Post by: plastiqe on March 16, 2010, 07:14:44 am
| (http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:LyYz0Vnzgc7FyM:http://justmytruth.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/declaration-of-independence-signers.jpg) | We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all cards are not created equal, that they are endowed by zanzarino with different Elements to fight, that among these are Life, Gravity and the pursuit of Electrum. |
How do you define an overpowered card in Elements?
- Provides a signifigant advantage over other comparable cards.
- Cost not balanced with effect.
- "Any card is overpowered and should be removed or changed if it forces you to either pack hate against it or devote some number of cards to keep up just to be considered a viable deck."
~ jmizzle7 - "When you look at balancing cards, you cannot look at decks, or AI, or AI level. You can only look at cards. All else can follow once it's balanced."
~ Gl1tch - Just because there is a way to counter a card does not mean it is fair and balanced.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by: casthegamer on March 16, 2010, 07:17:44 am
Post by: diviad on March 16, 2010, 07:35:54 am
Another idea would be to make it take a max number of quants from a random number of elements.
Orr, say it takes 8 from 1 element, 6ea from 2 elements, 4ea from 3 elements, and 2 from all.
Post by: plastiqe on March 16, 2010, 07:36:55 am
Post by: Kael Hate on March 16, 2010, 08:57:12 am
It is playable way too early for its effect. I would like to see it changed to give the opponent a little break.
Suggestion 1 - Earthquake destroys 1/3 of the opponents towers in that stack Rounded up. This makes it better in the late game, always destroys at least one but cannot clear a stack when they have 3 pillars on the table. The opponent can still get some quanta if quite impaired. The Quake user is not losing card advantage because he can guarantee 1 destroyed pillar at least. In the late game if the targeted player has 12-15 Pillars to use for fueling triggers or Pumpspells like firebolt, the Quake can hit a massive 4-5 pillars and slow him down but unlikely to cut him to death.
Suggestion 2 - Turn Earthquake into a pumpspell. It destroys 1 pillar + 1 for every full 10 earth quanta the caster has. In the early game the caster can deny only a limited selection of pillars allowing the opponent a chance to build a counter but in the end game a total denial can still ensue.
Post by: Scaredgirl on March 16, 2010, 09:00:30 am
Please change the title to "Poll: Most Overpowered Card?" and we'll make this thread official with sticky etc. Thanks.
I'd also like to see more cards added to the list. Everyone please give suggestions.
Post by: CelestrialDreamer on March 16, 2010, 09:24:41 am
turtle shell is a lot more powerful
apart from blocking 50% attacks, creatures cant use spells as well when time bubbled
i voted for earthquake
and...why freeze is OP?
Post by: Xinef on March 16, 2010, 12:11:58 pm
As for black hole, I guess it should be changed to work a bit better against mono/duo and a bit less against rainbows. For example increase it's cost (so that it's less harmful when used against a rainbow in the first few turns), and make it drain at least 10 quanta (so it first tries to drain 3 quanta of each element, then if it was less than 10 it drains the remaining ones from random elements).
As for quint my suggestion is to make it a bit more expensive and make creatures targetable when frozen/stunned by a shield.
And now, that I read suggestions about earthquake, I think they are very reasonable as well. Earthquake would be still a powerful spell, but it would break the synergy of shriekers (very powerful and fast deck) + pillar denial (very powerful in the beginning) = kill quickly while opponent can do nothing
into shriekers (good for aggressive decks) and earthquake (good for control decks), so no synergy
As for the eternity, I guess it is a very versatile card, but not OP in any of it's possible uses. It can be used to deny creatures, but in fact it proves good only against some AI3 and buffing decks. Not so good against FG and PvP.
It can be used to save poisoned or mutated creatures, but the healing is done much cheaper by angels, and having your creatures mutated is not that bad usually.
And as far as anti-deckout use is considered, I guess there will be more ways to deal with it in the future, but anyway nerfing that would only cause people to say ' :time needs a boost!' ;)
So the nerf in the trainer was not deserved in my opinion, but it is not that bad either, so I won't protest if it stays that way.
Post by: doomeister on March 16, 2010, 12:22:20 pm
But, for me, nothing is more annoying than getting three Towers on my first turn and having them all destroyed by earthquake, so thats what i voted for.
Post by: blu on March 16, 2010, 03:19:53 pm
Quakes- yes way to overpower to stop someone 2 fast in there tracks and way to cheap for what it does. If its going to take out 3 pillars it shouldnt only cost 1 quanta.
Bone wall- is very Op it should only gave person bone charge if person who played it creature dies not any creature.
Dusk- the math on the dusk just really needs to be fix missing with 3 creature 2-3 turns in row without a hit is way to broken and on the 4th turn only 1 hits like ya. Its Like a phase shield but it never goes away it just keeps going and going unless stolen or defrag.
Rewind- think should cost more cause just the simple fact of mummy 3 quanta rewind 1 and you will have a creature that can push out bunch of scarabs thats cheaper then ffq and scarabs eat everthing when there a bunch out
Post by: Xinef on March 16, 2010, 06:14:57 pm
Congeal- I think its unresonable to be unable to do anything for 4 turns its a bit much really. Spelll no where near as bad as sheild is.Bone wall is not overpowered. It is expensive and in fact easy to destroy with many decks. Just look at Morte and Incarnate - they are in fact amongst the weakest false gods.
Quakes- yes way to overpower to stop someone 2 fast in there tracks and way to cheap for what it does. If its going to take out 3 pillars it shouldnt only cost 1 quanta.
Bone wall- is very Op it should only gave person bone charge if person who played it creature dies not any creature.
Dusk- the math on the dusk just really needs to be fix missing with 3 creature 2-3 turns in row without a hit is way to broken and on the 4th turn only 1 hits like ya. Its Like a phase shield but it never goes away it just keeps going and going unless stolen or defrag.
Rewind- think should cost more cause just the simple fact of mummy 3 quanta rewind 1 and you will have a creature that can push out bunch of scarabs thats cheaper then ffq and scarabs eat everthing when there a bunch out
The problem with bone wall is that in early game it only clutters your hand. You have not enough quanta to play it, and even if you can, you usually keep it for later, or you would lose it in 2-3 turns, so it would be like an a bit more expensive phase shield. On the other hand in the late game it is indeed powerful, but only if you already have control over the field (quinted oty for example, or rain of fire against a bunch of low hp creatures), so in fact it is rarely a card changing the outcome of a battle.
As for rewind... with a thunderbolt and 1 :aether you can kill a number of dragon kinds, an upgraded oty, a fallen druid, a shrieker... on the other hand a rewind only delays these for one turn and makes some quanta difference, but offensively seems less powerful (against growth creatures and buff decks it might be more powerful than a thunderbolt, but only if you have another way to kill those creatures after you rewind them).
As for the mummy+rewind against an FFQ... mummy+rewind are two cards. This means you have to draw both. Instead of these cards you could include two FFQs, two graboids, two lycanthropes or any two cards that do a lot of damage, cheap and are more reliable than mummy+rewind combo.
Oh, and as far as dusk mantle is concerned... you had just bad luck. People often notice if they have a series of misses, but you probably don't remember how often you fought against a dusk mantle and landed more hits than misses. Just try to do some calculations or extensive tests and if after 20 tests you still have much more misses than hits, than it might prove something. But a single situation proves nothing.
Post by: killfer8 on March 16, 2010, 06:33:26 pm
Post by: plastiqe on March 17, 2010, 10:16:44 pm
Post by: icybraker on March 17, 2010, 10:33:17 pm
And guys, stop bashing Pulverizer and Graboid. Both of these guys were nerfed significantly - their ability costs now make them much more difficult to use in a mono-deck or even a Rainbow, in Pulvy's case. In my opinion, both of these cards have been nerfed enough.
Hmm... what will Zanz's next nerfing targets be? Hopefully not our beloved Otyugh, Shards, or Earthquakes.
Post by: ScytherLoL on March 17, 2010, 10:59:39 pm
Earthquake: It drives me nuts as it is too easily played.
FFQ: Only because I want it to be 6 hp rather than 7
Black Hole: Think it should cost more but leave the rest of the stats the same
Thanks
Scyther
Post by: Glitch on March 17, 2010, 11:02:10 pm
The combo is overpowered as to do it, you have to target an untargetable card. While I know this is a much debated fact, I'd still like the option to vote on those.
Post by: coinich on March 17, 2010, 11:30:59 pm
Post by: Tea is good on March 17, 2010, 11:45:08 pm
Post by: Glitch on March 17, 2010, 11:49:44 pm
The thing is, I can't see a single overpowered card here. Most of the comments deal with someone not being able to handle a certain combo and nothing more.Flying weapon, for 1 mana, breaks two fundamental rules of the game. Rule the first: No more than one weapon at a time. Rule the second: You cannot target untargetables.
While I mentioned a combo, the card in and of itself is way overpowered.
Post by: xdude on March 18, 2010, 11:16:37 am
Rule # 1 : Says who?The thing is, I can't see a single overpowered card here. Most of the comments deal with someone not being able to handle a certain combo and nothing more.Flying weapon, for 1 mana, breaks two fundamental rules of the game. Rule the first: No more than one weapon at a time. Rule the second: You cannot target untargetables.
While I mentioned a combo, the card in and of itself is way overpowered.
Rule # 2 : For the last time, it DOESN"T target....
I'm surprised that Trident/Poseidon wasn't on this list. Fly a couple of those and you can destroy 18 pillars a turn for 12-18 earth quanta. Best weapon to steal as a rainbow against HBs.It's not so good since it's hard to get a good combo with water and earth.
Post by: bigbadbanana on March 19, 2010, 06:44:17 pm
Post by: psychoden on March 24, 2010, 10:56:44 am
They just don't want to play vs land destruction.
Post by: plastiqe on March 24, 2010, 10:03:50 pm
People just vote on the decks that they want to be nerfed, and not on decks that they use, regarless of whether it's actually overpowered or not. You really shouldn't look at that thread with any credibility.I think your callous summary of the motivation behind 73 different voters speaks to your own credibility.
Btw there aren't any lands to destroy in Elements. : )
Post by: Kamietsu on March 25, 2010, 12:41:04 am
Post by: teffy on March 25, 2010, 01:15:09 am
The Artifact card came out, when Earthquake came out, so it was made as a counter card, but it has another use, now.
Post by: tyranim on March 25, 2010, 02:20:52 am
Post by: Kyarss on March 25, 2010, 07:39:01 am
Post by: acelink on March 25, 2010, 08:20:05 am
Graboid
Changed so it goes Graboid (burrowed)-> Shrieker (Burrowed) and pay 1 :earth to un-burrow.
Quicksand
Changed so Pillar destruction happens over turns. 1 destroyed during casters turn, 1 destroyed at the end of opponents turn, 1 destroyed at the end of your (second) turn.
Blackhole
Dark Matter's version only drains 2 quanta.
Post by: Kurohami on March 25, 2010, 09:48:46 pm
Post by: Robsta43 on March 26, 2010, 12:35:37 am
When looking for overpowered cards, I look at my own deck and think... what in here would I still use if it cost a little more quanta?
There is a reason I don't use a gravity nymph in my rainbow deck, and it's not because I don't have one (cause I do). The same goes for Quicksand (although I would like a trident).
Post by: drklameth on March 26, 2010, 08:54:52 pm
As a long time CCG player, one of the biggest complaints from folks has been resource destruction. It stinks to not be able to play what's in your hand. The ones from the list that I find overpowered are quicksand/earthquake and pulverizer. I've heard the latter has been gimped a bit, I believe the same needs to be done to qs/eq.
As a side note, well done to those that have had a hand in designing this game. Very well done.
Post by: (...) on March 29, 2010, 04:15:59 pm
Post by: Wisemage on March 30, 2010, 01:32:41 am
I wouyldnt vote for them, but im sure some people would.
Post by: Xinef on March 30, 2010, 04:51:37 pm
On the other hand I guess fractal is still one of the most powerful cards right now (though I'm not saying it's OP), so I guess adding these (and other new cards, especially thorn shield and flood) to the poll might certainly make sense.
Post by: sinez on March 31, 2010, 08:26:26 pm
Hope has already been nerfed enough. Now it is (IMHO) comparable to bone wall in power. The main problem with it before nerf was that it was equally useful in early game as in late game, and useful even without light emitting creatures, now it is not so suited for early game (unless you use fractaled RoLs, which are easy to counter with any creature control), so much more balanced.I agree on the fractal thing, its powerfull as heck, but not op, it cant be used with imortals or phase dragons, so its one of the few aether cards that doesnt work well with an aether deck.(even with recluses it drains all quanta, snd that HURTS,) also hope has almost become UP, there arent that many light epiting creatures, so it only works with ffq decks.
On the other hand I guess fractal is still one of the most powerful cards right now (though I'm not saying it's OP), so I guess adding these (and other new cards, especially thorn shield and flood) to the poll might certainly make sense.
Post by: Salmon on April 01, 2010, 05:34:19 am
Useless against a mono deck, crippling to a rainbow, now maybe it could even be left alone, with its obvious advantage and weakness, but maybe theres a way to balance it a little more (take a minimum of X quanta even if theres only 1 type, and a maximum of Y quanta even if they have all types?)
Quicksand probably needs to be changed so it can't be used to deny ALL quanta at such an early point... the 1 3rd of pillars/pumpspell ideas by Kael Hate look perfect
That said, I don't see any REAL need to change any of the cards, some are rather powerful, but that's really a perk of picking the right element now isn't it? ;)
Post by: xdude on April 01, 2010, 01:57:25 pm
That said, I don't see any REAL need to change any of the cards, some are rather powerful, but that's really a perk of picking the right element now isn't it? ;)
...but picking an element should depend on a player's style of playing not on which is the best, since they should all be equally powerful... right?
Post by: Kael Hate on April 01, 2010, 02:48:06 pm
Why do people think earthquakes are so overpowered?More like people think its OP because against it most of the time they never get to play, they just lose.
They just don't want to play vs land destruction.
Post by: Kuroaitou on April 04, 2010, 08:41:36 am
I also voted Black Hole and Earthquake/Quicksand, which
Most of the weapons to me are balanced, including Eternity and Pulverizer (Both can be ruined by denial of quanta, effective immunities (see mono- :aether), or possibly stealing/destroying them before usage. ;)
Just my opinion of course. [
Post by: Rastafla on April 04, 2010, 03:53:05 pm
And thats my opinion.
Otherwise I think as Kamietsu does, the other cards are all different shades of strong and can be worked around.
*picks the imaginary option 'none of the above'* I don't believe any of them are overpowered. Some are stronger than others, yeah, but none are so strong they are to the point of overpowering.
Post by: zzz123 on April 05, 2010, 09:02:08 am
imho if devour was changed to only increase damage but NOT health, it would become much less overpowered. an upgraded oty, particularly with an upgraded armor on it, would STILL clean up almost anything that exists on the table, but you don't just automatically get there by eating an army of (possibly your own) skeletons.
in other news, denial strategies are ok, but not when they based on only one card. I lose about 85-90% of games where an earthquake is played on the first round by the opponent, and 100% of the ones where he manages to land 2 in the first couple rounds of the game (using a rainbow deck), but win 95+% of the time against the same opponents when he doesn't (i.e. every time i don't end up with a game where i have no pillars or no creatures for the first 10-15 rounds)
Post by: IStoneI on April 11, 2010, 12:33:51 pm
the only things that concern me at the moment are the pulverizer and earthquake/quicksand. if any i think both costs should be raised. earthquake/quicksand to 5/4 and the destroy ability of the pulverizer at least to 3. in my experience. when i draw a trident/pulverizer early in the game its a quick win. if the enemy is drawing it early, its a shure loss (unless im extremely lucky to have a steal/explosion on hand, which is extremly unprobable in a 40 cards deck). if hes is drawing pulverizer/trident + protect artifact, i can already quit the game. i havent seen any rainbow deck so far, that can survive without items. and i just cant take 6 protect artifacts with me every time.
Post by: Xinef on April 11, 2010, 01:03:56 pm
As for PA, I find 3 the optimal number. 1 for Eternity, 1 for Permafrost and 1 for Feral Bond, this way I have a secure defense even if FG destroys all my hourglasses and shards. With 3 PA I can also often save most of my pillars when fighting against pillar denial decks... though my deck has both quantum towers and time towers, so it's still not easy.
Though I would prefer EQ to have it's ability nerfed, not the cost. Making it less powerful in the beginning, but more powerful in late game through making it destroy eg. 1/3 of all pillars in the stack seems reasonable, as Kael Hate suggested here (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,4031.msg44199#msg44199).
