MTG Share your Card Designs II

[Ninjaman]

"Each spell that would cost less mana to cast than its converted mana cost costs its converted mana cost in mana to cast" is a bit of a mouthful, though.

The thing I like about this wording is that it doesn't shut off anything, it just restricts you to paying it fairly. You can cast a cascaded spell, you just need to pay for it. You can flashback a spell, the flashback just can't be cheaper than the cmc. Another thing I like is that we know it's a functional wording.
The thing I don't like is that it doesn't work on Convoke, Delve or improvise.

Maybe something like this?
Kambal 1UW
Mana costs can't be changed, and can't be paid except with mana.
Spells can't be cast without paying their mana costs.

This locks with some more cards, but with cards that already have locks, so that's probably fine. I'm not sure if the wording works though.

[-D-]

One possible interpretation from Discord - "Any spell cast for less than its converted mana cost costs its converted mana cost to cast instead."

[Ninjaman]

One possible interpretation from Discord - "Any spell cast for less than it's converted mana cost costs its converted mana cost instead."

It would at least need to be "Any spell cast for less than its converted mana cost costs its converted mana cost to cast instead."
But I don't think it works. You can't set the cost of a spell after it has been cast.

[-D-]

It would at least need to be "Any spell cast for less than its converted mana cost costs its converted mana cost to cast instead."
But I don't think it works. You can't set the cost of a spell after it has been cast.

You mean, it's => its. Yeah I know, I copied it verbatim from Discord warts and all.

Honestly, I stated as much, add term mana paid or reuse the mana payment used in rules. Maybe something "Any spells where mana paid/mana payment is less than it's converted mana cost, must pay the difference in mana".

[Ninjaman]

You mean, it's => its. Yeah I know, I copied it verbatim from Discord warts and all.

I included "to cast".

Honestly, I stated as much, add term mana paid or reuse the mana payment used in rules. Maybe something "Any spells where mana paid/mana payment is less than it's converted mana cost, must pay the difference in mana".

If your suggestion for a card requires rewritting the rules, I don't think it's a good suggestion. If it can't be done with the tools we have available, it probably shouldn't be done.

[Gauntlet]

Mana costs can't be reduced.

Mana costs can't be paid except with mana.

Spells can't be cast without paying their mana costs.


I think that covers everything?

[-D-]

If your suggestion for a card requires rewritting the rules, I don't think it's a good suggestion. If it can't be done with the tools we have available, it probably shouldn't be done.

Heavily disagree. Adding any form of keyword ability, means changing the rules. Like it or not, we're always changing the rules. And this wouldn't rewrite rules, just count the portion of mana paid in total costs (which can include non-mana costs).

However, I think the effect might be too finnicky to be worth it.

Mana costs can't be reduced.
Mana costs can't be paid except with mana.
Spells can't be cast without paying their mana costs.

I think that covers everything?

I don't think it does, convoke has this wording:

702.50. Convoke

• 702.50a Convoke is a static ability that functions while the spell with convoke is on the stack. “Convoke” means “For each colored mana in this spell’s total cost, you may tap an untapped creature of that color you control rather than pay that mana. For each generic mana in this spell’s total cost, you may tap an untapped creature you control rather than pay that mana.”

It does hit Delve, Phyreixan mana, and mana reducers.

--------

Had few more ideas unrelated to this discussions, I'd rather have.

• Corruption counters. At the beginning of your end step, you take 1 damage for half of your corruption counters, rounded down. In contrast to the previous discussions, corruption counters can be changed up or down.
• Hecatomb - keyword ability. You may cast this spell by sacrificing creatures. Each sacrificed creature reduces mana cost by either one of its colors, or for generic mana equal to its converted mana cost.

[Gauntlet]

I don't think it does, convoke has this wording:

The 'Mana costs can't be paid except with mana' should prevent Convoke from being used to pay the card's mana cost by tapping creatures, as far as I can tell.

Corruption counters. At the beginning of your end step, you take 1 damage for half of your corruption counters, rounded down. In contrast to the previous discussions, corruption counters can be changed up or down.

Reminds me of the Chandra emblems that make you burn up forever. This seems like it'd be difficult to balance, since getting a few counters up early would be an inevitable kill for some matchups. If it can't be removed except with cards that are in the same set, you'd have to make the power level very low.

