Post by: grimdragon64 on August 28, 2013, 06:46:28 pm
(http://elementscommunity.org/images/Cards/Upgrade.png)
Compare:
to 
to 2 Thunder/Lightning Storms deal 4 damage and costs 6/4.
1 Rain of Fire/Fire Storm deals 3 damage and costs 7/5.
When Rain of Fire/Fire Storm is compared to Thunder/Lightning Storm, Lightning Storm is generally better. It may only to 2 damage to every enemy creature, but it costs much less quantum. If you have 75 quantum of the selected element it isn't much of a difference, but if you're very low on quantum reserves because of a bad draw(say, 5) and the opponent has a field full of 4|2 creatures (I'm just making an example and I am aware this looks strangely suspicious to a battle with Fire Queen) lightning storm would be much better.
I'm just generally thinking it would be better if Rain of Fire/Fire storm would be on par (in quantum costs) with Thunder/Lightning Storm.
Please discuss.
Post by: EvaRia on August 28, 2013, 07:18:42 pm
With sweepers the more important issue is generally how many creatures you can get in one hit off one card.
Damage relevance has a bit of a weird curve so you can't just scale its worth in quanta linearly.
Still, I wouldn't mind seeing the unupped one go down to 6.
Post by: serprex on August 28, 2013, 09:14:02 pm
EDIT :air's so cheap it skimps out on punctuation, same goes for Thunderstorm
Post by: Zergva on August 28, 2013, 09:30:39 pm
If there's need for a buff, I think more damage is needed (Actually, Desiccation|Lighning storm does more damage for much cheaper cost). Fire storm now is not a crucial mass CC, just "if I need +1 more damage for much higher cost than any CC". Of course, if it makes 4 damage, the cost must be a bit more (2 Thunderstorm+ in 1 card can be 8 :fire or 9 :fire and upped can be 6 :fire or 7 :fire). It's still will be a bit worse than optimal in a compare, but :fire cards not for the price, for the effectiveness no matter what.
Post by: dawn to dusk on August 29, 2013, 12:07:12 am
Also remember this is :airSorry for going off-topic here but this quote made me think of how OP life is as well.
EDIT :air's so cheap it skimps out on punctuation, same goes for Thunderstorm
to
to
RoF kinda does need a buff though
Post by: Zergva on August 29, 2013, 08:05:05 am
Also remember this is :airSorry for going off-topic here but this quote made me think of how OP life is as well.
EDIT :air's so cheap it skimps out on punctuation, same goes for Thunderstorm
RoF kinda does need a buff though
This list is a kinda manipulative.
And there are the other dragons, what can't really compared equivalently (but :light is much better). And if you have a problem, start a new thread.
Post by: Tsmuji on August 29, 2013, 12:48:23 pm
Post by: Odii Odsen on August 29, 2013, 01:35:07 pm
Post by: Zergva on August 29, 2013, 04:21:33 pm
Who think RoF needs a buff don't understand this game.
"Only a sith deals in absolutes."
Btw it was a bit more arrogant than enough. A bit more respect for the others in the community.
Objectively, :water has more CC than :fire, more mass CC than :fire and better mass CC-s than :fire and if a card seems underpowered, it should have been changed .
Post by: jawdirk on August 29, 2013, 06:10:42 pm
Post by: Odii Odsen on August 29, 2013, 10:48:13 pm
Who think RoF needs a buff don't understand this game.
"Only a sith deals in absolutes."
Btw it was a bit more arrogant than enough. A bit more respect for the others in the community.
Objectively, :water has more CC than :fire, more mass CC than :fire and better mass CC-s than :fire and if a card seems underpowered, it should have been changed .
1. Answers like this are the reason why I don't like to post in this topics.
2. It wasn't arrogant. Just the truth.
3. Water is not the discussion in this thread. If you wanna talk about Water CC vs. Fire CC, then I have to tell you people are using Fire mass CC more than Water mass CC.
4. If a card is underpowered then it needs a change, yes. But RoF isn't UP compared to it's element.
5. If you are going to make an element perfect, then you don't understand this game. Sorry.
6. And if you still don't want understand that RoF doesn't need a buff, then please don't anwser again. This was arrogant.
Post by: Naesala on August 29, 2013, 10:57:49 pm
As it stands, I think the unupped could use a slight decrease in cost to balance it against the mass CCs of other elements and the better single shot CC of fire. I don't see RoF used very often, usually in rainbows if they want more control but rarely in mono fire.
