is falsifiable. I have told you what evidence will convince me that I am wrong. If you want to discuss this on your terms, then please tell me; what evidence would convince you that the early crystal payoff hypothesis is false?
-
I'm not sure that mana crystal is so much of a concrete card though. With a card like lair it's easier since it does pretty much what mana crystal does plus a bunch more. I will continue to try to find an example and if I find one I will post to see what you think. Sound good? Without cards in front of me it's hard fore because I'm newer to the game than others. But I will definitely try.
-
Thank you. Your polite tone and earnestness in arguing your case is admirable. If you need to see cards, remember that this site has an easily searchable list of cards that contains their images as well (see the bar at the top, under the "cards" tab). The reason I was able to show a unique 2 turn payoff with lair is indeed because it does a bunch more, as you say. Specifically, it gives extra actions that allow the player to do things that are impossible with mana alone.
-
On page 3 of this thread you claim that action potential is what you can do in a single turn, but then you reduce that to mana for simplicity, since you don't want to deal with the complication of all the other factors. That's not a satisfactory definition, and the way you use it in your arguments is inconsistent. Sometimes you act as if action potential is mana, other times you claim it is a distinct entity that is generally equal to some relevant mana amount.
If action potential is what you can do in a round, then your mage has more action potential than just their mana. For most of your arguments you talk as if action potential is mana, but in certain cases you double count that mana (you claim you're counting the action potential as a benefit, but in reality you're just counting the mana again), such as in the case of your equation. You talk about action potential as if it is a number, but aside from the mana component, you give no way to calculate it. If you want to use it as an abstract term like tempo, it will probably be more useful, since you can already talk about mana efficiency and mana distributions without inventing new terminology that may confuse the issue to talk about it. If you want it to be a quantitative measure that you can refer to, you haven't given a definition that will allow anyone to calculate it.
I'm with ACG on the example front. I am firmly convinced that there is nothing that you can do with a Mana Crystal that you can't do without it until the Mana Crystal has generated more mana than it cost. If you can come up with an example, it would provide a basis for your argument.
-
Spawnpoints convert mana and actions, totally diferent than a crystal, and they grant different options just on turn after are casted - i think nobody disagree on that, so i will forget about them for now.
We need to see if mana crystal gave different optiones, and when. I'll try to go step by step in my reasoning, more detailed, feel free to point out if i have an error or you disagree in a specific point so we can clear it out.
We can define action potencial at any moment as your mana and actions available. That's what you can use to impact the game. If you disagree with this, we can discuss it before going further.
A: With no crystal, no lair, that's what you acumulated
B: With (1x) Crystal
Turn 1
A: T1: 20 mana, 1 quickcast, 1 full action
B: T1: 15 mana, 0 quickcast, 1 full action + casting crystal
So if you don´t cast a mana crystall turn 1, you have 5 extra mana (and 1 extra quickcast). I think we all agree that first turn not casting a crystal gives you an advantage for this specific turn, don´t we? We will see next turns
Turn 2
A: T2: 30 mana, 2 quickcast, 2 full action
B: T2: 26 mana, 1 quickcast, 2 full action
Mana crystall effect is already fully taken into account in the increased channeling. At the cost of a quickcast and 5 mana, it provides 1 mana next turns.
We take no assumption on mana usage on either mage, just potential. Until turn 2, that are the actions and mana avaailable. Whatever mage B do with it's 1 quickcast , 2 full actions, mage A can (potentially) do the same with its more mana and extra quickcast. Also, there are things mage A can do wich mage B can´t do. If anyone can find a fail in the reasoning, point it
Turn 3, 4, 5, 6
Same as before... whatever mage B does, mage A can do (and even better)
A: T3: 40 mana, 3 quickcast, 3 full action
B: T3: 37 mana, 2 quickcast, 3 full action
A: T4: 50 mana, 4 quickcast, 4 full action
B: T4: 48 mana, 3 quickcast, 4 full action
A: T5: 60 mana, 5 quickcast, 5 full action
B: T5: 59 mana, 4 quickcast, 5 full action
Turn 6
A: T6: 70 mana, 6 quickcast, 6 full action
B: T6: 70 mana, 5 quickcast, 6 full action
Now both mages have same mana. I would not say Mana crystal have breaking even yet. Mage B had lost a (potential) quickcast, and, more important, mage A have enjoyed increased potential previous turns. I would say it's clear Mage A still have an (potential) edge because of its better tempo.
Turn 7+
A: T2: 80 mana, 7 quickcast, 7 full action
B: T2: 81 mana, 6 quickcast, 7 full action
Now Mage B had more mana available. Now, he can (potentially) have better plays than player A. At least, at this point there are some plays available to mage B which are not available to mage A - this is the point when you can consider Mana Crystal have give mage B an edge - but not before this point.
Of course, as previously stated, it depends on your playstyle if you value having 1 more extra mana turn 7, or you value having more potential turns 1-5. I personally think having more potential durinr turns 1-5 has great advantage (some of my games end before turn 7, almost all of them before turn 10)
-
You still seem to be missing the point. Your equation double counts the mana generated by the Mana Crystal because this "action potential" you value so highly is just the mana generated by the Mana Crystal. If you double count the resources generated by the Mana Crystal, of course it will look like it returns your investment faster.
See this is why I mentioned earlier that if you don't value the action potential as highly as the mana count, you can reduce it's value within the equation to .5 or even .25. In both cases the result is that it still pays off earlier than most people say. I think it is wrong, though, to say it has no value because on a turn where I have 11 mana and the opponent has 10, there is an advantage. Small though it may be.
Then it means if someone value it more they could augment the value to 2,3 why not 10?
Wow, If you value it at 100 then you win the game right by casting the crystal!
You see that it doesnt make sence...
-
DaFurryFury consider this:
Mana crystals are only ever worth casting because the mages start away from each other in an arena of a certain size.
If the mages started in the same zone in a 2 x 2 zone arena, then the crystals would be a dead play.
How does your action potential take this into account?
-
Thank you. Your polite tone and earnestness in arguing your case is admirable. If you need to see cards, remember that this site has an easily searchable list of cards that contains their images as well (see the bar at the top, under the "cards" tab). The reason I was able to show a unique 2 turn payoff with lair is indeed because it does a bunch more, as you say. Specifically, it gives extra actions that allow the player to do things that are impossible with mana alone.
I've been thinking about it a lot and I really can't find an example of what your looking for. While searching though, I was thinking that this has changed what I think about the value of the action potential bonus, but it still doesn't convince me that it is gone entirely. I still think that there is the value of being able to cast a spell greater than my channeling without using any of the negative effect sources of mana that I explained in the video. So maybe in this case, the mana crystal doesn't pay itself off until round 6, but maybe that is the cost to be able to cast cost 11 card combos without starting mana and saving mana. A 6 turn cost to be able to cast 5 combinations of 1 or more cards that cost 11 instead of 6 turns of 10 cost turns. I think the difference of 1 mana per turn might be important to specific strategies. So to actually determine if it's worth it, is dependent on the mage in question. So for my forcemaster build where I want my 3 dwarves out (yes this is an actual spellbook I use) it's extremely important that I have the benefit of 11 channeling so I can get them out early AND have some trap enchantments at the ready AND extra mana for my shield and force pull. But, for my Wizard it's less important to get those higher cost units out early so mana crystal (even though its commonly associated with wizard) is not as imperative. So basically, I think the benefit i've been talking about is not gone but diminished in value as thus would not be a good choice for certain play styles. Does it make sense where I'm going with this?
P.S. If you're curious. my opening moves with the dwarven leader forcemaster is. Mana Crystal and Grimson Deadeye, then Panzergarde, then another Panzergarde. I understand that I could have not cast crystal and have 3 mana left to do the same dwarves, but I would rather have 11 each turn after than 3 non-replenishable mana. It's important to have replenishing mana for the forcemaster for all those upkeep cards.