Hecatomb - keyword ability. You may cast this spell by sacrificing creatures. Each sacrificed creature reduces mana cost by either one of its colors, or for generic mana equal to its converted mana cost.

This seems hard to make useful. It's Convoke, only the creature dies instead of being tapped. I think this would probably be very difficult to make useful - most of the time, mana is much easier to come by than creatures are. Any spell with Hecatomb that costs more than 1 mana would probably be cast for mana instead most of the time.

[-D-]

Reminds me of the Chandra emblems that make you burn up forever. This seems like it'd be difficult to balance since getting a few counters up early would be an inevitable kill for some matchups. If it can't be removed except with cards that are in the same set, you'd have to make the power level very low.

No, no. Idea is that you can modify these counters any way you want. Increase, decrease, remove entirely. Also, anything that reduces damage will work against it.

This seems hard to make useful. It's Convoke, only the creature dies instead of being tapped. I think this would probably be very difficult to make useful - most of the time, mana is much easier to come by than creatures are. Any spell with Hecatomb that costs more than 1 mana would probably be cast for mana instead most of the time.

Yeah, I might need to go for an alternative cost.

Ancient Nightmare 2BB
Creature - Shadow - Common
Hecatomb 1BB
Flying
3/2

Worshiped Horror 3B
Creature - Horror - Uncommon
Hecatomb 5B
When ~ enters the battlefield, if hecatomb price was paid, put a +1/+1 counter on ~ for each creature sacrificed to pay for this spell.
~ has menace as long as it has a +1/+1 counter.
4/4

Carnage Demon 3BBB
Creature - Demon - Rare
Hecatomb 4BB (You may cast this spell by paying 4BB and sacrificing creatures rather than paying its mana cost. If you chose to pay this spell’s Hecatomb cost, for each sacrificed creature reduce its total cost by either that one mana of that creature's color, or for its converted mana cost).
Flying
When ~ enters the battlefield, if hecatomb price was paid, for each creature sacrificed to pay for this spell you may destroy target creature opponent controls.
6/6

[Gauntlet]

No, no. Idea is that you can modify these counters any way you want. Increase, decrease, remove entirely. Also, anything that reduces damage will work against it.

So if you played a deck with Corruption mechanics in it now, against a deck I pull out of my backpack, would I have any way to interact with the counters? (barring damage prevention tools which aren't exactly commonly played)

[-D-]

So if you played a deck with Corruption mechanics in it now, against a deck I pull out of my backpack, would I have any way to interact with the counters? (barring damage prevention tools which aren't exactly commonly played)

It depends on the format. Outside of set, there admiteddly aren't too many cards that help with counters. But I'm not too worried about such potential.

[Ninjaman]

How about:
Corruption counters:
At the beginning of a players upkeep, that player loses 1 life for each corruption counter on them, then remove a corruption counter from that player.

It's unfortunately quite parasitic.


I did this once:
Torment (Whenever this creature deals combat damage to an opponent, that player loses life equal to the number of torment counters on them, then put a torment counter on that player.)

[-D-]

How about:
Corruption counters:
At the beginning of a players upkeep, that player loses 1 life for each corruption counter on them, then remove a corruption counter from that player.

Definitely not the flavor I'm going for. Truth be told, I really want corruption to be a lot like Armello's Rot:

First is that it can be part the cost:

(see the snakey thing with number 2)

It's detrimental in general, at start of each turn

but it can be interacted with.

It's unfortunately quite parasitic.

I think any kind of player token is inherently parasticial, hopefully there will be more player counter interacting strategies, so it won't be as parasitic.

Here were some thoughts

Wild Cleansing - 1G
Sorcery - Common
Remove X counters of from yourself, where X is the number of green creatures you control.

Sin Eater - WB
Creature - Human Shaman - Uncommon
Whenever one or more counters would be placed on a player, you may pay W/B. If you do, prevent those counters instead, and put a +1/+1 on CARDNAME.
1/1

[Ninjaman]

If it was like Armello's rot then it should just say "At the beginning of a players upkeep, if that player has any rot counters, that player loses 1 rot." And then have cards that cared about it.

But I don't think you can do rot like Armello. It works in Armello because it is one of the core game mechanics, it's not in magic, so you can't expect the opponent to have any way of interacting with it.

[-D-]

If it was like Armello's rot then it should just say "At the beginning of a player's upkeep if that player has any rot counters, that player loses 1 rot." And then have cards that cared about it.