Post by: Odii Odsen on August 30, 2013, 12:34:17 am
Going to have to agree and say you're being rather harsh for no reason, Odii.
As it stands, I think the unupped could use a slight decrease in cost to balance it against the mass CCs of other elements and the better single shot CC of fire. I don't see RoF used very often, usually in rainbows if they want more control but rarely in mono fire.
You know, there is a reason why mass CC is not used very often. Cheap + strong = OP. It's good as it is.
Naesala, I played over 100 games in a row in Bronze to test a mono darkness deck, trust me, I saw more Mono Fire decks with RoF than I wanted to see. Making them cheaper would be a bad joke. Really!
Post by: omegareaper7 on August 30, 2013, 12:45:16 am
Post by: serprex on August 30, 2013, 12:51:46 am
Flooding would be in more decks otherwise. Flooding is a hard counter to swarm decks, but RoF is good enough against them and more. Flooding does suffer use in a non balance respect by requiring its user have some way of dealing with its elemental hate
Note that Odii offered evidence of RoF's use in response to a vague claim that RoF's main use is in rainbows
Another point: RoF is staple in firestalls. Granted cost is less important in that scenario
Post by: Naesala on August 30, 2013, 01:26:13 am
Note that Odii said nothing but "If you don't understand why you're wrong, you just dont understand the game" before my "vague claim". I don't claim to have better evidence than Odii, but I will say now that my evidence is based on my (granted limited) PvP experience and arena experience. I will also say people in bronze, in general, is less experienced players with smaller cardpools. If Odii will bring up a point on the actual balance of the cards, rather than saying "it's good because it's in fire" or "you dont understand, so you don't get the game". I'm not saying it's arrogance, I'm saying it's harsh and unfair and perhaps a bit elitist and definantly a poor arguement.
Note that Odii offered evidence of RoF's use in response to a vague claim that RoF's main use is in rainbows
Another point: RoF is staple in firestalls. Granted cost is less important in that scenario
And your claim it's a staple in firestalls is just as "vague" as my point that it's seen more often in rainbows. Neither point is giving an original point of view.
Post by: Keolino on August 30, 2013, 09:42:37 am
In a unupped mono fire, you take heavy (and expensive) hitters like phoenixes and dragons (or lava golem) and add some cheap control that won't slow you down too much. (deflags+rage potions or fire bolts) A Rain of Fire would be really strong, but expensive at the same time, so you won't use it in the rushy fire element that much. (Arena decks are a different matter (since double draw/mark increase/etc.))
Rain of Fire, an expensive control card, just won't fit in the normal picture of the fire element with strong hitters and cheap control.
I personally don't really care if the unupped cost is decreased to 6, but anything else would make this card too strong.
(And by the way, the ratio between damage/cost of thunderstorm and RoF is fine, since you can control many rush cards like shreekers, or frogs, and some others with a RoF, but not with a thunderstorm.)
Post by: Odii Odsen on August 30, 2013, 10:51:59 am
So being put in to a lot of bronze decks makes a card not weaker then others now? If flooding was put in more, would that not be underpowered either?
This was one example of the experience I did!
Note that Odii said nothing but "If you don't understand why you're wrong, you just dont understand the game" before my "vague claim". I don't claim to have better evidence than Odii, but I will say now that my evidence is based on my (granted limited) PvP experience and arena experience. I will also say people in bronze, in general, is less experienced players with smaller cardpools. If Odii will bring up a point on the actual balance of the cards, rather than saying "it's good because it's in fire" or "you dont understand, so you don't get the game". I'm not saying it's arrogance, I'm saying it's harsh and unfair and perhaps a bit elitist and definantly a poor arguement.
Note that Odii offered evidence of RoF's use in response to a vague claim that RoF's main use is in rainbows
Another point: RoF is staple in firestalls. Granted cost is less important in that scenario
And your claim it's a staple in firestalls is just as "vague" as my point that it's seen more often in rainbows. Neither point is giving an original point of view.
It seems like you want to discuss about what I said, not about the card. How ever, I already said why RoF shouldn't be buffed and it seems like you just read in my first post what you wanted to read. Saying that somebody don't get the game, isn't a poor argument, Naesala. It's no argument. It's just my point of view.
Keolino wrote the best post so far!
Post by: Naesala on August 30, 2013, 11:15:13 am
Saying that somebody don't get the game, isn't a poor argument, Naesala. It's no argument. It's just my point of view.And I'm saying openly expressing that point of view is rude and harsh. I gave my discussion and view on RoF in half of each my posts, and my opinion on your rudeness in the other half. If you were less harsh and rude and more explanatory we wouldn't be having this discussion.