-
Spawnpoints convert mana and actions, totally diferent than a crystal, and they grant different options just on turn after are casted - i think nobody disagree on that, so i will forget about them for now.
We need to see if mana crystal gave different optiones, and when. I'll try to go step by step in my reasoning, more detailed, feel free to point out if i have an error or you disagree in a specific point so we can clear it out.
We can define action potencial at any moment as your mana and actions available. That's what you can use to impact the game. If you disagree with this, we can discuss it before going further.
A: With no crystal, no lair, that's what you acumulated
B: With (1x) Crystal
Turn 1
A: T1: 20 mana, 1 quickcast, 1 full action
B: T1: 15 mana, 0 quickcast, 1 full action + casting crystal
So if you don´t cast a mana crystall turn 1, you have 5 extra mana (and 1 extra quickcast). I think we all agree that first turn not casting a crystal gives you an advantage for this specific turn, don´t we? We will see next turns
Turn 2
A: T2: 30 mana, 2 quickcast, 2 full action
B: T2: 26 mana, 1 quickcast, 2 full action
Mana crystall effect is already fully taken into account in the increased channeling. At the cost of a quickcast and 5 mana, it provides 1 mana next turns.
We take no assumption on mana usage on either mage, just potential. Until turn 2, that are the actions and mana avaailable. Whatever mage B do with it's 1 quickcast , 2 full actions, mage A can (potentially) do the same with its more mana and extra quickcast. Also, there are things mage A can do wich mage B can´t do. If anyone can find a fail in the reasoning, point it
Turn 3, 4, 5, 6
Same as before... whatever mage B does, mage A can do (and even better)
A: T3: 40 mana, 3 quickcast, 3 full action
B: T3: 37 mana, 2 quickcast, 3 full action
A: T4: 50 mana, 4 quickcast, 4 full action
B: T4: 48 mana, 3 quickcast, 4 full action
A: T5: 60 mana, 5 quickcast, 5 full action
B: T5: 59 mana, 4 quickcast, 5 full action
Turn 6
A: T6: 70 mana, 6 quickcast, 6 full action
B: T6: 70 mana, 5 quickcast, 6 full action
Now both mages have same mana. I would not say Mana crystal have breaking even yet. Mage B had lost a (potential) quickcast, and, more important, mage A have enjoyed increased potential previous turns. I would say it's clear Mage A still have an (potential) edge because of its better tempo.
Turn 7+
A: T2: 80 mana, 7 quickcast, 7 full action
B: T2: 81 mana, 6 quickcast, 7 full action
Now Mage B had more mana available. Now, he can (potentially) have better plays than player A. At least, at this point there are some plays available to mage B which are not available to mage A - this is the point when you can consider Mana Crystal have give mage B an edge - but not before this point.
Of course, as previously stated, it depends on your playstyle if you value having 1 more extra mana turn 7, or you value having more potential turns 1-5. I personally think having more potential durinr turns 1-5 has great advantage (some of my games end before turn 7, almost all of them before turn 10)
Zero - kudos for this explanation! A great perspective of how the game operates under different investment choices.
Using this example we can now consider the scenario when both players investment maximum resources. I.e. both actions are spent casting spells with a mana cost at maximum level. So neither player decides to keep a reserve. We can agree this may not be optimum for a variety of reasons, but we are exploring possible investment paths so what happens under this scenario?
If i understand the point Dafurryfury is making correctly, then mage B will have 11 mana available for casting from Turn 2 on while mage A will have 10. This provides mage B with some 'action potential' since it is assumed the value of 11 mana points of spells is higher per turn than 10 points can bring to the arena. The analysis looks at the value of higher channeling rates in terms of the ability to cast higher cost cards in the future when both players are spending at their maximum levels each round.
this seems like one extreme scenario to consider in the overall set of player options, but as others point out we have left out the benefits of which cards players are bringing into the arena and their interactions. For that we would need more complex models.
-
Honestly what I have found is exactly what you cant quite put your finger on. You have a 9 channeling mage and you have a plan. You start with 19 mana and what you want to cast is 11 cost creatures. You spend a large majority of the mana you have upfront. From there you are mana starved without the Crystal and the Ring. All of the other things are in a vacuum and based in game theory, reality is both mages get a 10 bonus and most spend a good majority upfront and then rely on channeling to implement the rest of the strategy. Now some bank to save mana (like the LoF rush) that's apples to oranges. Most Wizards builds are a bit slower but they cast rings, Spawnpoints, and Crystals, then utterly destroy you. Why? Superior Channel resulting in better mana generation once they get all of these items out on the board, payoff of mana spent never happens, because you are dead dead dead way before they recoup the investment spent.
-
I think Sike and cannonjr have pretty much plugged my perspective head on. Both of them explained it in ways I couldn't think of. So thanks for that. On the surface my points seemed easy to grasp for me but when comparing all the different examples that everyone has come up with, especially zorro and ACG, it's hard to put it in perspective. I'm not sure that I have anything that I am able to add to the conversation but I will definitely keep listening. This has been a neat study in resource management for this game. Sorry I don't have much else to add.
-
Perhaps a simpler way of looking at it, is say with a 9 channel caster. If on turn one I case 2 mana enhancers, from then on I have 11 per turn generating presuming they stick around. From turn 2 on, I can churn out 11 cost creatures or less without having to save mana for a round. There are a lot of 11 cost war creatures as an example. Of course there would be some rounds where you skip creatures to play other things such as cool armor or enchantments etc, but with 11 channel you have more options to accomplish those decisions.
-
Sure, it is really simple indeed, but you always have to consider the cost, having 10 less mana and 2 less quickcasts on previous turn reduce your options.
-
Sure, it is really simple indeed, but you always have to consider the cost, having 10 less mana and 2 less quickcasts on previous turn reduce your options.
Once again this is in a vacuum, your opponent also should be spending mana and using his two chances to cast a spell. What if one of those is armor and I don't attack him for three more rounds. Is that a waste of mana and a quickcast? Doesn't that take the ROI out on the armor even farther?
-
Casting an armour and not being attacked is a waste of mana and a quickcast, just the same as casting a crystal, and not using the extra mana it gives you each turn (or using it to cast an armour and not being attacked for three rounds).
I think if we teorize we should assume both players using their mana and actions equally efficiently, both the mana provided by the crystal, and the mana saved by not casting it.
-
Casting an armour and not being attacked is a waste of mana and a quickcast, just the same as casting a crystal, and not using the extra mana it gives you each turn (or using it to cast an armour and not being attacked for three rounds).
I think if we teorize we should assume both players using their mana and actions equally efficiently, both the mana provided by the crystal, and the mana saved by not casting it.
I think you got my point there, however the armor is not a waste nor is the quickcast for the armor, if I get attacked in round 2 or round 5 the armor is will pay for itself (ROI) eventually. The real idea here for me, is that Actions for my mage are super precious. I could save mana to cast what I want but that cost is an action, however if I spend two of them up front to increase my channeling I will benefit immediately the next round and every round after and at some point get the mana back I spent on the crystals.
-
I think most respondents to DaFurryFury's argument are focused on the wrong thing. It is not what you could do instead of playing the Mana Crystal but rather what you can do after playing it. It is not whether the Mana Crystal is a better play than some other card, but rather the options it now affords you to respond to your opponents actions as well as the new options it opens for you in subsequent rounds.
I believe we all can agree that everyone has different styles, strategies, tactics, etc depending upon the mage your playing and the degree of experience you have against your opponent (i.e. their style, strategies, tactics, etc). We all value one card over another as it works to achieve these ends.