But I don't think you can do rot like Armello. It works in Armello because it is one of the core game mechanics, it's not in magic, so you can't expect the opponent to have any way of interacting with it.

I'm not translating it 1 for 1.

Also, that's not how rot in Armello works. Rot is permanent (unless they changed it like recently) and at start of turn you take 1 damage.

From Discord discussions, if I did it as damage at beginning of rotten player's upkeep, it would be impossible for the user to prevent or mitigate it. Basically Rot becomes at start of your turn - DIE!

You can interact with stuff at the end of a turn (the beginning of your end step), but not at beggining of your upkeep, I think you never get priority there.

To me important aspects of Rot are:

• Rot is persistent (it won't disappear on its own)
• Rot can be used as cost
• Rot has some penalty
• Rot can be interacted with
• Things can scale off it.
• It can be used as a punishment.

[Androgeus]

You can interact with stuff at the end of a turn (the beginning of your end step), but not at beggining of your upkeep, I think you never get priority there.

You always get priority in every step bar 2. Those two are the Untap Step, where you can never get priority (anything that triggers in the Untap Step (e.g. Inspired) waits till the Upkeep step to go on the stack), and the Cleanup Step where players only get priority if something triggers or state based actions cause something to happen.

[Ninjaman]

I'm not translating it 1 for 1.

Also, that's not how rot in Armello works. Rot is permanent (unless they changed it like recently) and at start of turn you take 1 damage.

Sorry I misspelled, it was supposed to say lose 1 life, not lose 1 rot.

You can interact with stuff at the end of a turn (the beginning of your end step), but not at beggining of your upkeep, I think you never get priority there.

You do get priority in upkeep, even if nothing triggers.

To me important aspects of Rot are:

• Rot is persistent (it won't disappear on its own)
• Rot can be used as cost
• Rot has some penalty
• Rot can be interacted with
• Things can scale off it.
• It can be used as a punishment.

This seems like it will work poorly. You are way too locked in your design and want to do way too many things.

[-D-]

You always get priority in every step bar 2. Those two are the Untap Step, where you can never get priority (anything that triggers in the Untap Step (e.g. Inspired) waits till the Upkeep step to go on the stack), and the Cleanup Step where players only get priority if something triggers or state-based actions cause something to happen.

Hm, not sure then. Maybe they thought that you can't play any sorcery or creature that would have dealt with it somewhat. E.g. you would take non-lethal Rot damage, and your opponent, made you

Sorry I misspelled, it was supposed to say lose 1 life, not lose 1 rot.

No problem, but I don't see point having it just deal 1 (20-25% of your life) damage on upkeep. I mean, in Armello if you die, you get send to your starting position, you don't lose the game there and then.

This seems like it will work poorly. You are way too locked in your design and want to do way too many things.

I don't see it as limitations. I have a set of counters. I have cards that increase/decrease some counters. And I have cards scaling of those counters.

[Ninjaman]

I don't see it as limitations. I have a set of counters. I have cards that increase/decrease some counters. And I have cards scaling of those counters.

That's parasitic. Your mechanic shouldn't need this much to work.

[-D-]

That's parasitic. Your mechanic shouldn't need this much to work.

Most sets have at least one pushed and parasitic mechanics. I don't consider it a huge deal.

If I get parasitic levels of energy counters, but more interactivity. I'm a happy camper.

[Ninjaman]

Most sets have at least one pushed and parasitic mechanics. I don't consider it a huge deal.

If I get parasitic levels of energy counters, but more interactivity. I'm a happy camper.

This isn't just parasitic. It's highly parasitic.
If you make it energy counters, but then add more stuff that interacts with it specifically, you're just making it more parasitic. That's not a good thing.
Your mechanic should always work even if the opponent has dedicated nothing to fighting it.

[-D-]

This isn't just parasitic. It's highly parasitic.
If you make it energy counters, but then add more stuff that interacts with it specifically, you're just making it more parasitic. That's not a good thing.

So? Tribal is parasitic, but it's not inherently problematic. Same with cards that fetch an exactly single card e.g. Visage of Bolas.

I honestly think large problem with energy was, its uninteractivity. Parasitism isn't on its own a huge problem. It's a red flag, not a red card.

Your mechanic should always work even if the opponent has dedicated nothing to fighting it.