Post by: IStoneI on April 11, 2010, 02:24:56 pm
but after the last ai update some of them are nearly impossible to beat. i cant remember, ever winning a match against divine glory (if thats the one with the flying morning glorys) or the one, that just nukes you in the first few rounds with unstable gas. but thats just a matter of balancing the gods not a matter of balancing the cards.
if you want to figure out if cards are overpowered or not, i would suggest, comparing them against top 50 decks.
Post by: Xinef on April 11, 2010, 03:06:35 pm
As for your suggestion to try against top50... I guess PvP would be a better indicator ;)
Post by: JETZAL on April 11, 2010, 11:41:41 pm
Post by: Retribution on April 17, 2010, 12:37:56 am
I also think Fractal should be nerfed. It's way OP.
Post by: Kurohami on April 17, 2010, 02:10:52 am
Post by: iRwar on April 17, 2010, 04:20:28 am
Post by: Retribution on April 17, 2010, 08:20:01 pm
the entropy thing with paradox is overpowered!Maxwell's Demon can be easily killed unless it's quintessenced.
Black hole kills rainbow easily but not really overpower against mono or duo decks. Fractal is not overpowered because it really does nothing in a deck that is not particularly designed for it. The few successful fractal decks are pretty powerful, but not to the point of invincibility, I think fractal is nerfed all the way already since it drains all aether quanta.Increase it's cost, or something.
Post by: Boingo on April 17, 2010, 10:09:10 pm
Post by: iRwar on April 20, 2010, 02:09:53 am
Post by: dragonhuman on April 20, 2010, 05:12:43 am
The few successful fractal decks are pretty powerful, but not to the point of invincibility, I think fractal is nerfed all the way already since it drains all aether quanta.Including fractual in a rainbow deck gives all sorts of opportunities, even if its not based around fractual and of course you would have the quantum to play the others
Post by: stage on April 29, 2010, 11:28:05 pm
Post by: darkhellion on May 09, 2010, 01:42:09 pm
Post by: Kamietsu on May 09, 2010, 04:34:31 pm
Post by: dragonhuman on May 09, 2010, 05:19:17 pm
I chose Hope simply because I don't think any card is OP right now, but hope comes the closest, if only just barely closer to OP than other cards. I would sort of like it is unupgraded it was 1-N and upgraded was N, but that's just my personal preference.You mean N-1? because 1-N would give you a negative armor ratio if you had bioillimunance creatures
Post by: xXaliceXx9994 on May 15, 2010, 12:27:09 am
Post by: Marvaddin on May 18, 2010, 05:43:18 am
I also voted for:
- Rewind, seriously, 1 quanta to remove your creature from the game, so you need DRAW IT AGAIN (the worst part), plus pay the quanta again, and still have all buffs removed? Too powerfull to me. Looks like it could be at least 2, maybe 3 quanta.
- SoG. Ridiculous: 2 quanta for 5 life each turn. Of course it still can be destroyed or stolen, but there are just 3 cards that deal with it, beyond mutants and the 'rare' Pulverizer (that needs 2 different quanta): BE (that also require a creature with low attack, and costs too much), deflagration and steal. So most time you cant remove it. And nothing is more irritating than playing T50 or PvP and your opponent starts with: quanta tower, SoG, quanta tower, SoG. >:D
Post by: johannhowitzer on May 19, 2010, 04:05:42 am
Quicksand because it's too crippling against too many decks... you really need a pillarless deck to survive unless you get a good start and opponent gets a bad one.
Black Hole because it shuts down rainbow far too easily, whether pillar-based or supernova-based. 2 quanta per element would still be damaging, but that's a drop of 33%, which would give at least a slim fighting chance.
SoG because the quanta cost is low, healing is equal to a druidic staff, and you can get multiples out without needing to animate them. They fit in any deck, and everyone and their grandmother has at least a couple now that a lot of T50 farm decks have them.
Post by: ItzSean on May 19, 2010, 05:47:49 am
You mean N-1? because 1-N would give you a negative armor ratio if you had bioillimunance creatures
Wouldn't that be a good thing..? :P
I voted for:
1) Earthquake/Quicksand: Come on.. 3(2 upg) quanta to destroy 3 pillars? Thats devastating! Most people, even in a 60 card rainbow have 8-15 pillars. 2-3 of these in one deck and if the player gets a chance to use them, you are screwed. Yes, Supernovas gets around this, but once that quantas gone... you're done. I'd say either up the cost by one ( 4 un-upped 3 upg) OR lower the pillars destroyed by 1.
2)Reverse Time/Rewind: I find nothing more aggravating then having a monster that you've played RT'd THEN having to waste your next turn re-drawing it THEN not having the quanta to play it! Oh and the cost is just a joke. Even un-upgraded it is too easy to play. Either up costs or make the card that was RT'd put at the bottom of the deck, I wouldn't mind that.
3)Fractal: Seriously..this has to be THE most hated card in all of Elements. Because of this single card, it has the ability to create synergy between ANY element. Fractal-trices... fractal-chargers...the list goes on.... Grant it, its playing cost is rather high, but the effect is the definition of OP and worth each quanta. 8 quanta to get up to 8 copies of one card.. That's a quanta a card. I know, people could counter saying that this card is OP by saying, " But it drains all your aether quanta!" .... When the opponent has 3-4 aether pillar(tower)s it doesn't really matter since normally fractal is the only thing aether in their deck.. I'd say limit the number of cards that can be created AND increase the cost. On top of that, keep the fact that it drains your aether quanta down to 0 after being played.
Post by: JennyP81 on May 19, 2010, 06:08:30 am
Post by: Xinef on May 19, 2010, 08:15:43 am
2)Reverse Time/Rewind: I find nothing more aggravating then having a monster that you've played RT'd THEN having to waste your next turn re-drawing it THEN not having the quanta to play it! Oh and the cost is just a joke. Even un-upgraded it is too easy to play. Either up costs or make the card that was RT'd put at the bottom of the deck, I wouldn't mind that.Somehow I find those two explanations quite contradict each other. You state that you don't want your creature back after it is rewound, so I guess you'd prefer to draw a pillar so that you actually have quanta to play your creatures.
3)Fractal: Seriously..this has to be THE most hated card in all of Elements. Because of this single card, it has the ability to create synergy between ANY element. Fractal-trices... fractal-chargers...the list goes on.... Grant it, its playing cost is rather high, but the effect is the definition of OP and worth each quanta. 8 quanta to get up to 8 copies of one card.. That's a quanta a card. I know, people could counter saying that this card is OP by saying, " But it drains all your aether quanta!" .... When the opponent has 3-4 aether pillar(tower)s it doesn't really matter since normally fractal is the only thing aether in their deck.. I'd say limit the number of cards that can be created AND increase the cost. On top of that, keep the fact that it drains your aether quanta down to 0 after being played.
On the other hand you are against the most expensive card in the game (eg. fractal+8 pests = 8 :aether + 16 :darkness = 24 :quanta total) which is even more expensive when playing eg. fractal-chargers or fractal-dragons.
With fractal you have an abundance of creatures, but the main problem is you don't have the quanta to play them all and you need to use special creatures like LoR or pests to gain quanta faster, but still fractal is easy to counter with mass creature control (if creatures cheap and low on health) or with quantum denial in case of fractal-charger, fractal-dragon or anything similar.
Fractal is a powerful card, yes, but it has enough of disadvantages that all fractal decks can be countered in one way or another and if you look at some of the trial battles you will see that fractal decks often lose to non-fractal decks so they are in fact not any better than other decks.
As for rewind, it might be very irritating, but in fact it's not overly powerful. A lightning can kill most creatures for the same cost, a gravity pull also. Against rewind you should try playing your cheaper creatures first (if you can) and more expensive creatures when you have more pillars in play and then it will be more of a nuisance than a real threat. Also, notice that having 6 rewinds in your deck makes your deck much less offensive, you will keep drawing those rather than dragons or other offensive cards so adding rewinds in fact is harmful to many :time decks. It is a wonderful card against flying weapons, growing creatures or dragon-based decks, but against all other decks you would do better replacing rewinds with procrastination, eternity, or some offensive cards.
Post by: ItzSean on May 19, 2010, 09:17:14 am
Post by: Xinef on May 19, 2010, 10:30:14 am
If I had known you'd just pick apart my posts, I wouldn't have posted at all. Bottom line, my opinions are what they are. :PMy intent was not to criticize your post, but rather to state my impression and thoughts about it and point out a few facts and a few more subjective opinions based on my experience that could possibly change your point of view. I guess it's nothing wrong in a discussion to write what you think about someone else's opinion. It's ok if you keep your opinions and there is no reason not to post them only because someone does not agree with you, or else you'd have to write nothing at all ;)
For example I agree with you that earthquake should be nerfed a bit. Because earthquake+graboid is one of those decks that win too often when compared with other really good decks. I also agree with you that fractal is very powerful and rewind can be powerful in certain situations. I simply think that earthquake should be nerfed while fractal and rewind already have so many disadvantages that they do not need nerfing and decks built around these are not so effective that they would require nerfing.
If you still do not agree with me than either give some stronger arguments to support your case or ignore me ;) Not posting your opinion is probably the worst thing you could do in a discussion ;)
Post by: Scaredgirl on May 19, 2010, 02:51:46 pm
If I had known you'd just pick apart my posts, I wouldn't have posted at all. Bottom line, my opinions are what they are. :PAre you saying that forums should be about people posting their own opinions without anybody actually responding to anything?
Sounds fun.
Post by: Medivh on May 21, 2010, 11:44:10 pm
Post by: killsdazombies on May 22, 2010, 01:26:16 am
sure some players might not know the way to beat a certain card but that doesnt mean it should be nerfed, lotsa hate for earthquake, the counter is PA. EVERY thing has a weakness, if your too lazy to find it, the pay some one to *me*
Post by: plastiqe on May 22, 2010, 01:45:15 am
Any card is overpowered and should be removed or changed if it forces you to either pack hate against it or devote some number of cards to keep up just to be considered a viable deck.Just because there is a way to counter Earthquake does not mean it's a fair and balanced card.
Post by: johannhowitzer on May 23, 2010, 05:37:33 am
Pillars, creatures, and novas are the only way to generate resources in this game. Creatures that generate quanta are controllable in many ways, and even supernovas generate very limited quanta - 24 may seem like a lot, but you have to play five of them to play the average dragon. This means pillars are by far the most reliable source of quanta. It's not that there shouldn't be a way to kill someone's resource supply... it's just that Earthquake is way too efficient at it.
On the other hand, the renewable counterpart, Trident, is impractical for any deck not specifically designed for it... and such a deck would have serious drawbacks. There's got to be a way to average these two cards out.
Post by: Xinef on May 23, 2010, 11:22:50 am
the thing is... no card is over powered.I'd like to add one more proof that the fact a card can be countered easily does not mean it is not overpowered.
sure some players might not know the way to beat a certain card but that doesnt mean it should be nerfed, lotsa hate for earthquake, the counter is PA. EVERY thing has a weakness, if your too lazy to find it, the pay some one to *me*
Imagine a spell that costs 1 :time and has a description: "If your opponents does not have a mark of :time you win the game"
This card can be easily countered, in fact if such a card were to appear in game it wouldn't win you too many battles because everyone would be playing mark of :time. Still, such a card would be terribly overpowered just because it makes most of the decks obsolete and destroys the balance.
Yes, I know this example is very exaggerated, but try to give an example of a card that does not make any decks obsolete and is overpowered simply because it is impossible to counter...
I guess there is one example, an unupgraded mark card (indestructible and has a 0 cost so there is no way to counter it). Is it overpowered simply because you cannot counter it in any way? No :P
Post by: dracomageat on May 25, 2010, 07:17:54 pm
Post by: Marvaddin on May 27, 2010, 07:24:59 am
I say bone wall. Fix it so deflagration kills the lot.^ Fire user detected, lol :D
Post by: hello5666 on May 27, 2010, 07:42:09 am
Post by: ratcharmer on May 31, 2010, 01:16:36 am
What I have seen done a couple times so far in elements that I thought worked AMAZING is adding in a counter strategy.
The best example I can think of that's happened recently would be making certain creatures "poisonous". It didn't change the way the otyguh works at all, but at the same time it shifted the game balance so that oty isn't as overpowered.
That being said, take a look at Enchant artifact. Its a cheap card that shuts down permanent control entirely, and is an ability no other element can match. I think pulvy/earthquake would be a lot less OP if other elements had some way of defending themselves.
Post by: Cancerplus on June 02, 2010, 08:19:26 pm
I really hate quinted Oty's.
I think they should make it so that if Oty's don't eat anything for something like 3 turns they would die.
It's really stupid how all someone has to do is put down a quinted Oty in the first couple turns and the opponent is immediately at a huge disadvantage. Not only can they not play crucial cards but the owner of said Oty is free to keep drawing cards and gaining masses amounts of Quanta.
Oty's should die of HUNGER!
Post by: b00mc1ap on June 05, 2010, 01:10:36 pm
Well I'd also like to add the upgraded Dimensional Shield.
Post by: Antagon on June 05, 2010, 01:50:43 pm
Post by: johannhowitzer on June 06, 2010, 11:20:39 pm
Not overpowered, just because there are so many ways to counter.
Post by: Jelden on June 08, 2010, 04:04:58 am
But the most annoying thing I have ever come across is when there’s a quinted Chrysaroa, Otyugh or even an Charger on the field other than certain shields that won’t even work on a Charger all you can do to them is sit there and stare at them. I think the price is okay for playing it as it is now but would not mind at all if it was raised. One idea I had for it would be to make it when you make a creature immortal that it losses whatever abilities that it has currently. So while you would it would be still a good card it won’t lead to death by one or two creatures that you just can’t kill or even stop.
Post by: Selenbrant on June 14, 2010, 11:33:17 pm
I dont think that rewind, quicksands and so on are really overpowered.
It depends on your opponent.
Quicksands are trash in your hand against a pillarless deck or almost pillarless(Novas., Crem., RoL/Hope) and you will lose because of not having creatures instead.
Black Holes are almost trash vs Mono Decks it doesnt heal much and doesnt take much quanta. Against rainbow it often takes about 30 quanta.
Discord can really delay your Mono deck for several turns, but it could even help a rainbow deck. And for decks playing with cards that can create creatures with skills(mutation, fractal, etc.) you will allow your opponent using much more of these skills.
Fire Shield will give a RoL/Hope no chance.
The cards I dont like so much is sundial, although its already nerfed to 1 turn.
Its annoying to wait 6 turns if the worst comes to the worst to be able to attack and then there are Otys or whatever and you cant attack either.
But I need to say its rather annoying because of the much turns and the long game than because of the effect itself. (the same for hourglasses, especially vs FG when he played 6 or so)
I dont want to imagine how devastating it would be to nerf rewind and quicksand for a mono earth.
I would be really sad seeing my favourite cards getting nerfed :'(
Wouldnt you too?
Post by: Xinef on June 15, 2010, 03:48:34 pm
I dont want to imagine how devastating it would be to nerf rewind and quicksand for a mono earth.Nerfing quicksands a little wouldn't be that devastating because mono earth would still be quite powerful. In fact it's quite a versatile deck in terms of how many earthquakes, rewinds, graboids, shriekers and eventually other cards (eg. elite antlions, basilisk bloods, diamond shields) you take, so nerfing one or two of these cards would only shift the numbers a bit, not affecting efficiency dramatically. (Though I hope that would be at least noticeable)
I would be really sad seeing my favourite cards getting nerfed :'(
Wouldnt you too?
Post by: wizelsnarf on July 08, 2010, 06:21:37 am
1 :fire means you only need 1 tower to play it. That means on your first turn you can potentially destroy 1-4 permanents. I guess quicksand is comparable but not as versatile.
Anyhow I would vote for explosion if it was on the list
Post by: plastiqe on July 15, 2010, 05:07:26 pm
Post by: Antagon on July 15, 2010, 05:43:19 pm
Post by: plastiqe on July 15, 2010, 07:55:36 pm
can you please make votes removable or clear poll once? already voted and cannot remove(change)I'm quite sure I checked the option last time and I'm 100% sure I ticked it this time when creating the new poll.. for some reason removing and changing votes isn't working.
Post by: DrunkDestroyer on July 16, 2010, 10:29:26 pm
Don't you remember all the games with your life rush that a quinted oty gets out on the second turn?
Post by: johannhowitzer on July 16, 2010, 11:58:16 pm
(Yes, I know, you said RUSH. Rush decks are supposed to sacrifice defense, though.)
Post by: godofdeath500 on July 17, 2010, 01:26:22 pm
Reason I chose Quintessence:
You can't target the creature.
