Get rid of "uber" rarity for marks.

[RootRanger]

For skilled players winning a mark is easier than winning a nymph.

Keep in mind that I only agreed with part of your argument. I do not agree with the part about the strength of marks overruling incentive for tournaments.

[Fan of Rainbows]

Uppercut, as many people said before me, marks do not make much of a difference on the PvP scene, Here's why:

1. Mark just generates one quanta per turn (basically the same functionality as a pillar) and serves as nothing more then EQ bait
2.Towers>Mark because they generate quanta when played, marks do not
3.Marks are not different from any other permanent and are not super uber powerful.

Winning a PvP tournament requires skill, strategy, and luck. Marks have never been shown to have contributed to a major victory. Marks are more or less merely trophies in my opinion

I do not have a mark and I don't have any issue with that.

(don't look at my post count for experience, I have more then 40,000 score, and three different decks with 6 copies of almost every rare.)

Just my two cents

FoR

 

[Uppercut]

For skilled players winning a mark is easier than winning a nymph.

No it isn't, and even if it is it won't be for long. Keep in mind that the more marks you have the more options you have for deck building. Being able to build better decks > play skill. It doesn't matter how good I am if your deck is a hard counter to mine.

The longer we go without correcting the problem of mark distribution the larger the above issue gets so that it stops being about play skill and becomes increasingly more about having better cards from already winning.

Lastly giving an advantage to skilled players (which you've already admitted it does) only makes the situation worse. So they're better players with access to better cards? Might as well give up Elements because you'll never be part of that small circle of guys who can't lose because they keep winning cards that are almost strictly better than yours in almost all situations.

[Fan of Rainbows]

A mark is still a card you have to put in your deck, still a card you have to draw and still a card that has to match your mark to be protected. In most powerful PvP decks, small deck size is key and clogging up your deck full of marks, hurts it more then helps. In most cases, that extra card wouldn't make much difference. Quanta denial will still suck your quanta and if the card doesn't match your mark then it's vulnerable to EQ, Pulv, Steal, Deflag and so on. Conclusively, a mark doesn't make that much difference.

I'm sorry Uppercut, but I have to say your wrong on this one.

FoR 

[ZephyrPhantom]

For skilled players winning a mark is easier than winning a nymph.

No it isn't, and even if it is it won't be for long. Keep in mind that the more marks you have the more options you have for deck building. Being able to build better decks > play skill. It doesn't matter how good I am if your deck is a hard counter to mine.

The longer we go without correcting the problem of mark distribution the larger the above issue gets so that it stops being about play skill and becomes increasingly more about having better cards from already winning.

Lastly giving an advantage to skilled players (which you've already admitted it does) only makes the situation worse. So they're better players with access to better cards? Might as well give up Elements because you'll never be part of that small circle of guys who can't lose because they keep winning cards that are almost strictly better than yours in almost all situations.

Dude... stop.  I don't care how many times you won't listen, but you raging and ranting has been noticed by the moderators.  Just admit that your argument is invalid.  It's been proved wrong by about everyone (even newbies), and your continuos denial to the obvious has made even supporters disagree with you.  Just stop, before you get yourself into bigger trouble.  Nobody is going to budge, and the more you try to push them, the more they will push you back.

[johannhowitzer]

(http://www.smiley-faces.org)

[Uppercut]

Dude... stop.  I don't care how many times you won't listen, but you raging and ranting has been noticed by the moderators.  Just admit that your argument is invalid.  It's been proved wrong by about everyone (even newbies), and your continuos denial to the obvious has made even supporters disagree with you.  Just stop, before you get yourself into bigger trouble.  Nobody is going to budge, and the more you try to push them, the more they will push you back.

No it hasn't been proven wrong. In fact pretty much everyone who disagrees with me has said something to the extent of "Yeah it does sort of but not enough to make a difference." meaning that yeah my point is valid. The only difference between my stance and even people like Kamietsu's stance seems to be how much it matters. They think it needs to make a noticeable impact on the game before it needs fixed (if it'll ever need fixed) and I want it fixed based on the fact that it could make a difference. Even jmizzle noted that they have some (even if very little) intrinsic value.

[thatnewguy]

[Mithcairion]

Uppercut, I wonder, are you familiar at all with the statistical tool of significance?  I ask because you maintain that even if having an extra mark makes a difference in only one in a zillion games, then it makes a difference and they should therefore be eliminated altogether or made available to everyone.  The problem is, something only making a difference in that one-in-a-zillion is that it is not statistically significant.  While I understand why you personally take umbridge with people having access to them, the statistics do simply not back up your claim that they make a significant difference in the game.

As a corollary to this, one could argue that the shards, nymphs, and even rare weapons should be removed due to the fact that not everyone has the same access to them.  I think you could make the argument much better that they sway the game much, much more than marks because (1) More people have them and in greater quantities, so they will obviously effect the game more and (2)  They simply DO more.

I'm not trying to attack you personally in any way, shape, or form, but I'm afraid what you are arguing simply does not have the statistics to back it up.

[ZephyrPhantom]

(http://www.smiley-faces.org)

I think these two sum up this thread accuratley enough.

[Uppercut]

Words

I've already explained how this isn't quite the same as rare weapons or nymphs. As for significance, it isn't a matter of its significant at all but a matter of if its significant enough to need fixed. Very few people are saying that they can't make a significant difference in a game, the argument is if it happens often enough to be considered an issue.  I say yes, the majority says no.

Really the disagreement is about the principle. My opinion is that if anything could ever effect a game it shouldn't ever only be available to tournament winners no matter how rarely it'll actually make a difference.

[ZephyrPhantom]

Put the full quote in next time, please.