And how Mechanical Chaos Scaled Up the Entire Damn Game (Part 1)

Actually nacho..

The discussion is about whether or not the switch gens ought to get their sac back with the (vast) majority solution of dizzy lock on use and generate cost. Anyone who doesn't have a vote in either of these is best off switching to one of these.

For anyone who's interested, I'm going to make some per turn ideal examples here. Not for some particular purpose, just for comparision's sake:
current switch gen
Turn 1: play basic gen and two different offcolor switch gens. mana 0/0/0, into play penalties kick in
Turn 3: 1/4/1 or 2/2/2 (with ability)
Turn 3: 2/8/2, 3/6/3 or 4/4/4
Turn 4: 3/12/3, 4/10/4, 5/8/5, 6/6/6
Turn 5: 4/16/4, 5/14/5, 6/12/6, 7/10/7, 8/8/8
Very versatile, many choices, anything from strictly monocolor to pure tricolor.

dizzylock on use
Turn 1: play basic gen and two different offcolor switch gens. mana 0/0/0, into play penalties kick in
Turn 2: 2/2/2 or 1/4/1 (with ability, now dizzy locked)
Turn 3: 4/4/4 or 3/6/3
Turn 4: 6/6/6, 5/8/5 or 4/10/4 (dizzy locked)
Turn 5: 8/8/8, 7/10/7 or 6/12/6
Still useable for a faster start in monocolor than with basic gens, no difference for multicolor.

dizzylock into play
Turn 1: play basic gen and two different offcolor switch gens. mana 0/0/0, into play penalties kick in
Turn 2: 2/2/2
Turn 3: 4/4/4 or 3/6/3
Turn 4: 6/6/6, 5/8/5 or 4/10/4
Turn 5: 8/8/8, 7/10/7, 6/12/6, 5/14/5
Not useable for a faster start in monocolor, but very well useable in monocolor after turn 2 ends

basic generator
Turn 1: play basic generator. mana 1/0/1, no penalties
Turn 2: play 2 more basic generators. mana 2/0/2, still no penalties
Turn 3: 3/4/3
Turn 4: 4/8/4
Turn 5: 5/12/5
No versatility whatsoever.

moonfish Wrote:Actually nacho..

The discussion is about whether or not the switch gens ought to get their sac back with the (vast) majority solution of dizzy lock on use and generate cost. Anyone who doesn't have a vote in either of these is best off switching to one of these.

Er... no. If enough people still make the sensible choice, then a reasonable balance can still take place.

Stop spamming the thread with statistic impossibilities.

moonfish Wrote:The discussion is about whether or not the switch gens ought to get their sac back with the (vast) majority solution of dizzy lock on use and generate cost. Anyone who doesn't have a vote in either of these is best off switching to one of these.

I could be wrong, but is what you're saying here "the side you voted for has no chance of winning, so vote for the winning side so that my side wins by more"? Please correct me if I'm wrong. And boy do I hope I'm wrong.

ChrisAsmadi Wrote:Er... no. If enough people still make the sensible choice, then a reasonable balance can still take place.

moonfish Wrote:Stop spamming the thread with statistic impossibilities.

So it's a statistical impossibility for people to make the sensible choice and a reasonable balance to take place. Yeah, that about sums the balance forum up, alright.

JTorch Wrote:So it's a statistical impossibility for people to make the sensible choice and a reasonable balance to take place. Yeah, that about sums the balance forum up, alright.

I'm glad we can at least agree on that much, then.

And I'm saying: your side has no chance in winning, so choose which of the potential two you like best and vote for that.
So boy, you were right.

moonfish Wrote:

JTorch Wrote:So it's a statistical impossibility for people to make the sensible choice and a reasonable balance to take place. Yeah, that about sums the balance forum up, alright.

I'm glad we can at least agree on that much, then.

And I'm saying: your side has no chance in winning, so choose which of the potential two you like best and vote for that.
So boy, you were right.

Well I, for one, am not changing my vote to reflect a change I don't believe should take place, even if my vote ends up counting for nothing. In a couple months when we get threads saying "OMG BOOST SWITCH GENS" you'll see why.

Also, though I can almost understand your reasoning in this case, this is the second time in the last few hours that I've seen you try forfeit open discussion and resort to other tactics so that the side you're voting for wins. In this case you're saying "change your vote because you're screwed anyway," to get a higher majority for one side, and in the other case it was "these people might change their votes, so let's not count them." If I didn't know any better I'd say it was written in the rules somewhere that "when discussing a card fails, do whatever it takes so that MooNFisH's side wins." That's what it looks like to me anyway.

