On mana crystal effects and efficiency

[V10lentray]

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.

[DaFurryFury]

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.

[ACG]

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.

[DaFurryFury]

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.

[ACG]

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.

[ScaredyCat]

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?

[ACG]

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.

[sdougla2]

I'm with ACG: Time value of mana.

[zorro]

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.

[Maverick]

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.

[DaFurryFury]

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.

[ACG]

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

[DaFurryFury]

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.

[ACG]

What exactly does x represent and how did you derive your equation?

[DaFurryFury]

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.