I think a nerf is long overdue. My suggestion:
Temporary Immortally. For 5 turns. That way it is taken down as a staple in rainbow decks. It would still be temporary immortally.
Post by: PuppyChow on July 17, 2010, 03:53:31 pm
I don't think anything is OP. I'll explain my reasoning here:
First off, defining an over-powered deck: An over-powered deck is a deck that has solely one or two counters and can destroy any other deck.
The presence of an OP deck results in a pvp skew of using one of three types: the OP deck, its few counters, and other decks that can beat the counters but not the OP deck. AKA, a rock-paper-scissors game where 2/3 of the decks are the same 2-3 decks.
Now let's define an OP card:
1) For a card to be OP, you must be able to create an OP deck USING that card. Reasoning that "well this card is OP but I can't think of a way to capitalize on the OPness" is very wrong.
2) For the corollary of this, to identify an OP card you must identify that most integral and strongest part of this OP deck.
Now, here's my reasoning for none of these cards being OP: THERE IS NO PVP SKEW. In the metagame, which I count as championship league (all upped cards, and everybody is a good deckbuilder), no single deck dominates with only a couple counters.
______________________________________________________________________
Another commonly held belief is that when a card is used in so many different deck archetypes (I'll use sog as an example), it is OP. They sometimes point to the sundial example for this.
I can see similarities between the past situation of sundial and the current situation of shard of gratitude. Both were/are the quintessential stall card, and almost every stall deck involved them. However, this wasn't a function of how overpowered they were, and instead a function of their accessibility: both cost either other or 0 quanta to play (upped). Now, as soon as sundial was nerfed, it was made not as effective except in its own little niche and instead sog stepped up to the plate.
So you may be thinking "okay, but now sog is OP and needs to be nerfed". Which I disagree with. Pre-sundial nerf, if a rush deck didn't have permanent control, it was nearly impossible to out rush a stall deck using sundials, since you could essentially chain sundials due to the card drawing ability (1 sundial = 2 turns without damage taken and 4 cards drawn). Basically the only way to counter it was bring a deck with perm control, bring a deck with quanta control (only earthquake at the time, or pests in some cases), or use another stall deck yourself. However, nowadays, sogs can be countered much easier. It isn't nearly on the same level as sundial was. Rush decks can out rush them because they don't provide card drawing, and can't completely stop a creature's attack. Each sog does, after all, only heal 5 per turn. It's rather easy for a rush deck to do 30 damage per turn, and that's how much the sogs will be healing endgame, when a common rush deck may have 70+ damage out.
Just because sog is used just as much as sundial was doesn't mean it's just as strong.
Another note is that nerfing sog because it's used in so many stall decks nerfs those stall decks as well, which is not a good thing since none of those stall decks are overly powerful.
______________________________________________________________________
Does a card being powerful really constitute OPness? Every game has and needs powerful cards. I won't use any real life examples, because of the differences between RL and online game dissemination (real life, all the OP cards can't be collected up and changed like the online games can). However, a game where all the cards are the same power and one deck isn't stronger than another makes for a boring game. In the metagame where everyone uses strong decks, every single match would be a coin toss. You might as well just use the coin flip at the beginning of the match to determine who wins.
In the game as it is, however, where some decks beat one deck and lose to another but the deck it beats can beat a few different decks and those decks lose to (etc etc), it is full of picking and counter picking and is more mind games than a coin toss. Every good deck *usually* uses a few top tier cards, but that doesn't mean the top tier cards are OP. It means they're powerful.
______________________________________________________________________
One final point is that nerfing some of these cards would result in another card becoming OP, and nerfing that would make another one OP, and so on, setting off a chain reaction of OP ness :D .
Example:
1) Black Hole is nerfed.
2) Speed rainbows grow in prominance since they don't need to worry about black hole as much anymore.
3) So because of speed rainbows prominance, supernova is nerfed.
4) When supernova gets nerfed, suddenly decks using quicksand become a whole lot stronger against rainbows since supernova can't counter it as effectively.
5) Quicksand is nerfed due to graboid rush prominance.
6) The absence of the quicksand threat makes some stall decks a lot more powerful, namely decks that use sogs and need a lot of quanta.
7) So then sogs are nerfed due to their sudden strength.
8) And it goes on and on... Until eventually, you're right back where you started and black hole needs another nerf.
______________________________________________________________________
In addition, this poll has inherent flaws.
1) First, we must accept that many of the people voting in this topic may only have 1-3 decks and so can't take an objective look at a card's OPness. They view everything through that filter and compare how every card does against their decks. Maybe all their decks require high quanta usage, so earthquake completely ruins it. While they may not think of all the other decks and archetypes that earthquake can't touch, they automatically assume it's OP. And then go vote for it.
2) Not judging a card by the decks it's used in. I've seen someone say earthquake is OP because it destroys 3 cards for 1. Yes, that seems strong in theory, but in practice, it really isn't due to the abundance of decks that use supernovas or low quanta usage or no/limited pillars. Because the cards it destroys are quanta generators, it may not be able to stop the deck from playing creatures if it is a deck requiring low quanta usage (speed poison or life rush) or even mid quanta usage if the deck is played right. And saying "it destroys 3 cards for 1" isn't entirely accurate. It destroys *up to* 3 *pillars* for 1, which isn't nearly as strong.
3) The name of the topic. Some newbs make look at it and go "okay, so all the cards in here are OP, so now which 3 are the strongest imo? those are the ones i'll vote for!". "Most Overpowered Card" implies that all the cards contained in the topic are OP, but at different levels. Though it says "Which are OP?" at the top of the actual topic, many newbs wouldn't read that. Change it to "[POLL] Which Cards are OP?".
...I think I'm done. *Steps off soapbox*.
Post by: ratcharmer on July 17, 2010, 09:34:55 pm
I to, feel that nerfing cards already in the game could have awkward consequences, and certain cards will always seem strong compared to others if you always nerf the card that seems strongest you'll end up nerfing everything into non-existence.
I think the best thing to do about cards that seem strong is to introduce new ways to deal with them: Black hole for rainbows, poisonous creatures for otys etc.
Post by: plastiqe on July 18, 2010, 12:20:27 am
Quote
Now let's define an OP card:People used to mix 4 :fire Lava Golems and 5 :fire Lava Destroyers and be able to play both on the first turn by using Cremation on another creature, and this was deemed overpowered. Was Lava Golem the most integral and strongest part of this four card combo? No. Using your definition it probably should have been Cremation that was nerfed.
1) For a card to be OP, you must be able to create an OP deck USING that card. Reasoning that "well this card is OP but I can't think of a way to capitalize on the OPness" is very wrong.
2) For the corollary of this, to identify an OP card you must identify that most integral and strongest part of this OP deck.
So while deck vs deck is relevant to some degree... I don't think it should be the determining factor to find out if something is OP. I think you need to look at specific situations, not decks as a whole. Things like..
- power level in relation to similar cards
- cost balanced with effect
- card advantage
..are what determines an OP card. And just because there is a way to counter a card does not mean it is fair and balanced
Quote
1) First, we must accept that many of the people voting in this topic may only have 1-3 decks and so can't take an objective look at a card's OPness.So the only opinions that matter are the players in CL, Elitism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitism) much?
Quote
2) Not judging a card by the decks it's used in.Just because you can play a pillarless deck and be immune to Earthquake.. or use Protect Artifact and be immune to Earthquake.. it does not mean that EQ isn't OP. Here is an all to common situation that anybody can relate to:
Earth player goes first and drops earth pillars.
Other player goes second and plays their pillars.
Earthquake destroys 3 pillars.
It doesn't matter what the decktypes are.. in that situation Earthquake is overpowered. Another problem I have with EQ.. how many mono and duo decks are ruined by it? Seems to me that mono and duo decks need all the help they can get.. seems to me it's to the point that EQ is bad for the meta because it makes so many decks unviable.
Quote
3) "Most Overpowered Card" implies that all the cards contained in the topic are OP, but at different levels".... "Change it to "[POLL] Which Cards are OP?".Good point, I'll change the title.
Post by: Malduk on July 18, 2010, 02:16:01 am
Quote from: plastiqe
And just because there is a way to counter a card does not mean it is fair and balancedQuoted for truth.
Quote from: Puppychow
However, a game where all the cards are the same power and one deck isn't stronger than another makes for a boring game. In the metagame where everyone uses strong decks, every single match would be a coin toss. You might as well just use the coin flip at the beginning of the match to determine who wins.Actually it is complete opposite of that.
At current metagame, winner is often decided before the match. Who managed to blindly pick a "perfect counter". THAT is boring. If the cards would be more balanced among themselves, optimizing decks and actual card playing skill would become much more important.
Finally, balance of cards does not mean all decks are completely equal.
Post by: Arondight on July 18, 2010, 02:30:54 am
Slightly torn on if I should vote for Earthquake or not, as I was able to work around it quite a few times. I may be a bit biased because I simply like the card, as well.
Post by: PuppyChow on July 18, 2010, 07:20:47 pm
Quote
People used to mix 4 (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/Smileys/SoLoSMiLeYS1/fire18x18.png) Lava Golems and 5 (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/Smileys/SoLoSMiLeYS1/fire18x18.png) Lava Destroyers and be able to play both on the first turn by using Cremation on another creature, and this was deemed overpowered. Was Lava Golem the most integral and strongest part of this four card combo? No. Using your definition it probably should have been Cremation that was nerfed.Using my definition, I would say it was the ability for an unupped golem and upped golem to be played by a single cremation that is over powered.
So while deck vs deck is relevant to some degree... I don't think it should be the determining factor to find out if something is OP. I think you need to look at specific situations, not decks as a whole. Things like..
- power level in relation to similar cards
- cost balanced with effect
- card advantage
..are what determines an OP card.
So no, actually. The over powered part would be the 4 cost lava golem. The goal should be to balance things with as low a nerf as possible. Sure, nerfing cremation would solve the problem too, but that may have a cascading effect on making other decks unviable too. Increasing lava golem's cost by 1, however, would solve the problem and have the least effect on other decks.
The other things you say are true too, but generally when a cost is not balanced with the effect or some such (to the degree that it warrants a super nerf), you can make an OP deck with it. I'm not saying cards like steal for 2 :darkness didn't deserve the nerf. I'll be using two terms henceforth: macro nerf and micro nerf. Micro nerfs are the small balance effects that are applied as the game goes on; increasing this card by 1, decreasing that cards cost by 1, increasing this creatures attack by 1, etc... While macro nerfs are what cards like sundial, nova (earlier), and such got.
I'm arguing against macro nerfs. Some cards listed may indeed be in need of a micro nerf (making sog cost 3 other, or quicksand always leaving 1 pillar for instance). But none deserve a macro nerf (making sog heal 3, or quicksand cost 3).
Quote
And just because there is a way to counter a card does not mean it is fair and balancedYou're completely right. However...
I'm talking about multiple counters. Like at least three ARCHETYPES (not just decks. archetypes.)
And the presence if a MULTITUDE of counters does indeed mean it is fair and balanced.
Quote
So the only opinions that matter are the players in CL, Elitism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitism) much?Not at all. In fact, some players in the beginner's league probably have a better perspective than some in the championship league.
400 People voted in the last topic.
Now, maybe a lot of them DO have the ability to create decks. However, the probability is some of them only vote for a card because they always lose to a deck using it and don't think of any counters.
As evidence, let me point to the topics by surf:
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,7809.0.html (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,7809.0.html)
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,8048.msg98602.html (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,8048.msg98602.html)
Especially in the first one. Surf was much too focused on his deck(s?) always losing to decks with antimatter that he failed to think of all the possible counters.
Quote
It doesn't matter what the decktypes are.. in that situation Earthquake is overpowered. Another problem I have with EQ.. how many mono and duo decks are ruined by it? Seems to me that mono and duo decks need all the help they can get.. seems to me it's to the point that EQ is bad for the meta because it makes so many decks unviable.Okay. If you run adrenaline versus a bone wall in that situation adrenaline is overpowered. That doesn't mean it's overpowered overall though.
Mono and duo decks aren't necessarily ruined by EQ. If you play it smart (see a time mark or earth mark you play your pillars sparingly) you can counter it rather easily. And low quanta usage decks like life rush or speed poison won't even care if your towers are all killed since they can basically play all their cards just by the 2 quanta generated by the towers themselves.
Finally, decks aren't made unviable by EQ. I don't know what world you live in, but when I make a great deck but it happens to lose to a deck with EQ, I don't mind. One example: Mono light (or light/fire).
Quote
Actually it is complete opposite of that.Blindly? There's nothing blindly about it. I know some people have spread sheets (I don't) of every championship league match they've played to discover tendencies, such as Terro trends towards speed rainbow in the first match and then goes to fire stall (I have no clue if this is accurate). Or you use mindgames on your opponent to make them think something, like one time maybe taking a long time to switch decks and never actually switching. Or very loudly stating "lemme have a minute to switch" and take a long time, and then actually switch hoping they'll assume you're bluffing.
At current metagame, winner is often decided before the match. Who managed to blindly pick a "perfect counter". THAT is boring.
Finally, balance of cards does not mean all decks are completely equal.
Quote
If the cards would be more balanced among themselves, optimizing decks and actual card playing skill would become much more important.Maybe, that's where micro nerfs come in. Currently macro nerfs aren't anywhere close to being needed.
And currently, actual card playing needs no almost no skill at all. The skill is in the deck building. In fact, in some ways, things such as quicksands prowess or supernova's power results in the only skill needed (play 1 tower at a time against earth decks, black holing at the right time, etc). Otherwise playing the cards is largely skill-less.
Nerfing some cards like sog or quicksand (well, nerfing them in a large way) would greatly reduce the possible deck choices. And I'm not even talking about hugely competitive decks. I'm talking about niche decks that are just for fun or can compete but not at a high level (things like pharaohs for instance).
Quote
Finally, balance of cards does not mean all decks are completely equal.Of course not. It means that in the metagame when all decks are optimized, or even for beginners who just get optimized decks off the forum, the decks WOULD be equal.
And if you're saying that some cards still counter other cards, well, why change anything save for a few minor cost adjustments? Since that's how it is right now, after all.
Post by: Glitch on July 18, 2010, 08:02:46 pm
The most well known example of a broken card is the black lotus from magic the gathering. It wasn't a land, meaning it could be chained with lands, and with itself, and in every case it would single handedly make your deck three turns faster, with almost no exception. If you played it, you won the match. No matter what other cards you had in your hand, as you could play them three turns faster, you won. The fact that it was free to play meant even mana control couldn't defeat it.
Elements has no broken cards.
Fractal is element's most "I win" card. The card advantage is so huge it's taking a toll on other new cards, which have to have cost increases to not get abused. Where once the maximum amount of a certain card was six, now one has to balance 23 of it. That isn't fair to new cards. The only possible way to defeat fractal is to capitalize it's giant cost, or to use mass creature control cards. Mass CC cards are fire shield, thorn carapace, rain of fire, pandemonium, flooding, and plague. But as there are only six of these, the much more effective method is quantum control. To balance it instead of losing all aether quanta, the player loses all quanta of the element of the target card. Suddenly, you can't turtle and drop 40 damage. You still can't chain fractals (with the exception of RoL but that's balanced as it makes RoL+Hope decks a little bit weaker because fractal-ing dragons is slowed considerably). With this nerf, one actually has to make strategic decisions about which creature is fractaled, instead of just picking a good hitter from an off element and then praying for a decent draw. As ScaredGirl's Frack You deck proved, it doesn't matter what creature you fractal. In fact, the entire deck was based around fractalling a random creature your opponent played, and it was still effective enough to beat the AI3. This nerf fixes that.
Earthquake is incredibly close to an "I win" card. With six of them in your deck, earthquakes can demolish 18 pillars, enough to single handedly demolish most decks. And the stalling from earthquakes means that in most cases, an earthquake will stop an enemy deck. Rainbows, mono decks, duo decks, heck, every deck is completely threatened by it's wrath. The only element that stands a chance is earth because of protect artifact, but that still gives opponents 92% chance of being able to effectively use earthquake. I say it isn't an "I win" card for four reasons only. RoL+hope. Luciferin Life Rush. Pillarless Fire. Super Nova. Earthquake DOES need a nerf. More pillar protection needs to be added. Perhaps a gravity permanent called "stabilize" that gives all pillars protection for an upkeep. Earthquake also needs to be physically nerfed. The average deck has 6-10 pillars, and the average game lasts 6-8 turns. In that time, a 30 card deck will draw 2-3 earthquakes, leaving behind a best case scenario of 4 pillars. If earthquakes only killed 2 pillars, then the average deck would be able to overcome. I argue this is balanced because the quanta interchange is the exact same as with devourers. The ability to fractal and burrow devourers balances out the rarity of permanent protection in a deck.