My interpretation of "action potential" is what I can now do to respond to actions my opponent has taken or not taken while staying focused on my own strategy. I know I cannot anticipate everything my opponent might do anymore than I can expect to do everything I would like to do when I want to do it.
The Mana Crystal gives me two key benefits:
- Long-term channeling growth
- Extra capability to respond to unforeseen actions on the part of my opponent
Am I sacrificing the play of some other spell so I can play the Mana Crystal? Of course I am but that is a decision we make with every spell. My opponent did so too with whatever they chose in the early game. Maybe it was armor that they won't need until round 6 or maybe it was for a wand that I later dissolve before they ever use it; whatever it does not matter, we all make choices.
What I am wanting, is to be in a position as early as possible to respond to my opponent when necessary while keeping my eye on the end game when I can (hopefully) overwhelm them. I want more mana and especially more than my opponent. This may take several rounds but I know the game will last at least that long and I plan my strategy for it.
I assume we will both spend our starting mana quickly on things we want. The subsequent rounds will be all about what we're willing to bank and our channeling. This is where the "action potential" comes into play. As the game unfolds we both will eventually find ourselves in a position where we need to respond to something our opponent has done. If I can channel 11 vs. my opponents 10 then I am in a better position to not only respond but possibly doing so while still moving forward with my own strategy and tactics. If I don't need to respond then I am in a better position to force my opponent to respond to my actions because I am spending more each individual round than they are.
Bottom line is that I see value in the 5-mana "sacrifice" that the Mana Crystal gives me on the rounds immediately after its cast. It is an investment in the near and long-term future that I am after and worth whatever else I might play that needs that 5-mana.
Is this true in all situations? No .
Could my opponent surprise me and attack aggressively at the start? Sure, but I don't think 5-mana will put me at too much risk.
Could I have banked the 5-mana and used that as my "action potential"? Sure, but would I ... probably not (I'd likely spend it on something else).
Could my opponent play something that might prove, in hindsight, to be more valuable than my Mana Crystal? Of course. But will they? We'll never know until we play.
BTW - while I often have this spell in my book I usually don't cast it until rounds 3 or 4. I have more important spells to get out early (e.g. spawnpoints, large creature, or something else that my strategy requires be out early). This also allows me to get a early read on my opponent's likely strategy and know whether it is "safe" to cast the Mana Crystal or if I need that 5-mana for some immediate response. Baring an immediate need then I cast it and continue on with my own game tempo.
-
I think you got my point there, however the armor is not a waste nor is the quickcast for the armor, if I get attacked in round 2 or round 5 the armor is will pay for itself (ROI) eventually. The real idea here for me, is that Actions for my mage are super precious. I could save mana to cast what I want but that cost is an action, however if I spend two of them up front to increase my channeling I will benefit immediately the next round and every round after and at some point get the mana back I spent on the crystals.
I think most respondents to DaFurryFury's argument are focused on the wrong thing. It is not what you could do instead of playing the Mana Crystal but rather what you can do after playing it. It is not whether the Mana Crystal is a better play than some other card, but rather the options it now affords you to respond to your opponents actions as well as the new options it opens for you in subsequent rounds.
I still stand by my proposed test. But I don't think anybody is claiming that Mana Crystal does not give you more options in the long term. The disagreement is how long it takes to pay off. And I have yet to see a convincing argument that this time is less than 5 rounds (and some reason to think that it might be as long as 6 or 7 rounds, though that starts to require comparison of the value of actions vs mana). Put it a slightly different way (I think it has already been put in a similar way):
If you know for certain that the game will end next round, would you cast a mana crystal?
If you know for certain that the game will end in 2 rounds, would you cast a mana crystal?
If you know for certain that the game will end in 3 rounds, would you cast a mana crystal?
If you know for certain that the game will end in 4 rounds, would you cast a mana crystal?
If you know for certain that the game will end in 5 rounds, would you cast a mana crystal?
Maybe this way of framing the discussion question will help. If your answer to any of the above questions is yes, then I claim that I can come up with a better strategy (which involves casting something besides a mana crystal). If you believe that the answer to any of the above 5 questions is yes, please explain exactly why or how, even if it requires hypothesizing a particular scenario (no matter how unlikely that scenario is to occur in a real game). Give an example - proving your point doesn't even require general reasoning (i.e. you don't need to show that a mana crystal always gives an advantage), you just need to show a single instance where the mana crystal will give you an advantage within 5 rounds. Long term advantages of the mana crystal are irrelevant to this discussion. Just imagine a hypothetical scenario - any scenario; you could even posit a round limit enforced by a tournament - where the remaining time is limited to 5 rounds or fewer. What motivation do you have to cast a mana crystal rather than literally anything else?
-
Maximum spending scenario.
Turn 1 - both mages spend all mana leaving supply at 0. Mage A cast a mana crystal while mage B did not cast a mana channeling spell.
Turn 2 - Mage A now has 1 more mana each turn to cast spells.
-
"both mages spend all mana leaving supply at 0" means nothing to me, whatever the spend mana for would have an effect... If you can go with a concrete scenario (telling what mana crystal mage cast turn by turn), we could show that a non mana-crystal mage can do it the same or better, until turn 6.
Such as Mage A turn 1 cast mana crystal and bearskin, has 20 mana turn 2
Mage B cast just bearskin, and has 24 mana turn 2. (which is better than just 20)
We all agree than later than turn 6 having cast a crystal can provide more options. The discussion is about turns 1-6
-
We all agree than later than turn 6 having cast a crystal can provide more options. The discussion is about turns 1-6
Yes, rounds 1-6 but not solely. The value is both. Most argue that the benefit is solely turn 6+ and discount ANY value prior to turn 6.
Just imagine a hypothetical scenario - any scenario; you could even posit a round limit enforced by a tournament - where the remaining time is limited to 5 rounds or fewer. What motivation do you have to cast a mana crystal rather than literally anything else?
NONE - In this very specific example I see no benefit. The value comes when played earlier when the game is still likely to take a while. As stated above, the value this spell brings is primarily 6 rounds out but the debate is whether value can be realized sooner. Personally, I would never cast it unless I expected the game to go at least another 10+ rounds.
I agree that concrete examples would definitely put this discussion to rest. I have been watching this conversation since it began struggling to find a simple viable example. There are none. The secondary benefit is mostly reactionary to the game tempo and there are too many possible scenarios to keep it simple.
--------------------------------------
Maybe another approach to this discussion would be whether anyone saw value is a fictitious Mana Crystal -like conjuration that cost 5 mana, produced no benefit for rounds 1-4 after casting, but then produced +5 mana on 5th round and then +1 channeling for all rounds after that.
If this non-existent conjuration were compared to the actual Mana Crystal then which is better and why?
Maybe that perspective will help illustrate the near-term benefit. I am NOT trying to convince anyone that the Mana Crystal is good or bad but rather trying to contribute as to why there is potential benefit in the first 5 rounds post casting.
-
Maybe another approach to this discussion would be whether anyone saw value is a fictitious Mana Crystal -like conjuration that cost 5 mana, produced no benefit for rounds 1-4 after casting, but then produced +5 mana on 5th round and then +1 channeling for all rounds after that.
If this non-existent conjuration were compared to the actual Mana Crystal then which is better and why?
Maybe that perspective will help illustrate the near-term benefit. I am NOT trying to convince anyone that the Mana Crystal is good or bad but rather trying to contribute as to why there is potential benefit in the first 5 rounds post casting.
First, the normal crystal is better than your made-up crystal because it gives you back some of you investment every turn instead to wait 5 turns.
Second, nobody argue if mana crystal is good or bad. We are arguing about if it give any benefit over not casting it for the first 5 rounds.