Not sure how to parse this. Your mechanics should work if your opponent has nothing against it?

It will. You can load yourself with corruption, use it for an effect and lose it. Or prevent/heal it's "maintenance cost". Usually, if you load yourself with it, it's a net positive effect.

[Ninjaman]

So? Tribal is parasitic, but it's not inherently problematic.

Tribal support is parasitic, the creatures themselves aren't, that's why tribal works in sets. Corruption only works with corruption enablers or corruption payoffs. It's like the spirit/arcane synergy in Kamigawa. It didn't work well.

Same with cards that fetch an exactly single card e.g. Visage of Bolas.

An entire set based around cards that were parasitic to this extend would be absolutely horrible.
There is a huge difference between having one card that does something and having it as a set mechanic.

I honestly think large problem with energy was, its uninteractivity. Parasitism isn't on its own a huge problem. It's a red flag, not a red card.

Your mechanic isn't much more intractable, as it can only be interacted by specific hate cards. That's a bad and heavily parasitic design.

Not sure how to parse this. Your mechanics should work if your opponent has nothing against it?

Yes. You shouldn't depend on your opponent having a specific answer in order for your mechanic to be fair.

It will. You can load yourself with corruption, use it for an effect and lose it. Or prevent/heal it's "maintenance cost". Usually, if you load yourself with it, it's a net positive effect.

Load yourself? Didn't you say you could also load the opponent? So is corruption good or bad?

You keep talking about all these things you want to do with corruption, but you show very little.

[-D-]

Tribal support is parasitic, the creatures themselves aren't

*cough*Slivers*cough*Thalia's entourage*cough*Tribal Lords*cough*

An entire set based around cards that were parasitic to this extend would be absolutely horrible.
There is a huge difference between having one card that does something and having it as a set mechanic.

Kaladesh had 70 energy, in set of 184 cards. This set so far has about 20 corruption cards out of 284, and some cards like 10 that affect counters. If anything I need to add more corruption cards.

Your mechanic isn't much more intractable, as it can only be interacted by specific hate cards. That's a bad and heavily parasitic design.

It's still leagues better than energy. A card that heals you mitigates it. A card that affects counters affects it. Same for cards that prevent damage.

Yes. You shouldn't depend on your opponent having a specific answer in order for your mechanic to be fair.

The answer is either damage them more or control them enough for the corruption to do its thing.

Load yourself? Didn't you say you could also load the opponent? So is corruption good or bad?

You keep talking about all these things you want to do with corruption, but you show very little.

Is paying life good or bad? Depends on context.

Black and red are good at causing corruption to enemies. Blue can offer it, but not mandatory.
Black and Red inflict corruption to themselves for profit. White too in a lesser extent.
Green can remove counters from itself, but it will be creature dependent.
White can prohibit counters but not remove them from self.
Black can remove counters... From opponents.

Colors that can scale of your corruption are red and black.
Colors that scale of opponent's are white and green.

Colorless uses corruption as cost, can inflict and prevent it.

Rest of the cards interacting, just add life, prevent damage or increase counters, damage etc.

[Ninjaman]

*cough*Slivers*cough*

Yes slivers are quite parasitic, which is why it's lucky that they're really cool. You need a design that is equally cool to justify it.

Thalia's entourage

I have no idea what this refers to.

*cough*Tribal Lords*cough*

That's kind of the point, only the lord requires the tribal synergy. For every lord you have 10 creatures with the type that don't themselves care.

Kaladesh had 70 energy, in set of 184 cards. This set so far has about 20 corruption cards out of 284, and some cards like 10 that affect counters. If anything I need to add more corruption cards.

Being parasitic doesn't refer to there being many cards with it, it refers to how much the cards depend on eachother. Yes energy was very parasitic, but at the very least most of them added the energy they used, and the rest added some but didn't use any.
Also you can't possibly claim energy wasn't problematic.

It's still leagues better than energy. A card that heals you mitigates it. A card that affects counters affects it. Same for cards that prevent damage.

No, that's not better.
How does healing prevent the counters?
Preventing counters and preventing damage is very specific, and very limited in what colors get to do it.

Is paying life good or bad? Depends on context.

Paying life is bad.
Yes some things care about the downside, but paying life is a downside.
But you know what's cool about paying life? It's done everywhere. Same with discard and sacrificing creatures.
Undying synergized with the sac effects of innistrad, but it also synergizes with for instance extort of Tarkir.
What does your mechanic synergize with?