Phase shields come close, making your opponents deck three turns slower, but they can be countered. Granted, they cannot be countered by aether, life, light, time, or water, but they can still be defeated. Plus, aether can also stall for three turns, life can heal to survive, as can light, and time can reverse time. Water probably suffers the most due to phase shields, but with purifies and Poseidons it's got a chance, and with lances and nymph's tears, it's versatile enough to survive. Chaining these, however, completely demolishes 60% of all decks in the game (statistic guesstimated). Still, a minor nerf would be nice, and this nerf also applies to wings. If the player takes damage while the shield is in play, it is destroyed. This isn't too powerful of a nerf, as most decks that have direct damage don't pack creatures, and vice versa, but it gives many decks a chance to get around the three turns of protection.
Hope is the last card I feel deserving of mention, and I'll be brief because it's nerf is more based upon my personal preference. Just get rid of it's protectedness and it'll be balanced.
Post by: PuppyChow on July 18, 2010, 08:17:39 pm
Quote
Hope is the last card I feel deserving of mention. Just get rid of it's protectedness and it'll be balanced.I agree with the gist of your post, though I can think of many more ways to counter EQ (the only one I closely read) than you listed. It still may need a small nerf (like always leaving one pillar/tower in a stack) but otherwise I think it's good.
However, hope I disagree with. Hope is protected to make it a shield that's countered in a different way.
Instead of permanent control like most shields, hope is countered by creature control.
For instance:
Titanium shield = countered by perm control, creature control can't stop it.
Hope = countered by creature control, perm control can't stop it.
Now for fairness's sake, let's assume you're fractaling RoLs with it. Otherwise it may actually need a buff since there's so much more creature control possibilities versus perm control.
Perm Control:
Steal
Pulvy
Explosion
Area Creature Control:
Thunderstorm
Plague
Rain of Fire
(Any reusable control like oty or lobo if given time)
So it seems balanced to me.
Post by: Glitch on July 18, 2010, 08:23:34 pm
Post by: Malduk on July 18, 2010, 11:30:30 pm
So... How many counters are there to say quint? There's spell, two creatures that give quints, and several with built-in immortality.QuoteAnd just because there is a way to counter a card does not mean it is fair and balancedYou're completely right. However...
I'm talking about multiple counters. Like at least three ARCHETYPES (not just decks. archetypes.)
And the presence if a MULTITUDE of counters does indeed mean it is fair and balanced.
Counters are shields, and only shields. Thorn Carapace being the only really effective counter to actually kill the creature. Fireshield is too slow, gets you killed probably anyway, Permafrost only works IF RNG likes you to stall long enough, and IF creatures attack is higher than barrier. Counter to those shields are again perma control and momentum.
Counter to quinted momentumed creature doesnt exist.
Also, its not Oty that was ever OP, its quinted Oty.
Now, how many decks/archetypes actually use Carapace?
Finally, why is :aether so important for Fake Gods, cheating decks? It is because cards like Quint and Fractal are there. You call them "powerful", I call them "too powerful". They are, by your definition, integral and strongest part of decks that can actually beat AI that draws 2 cards, and has triple the mark quanta generator. Rol/Hope deck is not great because of Hope, its because of fractal. Rainbow FG decks are not great because of whatever, its because of Quint, Supernova (by far strongest quanta generator in the game), and finally best stalling cards - SoGs. All 3 cards are way more powerful than other cards in those decks.
Now, if those cards get a nerf, grinding FGs would be near impossible, and in all honesty, I dont even care if those are nerfed. On the other hand, I would LOVE to see a real, direct counter to quint. If there is a way to make ANY mortal creature immortal, there damn sure has to be a way to make them mortal again short of hoping your shield kills them.
Now, there is no "I-WIN" card in Elements, and thats good. But calling everything balanced because of it is naive and boringly passive way on looking at things.
Fog shield gives 40% miss for 1 quanta, Dusk gives 50% for 4 quanta. How is that balanced? Is it because :air sucks and :darkness doesnt?
Steal got nerfed by upping cost by 1 quanta? Steal destroys your opponents permanent AND gives it to you. Insanely cheap.
Explosion costs 1 quanta? 1 quanta you can use right after you place your tower to destroy something called "permanent"? Gay. Sole reason why Fake Gods with that card are a nightmare. Sure, I'll wait that 7 quanta to play my Permafrost/Carapace... oh wait, boom.
Finally, there's something called Protect Artifact; really cheap spell. Except actual card spot in your deck is worth a lot more than couple of quanta. And when packing Explosion is very well justified, packing 2 cards per permanent and hoping to draw both is not.
Basically, "hard control" (destruction) of permanents is way too cheap in this game, and when faced against deck that has those, your only hope is that your deck does not rely on permanents. THAT is not a counter. That is something you have to hope you guessed right.
As I said, blind rock-paper-scissors. I think Demagog? or someone, numerate their decks and let you pick a number before a match. Now, if deck A counters deck B, it doesnt really matter if your deck is actually optimized better for draws/quanta usage, it doesnt matter HOW you play your cards, your deck is countered before match begun by a blind number picking and the game is decided. That is a boring metagame for me. Part of that showed in the war too. And in the war, you actually had a decent idea of what you'll be facing.QuoteActually it is complete opposite of that.Blindly? There's nothing blindly about it. I know some people have spread sheets (I don't) of every championship league match they've played to discover tendencies, such as Terro trends towards speed rainbow in the first match and then goes to fire stall (I have no clue if this is accurate). Or you use mindgames on your opponent to make them think something, like one time maybe taking a long time to switch decks and never actually switching. Or very loudly stating "lemme have a minute to switch" and take a long time, and then actually switch hoping they'll assume you're bluffing.
At current metagame, winner is often decided before the match. Who managed to blindly pick a "perfect counter". THAT is boring.
Finally, balance of cards does not mean all decks are completely equal.
No one here is discussing magnitude of possible nerfs. No one here is even discussing nerfs. People here are discussing balance. Zanzarino is the one that should consider nerfs.QuoteIf the cards would be more balanced among themselves, optimizing decks and actual card playing skill would become much more important.Maybe, that's where micro nerfs come in. Currently macro nerfs aren't anywhere close to being needed.
And currently, actual card playing needs no almost no skill at all. The skill is in the deck building. In fact, in some ways, things such as quicksands prowess or supernova's power results in the only skill needed (play 1 tower at a time against earth decks, black holing at the right time, etc). Otherwise playing the cards is largely skill-less.
Nerfing some cards like sog or quicksand (well, nerfing them in a large way) would greatly reduce the possible deck choices. And I'm not even talking about hugely competitive decks. I'm talking about niche decks that are just for fun or can compete but not at a high level (things like pharaohs for instance).
Also, making cards more balanced among themselves, will not reduce possible deck choices, it will actually give you MORE possible deck choices. It is the only logical thing to conclude, as more cards will be "viable". If you DONT have to pick Fractal/Quint/SoG to fight Fake Gods, then you'll have more options in building deck. There are shitload of decks that are just not good enough because they are not as fast as Shrieker/Immo/Supernova decks. Say we live in a crazy crazy world where most powerful cards actually get nerfed to be more in line with other cards. Would that give you less building options or more building options?
No, wrong logic. Balance does not mean equal decks. Yes, I'm saying some cards still counter other cards. Why NOT change something if it will give more versatile and interesting gameplay? Why being content with some card stats that are actually pretty arbitrary, without any real and serious testing of their actual influence on the gameplay? Testing phase in trainer serves just to see if those cards are broken or not. If not, they are implemented. That is all balancing this game has.QuoteFinally, balance of cards does not mean all decks are completely equal.Of course not. It means that in the metagame when all decks are optimized, or even for beginners who just get optimized decks off the forum, the decks WOULD be equal.
And if you're saying that some cards still counter other cards, well, why change anything save for a few minor cost adjustments? Since that's how it is right now, after all.
Game works as it is. However, it IS possible to make it better. Having cards that are completely unusable in competitive play, or cards that are a must in competitive play is... 1) waste of cards, 2) boring as hell.
Post by: Vorian on July 19, 2010, 12:10:35 am
Post by: ratcharmer on July 19, 2010, 03:45:43 pm
To use quintessence as an example: Yes this is a potent card, and many combos using it are extremely hard to deal with (i.e. Quinted Oty) and very few decks can bypass an immortal creature well enough to actually be effective against t hem.
It seems to me the answer is fairly simple: introduce more cards that can hurt immortal creatures. If I can here include a bit of a shameless plug, I've recently introduced several "trap" cards in the card idea suggestion section that do just that.
As far as cards like SoG and sundial, I don't think they're OP (well, sundial certainly isn't anymore after the unbernerf . . .) so much as they are unique. Many decks don't have any effective source of healing except for SOG, so if they want to heal themselves they only really have 1 option.
Fractal too, yes it's a very potent card, but I think the main reason it's seen so often is that it combines well with a huge variety of decks/other cards, and that there is no other card that's similar. Fractal can be used to swarm a huge number of creatures quickly, but there's already a lot of cards in the game that deal with swarms quite effectively (Any spell that hits the whole enemy field, most shields, unstable gas).
If you still think fractal is OP then you can introduce more counters: spells that are dependent on how many creatures your opponent have, more field effect creature control, or things that trigger when your opponent plays a creature.
Post by: plastiqe on July 19, 2010, 07:40:18 pm
It is much preferable to have stealth nerfs like the poisonous when eaten abilty, because Chrysaora is still a useful card even when it isn't being eaten by an immortal Oty.
No one here is discussing magnitude of possible nerfs. No one here is even discussing nerfs. People here are discussing balance. Zanzarino is the one that should consider nerfs.Well it isn't Which Cards are Overpowered and What Do You Think Should Be Done About It? But discussions of balancing inevitably bring up discussions of nerfs as solutions.. and that is ok. Though I humbly ask if anyone really wants to talk about their nerf ideas they should start a new thread for it.
Post by: ratcharmer on July 19, 2010, 07:54:17 pm
In my previous posts on this topic I actually used poisonous creatures as one of my favorite examples of introducing a counter-strategy.
As a final note I have to say that I honestly don't think black hole is OP. I run an entropybow and I can semi-consistently beat decks that have Gravity nymphs. Considering that this is pretty much exactly the technique designed to beat my deck, and I can still win against it, I don't think it counts as OP.
Post by: edunavas on July 21, 2010, 06:44:29 pm
I didn't say an OP counter, I said more counters. I think what makes most OP cards OP is that most deck types do not have access to an effective counter strategy, which forces people to abandon that deck and design one specifically against the card in question. This is what leads to the rock-paper-scissors effect.I agree
No card that is already in play, that was tested several times before to be able to be inserted in the game, is OP.
The problem is that people want to build an single deck that can beat all other decks. You resumed perfectly, it´s a rock-paper-scissors effect.
The fun of the game is there, sometimes you crush the enemy with your deck, and with the same deck you can lose to a newbie.
Post by: Kael Hate on July 21, 2010, 06:55:18 pm
Plenty of Strong Cards there, but Earthquake is the only Overpowered one.
Post by: dragonhuman on July 21, 2010, 07:48:53 pm
fractual ruins everything, even in a deck thats not based around it
shard of gratitute is way too much healing for too little, especially because empathy is the only other 'real' continuos healing card
/bad spelling
Post by: johannhowitzer on July 21, 2010, 10:52:42 pm
Quote
Earthquake is still the only card on that list I think is overpowered.I agree 100%, yes there are counters to Earthquake but it wrecks a heck of a lot of mono and duo decks. To oblivion. In the first turn.
Plenty of Strong Cards there, but Earthquake is the only Overpowered one.
Post by: Mastermind79 on July 25, 2010, 05:55:23 am
I wait for the Fractal and Shard of Gratitude topics to be made since I think others can explain their OPness better than me.
Edit: making Fractal topic now...
Edit: done! Check the "Nerf this Card!" forum for the thread.
Post by: GG on July 25, 2010, 01:27:47 pm
There is now a new section for people to post possible card nerfs: http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/board,208.0.html (lol, first)Shards are meant to be OP. They're designed as gifts for the donators.
I wait for the Fractal and Shard of Gratitude topics to be made since I think others can explain their OPness better than me.
Edit: making Fractal topic now...
Edit: done! Check the "Nerf this Card!" forum for the thread.
Post by: WhiteTigerShiro on July 26, 2010, 11:41:08 am
From that list, Only Earthquake|Quicksand concerns me.This, right here. Currently Earthquake destroys 3 Pillars for 3 quanta, which can be a crippling disadvantage when played within the first couple of turns because it gives the Earth player a massive Quanta advantage as the game rolls-on. It's even worse when the Earth player draws two or three Earthquakes within the first few turns because he's able to have you locked-down to only your Mark providing you with any quanta while he's able to drop his full attack force on the field. Then to add insult to injury, once you finally get some damage on the field he has both a damage-reduction shield AND a healing effect. All while you're trying to operate on only a couple Quanta per turn because your Pillars keep getting steamrolled.
It is playable way too early for its effect. I would like to see it changed to give the opponent a little break.
Suggestion 1 - Earthquake destroys 1/3 of the opponents towers in that stack Rounded up. This makes it better in the late game, always destroys at least one but cannot clear a stack when they have 3 pillars on the table. The opponent can still get some quanta if quite impaired. The Quake user is not losing card advantage because he can guarantee 1 destroyed pillar at least. In the late game if the targeted player has 12-15 Pillars to use for fueling triggers or Pumpspells like firebolt, the Quake can hit a massive 4-5 pillars and slow him down but unlikely to cut him to death.
Suggestion 2 - Turn Earthquake into a pumpspell. It destroys 1 pillar + 1 for every full 10 earth quanta the caster has. In the early game the caster can deny only a limited selection of pillars allowing the opponent a chance to build a counter but in the end game a total denial can still ensue.
Also, I would like to add a card to that poll if possible: Quantum Pillars/Towers. Those things desperately need to be nerfed in a big way. The problem with them becomes very evident when you go and farm some Top50 and EVERY deck that isn't a farming deck is running the exact same rainbow deck. They vary a little from time to time, but each one runs on the same theme: Use all of the most powerful effects from each element while being able to ignore high-cost cards because you don't need them. In short, Quantum Towers are overpowered in that they diminish the very name of this game. The fact that over half of Pillars/Towers that get used are Quantum should be all the evidence that's needed.
As for how to nerf them, two ideas I have are as such: The first idea is to restrict Quantum Towers to the 6 of the same card rule. This way you could still run them for a rainbow deck, but you'd still have to decide which elements you're going to focus on since you can't rely on always having around 10 of every quanta type. Running a card from a color your deck isn't focused on could still be possible, but it would be more risky. The other idea is to reduce the amount of Quanta they produce by 1. Instead of 3 random quanta, they would only produce 2 random quanta. This would slow-down a rainbow deck that's purely focused on Quantum Towers and would encourage actually planning a deck rather than just tossing a few of the best card from each element into the deck and calling it a day.
Post by: WhiteTigerShiro on July 26, 2010, 11:50:47 am
Shards are meant to be OP. They're designed as gifts for the donators.NO!!
No no no no no no no no no no no no no no no.
You can just stop right there. Seriously, Rule #1 of balancing a game is that difficulty/cost in acquiring something only allows for so-much power to be added to it. Arguing that a card is balanced just because it's hard to get (which shards aren't, btw) is the most asinine thing you could ever possibly say. Seriously, go look at Magic's early history. That game is filled with cards from the early days that are hard (if not nigh-impossible and bank-breaking to purchase), and yet that does not stop them from being grossly overpowered cards that destroy the intended balance of the game.
You can feel free to argue that the Shards aren't overpowered if you want. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't*, but don't argue that rarity = balance. It smacks of elitism in the worst-case scenario, and makes you look like you don't know how balancing a game works in the best-case. Either way, it's a highly invalid point.
*Though frankly, I think they should cost more, and this is from someone who runs shards in his deck, mind you.
Post by: plastiqe on July 28, 2010, 05:37:22 am
I really hope it doesn't come to that, because it would just put more emphasis on the real overpowered culprit, Supernova.
QT's added regardless.
Post by: Kuroaitou on July 29, 2010, 12:55:30 am
Zanz has actually considered nerfing the quanta generation of Quantum Towers here (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,4093.msg44960#msg44960).Could you also change the poll options to allow people to change their vote if necessary? Just curious.
