GameWhale needs to be Harpooned

Alright Andy (yes I'm talking to you Andriex), here you go. Your lucky I'm obsessive. I'm listing the names in case I either got it wrong or you people want to change your minds.

sXeAndriex: Change back
azulknight: Keep as is, Change back
Aldgar Omk: Change back
zacius: Keep as is, Change back
Zeku: Keep as is
Tamdrik: Change back
BlackFox: 50% chance lose at end turn or when produce 3 lose
Frosty the Pyro: Change back or when produce 3 lose
masamunemaniac: Change back but with modified %'s: 0=25%, 1=40%, 2=35%, When it comes into play it has a 50% chance of having two counters, and a 50% chance of having three counters. It then generates 0 to X mana per turn
Dav1000: Change back
MooNFisH: Change back
webrunner: Keep as is
Xagar: Reduce sac value
Moogle1: When it comes into play it has a 50% chance of having two counters, and a 50% chance of having three counters. It then generates 0 to X mana per turn
Domino: 33% chance of maintenance
Space_Burger: Change (but not specified)
Feral Noodle: Not stated
Blue Canary: Generates 0-5G with 2G maintenance, 0-4 and 1G maintenance or 1-5 and 2G maintenance
Blue_Elite: When it comes into play it has a 50% chance of having two counters, and a 50% chance of having three counters. It then generates 0 to X mana per turn

So out of 19 people it's... (or's are included so some of these are double votes)
9 = Change back
1 = 50% chance lose at end turn
2 = when produce 3 lose
3 = When it comes into play it has a 50% chance of having two counters, and a 50% chance of having three counters. It then generates 0 to X mana per turn
1 = 33% chance of maintenance
1 = Generates 0-5G with 2G maintenance, 0-4 and 1G maintenance or 1-5 and 2G maintenance
3 = Not stated
2 = Keep as is

Generates 0-5G with 2G maintenance. This way it has the possisility to gain the same amout, but you can also lose mana, making it a bit fairer. Or, if that's too harsh, 0-4 and 1G maintenance or 1-5 and 2G maintenance.

Surely your first suggestion averages out at 0.5 per turn, with a lucky max (20% chance) of 3 (as opposed to 33% now). And it selfdestructs more often than a bakuga generator?

---

How about when it comes into play it has a 50% chance of having two counters, and a 50% chance of having three counters. It then generates 0 to X mana per turn. (Also, any turn it has zero counters, ie from being Bakuga'd into play, it also reandomly sets from 2-3 counters).
It'd generate an average of 1.25 per turn, although you'd be inclined to sac the worse ones to play more and hope they're better. It's a nice happy medium between how it is and how it was. And adds a nice little extra dash of randomness.

---

Also, if the only two choices were "keep as is" and "change back", I'd say change it back. But I actually like my suggestion above More elegant than the weighted chances idea anyway.

I vote for Masa's suggestion and point to the POW quote in his sig and chuckle a bit.

Alright, I've let the balance forum sit idle to give everyone a break (especially masa after all the hard work he did). But now it's crunch time (I don't know what that means, but it sounds serious).

We're still undecided on the Gamewhale and considering web changed this card without any provocation, I'm guessing he'd like at least some change rather than simply revert it back to the way it was. We need consensus people.

As for Kelar Shadow, unless anyone has a disagreement, I'm just going to assume that masa's proposal is at least adequate and go with it.

We have what? 9 out of 17 people according to your list in favor of one change. Thats more than half with not even a third of that many people voting for any other option. Unless you're looking for something unanimous, I doubt you're getting anything clearer.

Yes, and unfortunately that one option 9 people want I don't think web will do. Was kinda hoping someone would take up the reigns and push for one of the ideas >_>.

Masa's latest proposal, "When it comes into play it has a 50% chance of having two counters, and a 50% chance of having three counters. It then generates 0 to X mana per turn" is the closest suggestion to returning Gamewhale to its original state out of the list. Really I'm for any nerf but I'll push for this one.

<Tamdrik> Just checking... is webrunner around/active at the moment?
<webrunner> yes?
<Tamdrik> Ah.  The people on the balance forum seem to think you don't want Gamewhale at 0-2 mana.
<webrunner> i dunno, the vibe i was getting before was that it was too week, but I guess that was an incorrect assessment
<webrunner> you guys play the game i just make it
<Tamdrik> The consensus is that it's too powerful now, and was okay at 0-2, but they think that you won't stand for 0-2.
<Tamdrik> So they're looking for some alternative nerf that "you'd accept".
<webrunner> next time i edit the card data if i remember i'll put it back to 0-2
<Tamdrik> Ok, thanks.

Well thanks Tamdrik. I'll just leave my final thoughts on this whole issue:

The way Gamewhale works is indeed a gamble. On its own, it's not terribly powerful and tends to be a high risk. However, if you have many of them out (or use it as a focus) it can be a strategy. It's been shown that with a full set of 5, the high-end mana gain can be game winning. First off, as has been pointed out, Gamewhale has the nice advantage of possible mana gain through effect D (an especially good quality against global destroyers like Crushing Rule and Fury of Heaven). This can also be useful against turn 2 Burn Burn!!. The risk involved with Gamewhale is mainly early play. If you get screwed with two 0's in a row (assuming you only have 1 gen out), it can be detrimental. If you get two 2's in a row, you've basically gotten a bucket that'll keep producing mana.
The strategic part lies in that neither you nor your opponent know how much mana you'll gain. This makes it so your opponent can't rely too heavily on anticipating what you'll play (if they use Wrench System, Omen, Eagle, etc.).

