GameWhale needs to be Harpooned

But the chance element probabilistically evens itself out with multiple Gamewhales. If I have five GWs on the table, I am very likely to produce somewhere around 9 per turn. Granted, I could only produce 1, but I'm just as likely to produce 16.

webrunner Wrote:One can look at it in terms of chance + and chance - cancelling out, but it doesn't work like that. Chance at -all- is a drawback since it lowers the card's dependibility.
If you take any card, and then add equal + and - chances to it, it is weaker than it is before. How much weaker is up for debate.

Obviously we disagree on the general nature of random cards--you apparently feel they are awesome, while I consider them more of a blight upon the land that should be confined to vouchers.

That's a personal preference though. As a pure balance issue, I hope we can agree that an average increase of *50%* over standard mana generation is too much.

Edit:
Bonus math section:
I ran a few simulations. The probability of getting less than 10 mana in 10 GameWhale activations is somewhere in the neighborhood of 6%. The probability of getting less than 5 mana in 5 activations is about 12%. Doesn't seem that horribly risky really. Even in one activation the odds of getting screwed are only 25%.

webrunner Wrote:One can look at it in terms of chance + and chance - cancelling out, but it doesn't work like that. Chance at -all- is a drawback since it lowers the card's dependibility.
If you take any card, and then add equal + and - chances to it, it is weaker than it is before. How much weaker is up for debate.

Sometimes, you don't need dependability for a card, if, and only IF you can play well with all possible options.

Example: I play a gamewhale on turn one.

Meanwhile, I have two other gamewhales on hand to play if it generates 0 or 1, one bakuga generator to play if it generates 2, and the possibility to play the generator and one gamewhale if it generates three.

Of course, this is the ideal setup, but I've constructed decks that worked that way...with the 0-2 gamewhale. I tended to use bakuga generator for added, constant, and rather reliable mana which was needed for elementalist or vch neon.

Bah, it's been over a year since I’ve commented in the balance forum, but I was wondering: What about a 1/3rd chance of a maintenance? If there is a 25% chance it produces -more- mana then even a fountains, then perhaps there should be a chance it also takes a maintenance. This would also demote the idea of playing a field full of them at a time.

MooNFisH Wrote:Toss a Vase averages at the same value as Touch of Knowledge, and has all other aspects identical. It sees lots of play.

But ToK and Toss a Vase are not that common cards. When you run out of one, you substitute in the other. Charms and the like are very common and even when you do run out, Gamewhales are somewhat high up the rarity chart too.


Just a side note: My "end turn, 50% chance to lose " would give the Game Whale a small advantage over the charm. Since negative mana is disallowed, If you use all your mana you escape the loss letting you benefit from the +50% over charm. Of course, Gamewhale has the slight benefit of always having the 2 gain when destroyed. (Maybe up that to 3 for a 50% bucket?)

33% seems a little harsh, since that drops the average mana generation to .5

I like the lose when generating 3 though.

I do realize that randomness is a drawback, which is why Toss a Vase is worse than ToK, and why Foom does, on average, slightly more damage than Firebolt.  That said, GameWhale already had a (very slight) advantage over Neutral Charm even at 0-2: the 50% chance of bonus mana upon destruction triggers even if it's destroyed by effect D (or a FoH or something).  Making it 0-3 generation is way too much unless maybe you strip out all its sac value.

I'm kind of puzzled as to why people want to tack on all sorts of Rube Goldberg balancing mechanics, though, instead of just reverting to 0-2.

Tamdrik Wrote:I'm kind of puzzled as to why people want to tack on all sorts of Rube Goldberg balancing mechanics, though, instead of just reverting to 0-2.

Because then it could be nerfed quickly! My PADC Dragon deck works much better when I have an unfairly large mana generation! :)

Randomness in this case is not nearly a sufficient drawback. Something that will, either in multiples or over time be FAR better than a charm (already the best generator), is broken, period.

Hell, I don't mind if turn 2 I get to only drop 1 gen instead of 2. But the positive scenario (+3 generated, +3 on sacrifice) leaves you with 7G(!) on turn 2. Golem, bucket, bucket, good game.

To settle the argument, someone build the classic golem rush, make the mana base Whale-heavy and see whether it pwns 50% more than the regular. I'm almost certain it will.