Black and red are good at causing corruption to enemies. Blue can offer it, but not mandatory.
Black and Red inflict corruption to themselves for profit. White too in a lesser extent.

Why do you both want to inflict corruption on yourself and the opponent? Is it good or bad to have corruption.
If you play against a deck that wants to be corrupted, and you can cause them corruption, is that good?
Pick one, either you corrupt your opponent or yourself, you can't do both, that doesn't balance.

Green can remove counters from itself, but it will be creature dependent.

So your set has a mechanic, and the entire point of one of the colors, is to hate on it?

Black can remove counters... From opponents.

So do you want corruption or not?

Colors that can scale of your corruption are red and black.
Colors that scale of opponent's are white and green.

So if you're playing red/black and your opponent is playing white/green, what happens? Do you want to have a lot of corruption. Do you want to have low corruption?

Nothing you have said about your mechanic has done anything to convince me that it's a good idea. Go ahead and show off some designs.

[-D-]

I have no idea what this refers to.

Cards that depend on Humans. Mainly Thraben Inspector, Thalia's Lieutenant, Kessig Malcontent, etc.

But same goes for elves.

That's kind of the point, only the lord requires the tribal synergy. For every lord you have 10 creatures with the type that don't themselves care.

That depends whether the set cares about that creature type. In Inistrad there aren't as many lords as cards that care about it.

Being parasitic doesn't refer to there being many cards with it, it refers to how much the cards depend on eachother. Yes energy was very parasitic, but at the very least most of them added the energy they used, and the rest added some but didn't use any.
Also you can't possibly claim energy wasn't problematic.

You said extend(sic). I assume you meant how many cards.

Also anything that depends on corruption can add corruption as part of casting. Anything that gives you corruption (i.e. corruption as a cost), gives you a positive effect as well.

Parasitism of energy was its least problem.
Pretty sure the real problem was non-interactivity. I.e. There was no counterplay for it.

How does healing prevent the counters?

Sigh. I explained already. The counters cause damage at end of your turn. Hmmm. How could healing, help mitigate damage.

Preventing counters and preventing damage is very specific, and very limited in what colors get to do it

Hence why I added some colorless counter removal/prevention.

What does your mechanic synergize with?

Spectacle from Guilds of Ravnica. Assuming I move the damage trigger from end step to upkeep.

So do you want corruption or not?

Same as paying life.

You don't want corruption on yourself. However the benefits might outweigh the costs.

So if you're playing red/black and your opponent is playing white/green, what happens? Do you want to have a lot of corruption. Do you want to have low corruption?

Well in general, assuming BR is playing corruption deck, it wants to have minimal corruption and cause as much as it can WG.

In general the chances of WG having counter prevention is low. But if they stabilize, BR player is ****ed. WG is usually +1/+1 counter synergy. BR is playing a burn against a midrange deck. A midrange deck that probably has heals.

[Ninjaman]

Cards that depend on Humans. Mainly Thraben Inspector,

Thraben Inspector doesn't depend on humans though?
It is a human, so cards that depend on humans can use it, but Thraben Inspector can be played in any white deck.

Thalia's Lieutenant, Kessig Malcontent, etc.

But most humans aren't this.

But same goes for elves.

But most elves can go in any deck.
Yes you have a few that enable tribal synergies, but it's not like your deck is either all elves or no elves, a deck can easily play some elves and not care about tribal synergies.

That depends whether the set cares about that creature type. In Inistrad there aren't as many lords as cards that care about it.

So I counted.
Shadows Over Innistrad block has 15 cards that care about humans from what I could find (search for cards that mention "human", then remove the ones saying non-human or just making tokens.)
Shadows over Innistrad block has 79 humans.
This is a perfect example of how few support cards are actually needed for tribal support.

You said extend(sic). I assume you meant how many cards.

I didn't. I meant to what degree.

Also anything that depends on corruption can add corruption as part of casting. Anything that gives you corruption (i.e. corruption as a cost), gives you a positive effect as well.

Good, that part of the mechanic is how it should be.

Parasitism of energy was its least problem.
Pretty sure the real problem was non-interactivity. I.e. There was no counterplay for it.