Third, imagine a scenario where you know the game end in 5 turns, maximum, guaranteed. Would you cast a Mana Crystal or this conjuration: Cost 5 mana. Once cast, gives you 5 mana and gives you an extra quick action and allow you to fetch a spell in your spellbook for this turn. Which one would you cast? The second one, right? That's exactly the same than not casting a mana crystal.
-
I agree that concrete examples would definitely put this discussion to rest. I have been watching this conversation since it began struggling to find a simple viable example. There are none. The secondary benefit is mostly reactionary to the game tempo and there are too many possible scenarios to keep it simple.
If no scenario exists in which having a mana crystal is better than not having it within 5 turns of casting, how can the crystal be said to provide a benefit during those 5 turns? For an action to provide a benefit, it must be better than doing nothing (the status quo)
In your fictitious conjuration example, Mana Crystal is certainly better than that conjuration, but this does not mean that it is better than doing nothing in the first 5 turns after casting (A>B does not imply A>0). This is why we say that there is no benefit in the first 5 turns; it is not that the crystal does nothing, but rather that the costs of the crystal (-5 mana, -1 action) unequivocally outweigh the benefits (+1 mana per round) until the 6th round. Perhaps it might clear things up if we say that there is no net benefit to mana crystal in the first 5 rounds? Maybe this has been the point of confusion between those who think there is an early payoff and those who do not.
-
I can only think of two benefits. Admittely they are not very strong, nenontheless a potential benefit.
1. The threat that the match will take longer than 5 rounds. This may influence the actions of my opponent.
2. If I want to deny a specific zone in the arena to my opponent as he can no longer play a zone exclusive conjuration in that zone. I am thinking primarily about outposts and maybe spawnpoints, where my opponent prefers to put them in a specific zone.
-
The discussion is about turns 1-6
Yes, rounds 1-6 but not solely.
We are arguing about if it give any benefit over not casting it for the first 5 rounds.
At this point you three all have the same understanding about the benefit of mana crystal, but you are using different words and talking about different perspectives. Scaredy cat is talking about GROSS-benefit, and Zorro and Wildhorn are talking about NET-benefit.
Gross benefit is anything you gain from the card. Everyone agrees that you gain 1 mana on the turn two after you cast Mana Crystal and that is useful and better then nothing.
Net benefit is the gross benefit minus the cost of playing the card. Everyone agrees that on turn 2 you have 4 less mana then you would have if you didn't cast mana crystal. You do not have a positive net benefit until after turn 6.
-
I can't believe this argument is still not settled. :)
Maybe you have to look at it from another perspective.
The mana crystal is like an investment that gives you a small return round after round.
Initially the returns do not make up for the investment but the investment breaks even in round 6 and starts to generate a profit from T7 on.
So, the longer the game goes on, the bigger the profit.
Thus, casting a mana Crystal makes no sense if your game is going to take 6 or less rounds.
-
We know that Borg. The thing is.some people believe the crystal give some hidden benefits prior the 6 turns.
-
I still would cast mana crystal if the game ended in turn 6 because of the reasons that I explained in the video. As long as it has at least paid for itself then it has given me the preferred bonus to me of higher action potential each turn. I Still beleive that because of this bonus that it pays itself off a couple turns before round 6.
-
I still would cast mana crystal if the game ended in turn 6 because of the reasons that I explained in the video. As long as it has at least paid for itself then it has given me the preferred bonus to me of higher action potential each turn. I Still beleive that because of this bonus that it pays itself off a couple turns before round 6.
This is just plain dumb.
-
I still would cast mana crystal if the game ended in turn 6 because of the reasons that I explained in the video. As long as it has at least paid for itself then it has given me the preferred bonus to me of higher action potential each turn. I Still beleive that because of this bonus that it pays itself off a couple turns before round 6.
This is just plain dumb.
Hey now...let's be constructive...
But DaFurryFury, I do think a more detailed explanation is in order. Because as has already been established, whatever strategy you follow with mana crystal, I can at least mimic perfectly without it (and frequently improve upon it by playing key cards earlier). Since the game ends round six, what possible strategy could you have that uses up one of your precious 12 mage actions and spreads the availability of 5 mana out over 5 rounds?
I take it that you accept that playing a crystal in a game of 5 or fewer rounds has no net benefit, (based on your choice of the 6 round example), right?
-
The example of the crystal not paying off is correct as long as you sit there and twiddle your thumbs the entire match.
I totally support the increase action potential the Mana crystals bring.
-
I still would cast mana crystal if the game ended in turn 6 because of the reasons that I explained in the video. As long as it has at least paid for itself then it has given me the preferred bonus to me of higher action potential each turn. I Still beleive that because of this bonus that it pays itself off a couple turns before round 6.
This is just plain dumb.
Hey now...let's be constructive...
But DaFurryFury, I do think a more detailed explanation is in order. Because as has already been established, whatever strategy you follow with mana crystal, I can at least mimic perfectly without it (and frequently improve upon it by playing key cards earlier). Since the game ends round six, what possible strategy could you have that uses up one of your precious 12 mage actions and spreads the availability of 5 mana out over 5 rounds?
I take it that you accept that playing a crystal in a game of 5 or fewer rounds has no net benefit, (based on your choice of the 6 round example), right?
I feel like I have outlined my examples fairly well in my previous posts. I really have no idea how else to explain it and that's a failing of my own. I'm not trying to just take a cop out I literally feel like I've explained every instance where I think it benefits you. However, allow me to correct my last post. In a game lasting only 6 turns, I would not play mana crystal, even if it gave me 2 or 3 extra channeling. A timed game reduces the effect of any time based ability on a card. If I were playing only 6 turns of a game I would spam the hell out of cheap fast creatures and small attack spells. We aren't trying to change the meta game with the 6 turn examples, we are simply trying to determine if mana crystal has benefit before turn 7. My answer is yes, and for my examples, I refer you back to my video and other examples I had shown to ACG. If that isn't enough to convince you of SOME value before turn 7, then I don't know what else to say. Using my equation from the beginning of the conversation, I believe that mana crystal pays off somewhere around turn 4, and that is counting the channeling value as less than half of the value of the base mana gain.
-
All right, well...it doesn't look like an understanding is forthcoming here between the two sides of this debate. As much as I like arguing, and as curious as I am about the short-term benefit claim that several have made (because I still do not understand it), this is pretty much it for me here.
-
All right, well...it doesn't look like an understanding is forthcoming here between the two sides of this debate. As much as I like arguing, and as curious as I am about the short-term benefit claim that several have made (because I still do not understand it), this is pretty much it for me here.
I think you are right. I think the best example I can give is the Forcemaster dwarven leader I talked about before but like you say, it can still be "mimiced." I think there is value in not having to mimic it but maybe it's become more of a matter of personal preference then? If you choose to value the increase in action potential then it works but that's very un-scientific and not very satisfying to people like you and me who like to find an answer. It's just that, even though I believe there is value before 6 turns, it doesn't change the fact that the mana crystal is a long game card and wouldn't be worth playing if the text said it is "limited to 5 turns after summoning" or something like that. I will still be on the lookout for examples that might work ACG (will PM you if I find one). In the meantime, handshake and agree to disagree?
So anyway, hopefully my argument hasn't insulted anybody, I definitely don't mean to do that. So, in case I have, sorry to those who have had a constructive conversation with me and haven't attacked me, my personality, or religion in the process.
-
I will still be on the lookout for examples that might work ACG (will PM you if I find one). In the meantime, handshake and agree to disagree?
So anyway, hopefully my argument hasn't insulted anybody, I definitely don't mean to do that. So, in case I have, sorry to those who have had a constructive conversation with me and haven't attacked me, my personality, or religion in the process.
Sure. And I wouldn't worry about insulting anybody - your tone throughout this thread has been consistently civil.
