[Suggest] Generic Monster Destruction [Finished]

vote: boost alien lawyers vote revoke

Re: what andriex said.

Crush, ED2:
boost: NOLDER, Sol, Louda, Aldger, Aperson, Serith, Ultros, Pow, Dark
Fine: masa, Nacho, Bubbles, Chris, Cor

AL:
boost: NOLDER, Louda, Aldger, Aperson, Serith, Pow
Fine: masa, Nacho, Bubbles, Chris, Cor

Crush/ED2 haven't had a vote in 2 days, but AL had a vote revoked yesterday (that counts as a vote for timing purposes, right?).

It counts, yeah.

With a tally of 9 to 5, the Crush/ED2 boosts fail

AL:
boost: NOLDER, Louda, Aldger, Aperson, Serith, Pow
Fine: masa, Nacho, Bubbles, Chris, Cor

Having one card be 'decided' part-way through a thread sort of defeats the point of having multiple cards balanced in a single thread (unless during the thread it's identified that they ought not have been balanced together).

i don't know what kind of math you are using but by my count it passes

(03-20-2009 05:20 AM)REGIGIGAS Wrote:  i don't know what kind of math you are using but by my count it passes

He's probably using my kind of math, where 9/14 < 2/3.

I'll offer than deciding half a thread when the cards are directly connected is kinda dumb. Also, that I was under the impression that they'd be ending together (though that was a questionable assumption on my part.)

As such, regardless of whether it matters or not, I'll Vote: Boost Crush/End Disk 2 since that balance is closer to passing and, as per my rather lengthy earlier post, there is an intended differential between grey and dark destruction that does not exist.

I was thinking about this the other day.

: Cannabalize, Crush, Empty Void, End Disk Two, Fleshbomb, Punishment
: Heroic Strike, Weak Pt, Might Makes Wrong
: Alien Lawyers, Fire The Main Cannon!, VOIP!

Light is worse at destruction? Well it has no straight destruction, so it's hard to tell.
Its specialisation seems to be in "destruction with limitations", looking at HS (hero), Weak Pt (dark/unique), MMW (atk>life).

Dark is better at destruction? Well if one speed rank conts.
But the specialisation seems to be in "destruction plus a bit", looking at Canna (+life), Fleshbomb (+damage), Punishment (+discard). Even EV, while it has a limitation (+cheap obliteration).

Grey is... just average at destruction. No specialisation, it just has straight destruction, but extends that straight destruction from monster to entity as well.

I'm not sure that, given the differences between the focus of the destruction among the colours, that any large immediately comparable differences such as cost differences are needed.

Plus, webrunner hasn't actually said how much of a difference there should be. Being uncounterable on your own turn by Arm Breaker/Dissipate isn't a huge difference, but it is a difference.

Also, going the other way, webrunner has said that Light should be worse than Dark and Grey at effect destruction, but does it need to be as bad as it is? Could Shooting Star stand to be 6/, or 5/, for example? It'd still be noticeably worse, just not by as large a margin as it currently is. Might be worth asking that...

As far as shooting star goes, a thread can be made again (as it's been 2 weeks or whatever it's supposed to be) since the last balance.

One thing that's been mentoned in favour of not boosting any of them is that Alien Lawyers saw play prior to Reclamation and Dissolving Acid being released. Okay, but that's a grey card, and grey can get mana more easily. I don't think Crush would have been as playable as Lawyers if it had been out at that time; one speed rand of difference wouldn't have been enough to make it a stronger card, which is what we should be aiming for in more firmly establishing colour identities.

I still don't know where light is supposed to be in the better/worse/maybe just different comparison to dark/grey. I didn't ask.

---

As for the "how much of a difference" and "is light too bad" stuff: I know when asked about light destruction (during all those Shooting Star threads) he just said that the difference was intentional. Personally, I've always read that as "the way things are is intended" which is why I suggested the cost increase/decrease: it's a good mirror. I'll ask him later tonight about that lesser/larger difference stuff (since it'd be nice to have a better shooting star, at the very least.)

And just so it's not left unsaid: no matter what goes on, 'one speed rank' will need to be changed regardless. It's just a matter of how much.

---

On Ultros' Alien Lawyers comments: I've always felt (just from my own experiences) that the card had the issue of being the best option and thus got play. Mono destruction was needed, even more so before the current popularity of multicolor play, and there was no better card. Being played in that instance doesn't mean it was good, just that it was available.
Of course, the converse can be suggested: if it was played then it obviously wasn't unplayable, as no one would play a 13 g straight destruction spell. Beyond that, there were certainly debates about all the destruction being overcosted way back then, so there's really no clear cut answer. And yeah, this was more me blathering on than talking about what ultros was discussing, but the idea of "it was good then so it's good now" comes up often enough that I wanted to take this oppertunity to air my views on it.

9/14 is only less than 2/3 if you don't round i suppose

this should probably be mentioned in the rules

either way

shouldn't they all be tallied at the same time anyway?

They should, and they will be; Nacho was in error.

I don't understand your issue with the math; if you don't round to what?

according to google calculator 2/3's of 14 is 9.333333

if you do not round down to 9 than nacho/masa are correct
9.3333333 people did not vote for boost
only 9 did

but if you round down to 9 like you're supposed to then we in fact had a 2/3 majority and the boost passes (or will pass? have we decided if these cards should be finished at the same time or no?)

Where does it say you're 'supposed to' round down to 9?

that's how you round isn't it?
that's how i was taught anyway
if there's a different way of rounding that i was not made aware of i blame my education system

anyway if a number is .5 or higher you round up and if it's less than .5 you round down

that's generally how rounding works right?

Yeah, but why are you rounding at all?

9.33333 is, in fact, greater than 9. We're talking about CMC, we're not actually playing it.

Myself, I just look at whether the "for" votes are at least double the "against" votes. In this case, 9 is not twice of 5 and thus isn't enough (at least not until Andriex voted).

Yeah, that's how I do it.

And also, dark has plenty of mana accel options, just they're usually one off or limited (sac, site, furnace, cultist, etc) instead of faster over a period of time.