That wouldn't have been a big problem if the cards were less pushed.
The problem, for standard, was that there were so many powerful energy cards, but you could only play them if you were a dedicated energy deck.
Energy was a resource that you used, your corruption sticks around, that's much more difficult to balance.

Sigh. I explained already. The counters cause damage at end of your turn. Hmmm. How could healing, help mitigate damage.

That doesn't stop the counters though.
It doesn't matter if you heal the damage the corruption gives, you've made it clear that isn't the point of the mechanic. The point is that when the opponent gives you

Hence why I added some colorless counter removal/prevention.

I've mentioned it before, I'll mention it again.
Take a look at how much specific hate exists for other mechanics. None, or very little. Now look at how many hate cards you have planned.

Spectacle from Guilds of Ravnica. Assuming I move the damage trigger from end step to upkeep.

It does, possibly too well, if you only need to deal 1 or 2 corruption to turn spectacle off forever.

Same as paying life.

No, not at all the same as paying life.
You don't want to pay life, you do it because it's a resource.
Only Death's Shadow wants to pay life.

You don't want corruption on yourself. However the benefits might outweigh the costs.

Weren't there colors focused around caring about corruption on yourself?

Well in general, assuming BR is playing corruption deck, it wants to have minimal corruption and cause as much as it can WG.

I'm sorry, does the BR deck also cause corruption? You said it cause corruption to itself.
If GW are the colors that scale of your opponent's corruption, doesn't it want to corrupt the opponent?
You said BR scales off your corruption, so why doesn't it want it?

In general the chances of WG having counter prevention is low. But if they stabilize, BR player is ****ed. WG is usually +1/+1 counter synergy. BR is playing a burn against a midrange deck. A midrange deck that probably has heals.

I sincerely hope that your mechanics don't have so little depth that any BR deck that uses corruption is a burn deck.

I've said it before, I'll say it again.
Your set lacks focus. It tries to do way too many things at once, many of them at odds with eachother. Pick one part of your design, and do that. What you're doing now doesn't work.

[-D-]

Thraben Inspector doesn't depend on humans though?

Champion of the Parish. My bad.

But most humans aren't this.

Well, yeah, but they are the largest tribe in MTG, outside Changelings

But most elves can go in any deck.
Yes you have a few that enable tribal synergies, but it's not like your deck is either all elves or no elves, a deck can easily play some elves and not care about tribal synergies.

Well, no. Elves can't go in any deck. Sure a particularily dtrong elf, can fill some niche in any deck. But most elves can't.

To put more than one elf, or to use hardly used elfs, it takes a specific deck.

So I counted.
Shadows Over Innistrad block has 15 cards that care about humans from what I could find (search for cards that mention "human", then remove the ones saying non-human or just making tokens.)
Shadows over Innistrad block has 79 humans.

I have around 20 cards for corruption. In a set of about ~290(it's hovering between 280-286). Your point is - I should have more ?

That wouldn't have been a big problem if the cards were less pushed.
The problem, for standard, was that there were so many powerful energy cards, but you could only play them if you were a dedicated energy deck.
Energy was a resource that you used, your corruption sticks around, that's much more difficult to balance.

Maro, also mentioned that another large problem with energy is that you couldn't interact with these counters, another was missing the correct cost of them. All set mechanics are generally pushed, if you don't you push mechanics you get an underwhelming set mechanics.

That doesn't stop the counters though.
It doesn't matter if you heal the damage the corruption gives, you've made it clear that isn't the point of the mechanic.

It doesn't stop counters, but where did I made it clear that it doesn't matter if you heal/prevent damage from corruption?

Take a look at how much specific hate exists for other mechanics. None, or very little. Now look at how many hate cards you have planned.

Wizards have the benefit or doing this on a much larger timescale. They can create hate mechanics a much further down the line. See energy and Price of Betrayal.

When I proposed such mechanics, literally the first thing people asked is, can they be removed? Adding a few hate cards doesn't seem bad, especially if it's something people want.

It does, possibly too well, if you only need to deal 1 or 2 corruption to turn spectacle off forever.

You mean on, right? Still, turning spectacle on forever in a burn deck isn't that hard. It's pretty much, business as usual. To activate corruption you either need to cast two spells or one rare spell that can inflict more than 1 corruption.

I'm still mulling over whether to add it beginning of upkeep or end step. Or whether to deal damage equal to X/2, X/3, X/4, etc. Where X is number of corruption counters. That would change the dynamics significantly.

