On mana crystal effects and efficiency

[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 (
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?

[DaFurryFury]

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.

[ACG]

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.

[sdougla2]

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.

[zorro]

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)

[Wildhorn]

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...

[jacksmack]

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?

[DaFurryFury]

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.

[wtcannonjr]

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.

[sIKE]

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. 

[DaFurryFury]

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.

[zot]

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.

[zorro]

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.

[sIKE]

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? 

[zorro]

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.