I really hope it doesn't come to that, because it would just put more emphasis on the real overpowered culprit, Supernova.
QT's added regardless.
That said, there's a lot of amazing arguments people are presenting in favor of and against certain cards about whether they're OP or not.
Post by: Mastermind79 on July 29, 2010, 02:14:03 am
Shards are meant to be OP. They're designed as gifts for the donators.nononono, you can't just do that. Rarity doesn't matter. An uber-rare card that insta-win's a game is mega-OP no matter how rare it is.
(skip to bottom to get to the point)
In this game I play, you have to donate to get more powerful limited-time items or spend ridiculous amounts of time farming to try to go competitive. This game also has uber-rares that trigger on a counter IF you are in the right place IF it is during a certain window of time, and there are likely more requirements. Even then, for game balance, these items have much-more-accessible rivals.
A card should be balanced, regardless of rarity.
Post by: KorabanVII on August 14, 2010, 03:00:37 am
Post by: Puycheval on August 15, 2010, 02:21:28 pm
I think the game is well balanced as long as you don't refer to FGs. I think FGs are way too powerfull and we shouldn't comment OP cards based on them as it was already said in previous posts. Problems with FGs are the devine attributes (x3 mark, ...), not the cards.
After reading nearly all this thread, I think some posters believe cards are OP because they threaten their desk(s). Your desk is ruined by EQ/Black Hole and you can't bear it ? Given the stats here (http://elementswiki.co.cc/articles/overpowered/), there are few people using them so it shouldn't be a problem. If it was so powerfull, there should have more desks using them. But, stats show that a vast majority of players is using Quantum pillar/tower and Novas so they hate BH that steals quanta and EQ that kills quantum tower stacks. That's why they both are in the poll top 5. But BH/EQ are not OP. They are easily beatten by rush desks.
For me, the beauty of Elements is that there's no "One to rule them all". Try something different next time.
By the way, I hate the new scorpion cards. OP cards ? ;D
Post by: johannhowitzer on August 17, 2010, 08:17:53 pm
Post by: Avenger on September 08, 2010, 06:33:51 am
I think Ice Shield is OP. I mean you reduce the damage and almost 60 % of the time your creatures Freeze. Then your creature doesn't do a thing for three turns only to become frozen again. Dusk Mantle is worse by comparison. That shield alone brings certain decks to their knees and God forbid they don't pull out a Permafrost Shield. Nerf-paleeze!There are cheap shields, and expensive shields. Invest 1 :gravity into a momentum. Or 1 :fire into explosion. Or just steal it!
Post by: baa410 on September 08, 2010, 07:32:27 pm
Post by: Kurohami on September 08, 2010, 08:55:04 pm
Post by: Seravy on September 12, 2010, 08:14:33 am
NOOOO!!!!
Indeed, Quantum towers are widely used, but not because they are powerful. They are not. They generate 1/4 of quanta per turn per element on average as opposed to regular tower generation of a whole quantum. That means you can play every card in your hands four times slower than in a mono deck. Playing Rainbow with QT is very very slow to start, and unless you manage to distribute all you card equally in all 12 elements, whichever element you draw multiple cards from, you won't have enough quanta for those. QT is also random : it increased the factor of luck significantly, providing more luck related losses for you.
QT are so slow at start that without either Supernovas and Sundials(stall for more quanta for free), rainbow decks would be probably useless.
Most games I lose with a supernova based rainbow are lost due to not having enough quanta to play my cards...you don't always draw those supernovas, and QT is too slow.
The reason why QT is played is not its power level.
QT is played because there is no alternative.
Each element has only 5-6 mono card, and another 5-6 cards that need a second element to be useful (like Dune Scorpion, Forest Spirit, Lava Golem, Lycantrope, etc). This is very limited. If people need certain abilities for their deck or want to use some combos, chances are, they'll be from different elements, and they need to use a minimum of 4-5 elements to build a good deck, and at that point, using QT is a better alternative than towers/pendulums : it can provide quanta from the remaining 8 elements...and since it doesn't work well with just 4-5 elements, you'll include more.
Post by: BC on October 16, 2010, 07:13:31 pm
Post by: live-on.no-evil on November 05, 2010, 11:53:42 am
it doesn't work like this:
you have 10 creatures that have a damage more than 0, this is not how it works
that 5 monster attacks will land a hit and 5 creatures will land a miss.
that 50% applies in every monster of your opponent INDIVIDUALLY and NOT as a GROUP.
yeah! i also admit it that the EQ is powerful but not OP.
imagine 6 EQs in your opponent = up to 18 pillars/ towers/ pendulums/ can be destroyed, which could completely shut down a deck.even it only effects the pillars. and not the other permanents. there is still a card that can prevent it. the protect artifact.
but if you are still annoyed with the opponents that uses EQs. then why use a pillar deck.
nova + cremation rush deck is one of the way to face the EQs..
but by using that deck, a new ability will annoy you again, the BlackHoles.
as you can see. every deck has its own weakness and strength.
Post by: plastiqe on December 20, 2010, 09:00:02 pm
Post by: joaopcl on December 27, 2010, 12:32:43 pm
Post by: ddevans96 on December 27, 2010, 03:12:15 pm
dune scorp??? seriously???One single hit and your opponent continues to poison himself. Some people see that as OP.
Post by: ZephyrPhantom on December 27, 2010, 04:20:39 pm
Post by: joaopcl on December 27, 2010, 05:09:59 pm
i know that but still the poor guy can't even atack without help... and a purify would do the trick and the scorp it's easly destroyed... if anything, it needs a defense buff or somethingdune scorp??? seriously???One single hit and your opponent continues to poison himself. Some people see that as OP.
Post by: achangeofpace on February 07, 2011, 05:22:14 am
Won't everybody just be voting for cards that counter their strategies well or strengthen the FG's?
Post by: pikachufan2164 on February 07, 2011, 05:39:35 am
Ummm... Devil's advocate here for a minute...FGs can be balanced by modifying their decks (i.e. Dark Matter can be made less aggravating to all decks if the Gravity Nymphs were taken out of his deck).
Won't everybody just be voting for cards that counter their strategies well or strengthen the FG's?
Ideally, balancing should be done for PvP purposes.
Post by: Metoropolice on February 22, 2011, 06:14:01 am
Post by: zzz123 on February 26, 2011, 02:24:33 pm
and this includes pillars, so even with a mono-aether deck you will (eventually) gain the ability to use your opponent's cards
Level 5 Aether-based AI should *own*, and it mostly doesn't because it almost never uses these things .
Post by: Siweisun on February 26, 2011, 05:11:06 pm
Post by: RootRanger on February 26, 2011, 05:40:51 pm
Nevertheless, neither of them are overpowered.
Post by: plastiqe on March 01, 2011, 05:14:06 pm
Why is dusk antle up there when fog isin't?(POLL) Which cards are OP? 1.24 to 1.25
Dusk Mantle
11 (2.4%)
Fog Shield/Improved Fog
7 (1.5%)
Cards with less than 2% of the vote were eliminated from the poll.
Post by: Bhlewos on March 19, 2011, 05:52:49 am
Post by: silux on March 24, 2011, 05:18:57 pm
Counter to quinted momentumed creature doesnt exist.
A counter exist;sundial
Also, its not Oty that was ever OP, its quinted Oty.
Quinted otyughs still have counters;poisonous creature,high costitution creatures
IMO Elements is funny because it isn't balanced.
All deck-building is about finding an over-average effective combo and making it more reliable and deadly as possible.
Steal got nerfed by upping cost by 1 quanta? Steal destroys your opponents permanent AND gives it to you. Insanely cheap.That's why I use it.There are hidden cost however;it uses a card and the permanent has to be targetable.Cloak is a great steal nerf
Explosion costs 1 quanta? Sure, I'll wait that 7 quanta to play my Permafrost/Carapace... oh wait, boom.That's why you shouldn't use thorns against fake gods.You need bazookas!
And currently, actual card playing needs no almost no skill at all. The skill is in the deck building. In fact, in some ways, things such as quicksands prowess or supernova's power results in the only skill needed (play 1 tower at a time against earth decks, black holing at the right time, etc). Otherwise playing the cards is largely skill-less.Agree.But fake gods require also timing and luck since their decks are optimizedQuoteNo one here is discussing magnitude of possible nerfs. No one here is even discussing nerfs. People here are discussing balance. Zanzarino is the one that should consider nerfs. However more we are the better i believe
Would that give you less building options or more building options?I prefer few strong decks than many weak decks.So if fractal is op, then buff other card.Fractal then should be the archetype of how much powerful cards should be.Mindgate is a great card that shares the power of fractal.
Balance does not mean equal decks.True!
Post by: dcshuzon on May 05, 2011, 03:30:08 pm
the most imba card is Sundial !! :'(
Post by: willng3 on May 05, 2011, 03:35:24 pm
Please note that the quote you are addressing was made almost a year ago; the game has changed significantly with new strategies/cards since then.Counter to quinted momentumed creature doesnt exist.
A counter exist;sundial
Also, its not Oty that was ever OP, its quinted Oty.
Quinted otyughs still have counters;poisonous creature,high costitution creatures
IMO Elements is funny because it isn't balanced.
All deck-building is about finding an over-average effective combo and making it more reliable and deadly as possible.
Steal got nerfed by upping cost by 1 quanta? Steal destroys your opponents permanent AND gives it to you. Insanely cheap.That's why I use it.There are hidden cost however;it uses a card and the permanent has to be targetable.Cloak is a great steal nerf
Explosion costs 1 quanta? Sure, I'll wait that 7 quanta to play my Permafrost/Carapace... oh wait, boom.That's why you shouldn't use thorns against fake gods.You need bazookas!
And currently, actual card playing needs no almost no skill at all. The skill is in the deck building. In fact, in some ways, things such as quicksands prowess or supernova's power results in the only skill needed (play 1 tower at a time against earth decks, black holing at the right time, etc). Otherwise playing the cards is largely skill-less.Agree.But fake gods require also timing and luck since their decks are optimizedQuoteNo one here is discussing magnitude of possible nerfs. No one here is even discussing nerfs. People here are discussing balance. Zanzarino is the one that should consider nerfs. However more we are the better i believe
Would that give you less building options or more building options?I prefer few strong decks than many weak decks.So if fractal is op, then buff other card.Fractal then should be the archetype of how much powerful cards should be.Mindgate is a great card that shares the power of fractal.
Balance does not mean equal decks.True!
I myself voted for Discord, Graboid and Supernova. But seeing as how this was before a few rather gamebreaking cards were released, I may need to revise my vote.
Post by: sane1271 on May 28, 2011, 07:51:24 pm
Post by: TheForbiddenOracle on May 28, 2011, 08:14:15 pm
Post by: Antagon on August 14, 2011, 01:50:52 pm
Reverse Time: most overpowered! cheap with only 1 :time upgraded, so you can splash it in every rush deck, and it often happens, when rush vs rush, the one with the reverse time wins. cause it makes opponent lose one turn (he spend quantum and no new carddraw), but often more, cause now low on quantum. it makes dragons in decks not that often.
DuneScorpion: too much luck, getting it out with damage first or 2nd round is too bad, dont want to have purify in all of my decks. too strong effect, 1 for every card played.
EQ: 1 for 3, no way (with sense) to counter? => with 2 pillars instead of 1 or cost of 5 :earth, it would be better, for more heavy quanta decks
Post by: ryalia888 on August 21, 2011, 05:34:46 pm
Post by: adrix89 on August 27, 2011, 08:27:07 pm
I agree that Earthquake should be changed. Would it be wise to have earthquake have some effect on the user as well? Like also destroying a pillar of their ownHow about pillar destruction is random from 1-3? maybe with 1-2 of there own?
Post by: Metahater on September 24, 2011, 07:07:15 pm
I think that would be perfect. I was thinking along the lines of reducing the cost and make it take out only 1 pillar, but that way works fine, too.I agree that Earthquake should be changed. Would it be wise to have earthquake have some effect on the user as well? Like also destroying a pillar of their ownHow about pillar destruction is random from 1-3? maybe with 1-2 of there own?
Post by: plastiqe on October 07, 2011, 08:03:08 pm
Post by: rgurgelles1 on October 15, 2011, 03:45:14 pm
procrastination-it is Op since it accurately stops the attacks 50%...unlike the dusk mantle that is still random even it says 50%
Post by: I8SumOrangesNItWasK on November 03, 2011, 11:55:57 pm
I voted for Gravity Nymph and Immolation.
Black Hole in general isn't OP. It's just 1 card. There's plenty of other cards that are good, but again, they're just 1 card. Gravity Nymph, on the other hand, is a black hole every turn. Sure, you can get rid of the Nymph some how -- but if you can't? A bit OP.
Immolation...giving you so much quanta in 1 element at once seems OP to me especially because Fire is a pretty powerful element. Nova/Supernova don't get so many in just 1 element.
Post by: RagidyRock on November 06, 2011, 08:31:19 pm
Gravity Nymph - I realize this card is not overly effective against mono/dual decks (even if it could stall them), it destroys rainbow decks, almost regardless of when it's played. Unless you're carrying Sanctuaries around, the sheer amount of quantum control this card has even outdoes Supernova (three lost against two gained). Sure it dies easily, but give it even 1-2 turns and your quantum goes bye-bye.
I always thought the Unstable Gas Nymph was the worst until I met this one. >_>
Shard of Sacrifice - I fiddled around with this in the Trainer for a little bit (after a friend of mine told me about it), and it may be worse than dim/phase shields. Sure you need a set amount of life to play it, but with some control, it's almost impossible to run into a situation where you couldn't play at least one of them (luck, of course, being an obvious factor). I say it may be worse than dim/phase shields is because, last I checked, you could NOT remove the effect of SoS (unlike dim/phase shields, which you CAN remove); coupled with the fact that it HEALS you, you have both a stall and a healing card that is ridiculously cheap to play. The quantum loss I have yet to find to be an issue; and if you're running a mono-Death deck, it ISN'T an issue at all.
Pandemonium - To be fair, this card's ONLY OP if it's upgraded. But once it is, you have a relatively cheap card that hits all creatures your opponent has. But that's not the OP part; it's OP because of it can inflict just about ANY effect in the game. The only thing that holds it back is the luck factor... well, and the part where it might not do anything at all to a creature, but that doesn't happen often.
I'm surprised none of the polls have listed Parallel/Twin Universe as an OP card; considering it can easily be an Aether-equivalent to Chimera (sudden rush card to instantly defeat an opponent). Although I'll hold back on declaring it OP until I actually use it once again. :P
Post by: silux on November 11, 2011, 11:15:20 pm
SoSa is the new 2turn sundial!
Post by: Firenotes on December 01, 2011, 07:00:01 am
Post by: ralouf on December 01, 2011, 08:19:27 am
Post by: AchDeToni on December 01, 2011, 01:33:05 pm
Post by: ralouf on December 01, 2011, 02:49:05 pm
Post by: nitsudge on December 02, 2011, 08:55:11 pm
Post by: ch987 on December 24, 2011, 01:22:28 am
I guess most quanta control cards are considered to be overpowered, but nerfing them would take out alot of this games diversity
Post by: plastiqe on December 31, 2011, 10:38:35 pm
Coerency bug in the pool: you can vote two cards and then "none of them" option, and that's quite wierd!If you do that than you're the weirdo. : P
I'll add Shard of Readiness.
Post by: Djhopper :) on January 01, 2012, 10:40:16 am
I can't change my vote to shard of sacrifice. Change poll settings?Coerency bug in the pool: you can vote two cards and then "none of them" option, and that's quite wierd!If you do that than you're the weirdo. : P
I'll add Shard of Readiness.
Post by: Falconian on January 03, 2012, 11:06:16 pm
Reverse Time and Black Hole.
I don't think I have to explain why, just go in arena.
Every other deck is 6 reverse / 6 black holes.
While not overpowered if used once, they just break the game completely when spammed because you basically can't play the game itself.
Everyone just quit the game when spammed with black holes and reverse time consecutively, as the game is basically over.
I can stand being turn-locked one, two turns, but not the whole game, as I don't even get the chance to play.
What's the point of playing if you can't play while playing?
Solution 1: Limit them to 1 of each per deck. 2 would still allow game breaking as one can get all 4 of them still.
Solution 2: Tone down Black hole to steal a lot less quanta and make reverse cost 5 time / 4 time upgraded.
Post by: ralouf on January 03, 2012, 11:11:11 pm
I think some cards should be removed from the pool :
cremation : not OP anymore
fractal : meh ? OP ? why ?
Hope : really ?
SoG : nerfed
Post by: RootRanger on January 04, 2012, 01:42:02 am
There are two cards that simply break the fun completely and they are WIDELY abused.I find this quite amusing, since you're suggesting nerfs to the two best counters to the most overpowered card to ever exist in PvP.
Reverse Time and Black Hole.
Post by: furballdn on January 04, 2012, 01:44:55 am
Post by: Silenia on January 04, 2012, 09:01:25 am
Post by: OdinVanguard on January 05, 2012, 04:33:53 pm
Post by: mrgoodbar64 on January 14, 2012, 12:52:47 am
It needs to be 1 turn instead of 2, it makes the game go on to long.
Post by: MV296 on January 20, 2012, 08:52:59 pm
Post by: Winter Is Coming on January 24, 2012, 05:08:59 pm
Post by: Braingoo on January 24, 2012, 05:59:11 pm
Yeesh... Just played someone with six Shards of Sacrifice in their hand. I had nothing in my deck to counter that, but I couldn't even think of any conceivable way to do so with any combination of cards. Maybe take it down to sacrificing 30 life for having the damage flipped for one turn?Upped sundials are pretty much the counter.
Post by: hendrydext on January 25, 2012, 02:03:13 pm
All of them is denial card. Very cheap. Very Strong.
Simple solution: increase the cost..
Post by: Jenkar on February 03, 2012, 08:26:40 pm
Post by: Powerfrog on February 09, 2012, 01:45:34 pm
Although SoSa makes sense. That card is rediculous.
Post by: glennfoo on February 25, 2012, 11:38:14 pm
shards of sacrifice is crazy too... i believe it should be changed to one turn only...... and instead of losing 40 hp i think can reduce to 20 hp loss when using the shards...... what do you think??
Post by: Jenkar on February 25, 2012, 11:46:26 pm
As for SoX. Usin' one's brain is a good counter to SoX, its power in pvp is nearly null.
Post by: glennfoo on February 26, 2012, 12:32:44 am
i myself have seen a lot of deck used in pvp.... ok a lot are rush decks since the hp is at 100.... i prefer stalling and i used these method a lot against my friends.... and i have a rush deck too when i am going serious in pvp tournaments in the future..... one just cannot win with one deck....but i am now talking in general and in behalf of all other players like us who plays arena more than pvp matches..... so i believe you understand why earthquake is currently overpowered..... it just doesn't make the match fun and they always rage quit when their pillars got earthquaked.... with double dexterity and extra marks one can almost not do anything anymore...very difficult to think of a counter at that time..... i do not thing at that time earthquake slows u down, it finishes you.... and this card counters so many of my friends' deck totally even mine.... i don think having one more quanta and two pillars destroyed will affect earth mark so adversely.... but will make the game more competitive both in pvp and arena......
well with shard of sacrifice i agree with you..... i played farenheit a lot and with stalling so when opponents used the shard..... hahaha i just deflag the weapon only to use it again later after 2 turns.... but only 40 hps loss and regain hp for 2 turns, i think it is a force to be reckoned with..... well i don have that much of an issue with shard of sacrifice but more with earthquake.... and i am hoping more shards are being develpoed for other marks as well...... there are marks with no respective shards yet..... well i stand corrected jenkar but this is my opinion....
Post by: Captain Scibra on February 26, 2012, 12:56:47 am
Post by: Jenkar on February 26, 2012, 01:08:59 am
SoSac, for obvious reasons. Graboid is cheaply priced for its capability to almost unstoppably summon a Shrieker. RT had too much capability on the card, not necessarily versatility, but for primary purpose it can completely undo countless turns what has happened to a creature, which should be limited to only a few turns.I'd like your obvious reasons ^-^
Post by: Quaz on February 26, 2012, 05:43:12 pm
Post by: Jenkar on February 26, 2012, 05:53:54 pm
SoSa definitely
I'd like your obvious reasons ^-^:P
Post by: Incoming on March 03, 2012, 07:44:07 pm
The shard has no weaknesses except antimatter.And to use that you have to use antimatter on your own creatures and if you manage to survive the creatures are useless.Making it a permanent would help a great deal.
The shield is too powerful compared to other elements' shields so it should be nerfed.
Post by: glennfoo on March 03, 2012, 11:15:32 pm
I strongly believe Shard of Sacrifice from the newer cards and Phase Shield from the older are overpowered.
The shard has no weaknesses except antimatter.And to use that you have to use antimatter on your own creatures and if you manage to survive the creatures are useless.Making it a permanent would help a great deal.
The shield is too powerful compared to other elements' shields so it should be nerfed.
care to explain how phase shield is too powerful compared to others?? i believe every shield are useful in certain situations.... all you need is defrag and steal and the shield is down.... it does not protect you from spell like firebolt, drain life and icebolt.... so care to give your reasoning??
Post by: kimham8a on March 04, 2012, 07:50:51 pm
Post by: glennfoo on March 05, 2012, 12:00:35 am
I find phase shield affects maybe one out of every 50 games I play against mono aether, and it usually only ends up helping me as I steal it. Plus, if your the one running the card, you'll probably want 6, which would cost 30 :aether and 6 draws, whereas other shields cost one draw and just about 5 quanta. That one shield will probably be enough if the opponent doesnt have a shield. Phase shield just makes it overkill when it works. (not common) I dont usually mind much when the opponent plays phase shield, but I mind if he plays any other, except other and gravity.so you also think it is not op right??
Post by: kimham8a on March 05, 2012, 04:15:07 am
I think it is not OP. Everyone who thinks it is OP challenge me to a PVP duel right now!I find phase shield affects maybe one out of every 50 games I play against mono aether, and it usually only ends up helping me as I steal it. Plus, if your the one running the card, you'll probably want 6, which would cost 30 :aether and 6 draws, whereas other shields cost one draw and just about 5 quanta. That one shield will probably be enough if the opponent doesnt have a shield. Phase shield just makes it overkill when it works. (not common) I dont usually mind much when the opponent plays phase shield, but I mind if he plays any other, except other and gravity.so you also think it is not op right??
Post by: glennfoo on March 05, 2012, 06:27:49 am
Post by: kimham8a on March 05, 2012, 06:40:43 am
Post by: glennfoo on March 05, 2012, 06:48:16 am
Post by: kimham8a on March 05, 2012, 06:50:14 am
Post by: kimham8a on March 05, 2012, 06:55:09 am
Post by: glennfoo on March 05, 2012, 06:55:53 am
Post by: kimham8a on March 05, 2012, 07:13:56 am
Post by: glennfoo on March 05, 2012, 07:29:35 am
Post by: Absol on March 06, 2012, 05:40:17 am
Mods, please also delete this post after you finish cleaning up.
Post by: The Chosen One on March 21, 2012, 07:56:20 pm
Post by: omegareaper7 on March 21, 2012, 08:17:22 pm
ruby dragonYour joking right? really hope you are.
Post by: furballdn on March 22, 2012, 12:35:20 am
Better make them immortal (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,31708.0.html)ruby dragonYour joking right? really hope you are.
Post by: kimham8a on March 22, 2012, 03:22:32 am
Omg this brings back good memories. Better use the 2 blessing then rage poton combo because its the most OP combo in game. 27 attack? For only four cards, 15 :fire and 6 :light? Soo OP! :P best of all the dragon will have more than one hp in the end.Better make them immortal (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,31708.0.html)ruby dragonYour joking right? really hope you are.
Post by: Absol on March 22, 2012, 05:32:22 am
I believe that in next patch, SN won't hold the OP title anymore. Instead, it will be BH.
Post by: kimham8a on March 22, 2012, 11:21:54 am
Post by: Absol on March 22, 2012, 01:07:38 pm
All your quanta will be sucked everytime you use one, and you can't burst it out, else you got a singularity and lose anyway. But we'll see that when 1.30 comes.
Post by: Jenkar on March 22, 2012, 01:15:27 pm
Because SN can't be used multiple times then, but BH can.So you're saying bh is op because it finally can counter <a TINY bit> supernova?
All your quanta will be sucked everytime you use one, and you can't burst it out, else you got a singularity and lose anyway. But we'll see that when 1.30 comes.
Post by: Absol on March 22, 2012, 02:50:00 pm
Still nope. That would be the noob's complain once 1.30 is out.Because SN can't be used multiple times then, but BH can.So you're saying bh is op because it finally can counter <a TINY bit> supernova?
All your quanta will be sucked everytime you use one, and you can't burst it out, else you got a singularity and lose anyway. But we'll see that when 1.30 comes.
Post by: Jenkar on March 22, 2012, 02:55:15 pm
Then i don't see your reasons for sayin' it's op.Still nope. That would be the noob's complain once 1.30 is out.Because SN can't be used multiple times then, but BH can.So you're saying bh is op because it finally can counter <a TINY bit> supernova?
All your quanta will be sucked everytime you use one, and you can't burst it out, else you got a singularity and lose anyway. But we'll see that when 1.30 comes.
Post by: Absol on March 22, 2012, 04:53:39 pm
[/sarcasm]Then i don't see your reasons for sayin' it's op.Still nope. That would be the noob's complain once 1.30 is out.Because SN can't be used multiple times then, but BH can.So you're saying bh is op because it finally can counter <a TINY bit> supernova?
All your quanta will be sucked everytime you use one, and you can't burst it out, else you got a singularity and lose anyway. But we'll see that when 1.30 comes.
Forgot that tag. Move on.
Post by: dragonsdemesne on March 22, 2012, 09:42:11 pm
Post by: Jenkar on March 22, 2012, 09:44:02 pm
Why is dimensional shield on this list and why does it have so many votes? :pSame reason as SoX, i suppose.
Post by: kimham8a on March 22, 2012, 10:00:59 pm
Post by: Jenkar on March 22, 2012, 10:02:57 pm
sox? Meaning?Shard of Sacrifice.
Post by: kimham8a on March 22, 2012, 10:05:06 pm
Lol what a fitting acronymsox? Meaning?Shard of Sacrifice.
Post by: ARTHANASIOS on April 01, 2012, 07:21:09 pm
PANDEMONIUM is not exaclty overpowered, but it is too luck-based and it can just harm you instead of opponent or, quite the opposite, eliminate an almost unbeatable enemy army of powerful creatures.
HOPE is also overpowered. Just spam light emmiting creatures and the opponent can't even touch you.
Post by: Poker Alho on April 01, 2012, 07:24:51 pm
I think DISCORD is the one who needs balancing, it just ruins badly mono-elemental decks and it also messes up rainbow decks. Too much luck involved and 4 damage at the same time, seriously?LOL hope is OP and pandemonium too? imma give you a discount and think you're trolling cuz today is april fools
PANDEMONIUM is not exaclty overpowered, but it is too luck-based and it can just harm you instead of opponent or, quite the opposite, eliminate an almost unbeatable enemy army of powerful creatures.
HOPE is also overpowered. Just spam light emmiting creatures and the opponent can't even touch you.
Post by: omegareaper7 on April 01, 2012, 07:46:28 pm
I think DISCORD is the one who needs balancing, it just ruins badly mono-elemental decks and it also messes up rainbow decks. Too much luck involved and 4 damage at the same time, seriously?Think someone needs to learn to counter things ::)
PANDEMONIUM is not exaclty overpowered, but it is too luck-based and it can just harm you instead of opponent or, quite the opposite, eliminate an almost unbeatable enemy army of powerful creatures.
HOPE is also overpowered. Just spam light emmiting creatures and the opponent can't even touch you.
Discord is the only even mildly overpowered one. Panda isn't, shouldn't be used in creature heavy decks anyways. Hope.....lol.
Post by: whatifidogetcaught? on April 01, 2012, 08:04:43 pm
Post by: ARTHANASIOS on April 02, 2012, 09:09:25 am
I think DISCORD is the one who needs balancing, it just ruins badly mono-elemental decks and it also messes up rainbow decks. Too much luck involved and 4 damage at the same time, seriously?I said pandemonium is NOT exactly overpowered, but it is TOO MUCH luck based, so I really thing it needs a little fixing.
PANDEMONIUM is not exaclty overpowered, but it is too luck-based and it can just harm you instead of opponent or, quite the opposite, eliminate an almost unbeatable enemy army of powerful creatures.
HOPE is also overpowered. Just spam light emmiting creatures and the opponent can't even touch you.
Discord is really overpowered, because it ruins your quantum supply a lot AND dealing damage at the same time.
Hope is one of the most broken shields in the game. Let's take a look to the text of Elements Wiki:
"What shield has such ludicrously strong defensive power that it can block up to 23 damage from every single attack? Hope is such a shield. Its defensive power is equal to the number of light-emitting creatures you control at the end of each turn, making it potentially the most powerful shield in the game. This card is immune to permanent destruction, too, and in some situations it can render you completely invulnerable."
Guys, it is sooo easy to have many light emmiting creatures in game. If you have, let's say, just 3 such creatures, Hope becomes a "block the first 3 damage every turn", which is rediculous for a permanent shield. And what if there are 4,5,6,7... such creatures? Most of the other shields must be upgraded to block 2 damage per turn instead of one or they block creatures by chance (like Fog Shield), but Hope always and permanently blocks such a huge amount of damage every turn. Those guys who don't complain about it are those who either have Steal or cards which can destroy opponent creatures, what about the rest players?
Post by: Jenkar on April 02, 2012, 09:32:48 am
Post by: ARTHANASIOS on April 02, 2012, 12:32:52 pm
Or unstable gas, or win through deckout, or any card who kills creature(s) (especially otyugh, pandemonium, or rain of fire), or any viable rush, or any spell based win, or growers, or the multitude of counters which i missed?I suppose this is an answer to what I wrote, so here I reply again. Elements is an overall very balanced game, however I believe there are some cards which are slightly overpowered than the rest and the reason this topic exists is to write our opinion and to vote which one(s) we think are the most unbalanced. These three are mine opinions, like it or not! My opinions and votes are based on my experience of this game and your ones are based on your own experience too, there is nothing wrong with that! I believe Hope is too strong in comparison with every other shield and I've already written why (permanent, indestructible, blocks 1 x light emmiting creature damage per attacking creature). Just compare this shield with every other shield in the game, it is just too strong and it needs to become slightly weaker.
Post by: Poker Alho on April 02, 2012, 01:02:22 pm
Well and the opinion of EVERYONE ELSE, also based on our own experience, tells us hope is not OP as it has a good number of counters and having such a number of light emitting creatures that dont die at touch like RoL, is hard as hell and you need to make the whole deck around that. you may think hope is OP, but when everyone else says the opposite guess who am i gonna believe inOr unstable gas, or win through deckout, or any card who kills creature(s) (especially otyugh, pandemonium, or rain of fire), or any viable rush, or any spell based win, or growers, or the multitude of counters which i missed?I suppose this is an answer to what I wrote, so here I reply again. Elements is an overall very balanced game, however I believe there are some cards which are slightly overpowered than the rest and the reason this topic exists is to write our opinion and to vote which one(s) we think are the most unbalanced. These three are mine opinions, like it or not! My opinions and votes are based on my experience of this game and your ones are based on your own experience too, there is nothing wrong with that! I believe Hope is too strong in comparison with every other shield and I've already written why (permanent, indestructible, blocks 1 x light emmiting creature damage per attacking creature). Just compare this shield with every other shield in the game, it is just too strong and it needs to become slightly weaker.
Post by: glennfoo on April 02, 2012, 01:33:41 pm
Post by: Absol on April 02, 2012, 02:19:13 pm
yup. i agree. with fire shield or rain of fire. hope is hopeless... and many other cards are anti hope tooQuite an irony eh?
I figure i should drop this counterargument here, as Hope is certainly not OP. Quoted verbatim from the wiki.
Quote from: Elements the Game Wiki
One of the main mistakes most people do is considering certain cards OP, because a person (or AI) has defeated them using a deck based on that card. Let’s use, as an example, the Light shield named Hope:Source: http://elementscommunity.org/wiki/articles/overpowered/
(http://elementscommunity.org/images/Cards/Hope.png)(http://elementscommunity.org/images/Cards/Upgrade.png)(http://elementscommunity.org/images/Cards/HopeUpgraded.png)
Quite a lot of people have complained in the Light cards section about this card. I’ll quote a post made by somebody in this card’s thread (a little bit edited by me, because it was not very clear): “I really have to agree that this card is OP. I met a FFQ (Firefly queen) deck (well, based on it) which was using Owl’s Eye as creature control. He was also using the Hope shield, fueled by his unupped fireflies (as you might know, those generate Light quanta; in that certain deck, they were also generating quanta to actually play the shield as well as being Light emitting creatures, so the shield actually blocked high amount of damage) . I had no means of killing the Queens that it had out, but I was good for ten turns, because I had enough heals to last me a long time. Anyways, it was pretty much an autowin for that guy. And to me that doesn’t seem fair or fun at all. I knew I was going to lose and I had no means of winning, seeing as I had no way to get past the shield.”
