Which elements are "Complete"?

[Rutarete]

I'll participate.

[OldTrees]

You mentioned it is hard to think of 12 different ways to defend against permanents. I agree. However that is what the community can help with.
I can think of 5 [Remove(destroy/bounce), Steal, Disable(freeze), Prevent(resource denial), Negate(use equal and opposite effect)]

How about
-Stuff it back in the owner's deck somewhere like Rewind (bounce) But it might be different enough to split destroy and bounce apart.
-Change the ability cost element on activated permanents A new form of prevention
-Increase activation cost A new weaker form of prevention
-Completely lobotomize permanently (I think this is your Prevent) This would fall under destroy IMO
-Add a failure rate to activated premaments, halve the success rate of passive permanents soft disable?
-Trade permanents, give away your permanent in that spot or your highest slot number (Carapace, voodoo doll, buff, trade) or trade something useless another form of steal

Destroy (permanently)
Lobotomize
Reverse Time
Steal
Trade
Disable (ability inactivated)
Faulty (% chance of not working)
Resource denial/Activation cost manipulation
Negate
That's 9 already an some of these make sense in multiple elements. (not claiming all elements are covered in this listing)

[maverixk]

I'd like to raise the point that maybe not every element needs to be complete? If every element can do everything, then aren't the elements all the same?

Well I think that the each element's definition of complete would be different from another, even if only by a little bit, so they would be different.

[BluePriest]

Imagine the different niches as ABCDE

  has abc
  has bcd
  has cde
  has acd
  has ade
  has abd
  has abe
  has bde
ect ect ect
In my example they would eventually overlap so that a couple are the same, but yeah. You get the point.

[maverixk]

Imagine the different niches as ABCDE

  has abc
  has bcd
  has cde
  has acd
  has ade
  has abd
  has abe
  has bde
ect ect ect
In my example they would eventually overlap so that a couple are the same, but yeah. You get the point.

That seems like a good idea

[dragonsdemesne]

The only three that I think are complete, in the sense that they have cards to do anything, are darkness, fire, and entropy.  Only those three can destroy permanents and destroy creatures.  I am not counting earth's pulverizer, and earth cannot kill creatures anyway even if you do count it, though it does have basilisk blood/auburn nymph.

[OldTrees]

To shift back to the topic's questions (now modified based on input):

First Stage of Completeness: Solid Offense
Which Elements have Solid mono offensive methods? (Fire has: Immolation jumpstarting Phoenixes/Crimson Dragons, Fire Spirit damage ramp, Fahenheit and Fire Bolt)
Which Elements have a low number of Solid mono offensive methods?
Which Elements lack any Solid offensive methods? (I hope the answer is none. Please provide reasoning if you suspect an Element to be deficient)

Second Stage of Completeness: Solid Defense
Is there anything that the Element cannot directly defend against? Can it indirectly defend against that or is it defenseless against it in mono?
For things it can defend against, is it low on defensive measures against that threat? (Low is relative.)

Third Stage of Completeness: Counter Defense or Evasion (might be controversial)
Is there any defense that completely negates all/most of the Element's Offensive methods?
Does the element have a means of defending its offense (either partially or completely) from that defense, bypass the defense or remove the defense?

[EmeraldTiger]

Which Element is most lacking in these areas?

[TheManuz]

To shift back to the topic's questions (now modified based on input):

First Stage of Completeness: Solid Offense
Which Elements have Solid mono offensive methods? (Fire has: Immolation jumpstarting Phoenixes/Crimson Dragons, Fire Spirit damage ramp, Fahenheit and Fire Bolt)
Which Elements have a low number of Solid mono offensive methods?
Which Elements lack any Solid offensive methods? (I hope the answer is none. Please provide reasoning if you suspect an Element to be deficient)

What do you mean with "solid"? I understand that a Phoenix is solid because is really hard to kill, but what is "solid" applied to other elements?
Also, should we count creatures with a single use off-element, like lycanthropes and graboids?

[ZephyrPhantom]

In one form or another, all elements have solid offense as when they interact with another element. (Graboid rush, Frogtal, etc...)

Mono-wise:
  : Phase Spider Rush / MonoAether Stall (Phase Dragons)
  : Sky Blitz and Dive for increased damage.
  : Nightfall for mass buff, various methods of healing and denial. Has one of the bolts (Drain Life)
  : Poison and Death Triggers.
  : Golem Rush / SS Stall
  : Random effects, Discord to slow opponents down.
  : Immolation jumpstarting Phoenixes/Crimson Dragons, Fire Spirit damage ramp, Fahenheit and Fire Bolt.
  : Mono-acceleration/armagio, Charger Rush, Catapult decks, Momentum
  : Cheaper creatures, pro at rushing (Frogs, Cockatrices) and swarming (Mitosis).
  :Sanctuary to prevent damage, various methods of generating quantum quickly to play hard hitters.
  : GoTP, Reverse Time, Eternity for deckout victory.
  : Ice Bolt, can rush with Puffer Fish or Toadfish backed by dragons.

I might be missing a few. Does stalling for deckout count as an offensive method?

IMO Mono- and Mono - (including the mark as mono) seem to have the hardest time making a variety of mono-offenses. Gravity has cards that contradict each other (e.g. Momentum beats Gravity Shield), and also has balance issues with some of it's cards. Earth's stongest card comes in the form of the Graboid, but there are few alternatives to it in terms of deckbuilding. (Golem rush works fine if done right, but SS Stall is better off with regeneration from other elements/SoGs added in).

Mono- can make decent monos, but does it have enough room for unique monos? (GoTP rush is one option, Eternity stallout is another in a mono. The rest of it's offense seems duo-oriented, at least with a duo-mark. Mono- might also have the same issue as most of it's mid-range creatures rely on other elements to be effective, forcing a mono-Light to use SancStall or Dragon rush.)

[OldTrees]

To shift back to the topic's questions (now modified based on input):

First Stage of Completeness: Solid Offense
Which Elements have Solid mono offensive methods? (Fire has: Immolation jumpstarting Phoenixes/Crimson Dragons, Fire Spirit damage ramp, Fahenheit and Fire Bolt)
Which Elements have a low number of Solid mono offensive methods?
Which Elements lack any Solid offensive methods? (I hope the answer is none. Please provide reasoning if you suspect an Element to be deficient)

What do you mean with "solid"? I understand that a Phoenix is solid because is really hard to kill, but what is "solid" applied to other elements?
Also, should we count creatures with a single use off-element, like lycanthropes and graboids?

By Solid I am not referring to resilience of the offense. I think the best way to concisely describe it would be Competent. Can it be used as a reliable victory condition? This does not mean an unstoppable victory condition.

Lets assume no off element cards or quanta used for now. (Immolating Fire Eaters|Minor Phoenix instead of Photons/Sparks) However note that any deficiencies discovered will only reflect on Mono Elemental deck restrictions.

@ZBlader
That is a good starting list. However currently we need to look at a smaller scale (the offensive tools part of decks not the entire deck). Ignore Defensive tools for now and only focus on Offensive tools.

Deckout counts as an offensive tool. However the stall cards used are defensive tools that slow the opponent's offensive tools down until your Deckout method is faster. Essentially Deckout is a "free" offensive tool. However any tool that speeds deckout up would be worth mentioning as an offensive tool.

[Pineapple]

If the opponent has no healing, Dragons are great win conditions assuming you have enough defense. Would that put them in the offensive category?
Also, I disagree with not being able to use off-element cards. The great thing about Monos is the consistency in getting quanta, if you are trying to draw pillars to power 4 different elements, your quanta pools will be very variable from one game to the next. Therefore, I believe that for the purposes of this study we should define mono as any deck that uses exactly one element of quanta.
Again, I don't think we should balance elements, but decks. This is because how useful a card is can only be determined by how it is used in a deck. Of course, what you guys are working on is still relevant since decks are made up of these "offensive/defensive tools."
However, duo cards are already balanced in that they are purposely more powerful in order to compensate for the forced deck inconsistency. So my only question is, why do all the elements need to be "complete"? Should I move this discussion to a different topic?