Space_Burger Wrote:Randomness in this case is not nearly a sufficient drawback. Something that will, either in multiples or over time be FAR better than a charm (already the best generator), is broken, period.

Hell, I don't mind if turn 2 I get to only drop 1 gen instead of 2. But the positive scenario (+3 generated, +3 on sacrifice) leaves you with 7G(!) on turn 2. Golem, bucket, bucket, good game.

To settle the argument, someone build the classic golem rush, make the mana base Whale-heavy and see whether it pwns 50% more than the regular. I'm almost certain it will.

I already had a deck like this, only not using golems. I had four generators out on turn two, and on turn three I was able to play Shadey prime. I took it apart because people complained about it.

Space_Burger Wrote:Randomness in this case is not nearly a sufficient drawback. Something that will, either in multiples or over time be FAR better than a charm (already the best generator), is broken, period.

Hell, I don't mind if turn 2 I get to only drop 1 gen instead of 2. But the positive scenario (+3 generated, +3 on sacrifice) leaves you with 7G(!) on turn 2. Golem, bucket, bucket, good game.

To settle the argument, someone build the classic golem rush, make the mana base Whale-heavy and see whether it pwns 50% more than the regular. I'm almost certain it will.

Good Idea, on it now

What if it were to produce -1, 1, 2, or 3 mana? That would reduce it's average to 1.25, only 25% better than normal generators. True the odds say that it will be better most of the time, but then again, having it take away mana could really screw you over too. Not sure if that's enough degradation, but it's a new idea at least =P

I think negative mana was removed when MP damage came out.

no, it was way back on feedbacking yourself.

-15

I think you might be wrong, as I remember hitting people into the negatives when I ran a MP damage deck during the WotW beta.

Sorry Vincent it's not entirely new:

Domino Wrote:Bah, it's been over a year since I’ve commented in the balance forum, but I was wondering: What about a 1/3rd chance of a maintenance? If there is a 25% chance it produces -more- mana then even a fountains, then perhaps there should be a chance it also takes a maintenance. This would also demote the idea of playing a field full of them at a time.

BlackFox Wrote:If you want to add even more randomness and code, make him prankster tanuki like with a 50% chance to lose at end of turn. (which would place his average generation back with the charm)

The most prominent complaint, I believe, is that the current incarnation of Game Whale has too much potencial for early and late game mana generation. As such, a possible loss on mana would seem ideal to solve both problems. However, what seems to be more popular is a simple (or not so simple) nerf to the mana generation, such as 0-2 + 50% chance of an extra .
We keep throwing ideas out without focusing on 1; which actually is how these balance discusions are suppose to work, except people lost interest before we got out of the idea phase and into the voting phase.

So if people are still reading this, care to try and form a consensus on 1 of these ideas? My vote, as described, will be for a chance to lose mana. I'm not specifing which method listed to use, just that it's a good idea for a nerf. Going for direction rather than a fixed idea.

Edit (I typed this up at 11:00 and then posted it at 12 >_>): I used MP Damage to knock myself into the negatives. Found a little glitch in that I would generate additional mana the next turn the lower into negative I got (-1 to -2 gave me 1 extra, -3 to -5 gave me 2 extra).

Out of curiousity, whats the count as to what people have voted in favor of? Hey, you're running the thread. That means I can make you do work, instead of doing it myself.

Golem rush doesn't work better with Gamewhale

While it CAN be more explosive, it can also have you looking stupid on turn 3 with nothing on the table but a bucket and a whale.

i like the 0, 1, 2, 3 generation option, with the 1G, 1L, 1D maintance (33% chance for it)?

OR just 1, 2, 3, 3 with a 50% 1L and 1D maintance..... So they cant run as much splash?

I'm still confused as to why people want bizarre modifications to the card when it would be fine as it was before the boost that broke it (0-2 mana generation, 50% chance of bonus mana when destroyed).

Tamdrik Wrote:I'm still confused as to why people want bizarre modifications to the card when it would be fine as it was before the boost that broke it (0-2 mana generation, 50% chance of bonus mana when destroyed).

I concur, I ran it in random decks when it was weaker, if you have to nerf it, that is the way