What is this thread about ?To increase the opposition of opposing elements at the mechanical theme tier. This is not a suggestion for Color Hate. (E.g. We do not want any Holy Light -style cards)
Current in-game elements' antagonism : 
Darkness : Nightmare / Devourers
vs 
Light : Sanctuary
Air : Various creauture-damaging cards
vs 
Earth : Plate Armor, Basilisk Blood, Burrow ability
Entropy : Nova + other rainbow supports
vs 
Gravity : Black hole
Life : Require living creatures(Empathic bond)
vs 
Death : Various death-triggered effects <--exception : Boneyard + skeleton + empathic bond
Fire : Fast and efficient damage
vs 
Water : tends to slow things down ( Freeze / Ice Shield / Shard of Patience)
Time : Pharoah for gradual swarming
vs 
Ather : Fractal for immediate swarming
Suggestion:Such kind of elements' opposition should be expanded to make each element more unqiue and competitive. Also making duo / trio decks more characteristic due to blending of different elements' properties.
Debate : Why and How (Super long)(Slightly modified from discussion in Card Idea Planning Round Table)A: While it is a good idea, I do feel that direct opposition might be a bit of a narrow design path for Elements to take since it somewhat limits the open-endedness of design. What are you thoughts on this?
B: Loss of elements' chatacters if too open-ended. And I'm not suggesting making each element totally opposite to each other, just expand some characters
A: Making elements wield the mechanical opposites of each other implies that cards will directly oppose each other in playstyle even if they aren't blatantly opposites. One rough example is that Nova is usually used more in rainbows, while BH is used almost exlcusively as a rainbow counter unless Discord is brought along and tends to appear very rarely outside of mono/duo decks or deck that don't invovle Discord.
A: Overall, this leads to my next question - are there potential downsides to your idea? If yes, what are they? If no, how does this contribute with minimal/no potential negatives?)
B: We don't need to restrict ideas to some certain elements. You can just add more cards to each element to strengthen the elements' characters. The other elements could have similar cards but to a smaller degree.
A: Hmmm. Would these cards appear in mechanically opposing elements as well, and could you give an example of opposing elements having similar cards? [the example should preferably not have a 'series' connection, E.g. the Fire/Water Bolts]
B: Water has Steam Machine for fast and growing damage, but overall, water doesn't feature fast damage like fire does
A: Both elements are rushable, though this does ignore how good a monorush can be built for each. Is there a Fire counterpart to Steam Machine in terms of role, in your opinion? (This 'counterpart' role can take the form of more than 1 card)
B: Minor Pheonix is fast damage, Lava Destroyer is fast plus growing damage, not to mention immolation which brings more speed
B: Light and Life, both features healing, but Life is definitely a better healer.There may be some downsides to my suggestion but those downsides only occur if we stereotype each element. In fact, I'm not suggesting stereotyping each element, just to bring more dynamics between elements, not in terms of synergy, but in terms of opposition
A: What mechanical oppositions would you like to see implemented in ETG? (Just wondering)
B: More manipulation cards for Darkness.
A: If I interpret this correctly - does this mean Light should prefer more "passive' cards, such as Solar Buckler in contrast to Darkness's Pests?
B: probably, but that depends on what cards are made for darkness
B: Life should have more cards requiring living creatures on field.
B: Water has more cards to slow things down
A: And Fire would be 'speeding up', in a sense? Remember that speed is also a Gravity and Time factor. Please clarify
B: Well, fire is for fast damage, Time is for fast drawing, Gravity...fast damage?
A: Acceleration?
B: But acceleration is in fact quite slow in game.
A: Yes, that is true. I'm just looking at this from a more conceptual point of view. Gravity would probably more "fast" in termsof "piercing defenses" such as Catapult and Momentum
B: But fire is already fast at the begining while Gravity takes time to gain speed
A: True. Is Gravity rushable, in your opinion?
B: Currently not, compared with the other more rushable elements
A: Hmm. How rushable is Entropy, in your opinion?
B: The opposition between Entropy and Gravity doesn't occur in their speed.
A: Do you consider this method of causing opposition helpful to the game, though?
B: Same word, depends on the card made. It may be good to bring the speed difference between Gravity and Entropy, or something like that. But if the cards themselves take the role of other elements ( e.g. even faster than fire ), there would be some problems
A: Where is the main opposition to Gravity/Entropy, in your opinion?