-
I have to admit I too am surprised this discussion has gone on this long.
To everyone's credit - kudos for your civility and thoughtful inputs.
First, the normal crystal is better than your made-up crystal because it gives you back some of you investment every turn instead to wait 5 turns.
In your fictitious conjuration example, Mana Crystal is certainly better than that conjuration, ....
To Wildhorn and ACG - why did you decide the real Mana Crystal was better than the fictitious Mana Crystal? Why is the round-by-round return better when your argument is no benefit in rounds 2-5?
I know it is a bit rhetorical but I think your answer is exactly why DaFurryFury, myself, and a few others see short term value with this card in addition to its long-term benefit. My fictitious example returns the same value by turn 6 as the Mana Crystal and yet you both suggest it is worse than the real Mana Crystal. Why if it costs the same and provides the exact same return by round 6?
-
To Wildhorn and ACG - why did you decide the real Mana Crystal was better than the fictitious Mana Crystal? Why is the round-by-round return better when your argument is no benefit in rounds 2-5?
Because, all other considerations aside, I would rather have $1 every day of the week (M-F) than $5 on Friday. Resources now are worth more than resources in the future (future value discounting). Similarly, I would rather have $5 now than $1 every day of the week (M-F). The fictitious Mana Crystal is obviously worse because it delays payback. But by the same token, the delayed payback of the normal mana crystal compared to doing nothing makes it obviously worse through the first 5 turns (obvious to me, anyway). The reason that this didn't persuade me as an argument is that the reason that the fictitious mana crystal is worse than the regular mana crystal (delay of mana receipt) is the same reason that the mana crystal is (initially) worse than nothing.
Remember, we weren't claiming that the mana crystal does nothing, just that there is no net benefit. BoomFrog gave a good summary of the difference between gross and net benefit.
-
I'm with ACG: Time value of mana.
-
I feel like I have outlined my examples fairly well in my previous posts. I really have no idea how else to explain it and that's a failing of my own.
Hehem is the same feeling over here. I expect the discussion has been useful anyway.
-
Been following this but hesitant to post simply because of how heated it was getting. My personal philosophy is the Mana crystal is worth it primarily in a select few circumstances.
1. You are facing a mana denial strategy and you are trying to counter being mana locked.
2. You have a late game attrition strategy (ie. turtle) and feel that early game investment is worth it for a late game pay out.
3. Your mage is 1 or 2 mana shy of doing a combo you plan to consistently do every turn for many turns.
I think that outside of those select few exceptions it is better to have the mana for an early game tempo advantage and just use it to cast whatever other spells you had planned. A player who sets up infrastructure is at an inherit disadvantage against a player who rush's simply because of the action advantage the rush build has. That advantage can be overcome but should not be ignored when planning a "late bloomer" spell book.
-
I recently thought of something that might be worth a moment. My original argument places value on the ability to cast 1 mana more per turn without the negative effects discussed. So I'd like to hear your assessment on mana drain. Do you think that it's ability to take away 2 mana per turn without negative effects from the opponent works the same way? I feel like the -2 to opponents channeling thus taking away that much action potential is the real value, even though it takes 6 turns for it to pay itself off in a similar way as mana crystal. It probably best to talk about mana crystal in terms of casting 2 since it's more or less equal to mana drain.
-
I assume you mean [mwcard=MW1J14]Mana Siphon[/mwcard]? Since it has a similar (if in reverse) effect, I'm not sure it adds anything new to the discussion (much like considering the mana flower would add nothing new).
If you want to think about casting 2 mana crystals instead of one, you can, although it will not help your case (since it puts you even further behind in mana and actions). I suggest that you instead focus on trying to explain what you mean in another way, without using the concept of action potential at all. Also/otherwise, as I previously suggested, it would be helpful if you stated what sort of evidence would convince you that your hypothesis is false, as otherwise it is difficult for people to know how to interact with your argument. A hypothesis that cannot be falsified is not a hypothesis - it's faith. Both these approaches would be better than analyzing a card with a similar effect.
Personally (this is not related to your point), I never cast Mana Siphon, because it seems too expensive for what it does - I prefer the cheaper options of [mwcard=MW1E30]Pacify[/mwcard], and/or [mwcard=MW1E15]Essence Drain[/mwcard], which, though situational, can often achieve the same effect for a fraction of the price
-
Okay, I just wanted to see what you thought on that card. I suppose I can try to give you what you're asking for about falsifying my argument. For me to completely flip sides, you would have to prove to me that there is absolutely no value in spending mana for increased or decreased channeling. To do this you would have to prove my assessment of mana sources from the video false, though I think that will be very hard because I just used elements of the game, nothing theoretical or made up. I still think there is value in being able to cast greater spells without the negative effects I discussed for the cost of 5 or 10 early game mana. If this were not true I don't think it would be such a commonly used card. However, you have already succeeded in proving that the value that I was placing on this bonus is not as valuable as the mana gained after turn 6. I have reduced the value of my assessment to this equation: (x-5)+(.5x) Remember that the value of the increased channeling is represented as the ".5" and that is what you would have to prove to me that is equal to zero for me to be completely on your side. This is perhaps a very difficult feat as on any given turn, if I have higher channeling then I have some advantage regardless of the mana available. Since we have to have some way of valuating the amount of turns we have been talking about it in the context from turn 1.
-
What exactly does x represent and how did you derive your equation?
-
Since mana crystals value is based over time, x=number of turns after it was cast. In my very first post I explain the breakdown of the equation being that the first clause or set of parenthesis is the representation of the mana it gives you in total minus what you spent on it, then the second clause is the value of bonus added action potential on a per turn solution. So the total mana it gives you over the course of the game plus the bonus of action potential each turn its on the field gives you it's relative value during that game. When put onto a graph the line this equation gives you shows that mana crystal "pays itself off" around 3 turns after it's cast.
Here's the calculator I used https://www.desmos.com/calculator
Plug in (x-5)+(.5x) and you should be able to see the function that the equation builds. It's a handy visual for me anyway. Also, see my first post on first page for a little more detail on how I built the equation.
-
Sorry, that question was misworded. What does your equation represent? What is (x-5)+(0.5*x) equal to?
Edit: Just reread your statement - it seems that you are saying that this is the "value" of the mana crystal. What is the relationship between the value of the mana crystal and the state of the game? Can you give an example of the value of another card so we can see how you are computing it? For instance, what is the value of Barracks?
-
The end value number is simply an abstract representation of a card. The number exists simply because we want it to. When applying the possible uses of this card, we might compare one card's value index number to another's. So to pick one out of a hat let's use Goblin Grunt.
A grunt cost's 4, has 4 life, and an attack of 3. I have yet to do a full valuation of a creature card so I'm just going to say that each life has 1 value and each attack die has 1 value. In this case that mean that a life or a die is equal to 1 mana in terms of comparing to mana crystal. so grunt's equation might look something like this: (-4)+(4+3y). Y=number of times he has attacked during the game. If we assume that goblin grunt attacks every turn you can translate y to x or turns after it was cast in the same way we did with mana crystal. This is of course excluding the factor of the possibility that it literally can't attack for a certain instance and thus the value over the time of the game would decrease.
But for the sake of experimentation, we can estimate. So let say a game last 8 rounds and the grunt is able to attack on 5 of those rounds.
Mana Crystal (7-5)+(0.5*7) = 5.5
Goblin Grunt (-4)+(4+3y) = 15
In this case the goblin grunt was worth nearly 3 times more than the mana crystal, but that is likely a flawed outcome due to that attack dice are not necesarilly equal to mana or action potential. Could be more, could be less, but it's all theoretical. What my argument says is that the increased action potential that mana crystal gives you increases the game value of itself.