I agree mostly with what Keolino said. And that is why I could stand to see it getting a slight nerf. 6 and 2 cards for 4 versus 7 and 1 card for 3 feels unbalanced, which is the only place in which I disagree with Keolinos post. I think the 1 quanta nerf should be plenty, especially when we keep in mind Fire gets free attack/damage for it's costs usually.
Post by: Keolino on August 30, 2013, 12:06:44 pm
I agree mostly with what Keolino said. And that is why I could stand to see it getting a slight nerf. 6 and 2 cards for 4 versus 7 and 1 card for 3 feels unbalanced, which is the only place in which I disagree with Keolinos post. I think the 1 quanta nerf should be plenty, especially when we keep in mind Fire gets free attack/damage for it's costs usually.
Lets play with numbers...
For 6 damage you need:
Thunderstorm: 9 quanta, 3 cards
Rain of Fire: 14 quanta, 2 cards
^ I don't really know how this could possibly seem unbalanced...
Some math (with the 6 damage from above):
9 quanta * 3 cards ~ 14 quanta * 2 cards
27 ~ 28
So you see, including the advantage from being able to deal more damage with less cards, this is the result. They are equal.
Post by: Odii Odsen on August 30, 2013, 12:14:21 pm
My problem with a RoF buff is that Fire is already pretty strong, you have enough ways to CC with fire. Making it cheaper to CC more creatures at the same time would be a big improvement, what I am trying to avoid. You can not compare Thunderstorm with Rain of Fire that easy. Tunderstorm is cheap, yes, but 3 dmg per creature is a big difference than 2 dmg per creature. The argument that 2 TS making 4 dmg for 6 :air Quanta (lets take an example of the unupgraded version) is doing more dmg for less quanta, is not a good argument. Don't forget you need TWO cards for a bigger dmg. One additional card to make 1 dmg more means a slower/bigger deck. And please always compare the card to it's element. Thunderstorm was unbalanced. Zanz made a buff. Now it's perfect imo. Rain of Fire and it's cost is also pretty balanced to its element. And this is what I said in my first post. RoF is balanced to it's element. The cost is balanced. Give fire more cheaper CC and this game wouldn't be fun.
Post by: Kater543 on August 31, 2013, 08:41:25 am
Post by: Naesala on August 31, 2013, 05:39:58 pm
THink about it this way for the quanta cost 2x2+1=5. 3x2+1=7. I think this was the original logic behind the quanta costs of each card. To lower the upper cost you need to lower the lower cost as well I would believe, if only to balance it out in terms of unupped vs upped.Except for Thunderstorm originally did 1 damage, so this isn't the"original" logic. Here's how I view the numbers, based on the quanta theory I've seen floating around:
3 :underworld + 1 Card = 4 cost 2 damage or 6 :underworld +2 Cards = 8 cost for 4 damage
7 :underworld + 1 Card = 8 cost for 3 damage
8 cost for 4 damage =/= 8 cost for 3 damage.
Additionally, Fire cards tend to deal more damage for their cost. Now, Mass CC has a bigger range, so even a point of damage widely increases the effectiveness. So, to bring it into balance without making it OP, a -1 cost to the original should do.
Post by: Keolino on August 31, 2013, 08:36:59 pm
3 :underworld + 1 Card = 4 cost 2 damage or 6 :underworld +2 Cards = 8 cost for 4 damage
7 :underworld + 1 Card = 8 cost for 3 damage
8 cost for 4 damage =/= 8 cost for 3 damage.
So Archangel (6 quanta +1 card for 7 damage) is the same cost as photon (0 quanta + 7 cards for 7 damage), and therefor they have the same power... and Antlions (8+4 for 8 damage) have the same cost as a stone dragon (10+1 for 8 damage)
So acording to your theory of this cost Antlions would be nearly as strong as stone dragons and can be used for a rush the same way...?
Please calculate with 1 card = 3 cost at least...
Post by: Dm on August 31, 2013, 09:00:49 pm
6 :underworld +2 Cards = 8 cost for 4 damage
7 :underworld + 1 Card = 8 cost for 3 damage
8 cost for 4 damage =/= 8 cost for 3 damage.
Correct, correct.
But you need two cards in your hand to do that with thunderstorm.
You only need one to do it with rain of fire.
In a 30 card deck, assume that you packed 2 thunderstorms. If you get 1 thunderstorm, by the time you get the other, that +1 point of dmg to every opponent creature in the field could have decided the game already.
The "minor" card advantage that we have by only needing one card to deal said damage should be taken into account.
Post by: Naesala on August 31, 2013, 11:42:03 pm
You're ignoring the toughness and abilities of cards, which also factors into them3 :underworld + 1 Card = 4 cost 2 damage or 6 :underworld +2 Cards = 8 cost for 4 damage
7 :underworld + 1 Card = 8 cost for 3 damage
8 cost for 4 damage =/= 8 cost for 3 damage.
So Archangel (6 quanta +1 card for 7 damage) is the same cost as photon (0 quanta + 7 cards for 7 damage), and therefor they have the same power... and Antlions (8+4 for 8 damage) have the same cost as a stone dragon (10+1 for 8 damage)
So acording to your theory of this cost Antlions would be nearly as strong as stone dragons and can be used for a rush the same way...?
Please calculate with 1 card = 3 cost at least...
Look, go through some old card threads this is the formula I have seen repeated over, and over, and over again and when everyone else used it people agreed. So I dont know if people were biased towards them, if youre biased against me, or if I'm somehow failing to properly explain.
Post by: WexMajor on September 08, 2013, 12:32:08 pm
Mono fire usually pumps so much quanta in, that paying 7/5 is effortless.
A duo or trio would have little difficulty of playing them (maybe RoF is a bit hard to pull off), and rainbow (or quad quanta) suffer.
Post by: Dm on September 08, 2013, 12:48:04 pm
Post by: grimdragon64 on November 08, 2013, 11:20:31 pm
After reading the comments here, I believe the most suitable buff is the unupped card going down to 6 :fire.
Thanks, all of you for telling me why RoF should or should not be buffed. Now I'm just curious how this card would be compared with Plague. :D
Post by: Keolino on November 09, 2013, 08:38:08 am
I wasn't really that offended by Odii's remark, but I still appreciate Naesala standing up for me.
After reading the comments here, I believe the most suitable buff is the unupped card going down to 6 :fire.
Thanks, all of you for telling me why RoF should or should not be buffed. Now I'm just curious how this card would be compared with Plague. :D
When comparing with plague, you can't miss that it is in death, the element which benefits the most of any death effect. That for, you can't add a really strong Mass-CC card into death. Plague would be the result of that, not too strong, but not exactly weak either.
But the use of plague is completely different from RoF or Thunderstorm, because it doesn't kill instantly and stalling your opponents creatures becomes much more important. So in a decent stall deck, plague could become stronger than RoF, but it is more difficult to built a deck around that, so the card is cheaper.
Post by: Captain Scibra on December 02, 2013, 05:48:20 pm
Post by: Vangelios on January 17, 2014, 09:39:51 am
I think it's fair, and yet not destroy a fractal of psions, however 2 thunderstorm do it
oops, there is a correction, is 6 | 4 and not 5 | 4
Post by: UndeadSpider1990 on January 19, 2014, 12:05:21 pm
2 Thunder/Lightning Storms deal 4 damage and costs 6/4.
1 Rain of Fire/Fire Storm deals 3 damage and costs 7/5.
You missed one thing. The cost of 2 Thunder Storms is 6 +two cards. The quanta cost of Rain of Fire is higher, despite dealing less damage, but it is only one card. If that second card was a Fire Pillar, you would easily make up the quanta difference.
:fire decks also work differently to :air because a lot of Fire cards gain from having a lot of Quanta. Air keeps Quanta supplies low, and repeats a lot of abilities like Dive and Eagle's Eye which cost :air.
Fire can also surprise an opponent by using Immolation to get the Quanta when they thought they were safe. In unupped play, an advanced player will be very sure if his opponent can afford Thunder Storm or not.
Despite all this, I still don't think it would be the end of the world if unupped RoF cost 6 :fire. I think the upped cost is correct.
Post by: arthur974 on January 31, 2014, 05:58:55 pm
Simply not the same card, upped thunder is splashable but less powerful, firerain kills almost all the "starting" creatures of both control and aggro decks.
(edit: just saying a diferent way that what you guys just say before... /edit)
Post by: Kilokrema on June 08, 2015, 12:30:59 pm
Immaterial: ~ can not be targetred
RoF text : Deals 3 damage to every enemy creature
As I see RoF dont target creatures.
Only way to kill this kind of creature playing mono :fire is Fire Shield(medicore solution) or ... kill enemy before Immaterial creature swarm kill you :)
Post by: Treldon on June 08, 2015, 12:33:07 pm
Someone tell me why RoF dont hit immaterial creatures?