JTorch Wrote:Also, though I can almost understand your reasoning in this case, this is the second time in the last few hours that I've seen you try forfeit open discussion and resort to other tactics so that the side you're voting for wins. In this case you're saying "change your vote because you're screwed anyway," to get a higher majority for one side, and in the other case it was "these people might change their votes, so let's not count them." If I didn't know any better I'd say it was written in the rules somewhere that "when discussing a card fails, do whatever it takes so that MooNFisH's side wins." That's what it looks like to me anyway.

The "change your vote cause your side is screwed anyway" approach does not benefit me. This thread does not need the extra votes for the already winning solutions, I just thought that if it's going to be one of two, there might be people who'd want to have themselves heard in this. You are apparently not in my targeted audience.
Anything else you say here is a personal issue you have with me, please keep it out of the balance forums.

Hmm. The issue is whether the faster start in mono or the production of offcolor-cost generators is what needs to be changed about switchgens.

However, I still prefer dizzylock on use: playing two on turn 1 gives you the same benefit as playing an orb or skull, but incurs into play penalties. I'm fine with this - using one of the Prime mana-conversion spells on turn 2 gives you the same benefit for a card less and no downside. It also favors non-mono generation in the long term (6/12/6 instead of 5/14/5 with mono focus on turn 5, in moon's example) and should remain reasonable for bicolor decks if used in a mixture with actual bicolor generators, like I expect they're supposed to.

Also, Chris, JT, stop presuming you're right, especially without at least providing evidence or a decent argument for your position.

Their uniqueness is what makes them so absurdly powerful in their current form. As I said in the original post, the only realistic way to balance their current form would be to give them absolutely absurd downsides like "take 50 damage + oddball maintenance cost" ala Clash Spybot, which would make them even more useless.

Ok... to me, they look like they're supposed to be either generate x OR generate y and that seems to be the main idea (and IS the uniqueness of them - choice).

But you're removing that.

Perhaps someone should ask webrunner what the original goal of them was.

They do still give that choice. Just every other turn - if you need to convert it constantly, rather than use two colors and convert only when you need more of one than the other at the moment - rather than every turn.

It's reduced - but not eliminated.

I'll ask in IRC if I can, and see about getting a reconfirmation about the Word of God on what switchgens are intended for, since it seems to be a major arguing point by now.

@Chris: You see, that's what currently makes them way overpowered. If I can have a gen that lets me choose which of two colors I wish to generate, for the same cost a card that doesn't, then I'm going to choose the card that lets me choose which color I wish to generate. The penalties are fairly minimal and the mana ones sometimes have no baring at all on the overall game due to giving your opponent unneeded splash mana.

And just as a separate not: You can forget about *ever* finding a use for G-Lens Laser so long as switch gens let you choose which of two colors you wish to generate, no strings attached.

bubbleman Wrote:And just as a separate note: You can forget about *ever* finding a use for G-Lens Laser

Fixed

Would anyone like to volunteer to make a new vote count? It'd be nice to see before I consider voting/changing my vote/what-not.

Generates the same as cost, dizzy lock on use:
Blue_Elite, Ultros, bubbleman (3)

That and sac returned:
sXeAndriex, Serith, Nolder, moonfish, Tamdrik, E-mouse, masamunemaniac, bubbleman, Ultros (9)

Generates the same as cost, dizzy lock into play:
Noodle, ChrisAsmadi, JTorch, shadowhunter, Nacho (5)

Other (generally all different):
Leander, azulknight, Kennisiou, Zerosa, DarkSouled, Enatai

Like bubbleman, I said I was fine with either leaving the sac at zero or returning it.

Edited that in the summary, sorry I missed it. ~((~

Okay. I'm in favor of generates same as cost, dizzy-lock on use or into play.

But if you do that, then you have to get rid of the into play drawbacks, or no one will use them.

If the drawbacks are removed, then they can become like a basic gen that gives up its sac to occasionally generate some splash. That's something that I like.

Why would giving up its sac in exchange for being able to generate splash up to half the time be preferable to having a minor penalty in exchange for being able to generate splash up to half the time?

It would make the card stronger, yes.

edit: Sacking your generators for one mana is something you rarely do, at the very least not something you do to all of them. You might sack 2 or 3 in a game tops, which means this boost gives you 2-3 mana tops. If you play all switch gens though, that's 5 penalties you're avoiding if we remove them. That's anywhere from 100 life not given to your opponent to 75 life not taken from you, which is a bigger boost.

Hmm. I may not have thought this through completely.

Okay, I put the "generates same as cost" change on Dev a while ago (did I mention that?), but I forgot to put the sac back on again. I'll do that when I get home (or sooner if this proxy allows).

And did I vote for returning sac, anyway?