-
Basically, your formula is (T-C)+(A*T)
Where:
T = number of Turns
C = crystal mana Cost
A = totally subjective variable that you call "Action potential".
-
The A is the VALUE of increased action potential. Not action potential itself. There would also be a variable for the value of the mana it gives you back but it's usually 1 so I left it out since 1 times anything itself. So the equation might look like this expanded a little more. (B*T-5)+(A*T)
B=value of mana
A=value of action potential
So theoretically each unit of A or B could be increased or decreased at will to represent various possible valuations of each element that the mana crystal gives you. The hard part here is how we relate A to B. I use the template that mana gained should be directly inverse to mana spent so that makes B equal to 1 just like each mana spent on the card. So then we have to decide at what ratio is the action potential bonus is to the mana. My current model says that action potential is worth half of possible mana usage. So that's why its .5.
-
I think I know what the problem has been in this discussion - we are not talking about the same thing at all.
You have created a model to give you the "value" of a card. The problem is that it is not possible to assign a value to a card, due to the complexity of the resources in the game, and therefore this analysis does not tell us anything useful.
To have a meaningful discussion about payoffs in Mage Wars, we have to stick to things that can be measured. Mana fits this bill perfectly, since it has an explicit value. Life/Damage can likewise be easily analyzed. Actions are trickier to analyze, and attacks even more so, since they sometimes have traits. Traits are impossible to value objectively.
What the no-early-payoff perspective has been arguing is that strictly in terms of mana, the mana crystal pays off by the 5th turn after casting, which is a straightforward calculation (if we neglect future discounting, which complicates matters more than I want to get into). This analysis treats the net mana gain/loss as the value of the crystal. Include actions into the analysis, and it takes at least 6 turns (possibly more) to pay off, but the exact number cannot be given since there is no objective way to translate actions into mana that applies to all situations.
To illustrate a "model" based on this (Warning: this is a thought experiment - I am not proposing this as an objectively true model), consider the following:
1. Since meditation amulet values a full action at 3 mana, and moving is clearly less important than action (not always true, note), let the value of a quick action be ~2 mana.
2. Aside from costing an action and providing mana, the crystal has no other significant benefit, so we may neglect all other properties (we could look at spellpoint cost, but there is no clear way to relate that to mana, so we'll assume that the player has an arbitrarily large spellbook).
Then the (mana) value of a crystal as a function of turns X after casting is
[1 mana per turn]*[X turns]-[5 mana spent]) - [1 quick action = 2 mana] = X-7 mana
Therefore the crystal breaks even (has mana value = 0) only on the 7th turn after casting.
Obviously, there are a number of circumstances that could cause us to value a quick action differently, but the point is that each part of this model is tied to a measurable aspect of the game, even if the valuations are subjective and vary based on situation. Valuing a quick action as 2 mana is not based on a whim - it justifies itself by analogy to the meditation amulet. This model attempts to assign a mana value to the crystal, i.e. the amount of mana that the crystal is worth as a function of time. This is the sort of model that can be profitably discussed.
The reason that we do not accept your model is because "Action potential" does not appear to be tied to a measurable aspect of the game. The (X-5) part of your equation is clearly the mana cost, but we don't see how you get + 0.5*x. How did you you get 0.5, exactly? What is the logic behind valuing action potential at that? And how does action potential relate (in a direct way) to resources in the game?
Your model does not have a clearly articulated justification, and it is not clear what your model is measuring. If it expresses the mana value of the crystal as a function of time, then what justification can you give for 0.5*x? If it is not the estimated mana value of the crystal, then what is it?
It is not possible to give a single number to any spell that represents its entire value. The mana crystal is possibly the simplest card there is, and we still can't give it an objective mana value, let alone an overall value. Others have tried to value cards in the past and have failed - there are just too many variables and too many possible game situations for any analysis to give an objectively true single value. The best we can do is to try to value aspects of spells - in the case of the crystal, we can analyze how long it takes to pay for itself.
-
Objectively a Mana Crystal Effect (channeling +1) breaks even after X turns (X = Mana Cost) because only then you'll get back the mana spent and from then on it's pure gain. That is true, no arguing about it.
However, speaking of efficiency brings concepts that are not being taken into account in the discussion, and that is Plan, Objective and Purpose.
Efficiency means that the Objectives are met using the minimal possible amount of resources and time. The Objective of the game is to defeat the opponent, but there are many different possible Plans to do that. And inside each Plan, each single Card has its own Purpose.
So, if a player's Plan includes Mana Crystal Effect's Cards and has a clear Purpose for them, and the Objective is met, then we can say that the Mana Crystal Effect Card is Effective, if not necessarily Efficient.
In summary, in my opinion, a Card (or effects like it) cannot be evaluated in the void, it has an very complex game around it, and may find a place in the Winning Plan of any player.
What some players will see as a unworthy expenditure, others may see as an rewarding investment.
-
(I want to start my making sure everyone knows that mana carries over from turn to turn. It's not like in MtG, where you lose your mana at the end of the turn. You don't need a 15 channeling to cast a 15 mana creature. All set on the basics? Good.)
--
Ok, if I'm understanding this debate right (I skimmed it, it's long) it comes down to the question "which is more important, total mana or mana/turn?"
Which is a bit like asking, "in a race, which is more important, distance traveled or speed."
So, some people are saying, "Duh, distance. The person who runs further is farther ahead, and winning."
And other people are saying, "No, speed is as important as distance, even before you catch up in distance, it's an advantage to be going faster. The faster player has an advantage, even if they're behind, and even if the race ends before they catch up."
To which I can only say that the Hare had an advantage in speed, but it was the Tortoise's advantage in distance that carried the day.
(Side note: It may be helpful to think of this in terms of calculus (which I studied a long time ago, please forgive any errors). Velocity is the derivative of position, and acceleration is the derivative of velocity. Likewise, channeling is the derivative of total mana, and the number of mana flowers you cast or lose in a turn is the derivative of channeling.)
... But maybe there is some advantage to increased channeling, too? I haven't really thought this one out all the way through, but there's the issue of the step function of mana accumulation. Once you're down to 0 mana (which can happen easily) it is true that 10 or 9 mana a turn can leave you bottlenecked. If you have many ways to spend mana (e.g. familiar, spawnpoint, special abilities, activation, quickcast, revealing enchantments) your mana can quickly become the most scarce resource.
Now, of course, if you didn't cast a mana flower, and instead attacked, you'd have 5 extra mana and wouldn't be as bottlenecked.
And this is where the pro mana flower logic breaks down for me: If I save the mana, instead of spending it on a Flower, the next turn I have far more options available than even +1 channeling would give me. It seems like we've been ignoring the opportunity cost of the mana.
-
And this is where the pro mana flower logic breaks down for me: If I save the mana, instead of spending it on a Flower, the next turn I have far more options available than even +1 channeling would give me. It seems like we've been ignoring the opportunity cost of the mana.
Please watch the video I posted to better understand my points. I know you're new to the conversation but you are regurgitating information that has been said and I have reacted to in detail. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqMV0wBFu54
You have created a model to give you the "value" of a card. The problem is that it is not possible to assign a value to a card, due to the complexity of the resources in the game, and therefore this analysis does not tell us anything useful.
This is incorrect. You can assign a value to anything and, in concept, it's actually pretty easy. By analyzing traits and giving each certain effect value by ratio you can create an index number to represent a card. My analysis does not include every single trait that the mana crystal holds but rather the most important ones. This does not give the most accurate index number but it's good enough for the relationships we are trying to draw between cards, because the only application of the index numbers we can create is only relevant in comparison to each other. To say that it is impossible to create index values of a card is to say that you cannot compare goblin grunt to adramelach and definitively determine which is more useful. You are correct in saying that there are a ton of elements to consider when doing this but just because the solution isn't simple, doesn't mean it's impossible. I also find it curious that you deny the existence of such a process then immediately attempt to due one with your meditation amulet example. (Which is interesting by the way, I like it. So much that I may include it by concept in my own valuation to make it more accurate. However I'm not sure I totally agree with your valuation of a quick action. Actions are often in flux because one possible and often feasible action is to do no action at all. But I digress.)
