Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 30

Thread: Something that's been bugging me for a while: costs of Eye of Creation and friends

  1. #11
    It seems like a strange choice to me. As far as I understand, "3+X" would be unambiguous to everyone. Is this notation being avoided simply because it isn't standard? This seems silly...

  2. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Commoble View Post
    Image is large, couldn't find a small one.


    That 3X cost means 3+X, right? Shouldn't that say 3+X so it doesn't confuse people who took middle school algebra and assume it means 3*X?
    It's on their radar. Ben, Chris, and I talked about this months ago when I first found out about the nerf to Eye of Creation. I mistakenly read it as "3 times X" rather than "3 plus X". I'm guessing they just haven't decided on a new format.
    Hex: Shards of Fate KS || Producer

    "The Magi of the Carloth highlands are renowned for their enthusiasm and generosity."
    "Speed is far more important than size when determining the power of a strike."
    "One needs no armor if both your mind and your fist are faster than your enemy's."

  3. #13
    My proposal would be to classify any card with cost X as a Ramp card then classify the Ramp effect as "Ramp : Pay X to boost the power of this action. Must pay at least 1"

  4. #14
    That bad in 2 ways. 1) Currently you can pay zero if you want to (say you want to remove a card from your hand to avoid a "take 1 damage for each card in your hand" effect), and 2) that's an additional cost, which wouldn't be counted in the casting cost, which affects things like Jadiim and any cost-based counterspells.
    --ossuary

    "Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none."
    - Shakespeare, All's Well That Ends Well

  5. #15
    This thread brings up a good overall point. On cards like Burn to the ground and Life siphon the cost portion just seems... weird. Its emphasiszed on eye of creation since its 3X.

    I think the real problem is graphically the way cost is shown might need some touch-ups.

  6. #16
    Master Theorycrafter
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Posts
    567
    maybe the simplest way would be to bring the algebra into the ability where the card costs X and the ability is x-y so for eye of creation the ability would be x-3 and for burn to the ground the ability would be x-1.
    Hi, my name is Malicus and my will to resist Hex is weak.

  7. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Malicus View Post
    maybe the simplest way would be to bring the algebra into the ability where the card costs X and the ability is x-y so for eye of creation the ability would be x-3 and for burn to the ground the ability would be x-1.
    I don't know if my math is right here (been a while since I studied algebra) but wouldn't that make the cards free to cast if you didn't want to pay anything to X? Because I already saw a skarn deck abusing X cost cards because they are so cheap (burn to the ground etc)

    Also, it would nullify any positives to cost reduction (shrine of prosperity etc.) Seens very counter intuitive in specific situations.
    Xenavire, proud guild leader for The Lions Share.
    http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/n...erlinsmall.png

  8. #18
    If the cost was simple XX would the card be better?

    You could try to cast it for something earlier in the game and later in the game it is more of a finisher.

    So for 2 u get 1 card, but if u manipulate your deck perhaps that's a good thing.

    3+X feels too strong later game. With 10 mana you are flipping 7 cards off your deck... but for XX its just 5 cards, seems fairer, especially in draft

    Was a XX cost considered?

  9. #19
    Master Theorycrafter
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    790
    Quote Originally Posted by ossuary View Post
    That bad in 2 ways. 1) Currently you can pay zero if you want to (say you want to remove a card from your hand to avoid a "take 1 damage for each card in your hand" effect), and 2) that's an additional cost, which wouldn't be counted in the casting cost, which affects things like Jadiim and any cost-based counterspells.
    Why is that bad? It makes the card a very tiny amount worse but why is that bad? I's already a very powerful card. To me it would be a good trade off for clarity.

  10. #20
    Master Theorycrafter
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    790
    Quote Originally Posted by Soldack View Post
    If the cost was simple XX would the card be better?

    You could try to cast it for something earlier in the game and later in the game it is more of a finisher.

    So for 2 u get 1 card, but if u manipulate your deck perhaps that's a good thing.

    3+X feels too strong later game. With 10 mana you are flipping 7 cards off your deck... but for XX its just 5 cards, seems fairer, especially in draft

    Was a XX cost considered?
    "XX" still presents a clarity problem. Does that mean X * X? We shouldn't assume all our players played MtG.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •