A concern and an idea about PVP vs anti-FG decks

[adsilcott]

I started to post this as a reply to a thread about prohibiting quantum pillars in PVP, but I realized it's a separate idea so I'm starting a new thread.

I wouldn't want to ban quantum pillars, on the contrary, I think they're great.  In fact I thought it was a bad idea when zanz was thinking about nerfing them to give 2.5 quanta, and here's why:

There's a whole metagame in Elements revolving around building the best rainbow false god killer.  I think that that challenge has inspired some of the most creative ideas in the game.  There used to be one anti-fg deck with variations, but there's really quite a variety now.  And it's not easy.  I was playing back when people were getting almost %80 win ratios with fully upgraded decks, now you're lucky to get %50.  And as harder false gods get added, AI gets improved, and cards get nerfed, I'm afraid it's going to get lower.  If it gets much harder, it's going to stop being a fun challenge, and start being a boring grind.  It's already starting to feel that way to me.

So I don't think rainbow decks should be nerfed, if anything they should be encouraged-- as its own metagame.  The problem comes when that's all that people play, including in PVP.  So I propose a "quantum pillar restricted PVP" option.  The unrestricted PVP would still exist, but this would be an option for people who want to play non-rainbow decks against other non-rainbow decks.  If it had its own rewards, then it would encourage people to build a greater variety of decks.  It would strengthen the PVP metagame as a separate path from the quest metagame, making the game more dynamic.

[finkel]

After giving it much though, I'm going to have to agree with you. I think that's a wonderful idea, except that many of the best rainbows are pillarless (immolation golem rush, super-nova/nova speed rainbows). So for that reason, what about making a pvp option that bans rainbows. By definition, a rainbow is a deck with 4 or more elements, so I would fully support a new pvp option for only decks with less than 4 elements.

Your point about false gods is unfortunately very true. A lot of the time it just feels like grinding, and the element of luck is often stressed when neptune shockwaves 6 of my RoL on his fourth turn, or when dark matter black holes me SEVEN FRIGGIN' TIMES before I can get my combo up (I beat him with vengeance that time).

So yeah, I'd like to see the pvp option to play non-rainbows, and also a checkbox in pvp dueling that allows you to downgrade all your cards.

[PuppyChow]

After giving it much though, I'm going to have to agree with you. I think that's a wonderful idea, except that many of the best rainbows are pillarless (immolation golem rush, super-nova/nova speed rainbows). So for that reason, what about making a pvp option that bans rainbows. By definition, a rainbow is a deck with 4 or more elements, so I would fully support a new pvp option for only decks with less than 4 elements.

Your point about false gods is unfortunately very true. A lot of the time it just feels like grinding, and the element of luck is often stressed when neptune shockwaves 6 of my RoL on his fourth turn, or when dark matter black holes me SEVEN FRIGGIN' TIMES before I can get my combo up (I beat him with vengeance that time).

So yeah, I'd like to see the pvp option to play non-rainbows, and also a checkbox in pvp dueling that allows you to downgrade all your cards.

Keep in mind that the definition of a rainbow being "4+ Elements" is only an arbitrary definition the forum uses, and it is far from agreed upon. Players not on the forums may have completely different ideas as to what exactly a rainbow deck is.

And immolation golem rush/decks that rely solely on super nova or nova is almost precisely why I would say the better option is the QT-restricted version (even though I disagree with both for various reasons). Its main purpose would be to keep boring FG rainbows out of pvp, not rainbows.