In regards to how a random mechanic should be treated relative to solid mechanics (neutral charm vs. Gamewhale, Touch of Knowledge vs. Toss a Vase, etc.), yes the random mechanic should hold a slight advantage over the solid one BUT only a slight one. Toss a Vase has about a 40% chance of being better than ToK, 20% to be worth the same, and 40% to be worse (assuming 1/5 chance for each card draw possibility). So there's about a 40% risk of getting less than what you payed for. It's generally thought of as weaker than ToK because it's unreliable but people wouldn't have it any different because 0-5 or 1-3 card draw would be too much or just not worth the risk respectively. With Gamewhale, the problem is that the chance is once per TURN. A one time 0-3 would probably be fine, but 0-3 throughout a game is too strong. And we can't have something like 0-2.1, that'd be silly and overly complex. The advantage of randomness has to take into account how often it will come into play. I-Karn's ability and Sheena's passive de-transformation ability have only a 10% chance of happening. Few players will actually see these work, but since with Karn it's passively every attack and with Sheena it's controlable, anything more would be unbalanced; especially sense when they do trigger it can be game turning/winning.

As for why people never used this: I believe it was just forgotten. You just glance at a 0-2 gen card and you brush it off as a risk. Then in the next game you play, you get turn 2 Burn Burn!!'d and get ticked off cause that was the only starting gen you had. Personally, I didn't know Gamewhale's ability triggered upon ANY destruction and so never used it thinking it was just a variable risk (and I have shadowhunter's same polarized luck of all or nothing when it comes to randomness). After this little fiasco, maybe more people will use Gamewhale now that it's been put in the spotlight.

Your well thought out response to this whole GameWhale scenario has crushed my outdated neophobic beliefs.

Very well put. Well done Blue and Tamdrik.

One more Response by me

I followed thiss discussion because i saw some decks using gamewhale a lot lately and after calculating that one GameWhale Produces 1.5 mana averaged i understood why it was used so often...
I think random cards should have some advantage above other cards, but the advantage given is that they might produce a lot of mana or liek Toss a Vase it might give you 4 Cards and you are all happy whenever this happens. But Toss a Vase lets you draw 2 cards in average. It works pretty good for me, even though i do prefer Touch of Knowledge.
It's pretty much a cheaper ToK with randomness put into it ^^

ToK costs the same as TaV.

Randomness allows you to add a greater element of luck into your gameplay, which is in itself an advantage.

Say you, Anonymous McNewbie, were in a tourney, but to your horror discover yourself to be up against eleven trophy winner Shurcor ExompeaselanderX... what do you do? Make a deck, playtest it a lot and hope that your opponent gets manascrewed? Well, you're relying on luck there already, and let me tell you that Shurcor is also a mathematical genius whose opening hand has never lacked an optimal number of generators yet. So what can you do to give your deck a chance?

So, on turn two you've played your third Whale with mana to spare, and on turn three you've thrown down two God Dice, restored your handsize with an overfilled Vase, played a 73/62 Experiment, Shadehawk Prime and a Winged Golem.

And really, what's to say that can't happen? Games of CMC come down to both luck and skill, but with these cards you can shift the emphasis from the latter to the former.

Of course, there's also the possibility of getting your third whale out only on the third turn and burning away Log Dice, Vases, and mana for nothing.

Lots of final afterthoughts...

Shurcor thinks that randomness can be used in certain places, but it should be in balance with other cards. Let's take for example Sparks, she has a 100% ability to dizzy at the cost of one grey mana, Wild Goose Ninja on the other hand has only 50% chance to dizzy but with no cost. I'd say just in their ability this is balanced, you can either go for reliablity for a mana cost or go for randomness and save mana. Cards that have higher ranges of randomness like gamewhale and lab experiment can be harder to balance because they possibilties and outcomes are much larger, being the mathmatical genuis Shurcor is he knows.

Why not raise cost to 3G? Then, like a dual mana generator, it would pay for itself in two turns on average, and then start boosting your mana quicker.

...Assuming people want differentation, of course. If it's just supposed to be to Neutral Charm as TaV is to ToK, carry on.

I think raising it to 2 cost, and removing all the sac(including the normal one) would balance it.

Change it back or make it generate -1 to 3.

been following this thread for a bit.
i think Game Whales would be best if they were given the old 0-2 generation but kept the new death/leaves play effect of 50% to gain 2G.

either that or make them available in the public shop again so that newer players can stand a better chance against an all Game Whale deck.

since a game whale isn't often sacrificied, it would be a pointless nerf to to change the sac cost.
that wouldn't fix the problem that having Game Whales allows you to outproduce a non Game Whale type generator.

white has columns (and the mana bird too), black has the battery of souls and mana furnace, but neither of these are very useful if not used with another (or several other) cards. also neither can be played on the 1st turn. yes gray is meant to be the best mana gen colour (well they are. 5 manamancers provides 25G a turn. 4+ regent gives 39. 3+ regent + sentry = 43 if the opponent has 3+ monsters out.), but its just a little too much too quickly with Game Whales. at least it is in my opinion...