No, not at all the same as paying life.
You don't want to pay life, you do it because it's a resource.
Only Death's Shadow wants to pay life.

Well, not identical, but similar in nature. You trade a low-value resource (life) for high value resource - card, creature, etc.

Weren't there colors focused around caring about corruption on yourself?

Think black cares about that mostly.

EDIT: Red cares to a lesser extent, not sure if I designed this card, but it would probably be something like.

Corruption Elemental 1R
Creature - Elemental - Rare
As you cast this spell, you may gain up to two corruption counters.
Trample, haste.
CARDNAME power is equal to your corruption (Player's corruption is equal to number of corruption counters on that player).
*/1

I'm sorry, does the BR deck also cause corruption? You said it cause corruption to itself.
If GW are the colors that scale of your opponent's corruption, doesn't it want to corrupt the opponent?
You said BR scales off your corruption, so why doesn't it want it?

In your hypothetical scenario I took a given BR corruption deck against a typical GW deck. Typical GW deck is a +1/+1 counter synergy, not an anti-corruption deck. Green has no corruption infliction. White has one, but that would be inefficent as hell (Target player heals 7 gains a corruption counter).

I sincerely hope that your mechanics don't have so little depth that any BR deck that uses corruption is a burn deck.

No, the black/red deck is probably Sacrifice Aggro. You just asked me to test a fringe deck, that runs corruption.

It's like saying mono-blue control based on counters in limited against green.

[Morphic tide]

My own suggestion, if I'm reading things right that Corruption is intended primarily as the cost of stuff like demonic contracts, is to focus self-corruption in Black and Blue, with corruption-punishing being primarily in White and Green, the removal of it being primarily in Red and Green, White and Blue sharing infliction of it on others, and the payoff of having it primarily in Red and Black.

Having Blue be self-Corruption rather than Red comes from the fact that Red's the color of chaos and freedoms, rather contrary to Corruption-as-payment because it's contrary to the deal-making involved in Corruption stemming from such things as demonic contracts. White getting Corruption infliction would come as a matter of "law-breaking", using it as an alternative to some of White's usual tax and balance effects, and Blue doing it as part of "symmetrical" effects that represent largely-neutral deal-making and Blue's purview over forced decisions. Red getting Corruption removal and payoff for it ties back to why I feel it shouldn't get self-inflicted Corruption, that being they'd come from the notion of breaking and twisting the deals that cause corruption.

This also makes for Corruption mechanics being prone to backfiring in opposing colors. Black has to deal with hardcore punishment of Corruption, Blue's gets stripped to remove that pseudo-burn reach for winning, White might just drown in the enemy's payoffs for it, Green's defenses against it may also give the enemy gas and Red's quite possibly going to end up buried in it. But this very backfire also means opponent colors have a key synergy, with Blue/Green sourcing its own corruption to punish and clearing itself off, Black/White being able to go off significantly faster by ignoring its own costs, Red/White being able to go off hard on asymmetric punishments, Green/Black being able to keep itself from blowing up entirely and Blue/Red being able to exploit the everloving bajesus out of its tie-ins.

And yes, I'm very much thinking of Corruption as a frequently inverted relation with damage. Red getting lifegain? Blue and White with burn? White and Green punishing low life totals? Of course, it'd be generally somewhat inefficient compared to actual life altering, partly because of the color pie breaks being a risk and partly so it's not ever going to be just better than the normal version of the effect. The thing would be that it tips the scales on "life" in addition to doing something else. Rather than every Corruption card trying to be self-contained like Energy, I'd go for having them spread out so they might matter even if they're the only Corruption-mentioning card in either player's 75.

[Ninjaman]

Well, yeah, but they are the largest tribe in MTG

And they've been that since the great creature update of 2007, yet it wasn't until Innistrad in 2011 they received any tribal support. Being the tribe with the most members doesn't make it parasitic in any way.
Most humans don't care about humans.

Well, no. They can't go in any deck. Sure an elf, can fill any niche in any deck. But to put more elves than 1, then it takes a specific deck.

All the standard decks that played Llanowar elves along with Steel Leaf Champion and no tribal synergy would like a word with you. Pioneer decks add Elvish mystic into the mix, still no tribal synergy.

I have around 20 cards for corruption. In a set of about ~290(it's hovering between 280-286). Your point is - I should have more ?