B: Gravity should features in Order and Unchangeable while Entropy features in Disorder and Change, but in fact I don't see this opposion very clear in game (main problem being in Gravity), so it may be good to bring some cards to Gravity to show its "Order" and "Unchangeable" nature
A: How would the Disorder/Order situation synergize if you put Gravity and Entropy together? Assume you were implementing a few sample cards that you could tweak as needed
B: Right now the only thing in my mind is a card for Gravity, no synergy with Entropy but opposite to it. A card about some sort of lockdown, prevents mutation, change of stats (except HP) and ability of creatures
A: Ok. Hmm. Would mechanical oppositions weaken or make synergies between opposing elements impractical compared to going mono/using other duo element combos?
B: No, you can see light can still have synergy with darkness while they already have good opposition.The opposition only shows when you are using a mono-deck and you face another mono-deck of opposing element, like darkness's pests vs light's sanctuary
A: This seems to imply that cards based on this concept in a mono would result in situational decks that are not as practical against most decks unless they focus on specific aspects. Why would I favor these "Opposition" decks in unrestricted play, when I can take a more flexible deck for the situation? (In restricted play they probably become much more useful due to being able to predict enemy decks to a limited degree.)
B: Let me use Light's sanctuary as example. Sanctuary is obviously strong against darkness but it is also useful even though the opponent is not using darkness deck, because of its regeneration. So it is possible to have opposition between elements, as long as the individual card can still function well even when people are not fighting a opposiong deck. (That's why Holy light is so bad). It's like you will have some sort of "bonus" advantage when your opponent uses a opposing deck.
A: Sanctuary has a major regen effect and it's effect is able to counter several cards not from Darkness.
B: Protecting cards in your hands is Sanctuary's function and only Nightmares can affect your hand
A: Light also protect quantum pool, and Entropy and Gravity both make it pretty clear that they also can be effective in disrupting quantum, sometimes even more effective than Nightmare's heal or Pest's gradual lockdown. In addition, Sanctuary works together with Nightmare and Pest in theory, while it doesn't work with Dissipation Field. Looking at this example, couldn't Light be potentially more Anti-Entropy?
B: Anti-entropy is a result of overlapping characteristics of elements and this only proves my previous argument that elements won't be stereotyped even if we introduce more opposing cards. Besides this is why Sanctuary is still useful against other decks while it is supposed to counter darkness
A: I'm already convinced on the Elements on the not stereotyped part, but darkness and entropy are not opposing elements. If Gravity was to pursue quantum denial, would Entropy go in the opposite direction and encourage quantum production?
B: Theoretically yes. You may think that Entropy's discord brings denial, but it is producing quanta but quanta of random elements
A: Compared to your lockdown card, you seem to be countering buffs in general rather than specializing in Anti-Entropy. Is this the intended effect?
B: Wouldn't this make the lockdown card not situational and can be used in different decks ?
A: Yeah, but from rereading the card it feels more like a generalized lockdown than a direct mechanical opposition to Entropy. What exactly makes this card mechanically opposed to Entropy more than elements like Light, Time, Aether, or Earth?
B: Antimatter, mutation, fallen druids, butterfly effect, chaos power, all in one single element Entropy, much more than similar Buff / Stats changing cards in other elements
A: To respond to that - Time seems to have rather similar buff effects - card negated are Anubis, SoR, Scarab, Fate Egg, and Indirectly Pharoah and Dune Scorpion, which means it also gets a lot of cards countered like Entropy did. Gravity also seems to paradoxically counter itself with this, by preventing Acceleration and Momentum. (Gravity tends to do this quite a bit, which has resulted in design problems that weaken it monowise.
B: For the first part, I think that's what I've mentioned above, it's the overlapping of elements' roles but Entropy still suffers the most from the lockdown. For the second part, I use Boneyard as example. Death features the effects triggered by death of creatures, but ironically, death itself also features swarming of skeletons (as well as aflatoxin's cell), it's not how the card is used that counts, it's the mechanics of the card itself that counts.
A: So if this was developed, Life could potentially get more poison cards, while Death could potentially get more swarming cards?
B: No, this is not what I mean, I mean it is acceptable to have cards with contradiction to the elements, provided that the card is thematic and doesn't hurt the elements' overall characteristics. No one will think that Boneyard doesn't suit the theme of Death, but something like mitosis in death ? no way.
*End of debate*