Immaterial: ~ can not be targetred
RoF text : Deals 3 damage to every enemy creature
As I see RoF dont target creatures.
Only way to kill this kind of creature playing mono :fire is Fire Shield(medicore solution) or ... kill enemy before Immaterial creature swarm kill you :)
RoF works by targeting individual creature slots, not the field, thus the 'cannot be targeted' rule still applies. Shields are different, since those don't target anything.
Post by: Kilokrema on June 08, 2015, 03:02:42 pm
Post by: RootRanger on June 08, 2015, 05:45:42 pm
Post by: Zawadx on June 08, 2015, 05:58:49 pm
RoF still fits its niche use of being a value engine in a proper deck (as Root mentioned, Firestall and Controlbow), but you can't splash it effectively in most decks, even if you tech it as a counter. It's just enough for a fire card.
Post by: Falconian on July 23, 2015, 03:58:00 pm
Elements has 96 creatures
Rain of Fire can one-shot 74 of them (77%)
Thunderstorm can one-shot 50 of them (52%)
Rain of Fire can kill 48% more creatures than Thunderstorm.
List of creatures RoF can oneshot but Thund can't:
- Wyrms
- Elite Wyrms
- Antilions
- Shreikers
- Iridium Wardens
- Horned Frogs
- Giant Frogs
- Leaf Dragons
- Crimson Dragons
- Fire Spectres
- Blue Crawlers
- Dune Scorps
- Deathstalkers
- Vampires
- Otyughs
- Mummies
- Upg Mummies
- Fallen Druids
- Flesh Spider
- Flesh Recluses
- Forest Spectres
- Amber Nymph
- Gargoyle
- Upg Gargoyles
Killing 77% of the game's creatures for 5 quanta seems pretty strong to me.
Especially because killing sub-3hp creatures isn't game changing most times (cept vs fire) but there are plenty of 3hp creatures that can ruin your game if not killed: Crim Dragons, Forest/Fire Spectres, Mummies, Gargs, Otys, Vamps, Shriekers, Wyrms, Wardens...
If it costed 3-4 everyone would pick 3-6 in any deck; even speedbows could use them which is pretty OP for obvious reasons.
Also, comparisons with :air cards is useless since Air is based on being cheap, fire is not, if anything it's the opposite: the more quanta you have the stronger you are (Fire Bolt, Farenheit).
Post by: omegareaper7 on July 23, 2015, 04:07:47 pm
The difference between 2 and 3 damage is enormous.If you are using firestorm, a better comparison would be against upped creatures, not unupped and upped. Fire storm is far weaker then it is against unupped decks because pretty much every creature has, or will quickly get, 4+ hp.
Elements has 96 creatures
Rain of Fire can one-shot 74 of them (77%)
Thunderstorm can one-shot 50 of them (52%)
Rain of Fire can kill 48% more creatures than Thunderstorm.
List of creatures RoF can oneshot but Thund can't:
- Wyrms
- Elite Wyrms
- Antilions
- Shreikers
- Iridium Wardens
- Horned Frogs
- Giant Frogs
- Leaf Dragons
- Crimson Dragons
- Fire Spectres
- Blue Crawlers
- Dune Scorps
- Deathstalkers
- Vampires
- Otyughs
- Mummies
- Upg Mummies
- Fallen Druids
- Flesh Spider
- Flesh Recluses
- Forest Spectres
- Amber Nymph
- Gargoyle
- Upg Gargoyles
Killing 77% of the game's creatures for 5 quanta seems pretty strong to me.
Especially because killing sub-3hp creatures isn't game changing most times (cept vs fire) but there are plenty of 3hp creatures that can ruin your game if not killed: Crim Dragons, Forest/Fire Spectres, Mummies, Gargs, Otys, Vamps, Shriekers, Wyrms, Wardens...
If it costed 3-4 everyone would pick 3-6 in any deck; even speedbows could use them which is pretty OP for obvious reasons.
Also, comparisons with :air cards is useless since Air is based on being cheap, fire is not, if anything it's the opposite: the more quanta you have the stronger you are (Fire Bolt, Farenheit).
Post by: tereret on November 20, 2015, 05:57:38 pm
Post by: ddevans96 on November 20, 2015, 06:04:55 pm
and dry spell does same damge giving you quanta
Dry Spell does 1 damage, 2 upgraded. Rain of Fire and Fire Storm both do 3 damage, so not the same.