On mana crystal effects and efficiency

[Wildhorn]

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.

[sIKE]

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.

[Gregstrom]

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".

[Wildhorn]

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(+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.

[DaFurryFury]

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.

[DaFurryFury]

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.

[Wildhorn]

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.

[DaFurryFury]

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.

[Wildhorn]

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.

[DaFurryFury]

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.

[Wildhorn]

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.

[DaFurryFury]

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.

[DaFurryFury]

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.

[ScaredyCat]

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. 

[DaFurryFury]

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.