On mana crystal effects and efficiency

[sdougla2]

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.

[Wildhorn]

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.

[DaFurryFury]

@ 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.

[ACG]

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.

[DaFurryFury]

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.

[wtcannonjr]

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.

[DaFurryFury]

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.

[zorro]

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 

[DaFurryFury]

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 

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.

[Gregstrom]

I'd like to see a breakdown on Option Theory, because I know nothing about it and it sounds interesting.

[DaFurryFury]

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.

[V10lentray]

Socialism Woo!! haha!!!

[ScaredyCat]

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.

[DaFurryFury]

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? =)

[sdougla2]

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.