My point was that most of the human cards that can benefit from human synergy, don't themselves need human synergy. You can do human synergy with only a few cards that actually care about humans, by having a lot of creatures that are humans but don't themselves care about it.
The same can't be said about corruption. Corruption synergy cards all need to deal with corruption directly. This makes them all highly parasitic.

Maro, also mentioned that another large problem with energy is that you couldn't interact with these counters, another as missing the cost of them.

And that's fair for balancing it in a standard environment, but it doesn't really do anything for limited. When designing a full set, start with limited in mind.

All set mechanics are generally pushed, if you don't you just get an underwhelming mechanics.

What I wrote:

That wouldn't have been a big problem if the cards were less pushed.

I never claimed there aren't frequently pushed mechanics. But most mechanics don't get multiple cards banned in standard.
Energy was more pushed than most.

It doesn't stop counters, but where did I made it clear that it doesn't matter if you heal/prevent damage from corruption?

Nowhere. Nowhere did you make that clear.
You said that there are cards that care about the corruption counters. Then healing the damage the corruption does won't do anything to interact with the cards that utilize corruption.

Wizards have the benefit or doing this on a much larger timescale.

Time scale doesn't matter. This applies to limited as well. Very few mechanics get anything close to a specific hate card, and the ones that do get very few.

When I proposed such mechanics, literally the first thing people asked is, can they be removed? Adding a few hate cards doesn't seem bad, especially if it's something people want.

Because the interactivity of the mechanic is a problem, and the amount of specific hate cards you put into the set is a problem.
You seem to think there is some perfect amount of specific hate cards you can jam into your set and all will be fine, but there isn't.
The problem lies with how you're trying to implement the mechanic. There are ways you could implement it that would work, but you're looking at your mechanic through rose-tinted glasses.

You mean on, right?

Yes I mean on.

Still, turning spectacle on forever in a burn deck isn't that hard.

You don't need to be a burn deck though. Corruption is terrible in a burn deck. If you try to kill the opponent on turn 4 then the corruption deals very little damage, but if you try to kill the opponent on turn 20 then you can make due with just the corruption.

Also saying "this synergizes with stuff that cares about dealing damage" doesn't count. Dealing damage is easy, almost every creature in the game does that.

I'm still mulling over whether to add it beginning of upkeep or end step. Or whether to deal damage equal to X/2, X/3, X/4, etc. Where X is number of corruption counters. That would change the dynamics significantly.

Neither of these fixes will remove the flaws that are inherent in the design.
It's either going to be totally overpowered, or completely useless, with a very small margin where it is actually balanced.

Well, not identical, but similar in nature. You trade a low-value resource (life) for high value resource - card, creature, etc.

But you are also putting in effects that care about the amount of corruption you have, removing that comparison.

EDIT: Red cares to a lesser extent, not sure if I designed this card, but it would probably be something like.

Corruption Elemental 1R
Creature - Elemental - Rare
As you cast this spell, you may gain up to two corruption counters.
Trample, haste.
CARDNAME power is equal to your corruption (Player's corruption is equal to number of corruption counters on that player).
*/1

And this design is horrible for that reason. When you're playing a deck that puts corruption on itself, against a deck that puts corruption on you, this card is either fantastic or horrible. You're forcing rock paper scissors into your design. That isn't a good design.

In your hypothetical scenario I took a given BR corruption deck against a typical GW deck. Typical GW deck is a +1/+1 counter synergy, not an anti-corruption deck. Green has no corruption infliction. White has one, but that would be inefficent as hell (Target player heals 7 gains a corruption counter).

I'll repeat myself.
If green and white are the colors that care about how much corruption your opponent has, why aren't they able to give corruption.
That's like making a set where all your cards that care about how many cards you draw are in white.

No, the black/red deck is probably Sacrifice Aggro. You just asked me to test a fringe deck, that runs corruption.

No I didn't. I asked you how a BR deck that cared about counters on itself would fare against a GW deck that cared about counters on the enemy.
Having GW be caring about the counters on the enemy without a way to put corruption on the enemy is a horrible mechanic, because it only functions as hate. It's like in Ice Age when no one played snow lands, because there were much stronger snow hosers than snow payoffs.

Either you want to give corruption to the enemy or you want to give it to yourself. You are toying with way too many different designs at once and they don't function together.
In design, less is more.