Now to answer the action potential question. Action potential IS measurable, it is what a card has the ability to do, more or less. Now this is a complex concept as it is "potential" meaning it has not done what it has the ability to do. Mana crystal, rather than increasing it's own action potential, increases your mage's action potential, and that is where I'm getting the .5 by physical account. It increases the amount of stuff the mage can do on a per turn basis. The fact that .5 is the number .5 is because I believe that, by ratio, the increase in action potential is worth half of that of each mana it gives you back. So basically, the card's index value increases by 1.5 each turn after it is cast until the end of the game which is the only point in time which you can fully and accurately asses the index value of the card. That is why we must use variables in it's value assessment equation.
So perhaps you are correct in saying my valuation is not complete objective, but it's also not objective from the stand point of each mage as well. Especially until we include a clause concerning spell points and those heavy on zone-exclusives.
So in conclusion, no, my valuation is not simple and is far from totally complete, but that doesn't mean that it is irrelevant. Isn't that what progress is anyway? Finding something that works until we prove it wrong and then we refine it further so it works again.
-
You should probably read that one article on resources. Can't remember what it's called. What it basically said was that there's an order in which starting resources like mana/channeling get converted into final resources (damage/life).
In fact, I suspect the entire game state at any one point in time can be described as follows:
(Spellbook points+positions/ranges+stats+traits+usable abilities-discounts +or- initiative)friendly
–(Spellbook points+positions/ranges+stats+traits+usable abilities-discounts +or- initiative)enemy
Where "discounts" refers to any resource discounted, not just mana. Using this definition, casting the spell rouse the beast would be converting mana into an action discount.
Also removing cards from your spell book is treated the same as subtracting spell book points.
All this said, some of these variables are really just sets of variables that have been grouped together for the sake of being concise. It's not impossible to calculate the value function of a spell. But by the time you've calculated it, it will probably have already changed. Unless you have a really good computer and no life.
-
If you can link me to that I would be interested in taking a look. Sounds interesting. One of my favorite studies of mage wars theory is the study in GO. Worth a look and if you are familiar with the game of Go it makes mage wars seem so simple. http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=11042.0
Also, I don't think a valuation of the entire game in necessary to calculate a value index of a single card. They have to be able to be separate entities to be able to be compared I think. The game state valuation is interesting, it probably is usable for discussing combos of cards and increased and decreased effectiveness of such based off of game position, mage, and various other elements. I.E: The mana crystal player may be at more of a disadvantage if the opponent plays several ranged creatures and spells to quickly destroy the mana crystal.
-
Also, I don't think a valuation of the entire game in necessary to calculate a value index of a single card.
IMO it's not possible to calculate a single value for each card as each card's value changes all the time.
The Value of Vampirism changes greatly depending on :
1- How many attack dice do you roll
2- How much life has the target left
3- is the opposing creature living or non living etc ...
A Spell like Force Hammer has a different value depending on whether the target is a conjuration or not ...
-
Now to answer the action potential question. Action potential IS measurable, it is what a card has the ability to do, more or less. Now this is a complex concept as it is "potential" meaning it has not done what it has the ability to do. Mana crystal, rather than increasing it's own action potential, increases your mage's action potential, and that is where I'm getting the .5 by physical account. It increases the amount of stuff the mage can do on a per turn basis. The fact that .5 is the number .5 is because I believe that, by ratio, the increase in action potential is worth half of that of each mana it gives you back. So basically, the card's index value increases by 1.5 each turn after it is cast until the end of the game which is the only point in time which you can fully and accurately asses the index value of the card. That is why we must use variables in it's value assessment equation.
The point of my example was to illustrate what I mean by justification and measurement. When you make a model, you need to justify where each number comes from. It is obvious where x-5 comes from, but it is not clear where 0.5*x comes from. How did you arrive at the conclusion that action potential is worth 0.5 per turn? ("I believe it is" or "it feels right" is not justification) You say that it is measurable, but "stuff that a card has the ability to do" is not quantifiable. To explain how you arrived at 0.5, you need to be specific about what contributes to this and why. In my example, I showed one attempt to give a mana value to a quick action by analogy to the mana value of a full action suggested by the meditation amulet. Regardless of whether it is true, this is a justification, and the formula contains only measurable quantities (amount of mana and number of quick actions).
It is impossible to measure action potential, because it is not a resource in the game. Actions are resources. Mana is resources. Each spell card is a resource. Each attack that a creature has is a resource. Mage Wars does not have anything called Action Potential, which means it is a derived quantity. But you haven't given us a way to derive it, so it is of little use in analysis.
And when we talk about value, we absolutely need to specify what type. You can only value something in terms of other things - a carton of eggs is worth $3, or a pound of acorns, or a gallon of water, but not "4". I have been analyzing the mana crystal by putting a mana value on it ("mana value"). Putting an abstracted index as a value makes it impossible to analyze something because it is unclear what the number means.
As others have stated, value fluctuates constantly in mage wars, so the payoff time may vary. But I have yet to see an example of a situation where the crystal pays off in fewer than 5 rounds.
-
This is incorrect. You can assign a value to anything and, in concept, it's actually pretty easy. By analyzing traits and giving each certain effect value by ratio you can create an index number to represent a card.
I really admire your patient in this topic DaFurry! All the credits to you for that! :)
About a year ago I made a creature evaluation that were supposed to end up with an equation where you could calculate the mana efficiency of each one. It included all aspect of a creature (health, armor, attacks, traits, etc) with a mathematical method that didn't use any arbitrary assessments at all. I still think I got quite close and I'm still thinking about how to improve it. However it encountered a lot of resistance just like this topic has done. The main reasons it failed was two:
- People didn't agree with the model (specially the trait evaluation)
- People didn't understand the how the model worked and how to read the results.
The topic kind of ended with a loose end since it was hard to get buy in, very much like this one. You can read about it hear if you like:
http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=13360.0 (http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=13360.0)
Now when I read this thread my suggestion to you is to try and make a model were you don't select any value by yourself. Let the model calculate them / assign then for you. The value of your coefficient "A" (action potential) must be proven somehow. Not just set to number. That will give you buy in I think.
-
Also, I don't think a valuation of the entire game in necessary to calculate a value index of a single card.
IMO it's not possible to calculate a single value for each card as each card's value changes all the time.
The Value of Vampirism changes greatly depending on :
1- How many attack dice do you roll
2- How much life has the target left
3- is the opposing creature living or non living etc ...
A Spell like Force Hammer has a different value depending on whether the target is a conjuration or not ...
Not sure I agree 100% here. To me the only value a card can have is in terms of mana. AW has release Vampirism as a enchantment and had set a fixed value to the trait. So in this aspect the trait value is quite clear. And that goes for many other trait as well.
With that said, the effect of Vampirism will be very different depending on the current play state (not to be confused with value of the trait/card)
-
Also, I don't think a valuation of the entire game in necessary to calculate a value index of a single card.
IMO it's not possible to calculate a single value for each card as each card's value changes all the time.
The Value of Vampirism changes greatly depending on :
1- How many attack dice do you roll
2- How much life has the target left
3- is the opposing creature living or non living etc ...
A Spell like Force Hammer has a different value depending on whether the target is a conjuration or not ...