His post truly seems to prove the card is OP. Complete shutdown, no way of dealing damage, is what happened to him. Clearly OP. What he didn’t think about is that he didn’t lose because Hope is OP, but because his opponent’s deck completely counters his. The thing is, many cards can counter Hope, and those cards are found in lots of decks: Momentum, mass creature control (Rain of Fire, Plague, Thunderstorm, Pandemonium, Thorn Carapace, Fire Shield, Retrovirus (= upped Virus), Flooding), single creature control (in case of Queens) (one, or a combination of these can kill/neutralize (even if only for some time) Queens, or kill the Light – emitting creatures (Lightning, Lobotomizer, Unstable Gas, Blue Nymph, Shockwave, Owl’s Eye, Parasite, Black Nymph, Liquid Shadow, Drain Life, Alfatoxin, Virus, Grey Nymph, Basilisk Blood, Auburn Nymph, to some extent Earthquake (stops you from playing it in the first place), Mutation, Chaos Seed, Maxwell’s Demon (after lowering it’s HP), Rage Potion, Re Nymph, Fire Bolt, Gravity Pull, Eternity, Rewind Time, Procrastination, Pharaoh, Otyugh, Scarab, Toadfish, Arctic Octopus, Min Flayer, Ice Bolt, Freeze, and, of course, all the mass creature control cards), Chrysaora (by poison) and Poison and Saphire Charger and Titan, because of their Momentum.
Now, let’s take what can be used to counter Sundials: Weapons (are not affected by it) (Lobotomizer, Owl’s Eye, Vampire Stiletto, Arsenic, Pulverizer, Discord, Fahrenheit, Titan, Druidic Staff, Morning Star, Eternity, Trident, Dagger, Short Sword, Hammer), Deflagration, Chrysaora (by poison), Poison And Pulverizer’s ability.
So, now, by looking at the huge number of cards which can put an end to The Hope shield’s strength, compared to the small amount of cards countering Sundials, most of which are weapons which don’t really counter it, you can clearly see Hope is not OP. Yes, the cards countering the Sundial are still the same, but now you can’t argue it’s OP, because just waiting 6 turns for the chaining to end isn’t so bad, compared to waiting 12 turns, which is, usually, enough for the whole game.
I also suggest people to read this first to know what is OP and what is not before you say that a certain card is OP.
You're welcome.
Post by: ARTHANASIOS on April 02, 2012, 02:51:34 pm
[Well and the opinion of EVERYONE ELSE, also based on our own experience, tells us hope is not OP as it has a good number of counters and having such a number of light emitting creatures that dont die at touch like RoL, is hard as hell and you need to make the whole deck around that. you may think hope is OP, but when everyone else says the opposite guess who am i gonna believe inYou can believe whoever you like, dear Poker Alho, and support whatever opinion you have and I respect other people opinions even when I disagree with them. However, I suggest better create an opinion of yours based on your experience rather than following the common opinion of things.
By the way, according to the votes there are a lot of different points of view, since almost every kind of card has some votes on it. So I am not so sure that a common opinion of EVERYONE ELSE truly exists.
Anyway, you can still believe whatever you want, I actually don't understand why many people here have become so mad about my opinions. Everyone here votes according to his/her beliefs and I have the guts to explain in detail myself instead of just voting and leave, so why such hate against me? And why Hope is included in the list if there is no possibility of being overpowered, dear Absol? I cannot certainly say a card is overpowered/not overpowered since everything I say is based on my experience (same goes on every person here) and, no offence, the list of Hope's counters can be said for almost every single deck.
* Creature destroying/damaging ruins every kind of deck, not just Hope-based deck.
* Everything that has to do about quantum sabotaging (Earthquake, Devourers etc.) is a counter on everything, not just Hope, since you cannot play anything. Actually, it is not a great counter for Hope, since the white mana it needs to be played can be given not from pillars (earthquake) but from light emmiting creatures (they produce 1 light quantum per turn). In theory, Hope costs 7 quantum, but since this quantum can be harvested by light emmiting creatures it is actually "cheaper" than it looks.
* Luciferin just for 2 light mana gives you 10 hp and bioluminencense (light-emmiting) to all your creatures without a skill, so even powerful creatures can buff up this shield.
* Momentum ruins every kind of shield, not just Hope.
* Blessing can easily buff up some of those weak bioluminesence creatures.
* Pandemonium may be the most effective card against Hope, since it really messes up every creature, based on pure, chaotic luck. That's why I believe it needs a little less randomness.
* I don't believe Hope is TOTALLY unbalanced, but I really think it is SLIGHTLY broken. It is my personal opinion supported by my facts and my gaming experience, but I also respect your different opinions if they're also supported by facts and experience.
Post by: Absol on April 02, 2012, 03:14:12 pm
[Well and the opinion of EVERYONE ELSE, also based on our own experience, tells us hope is not OP as it has a good number of counters and having such a number of light emitting creatures that dont die at touch like RoL, is hard as hell and you need to make the whole deck around that. you may think hope is OP, but when everyone else says the opposite guess who am i gonna believe inYou can believe whoever you like, dear Poker Alho, and support whatever opinion you have and I respect other people opinions even when I disagree with them. However, I suggest better create an opinion of yours based on your experience rather than following the common opinion of things.
By the way, according to the votes there are a lot of different points of view, since almost every kind of card has some votes on it. So I am not so sure that a common opinion of EVERYONE ELSE truly exists. Check SoSa and Dim shield. Which is not that OP anyway.
Anyway, you can still believe whatever you want, I actually don't understand why many people here have become so mad about my opinions. Not mad, you're the one talking with a high tension. Everyone here votes according to his/her beliefs and I have the guts to explain in detail myself instead of just voting and leave, so why such hate against me? And why Hope is included in the list if there is no possibility of being overpowered, dear Absol? Because only card with <1% are eliminated from the poll. That's the rule.Also your "dear" is creeping me.I cannot certainly say a card is overpowered/not overpowered since everything I say is based on my experience (same goes on every person here) OP or not OP is not based on opinion nor personal experience, it's based on the cards. If the card shifts metagame considerably so it consists of Hope and anti-Hope, then it's OP. Which is not the case. and, no offence, the list of Hope's counters can be said for almost every single deck. Which actually makes every deck as of now more or less balanced.
* Creature destroying/damaging ruins every kind of deck, not just Hope-based deck.
* Everything that has to do about quantum sabotaging (Earthquake, Devourers etc.) is a counter on everything, not just Hope, since you cannot play anything. Not pillarless deck like Immorush, nor Speedbow to an extent. Actually, it is not a great counter for Hope, since the white mana it needs to be played can be given not from pillars (earthquake) but from light emmiting creatures (they produce 1 light quantum per turn). In theory, Hope costs 7 quantum, but since this quantum can be harvested by light emmiting creatures it is actually "cheaper" than it looks.
* Luciferin just for 2 light mana gives you 10 hp and bioluminencense (light-emmiting) to all your creatures without a skill, so even powerful creatures can buff up this shield. Only after you have decent defense up, though, so by that point, it no longer matters.
* Momentum ruins every kind of shield, not just Hope.
* Blessing can easily buff up some of those weak bioluminesence creatures.
* Pandemonium may be the most effective card against Hope, since it really messes up every creature, based on pure, chaotic luck. That's why I believe it needs a little less randomness. What's most effective is Lightning Storm. One :air and bye to all RoL.
* I don't believe Hope is TOTALLY unbalanced, but I really think it is SLIGHTLY broken. It is my personal opinion supported by my facts and my gaming experience, but I also respect your different opinions if they're also supported by facts and experience. Read below.
If Hope can be cancelled out by the same strategy to cancel almost other decks, that shows that Hope is not that OP.
Hope is one of the most broken shields in the game.Most broken = slightly broken.
Also potentially block 23 damage =/= is blocking 23 damage.
Good thing that Ruby Dragon is not on that list.
Post by: ARTHANASIOS on April 02, 2012, 04:06:18 pm
* Lightning Storm can only kill Ray of Lights, not Fireflies or any other "healthier" creature with Luciferin casted upon it.
* Luciferin can help even in early game, since it is cheap and it also heals.
* Let's study the light-emmiting (bioluminescense) creatures a little:
Ray of Light: A free 1/1 airborne creature which generates 1 :light per turn.
Ray of Light with Hope: A free 1/1 airborne creature which generates 1 :light per turn AND strengthens your shield by 1.
Firefly: A 3 :air 3/2 airborne creature which generates 1 :light per turn.
Firefly with Hope: A 3 :air 3/2 airborne creature which generates 1 :light per turn AND strengthens your shield by 1.
When Hope is on the field, just three RoL or Fireflies make it to absorb 3 damage per hit. Just explain to me, isn't this a little too much for a shield? If we exclude spells which damage all of the creatures at once and include only spells/abilities that harm a single creature at a time, then we will possibly have a shield with 3-4 damage absorption for most of the game, let alone the fact the same creatures which strengthen the shield will provide the quantum for stronger light creatures to come by. And I don't want to imagine the player applying Luciferin to these stronger creatures, healing himself/herself by 10, increasing his light mana generation by 1 per turn and strengthening his shield by 1. Isn't this a little (just a little) overpowered?
Post by: Jenkar on April 02, 2012, 04:18:25 pm
Also, keep in mind that you need to put your whole deck around hope for it to have any value. This means that your deck is very fragile to any hope counter, because it destroys your strategy. On the other hand, shields like fog are added in most decks just for a bit of extra defense, which means that even if you get a fog counter (say, chargers), you are near hopeless.
Post by: Poker Alho on April 02, 2012, 04:34:24 pm
my words exactly and the same about what Jenkars said[Well and the opinion of EVERYONE ELSE, also based on our own experience, tells us hope is not OP as it has a good number of counters and having such a number of light emitting creatures that dont die at touch like RoL, is hard as hell and you need to make the whole deck around that. you may think hope is OP, but when everyone else says the opposite guess who am i gonna believe inYou can believe whoever you like, dear Poker Alho, and support whatever opinion you have and I respect other people opinions even when I disagree with them. However, I suggest better create an opinion of yours based on your experience rather than following the common opinion of things.
By the way, according to the votes there are a lot of different points of view, since almost every kind of card has some votes on it. So I am not so sure that a common opinion of EVERYONE ELSE truly exists. Check SoSa and Dim shield. Which is not that OP anyway.
Anyway, you can still believe whatever you want, I actually don't understand why many people here have become so mad about my opinions. Not mad, you're the one talking with a high tension. Everyone here votes according to his/her beliefs and I have the guts to explain in detail myself instead of just voting and leave, so why such hate against me? And why Hope is included in the list if there is no possibility of being overpowered, dear Absol? Because only card with <1% are eliminated from the poll. That's the rule.Also your "dear" is creeping me.I cannot certainly say a card is overpowered/not overpowered since everything I say is based on my experience (same goes on every person here) OP or not OP is not based on opinion nor personal experience, it's based on the cards. If the card shifts metagame considerably so it consists of Hope and anti-Hope, then it's OP. Which is not the case. and, no offence, the list of Hope's counters can be said for almost every single deck. Which actually makes every deck as of now more or less balanced.
* Creature destroying/damaging ruins every kind of deck, not just Hope-based deck.
* Everything that has to do about quantum sabotaging (Earthquake, Devourers etc.) is a counter on everything, not just Hope, since you cannot play anything. Not pillarless deck like Immorush, nor Speedbow to an extent. Actually, it is not a great counter for Hope, since the white mana it needs to be played can be given not from pillars (earthquake) but from light emmiting creatures (they produce 1 light quantum per turn). In theory, Hope costs 7 quantum, but since this quantum can be harvested by light emmiting creatures it is actually "cheaper" than it looks.
* Luciferin just for 2 light mana gives you 10 hp and bioluminencense (light-emmiting) to all your creatures without a skill, so even powerful creatures can buff up this shield. Only after you have decent defense up, though, so by that point, it no longer matters.
* Momentum ruins every kind of shield, not just Hope.
* Blessing can easily buff up some of those weak bioluminesence creatures.
* Pandemonium may be the most effective card against Hope, since it really messes up every creature, based on pure, chaotic luck. That's why I believe it needs a little less randomness. What's most effective is Lightning Storm. One :air and bye to all RoL.
* I don't believe Hope is TOTALLY unbalanced, but I really think it is SLIGHTLY broken. It is my personal opinion supported by my facts and my gaming experience, but I also respect your different opinions if they're also supported by facts and experience. Read below.
If Hope can be cancelled out by the same strategy to cancel almost other decks, that shows that Hope is not that OP.Hope is one of the most broken shields in the game.Most broken = slightly broken.
Also potentially block 23 damage =/= is blocking 23 damage.Put all 6 of the dragons and you have the deck with most potential damage.Apparently 6*12 = 72, so put 5 of every dragons and you have the most potentially damaging deck ever. Of course, it's inoperable without quanta, in the same way that Hope is inoperable without RoL / Firefly.
Good thing that Ruby Dragon is not on that list.
Post by: ARTHANASIOS on April 02, 2012, 04:48:44 pm
Diamond shield is way faster, doesn't require creatures, costs less, and has 3 damage resistance.Dear Jenkar, I understand what you say about here, but keep in mind the following:
Also, keep in mind that you need to put your whole deck around hope for it to have any value. This means that your deck is very fragile to any hope counter, because it destroys your strategy. On the other hand, shields like fog are added in most decks just for a bit of extra defense, which means that even if you get a fog counter (say, chargers), you are near hopeless.
1) Fog Shield and a few other shields (Dusk Mantle, Thorn Carapace) are relying on luck factor to succeed, while others (like Hope) do not rely on that (they block you 100% of the time).
2) Diamond Shield is the upgraded version of Titanium Shield; upgraded Hope also blocks 1 more damage. So, an upgraded Hope would block a 4-5 damage in average (I know this is relative, since Hope can, according to circumstances, block much more or much less damage per turn).
3) Hope only theoritically costs more than Diamond shield because of a simple reason; light-emmiting creatures generate 1 light quantum per turn, so Hope can easily be paid by them either partially or completely.
4) Luciferin gives you the opportunity to include powerful vanilla creatures in your deck and buff them with bioluminescense (green creatures and dragons are a very good choice here). Creatures that powerful will withstand mass damage spells (except from Pandemonium which will often replace their light-emmiting ability with something else, if not completely destroying them).
Anyway, I may be totally wrong and maybe you're right, I can't say for sure...
Post by: omegareaper7 on April 02, 2012, 04:58:24 pm
3) Hope only theoritically costs more than Diamond shield because of a simple reason; light-emmiting creatures generate 1 light quantum per turn, so Hope can easily be paid by them either partially or completely.Since when is 6 being less then 7 a theory? Much less the 8 for the upped version. If you include how much deck space it takes, diamonds still wins just about every time.
Post by: Jenkar on April 02, 2012, 05:13:25 pm
2) Average? false. You're expecting that your opponent sits there while you put up light creatures? Nah, not gonna happen. Also, keep in mind that those light emitting creatures don't magically appear when you put down hope. See answer to 4.
3) I can put gemfinders in my deck to get moar earth quantum. Moot point.
4) The main problem with luciferin /hope decks is that it's combo based. This is true for any hope deck, but with luciferin it just gets worse.
The problem (& one of the weakness of hope) is that you need to have light emitting creatures for it to be of any use. You can't just put 6 RoL & 1 hope and expect to have them in starting hand. This gets worse with luci because you need to : draw the creatures, play them (strong defense creatures usually cost a lot), then draw luci & hope. Generally, by the time you do this, either your opponent has crushed you because he's using a rush, or is in control because he's using a stall.
Post by: ARTHANASIOS on April 02, 2012, 07:14:05 pm
1) Yes. They have different strengths. The strength of hope (potential of high damage block) is compensated by its weakness (creature control, need to base your deck around it). The only other shields like that that i can think of on top of my head are gravity, dissipation & dimensional shields. Other shield generally aren't ''i base my deck around this (they are moderately strong with little-none drawbacks).Dear Jenkai, you generally may know this game better than me, however allow me to correct some points here:
2) Average? false. You're expecting that your opponent sits there while you put up light creatures? Nah, not gonna happen. Also, keep in mind that those light emitting creatures don't magically appear when you put down hope. See answer to 4.
3) I can put gemfinders in my deck to get moar earth quantum. Moot point.
4) The main problem with luciferin /hope decks is that it's combo based. This is true for any hope deck, but with luciferin it just gets worse.
The problem (& one of the weakness of hope) is that you need to have light emitting creatures for it to be of any use. You can't just put 6 RoL & 1 hope and expect to have them in starting hand. This gets worse with luci because you need to : draw the creatures, play them (strong defense creatures usually cost a lot), then draw luci & hope. Generally, by the time you do this, either your opponent has crushed you because he's using a rush, or is in control because he's using a stall.
1) Yes. They have different strengths. I totally agree here.
2) Average is something relative when you deal with Hope, that's true, but even when dealing with light-emmiting creatures a number of 3 RoL or Fireflies are generally easy to come by. Not always, sometimes is easier, sometimes harder, depending to what deck are you facing, but in order to compare this shield with others we have to conclude into an average shielding number. I think 3 is a reasonable number. If you think I am wrong, please suggest another number which you think is an average for the Hope shield.
3) Yes, but Gnomes don't strengthen your Diamond shield, do they?
4) Every deck is combo based. You must select an element(s), a theme, a strategy, a combo. Even if you think Hope is not OP, this is not a very conviencing argument, is it?
Post by: Jenkar on April 02, 2012, 07:33:22 pm
2) There are two problems in this line of argument.1) Yes. They have different strengths. The strength of hope (potential of high damage block) is compensated by its weakness (creature control, need to base your deck around it). The only other shields like that that i can think of on top of my head are gravity, dissipation & dimensional shields. Other shield generally aren't ''i base my deck around this (they are moderately strong with little-none drawbacks).Dear Jenkai, you generally may know this game better than me, however allow me to correct some points here:
2) Average? false. You're expecting that your opponent sits there while you put up light creatures? Nah, not gonna happen. Also, keep in mind that those light emitting creatures don't magically appear when you put down hope. See answer to 4.
3) I can put gemfinders in my deck to get moar earth quantum. Moot point.
4) The main problem with luciferin /hope decks is that it's combo based. This is true for any hope deck, but with luciferin it just gets worse.
The problem (& one of the weakness of hope) is that you need to have light emitting creatures for it to be of any use. You can't just put 6 RoL & 1 hope and expect to have them in starting hand. This gets worse with luci because you need to : draw the creatures, play them (strong defense creatures usually cost a lot), then draw luci & hope. Generally, by the time you do this, either your opponent has crushed you because he's using a rush, or is in control because he's using a stall.
1) Yes. They have different strengths. I totally agree here.
2) Average is something relative when you deal with Hope, that's true, but even when dealing with light-emmiting creatures a number of 3 RoL or Fireflies are generally easy to come by. Not always, sometimes is easier, sometimes harder, depending to what deck are you facing, but in order to compare this shield with others we have to conclude into an average shielding number. I think 3 is a reasonable number. If you think I am wrong, please suggest another number which you think is an average for the Hope shield.
3) Yes, but Gnomes don't strengthen your Diamond shield, do they?
4) Every deck is combo based. You must select an element(s), a theme, a strategy, a combo. Even if you think Hope is not OP, this is not a very conviencing argument, is it?
a) When. I assume you're placing yourself midgame, with 3 RoLs in a non-fractal based deck (correct if i'm wrong).
b) What your opponent does. if your opponent plays a CC deck, you won't have a single one down.
3) No, the argument was based on speed of play, here, not strength of shield.
4) And no. you must select an element and a strategy(ies), and that's all. Combo can be taken but it's optionnal. You also missed : synergy, imo.
Take
Rush, offense offense offense. Bare minimum of cards to allow you to bypass things that bother you/slow opponent. There is no combo. Every card has a role, but you don't need one to play another (save quantum).
Second deck example :
Synergy, between bonewall & lightning. It's not a combo because you don't need one to play the other, but it's a synergy because they work better together.
Third :
Combo. You play fractal on devourers, and *need* them (or vamps) to fractal.
My point is, all hope decks are of the third kind. Combo decks have the caracteristic of being very fragile, due to not drawing cards you need early, or disruption by the opponent's deck. They're the decks that'd be too strong if your opponent is a sandbag, but they aren't :P
Post by: ARTHANASIOS on April 02, 2012, 07:45:04 pm
Post by: ZephyrPhantom on April 02, 2012, 08:32:23 pm
Dear Jenkai, now I see what you mean with combo and yes, you're right, Hope decks are combo decks for sure. About the rest of your posts, I have to say your arguments are also in great detail and I am starting to feel convienced by your opinion. Maybe, just maybe, Hope is not OP at all...My 2 cents :
Titanium Shield is 4 :earth and 1 Card for 2 defense.
Reflective Shield is 1 :light and 1 Card for 0 defense and Immaterial.
Hope + 2 RoL is 7 :light and 3 Cards for 2 defense and Immaterial.
On average a "Reflective Titanium Shield" would be 2 quanta 2 cards cheaper.
Diamond Shield is 6 :earth and 1 Card for 3 defense.
Mirror Shield is 2 :light and 1 Card for 1 defense and Immaterial.
Hope (Upped) + 2 RoL is 8 :light and 3 cards for 3 defense and Immaterial.
On average a "Mirror Diamond Shield" would be 2 cards cheaper and provide 1 more defense.
Hope does have potential to getting more creatures to surpass the defense of Titanium | Diamond but will require the deck to be dedicated to effectively getting it into play (aka a combo deck as Jenkar mentioned below) and under most situations does not become extremely powerful until late midgame when you Fractal RoL (which is usually the best case scenario for getting this card out). When compared to other shields there are better alternatives for a more immediate defense. Light emitting creatures also have an eventual limit to their usefulness - the most likely cards you will use with it are Miracle (which drains all :light ) and Fractal Dragons/Archangel (which is a useful synergy but only becomes viable lategame, which indirectly synergizes with Hope's need for :light generating creatures.) Other strategies (Luciferin + Vanilla Creatures or Firefly/Pegasus) are potentially viable but usually less effective compared to decks like Fire Stall, Grabbow, or Ghostmare.
Post by: ARTHANASIOS on April 02, 2012, 11:43:21 pm
I may starting to believe that Hope is not overpowered, however I am definitely not going to accept that Hope is more "expensive" than Titanium. Hope is late game, yes, but its 7-8 :light can be generated by the very same white creatures which buff it. Paying any other shield has not to do with any synergy, you have to pay all your quantum by yourself. There are other creatures which generate mana and can be used to pay other shields (Gnome Riders paying for a Titanium shield for example) but they are not part of the shield's synergy (they don't provide a damage absorption bonus). What I am trying to say is that Hope is cheaper than it looks to be, presonaly I think its general "real cost" is about 4 quantum) but I don't think it is overpowered anymore.Dear Jenkai, now I see what you mean with combo and yes, you're right, Hope decks are combo decks for sure. About the rest of your posts, I have to say your arguments are also in great detail and I am starting to feel convienced by your opinion. Maybe, just maybe, Hope is not OP at all...My 2 cents :
Titanium Shield is 4 :earth and 1 Card for 2 defense.
Reflective Shield is 1 :light and 1 Card for 0 defense and Immaterial.
Hope + 2 RoL is 7 :light and 3 Cards for 2 defense and Immaterial.
On average a "Reflective Titanium Shield" would be 2 quanta 2 cards cheaper.
Diamond Shield is 6 :earth and 1 Card for 3 defense.
Mirror Shield is 2 :light and 1 Card for 1 defense and Immaterial.
Hope (Upped) + 2 RoL is 8 :light and 3 cards for 3 defense and Immaterial.
On average a "Mirror Diamond Shield" would be 2 cards cheaper and provide 1 more defense.
Hope does have potential to getting more creatures to surpass the defense of Titanium | Diamond but will require the deck to be dedicated to effectively getting it into play (aka a combo deck as Jenkar mentioned below) and under most situations does not become extremely powerful until late midgame when you Fractal RoL (which is usually the best case scenario for getting this card out). When compared to other shields there are better alternatives for a more immediate defense. Light emitting creatures also have an eventual limit to their usefulness - the most likely cards you will use with it are Miracle (which drains all :light ) and Fractal Dragons/Archangel (which is a useful synergy but only becomes viable lategame, which indirectly synergizes with Hope's need for :light generating creatures.) Other strategies (Luciferin + Vanilla Creatures or Firefly/Pegasus) are potentially viable but usually less effective compared to decks like Fire Stall, Grabbow, or Ghostmare.
Post by: Jenkar on April 03, 2012, 02:24:53 am
A) outside of every deck. There, titanium/diamond costs less (its the cost written on a card).
B) inside a deck. Now, you *have* to put light emitting creatures. The fact is, drawing those to pay is not guaranteed. Also, in my earth deck, i could use that space in my deck for say gemfinders, or even pillars. The fact that they don't synergize with the shield is meaningless, they're here, i can play them.
basicly, you considered A) for one and B) for hope. Which is silly, cuz you're not comparing on the same ground.
Post by: ARTHANASIOS on April 03, 2012, 07:38:16 am
Not really. There are two ways of considering quantum cost.Yes, I think I see now... 8)
A) outside of every deck. There, titanium/diamond costs less (its the cost written on a card).
B) inside a deck. Now, you *have* to put light emitting creatures. The fact is, drawing those to pay is not guaranteed. Also, in my earth deck, i could use that space in my deck for say gemfinders, or even pillars. The fact that they don't synergize with the shield is meaningless, they're here, i can play them.
basicly, you considered A) for one and B) for hope. Which is silly, cuz you're not comparing on the same ground.
Post by: plastiqe on April 14, 2012, 12:48:27 am
I posted a report asking for a poll before I figured out how to do that myself, d'oh.
Feel free to suggest cards you think should be added for the next poll. I've already got lots of spots reserved for Shards.
Post by: eaglgenes101 on April 14, 2012, 02:06:54 am
SoF (When 1.3 comes out)
Post by: furballdn on April 14, 2012, 02:14:14 am
*Cough*Prove it. It's gotten a cost increase so it isn't as powerful. It'll change the metagame but isn't OP.
SoF (When 1.3 comes out)
Post by: Atico on April 14, 2012, 07:17:07 pm
I never seen the most OP in this game like BH now. Nerfing Nova without nerf BH was a mistake.
Post by: omegareaper7 on April 14, 2012, 08:17:18 pm
BlackHole... Especially when SoF generates BH. Omg, it is pretty annoying card now... A lot of games lose in a row against BH and I didn't play rainbow. In few weeks it will be dramatic when SoF will be popular.Except blackhole has never been a huge problem. If it is because of the shard, then nerf the shard, not blackhole.
I never seen the most OP in this game like BH now. Nerfing Nova without nerf BH was a mistake.
Post by: Atico on April 14, 2012, 08:52:45 pm
Post by: Poker Alho on April 14, 2012, 10:10:11 pm
Earlier when I could use 2-3 Nova in a row I had a chance to play against BH and putting few creatures or maybe Sanctuary. Now Your chance to do it = 0. You use 1 Nova per turn, opponent can use BH. It is stupid. I like Nova nerf, because it was neccesary. But we mustn't create situation, when You have rainbow and playing against BH = quit. It isn't balanced.
playing one nova at a time is actually a strategy to counter black hole, you just need to have a little patiente
Post by: Drake_XIV on April 15, 2012, 12:47:19 am
Post by: whatifidogetcaught? on April 15, 2012, 06:02:00 pm
Post by: Naesala on April 15, 2012, 08:07:50 pm
Post by: dragonsdemesne on April 15, 2012, 08:21:48 pm
Post by: Cunning_Wish on April 17, 2012, 04:23:15 am
as a PC, it is so good than other
Post by: Gemini on April 28, 2012, 12:47:47 am
Bhole discord still haunts my dreams back from war 2, damn you Zeru, still haunting me now.
SoS just is by definition too strong. Its like a temporal but everything Antimatter which is kind of tide turning.
Post by: kimham8a on April 28, 2012, 02:57:01 am
Post by: Pwnator on April 28, 2012, 03:11:25 am
i wonder if mono fire or mono dark would use sof rather than their normal PC...
:darkness can freely choose between Steals and SoFs, depending on the playstyle. But :fire definitely benefits more from SoFs than Explosions. It's worth 2 Explosions, and when used as RagePot fodder, grants you +5/6 dmg and ANOTHER Explosion.
Post by: mrtwigie01 on April 28, 2012, 04:09:25 am
Post by: Absol on April 28, 2012, 04:33:38 am
serapha definitelySeraph? OP?
9 :fire for 10 | 1 and inferior phoenix-like protection which consume :light every turn?
Please provide sufficient argument.
Post by: Wizy on April 28, 2012, 04:38:45 am
Also for :fire, if using Immolation/Cremation, SoFs are much cheaper.i wonder if mono fire or mono dark would use sof rather than their normal PC...
:darkness can freely choose between Steals and SoFs, depending on the playstyle. But :fire definitely benefits more from SoFs than Explosions. It's worth 2 Explosions, and when used as RagePot fodder, grants you +5/6 dmg and ANOTHER Explosion.
Btw, a rage potion does not grant an extra destroy, 3 are required for that.
15*3-5+15=55 ; 15*3-15+15=45 ; Despite the card stating if HP>50, it turns into a BH if HP=50.
On the topic, In my opinion the most OP cards are RT and SoF. I don't think SoSa is that OP in the meta game.
Post by: furballdn on April 28, 2012, 04:48:33 am
serapha definitelySeriously?
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-NHDGw-HSZKs/T0E5aYJXQuI/AAAAAAAAAEY/7KPWLw420oQ/s1600/jackie-chan.png)
Post by: mrtwigie01 on April 28, 2012, 05:20:53 am
Post by: furballdn on April 28, 2012, 05:26:05 am
another powerful creature for fire is not needed, instead other elements such as light should be boostedDoesn't make it OP by any means. Sure, it's probably better than crimson dragon, but it's still very fragile and counterable. Just because fire gets another creature does not make that creature overpowered by any means.
Post by: Pwnator on April 28, 2012, 05:28:48 am
Also for :fire, if using Immolation/Cremation, SoFs are much cheaper.
Btw, a rage potion does not grant an extra destroy, 3 are required for that.
15*3-5+15=55 ; 15*3-15+15=45 ; Despite the card stating if HP>50, it turns into a BH if HP=50.
On the topic, In my opinion the most OP cards are RT and SoF. I don't think SoSa is that OP in the meta game.
Whoops fail math hahahaha
So yeah, 3 RagePots or 2 Elixirs grant an extra Explosion along with +15/12 ATK. And yeah, you can power the BH you get with 3 Cremations, provided the SoF doesn't steal any :gravity from you.
Also, another annoying application for SoF is with Discord. Screws up your towers & HGs, then your quanta, then your quanta gets sucked away at turn 3. Have yet to actually see one in action, though.
Post by: summerz88 on September 07, 2012, 04:27:24 pm
The thing that makes this game so interesting to play is that cards have serious strengths and weaknesses, so in certain situations something will seem OP, but the only real judge is how decks with and without a particular card stack up % wise, and I think if you ran the numbers you would be surprised to find that quantum tower is probably the most OP card, not because of what it does, but because of what it lets you do.
Post by: iancudorinmarian on September 07, 2012, 06:44:13 pm
1) SoFo is overpowered because:
a) It can be played early (2 QT or just 3 normal Towers grant SoFo in turn 1/2)
b) It can destroy you're first pillars in a rainbow
c) It can BH a rainbow early, locking it down literally (most decks are rainbow these days, mine too...)
d) It can be used with GPull
e) It can fit in ANY deck
f) Fatal combination with Discord
2) BH is overpowered because:
a) Absorbs a lot of quanta
b) Fatal combination with Discord
c) Kills rainbows
3) SoSac is overpowered because:
a) Removes only 48/40 hp and once starter is impossible to stop the chain (besides purify)
b) Better than dimensional shield, even with the Hp reduction, because not all decks have purify, but every deck has PC (Sofo...)
Post by: Ilias22 on September 08, 2012, 07:15:09 am
Post by: Evan_85 on September 08, 2012, 07:39:52 am
Black hole is indeed brutal when paired with discord, but in itself is a card that's pretty mediocre against anything else than a rainbow, and plastique's posts states that we should look at the cards, not decks.
And while purify is indeed the only hard counter of Sosac, there are many ways to soft-counter it, as in dealing less than 20 damage, killing some own creatures, holding them back until opponents hp is above 40. It can be difficult in some specific decks, but I think promotes a strategic approach rather than being op in itself.
And dim-shield is actually helpful: It teaches us beginners early to pack perma-control. :D
Post by: tekpau on October 25, 2012, 02:21:07 pm
Post by: kimham8a on October 26, 2012, 02:01:03 am