Not sure I agree 100% here. To me the only value a card can have is in terms of mana. AW has release Vampirism as a enchantment and had set a fixed value to the trait. So in this aspect the trait value is quite clear. And that goes for many other trait as well.
With that said, the effect of Vampirism will be very different depending on the current play state (not to be confused with value of the trait/card)
The value of a card just equals its mana cost? That is just not true. This is not fullmetal alchemist. There's no rule of equivalent exchange where the output resources (the stuff that gives it value) must always be equal to the input resources (actions/mana).
Case in point, meditation amulet costs 4 mana and a quick action to cast. After that each round you can choose to use a full action (the equivalent of two quick actions) to gain three mana. In terms of mana alone, it breaks even after only two uses. If you were only measuring it by mana, it would get more valuable over time. However, no matter how many times you use it, meditation amulet actually never breaks even in terms of actions and mana combined. It is a net loss of actions/mana over uses:
-4 mana-1 quick action
+3 mana-1 full aciton (~2 quick action)
=~(-1 mana-3 quick action)
+3 mana-1 full aciton (~2 quick action)
=~(2 mana -5 quick action)
+3 mana-1 full aciton (~2 quick action)
=5 mana -7quick action
So meditation amulet's total output never exceeds the total initial investment. You're losing actions faster than you're gaining mana. That's why meditation amulet is a lot more useful in builds with lots of creatures as opposed to solo builds. A net loss of your mage's action is less detrimental when you have multiple other creatures that can take actions (more than your opponent).
Does leather boots (cost 2 mana) have the same value as crown of protection (cost 2 mana)? It still varies, of course, but if you're a priestess, that uses creatures other than herself that don't already have more than 3 or 4 innate armor, then it very often does not have the same value. Crown of protection can increase armor by more than 1 over time, but only on non-mage creatures (whose survival often isn't as important as the mage's). Leather boots can increase armor by only 1, but can be used on the mage, and cannot be used on any non-mage creatures. Also, when do these two spells break even?
They both cost 2 mana and a quick action to cast. Then crown of protection costs 2 more mana and a quick action for each armor given. If we were talking purely in terms of total armor gained, crown of protection generally wins. If we're talking in terms of total net resources gained or lost, leather boots wins:
Leather Boots Crown of protection
-2 mana -1 quick action -2 mana-1 quick action
+1 armor +0 armor
-2 mana-1 quick action + 1 armor
=-4 mana -2 quick action+1 armor
-2 mana-1 quick action +1 armor
= -2 mana-1 quick action =-6 mana -3 quick action +2 armor
+1 armor
+1 armor
No, the value of a spell does not just equal it's mana cost. TBH I think a card's spellbook point cost is probably a MUCH closer approximation of that.
-
I would say that Meditation Amulet never breaks even if you do not have another source of spell actions such as a Spawnpoint or Familiar because in that case actions are extremely valuable to you, whereas if you have a Spawnpoint, it may be worthwhile because mana can be more valuable than the full actions you are giving up.
To be fair, Crown of Protection costs 1 to cast, then 2 to activate.
-
I don't think there is a way to exactly determine the efficiency of a mana crystal. Generalising you could state the obvious: If your mage wants to play long games, because of many different reasons (you have much more spells in your book, you have equipment that can bind spells, you need to build up a mana base before starting to summon creatures, …) you probably cast mana crystals in the beginning. Thus because you think, they are going to pay off.
If you play a beatdown/rush deck and you want to pressure your opponent as fast as possible, you probably will not “waste” a qc nor the mana for a crystal.
-
The value of a card just equals its mana cost? That is just not true. This is not fullmetal alchemist. There's no rule of equivalent exchange where the output resources (the stuff that gives it value) must always be equal to the input resources (actions/mana).
You have a point in that the action to cast the spell also contributes to its value. However most spells types have only quick cast or full cast within its type. So when comparing, let's say two enchantments they all zero our in delta in this aspect since they all are quick spelld. The hard part is to compare quick spell creatures or lightning bolt vs thunder bolt.
Maybe I should emphasize that I really see value of a card and it effect as two different things.
Value to me is the cost (mana and action) to play the card / spell.
Effect is how the played card / spell effects the game play.
So again. Two cards with the same value might have different effects (output / effect on the game) , and they might differ a lot! No matter what, when AW have determined a value of a card it will be set and it's effect will be benchmarked towards other cards with the same value. Some cards will be used more then others because their effect will influence the game play enough to justify their value.
-
The value of a card just equals its mana cost? That is just not true. This is not fullmetal alchemist. There's no rule of equivalent exchange where the output resources (the stuff that gives it value) must always be equal to the input resources (actions/mana).
You have a point in that the action to cast the spell also contributes to its value. However most spells types have only quick cast or full cast within its type. So when comparing, let's say two enchantments they all zero our in delta in this aspect since they all are quick spelld. The hard part is to compare quick spell creatures or lightning bolt vs thunder bolt.
Maybe I should emphasize that I really see value of a card and it effect as two different things.
Value to me is the cost (mana and action) to play the card / spell.
Effect is how the played card / spell effects the game play.
So again. Two cards with the same value might have different effects (output / effect on the game) , and they might differ a lot! No matter what, when AW have determined a value of a card it will be set and it's effect will be benchmarked towards other cards with the same value. Some cards will be used more then others because their effect will influence the game play enough to justify their value.
Why didn't you just say "cost" then? Using the word "value" like that makes it sound like you value a card more because it costs you more, rather than because it helps you more in the game.
And the ratio between cost and benefit of a card isn't always the same for every card, since the benefit of each card changes with the metagame, matchups and luck, even though the cost usually doesn't, so it can be difficult to perfectly predict exactly how much a card should ideally cost.
-
As sIKE suggested earlier, I think the mana conjurations have value in that they can allow you to cast things you know you need while still having enough mana to be prepared for whatever else you might need later on. For example, if you're going first and you're unsure what your opponent will do, and therefore unsure what you should play, something that gives you more mana is probably the safest play you can make, assuming you cast the next category...
Creatures. You can always use more dice as rolling dice is pretty much the only way to win, and creatures are the most flexible way to get extra dice. Creatures (sometimes other card types) with no specific abilities beyond providing dice, fat (hp/armor), and the ability to guard things, all at an efficient cost, are what I've come to call "generically good" or "vanilla." These kind of creatures are spread across level and school, and I believe a mage's ease of access to these vanilla creatures is something that really contributes to the strength of that mage, because they're almost always a good play that helps you win, assuming you play them at the appropriate stage of the game (early, middle, late). Here's a list of some by level:
Level 1 - grunts, foxes, falcons, skeletal minions, firebrand imp
Level 2 - timber wolves, butchers, slingers, gremlins, sentries, alchemists
Level 3 - the holy and dark knights/archers, bridge troll
Level 4 - grizzly
After level 4, I would say it gets less clear on which creatures are generically good to cast, but from level 5 onward, creatures either start flying, gaining enormous amounts of health, and/or ridiculous abilities like Unstoppable.
After Acid Ball came out, I think this is why spawnpoints became good; they're basically engines that make dice, and given that more dice help you win, spawnpoints reliably contribute to wins. Battleforge works in a similar, if more restrictive way.
Of course, there are cards that are not creatures that also help; Bear Strength, Rhino Hide, Regrowth, Agony, Divine Protection, various dice/armor boosting equipment, etc. They all modify dice in some way and that's why they're staples; things that modify your ability to achieve your win-con and deny your opponent's ability to achieve their win-con are strictly good in any deck. Though, you'll want to make sure you have enough offense; committing too much to defense won't actually help you destroy your opponent's mage.
Basically, I see mana flowers and crystals as a way of putting you in a position to keep spending mana on more powerful "generically good" creatures (and buffs) without being mana starved later on. The class rings should come first, however.