imbalance

[xdude]

good points xenif.  i also agree the pvp quitting is a problem, but doubt there is anything to be done about that.   

Quittiquette is THE PROBLEM with those notorious rush deck players imho:

I create a well crafted counter deck to show them good.
I go into PVP2.
I get matched against a golem-deck.
I freeze up/lightning etc. the first turn golem.
I see "opponent has left the game. 5,4 ...".
I feel robbed of my gaming-pleasure to play out my deck for once.

I am not saying that every rush-player is like that but I sure relive the above experience plentyfold.
Aggro-decks are not only aggro as a strategy, they are played by aggro players too who will simply consider a game as "non-existant" or whatever if their strategy fails.
Now THAT is what I don't understand about "having to win". I am not some stupid lvl3 AI that wants to be farmed. I am someone who wants to play out a couple nice and strategic games.

Counter-decks will never become the dominant decks as they are just another instance of fighting off arrogant aggro ... bound to lose either way unless the social fabric revolving around the meta-game itself changes.

Maybe taking out ANY reward for pvp would do the job? I am thinking about pvp as the "sandbox-war-room":
If it is just for fun to begin with, winning in as little time as possible and adopting farming behavior towards real people will be an option for fewer people.

IMO, that's not good. Some play it for fun AND for money. Also, shouldn't pvp be the end-game in multiplayer games? Give people a fun alternative of doing some money (less than FG's, ofc, but better than AI 3 maybe (in pvp 2 ))

[Xinef]

IMO, that's not good. Some play it for fun AND for money. Also, shouldn't pvp be the end-game in multiplayer games? Give people a fun alternative of doing some money (less than FG's, ofc, but better than AI 3 maybe (in pvp 2 ))

No, it should be an alternative from the very beginning till the end. It's as simple as 'you like single-player - you play against AI, you like multi-player - you play PvP' rather than 'you always begin with PvE and end with PvP'

For sanity reasons (to discourage people from playing PvE only, because eg. they are afraid of playing against real people, and thus they miss the best part of this game), PvP should be more rewarding than PvE.
But it also should be rewarding for newbies (thus they should be able to choose to face people of equal level), and for people who do not like fighting all the time against rush rush rush and once again rush.
That's why there should be some more categories than only upped/unupped. Ok, more categories might mean more waiting until someone else clicks the same category (with 'War Rooms' indeed finding opponents could take while), but if PvP is more rewarding then more people would play PvP for sure.

[Lordpants]

Xinef I like the idea that it should be better for new players as well as ones that have played for long periods of time because lets face it, the way things get to be popular is if its a good product for everyone, now I admit I don't PvP that often, could be my lack of actual desire to play against actual people, or just that I have this crippling want to get more upgraded cards, which I am not sure if this is so but maybe you should be able to win upgraded cards in such rooms where only upgraded cards are allowed, (to maybe get those people with aspirations of getting upgraded cards) to get new cards without grinding false gods to do it? As for war rooms you could make a section on the forums about it if the idea got popular so that waiting around didn't take as long, then players could communicate and set up games for actual rewards (I feel that there should be a spin or two just from playing my best friends on the game)

[Jove]

yala, yes it is "overpowered".  the one diff in the phoenix and every other scenerio you mentioned there (except the golems) is that every single one of those creatures can be killed by a single DD from aether, fire, wind (even reasonably so with black, and any other color which has DD i am forgetting).   3 frogs, all with adrin...and one is left with no creatures, when faced with a deck having 3 DD spells.  Conversly, it would require all 3 of those same DDs to remove 1 phoenix.   -That- is the diff, and its no small diff, to a very high number of well made decks.  Certainly, reverse time and freeze lose no functionality, against phoenix....but for half the colors, the phoenix plays effectivly like a 7/11 dragon....that costs 7, rather than 10.  This is not complicated... and i am not new, to pvp, MMOs, or CCCs.  Yes, it is a common reality in these games...but that does NOT mean we, as the community, must accept it, simply becuz it is common.  It is common, but should not be incumbent.           

[Jove]

it would be nice to have a small reward for playing friends (tho i fear this would be easily exploited, by those ppl that, as mentioned, care about nothing else but winning).  I would also love to see some aspect to this "war rooms" idea, in which the agreed on "wager" is a mutually accepted lvl of card (upgraded, rare ect).  That would be a blast to do imo...tho i fear this also would end up simply becomming an exploited function, to many ppl...while a relative few actually enjoy it simply for the game play.  It would indeed enrich, game play to have such things possible...but i just dont know if it would be worth it, to allow for the inevitable transformation...rather than farming false gods for rares...ud have most ppl farming thier own 50 accounts for the cards won from the fortune teller each day.

[Xinef]

I wonder if Zanz has any vision of how PvP should be changing in the future... I guess he has

But I suppose there could be some ways to prevent abusive use of 'War Rooms'. For example some rules similar to those that exist already:
1. You cannot win nymphs ans marks from spins.
2. You cannot win upgraded cards from anyone but AI6 and AI5 occasionally.
3. Spinning a pillar is less probable (as far as I remember it tries 10 times to choose a non-pillar before a pillar can be chosen by the algorithm).

You could try to prevent abuse with rules like:
1. Chances to win a rare from PvP can never exceed 5% (before each spin chances to win a rare are calculated and if it exceeds 5% than rares are treated similar to pillars)
2. In some versions of PvP you can not win rares at all.
3. PvP without winning rares (or maybe rooms where rares are not allowed), could be cheap to enter with high electrum rewards, but PvP where you can win rares would be expensive to enter and with low electrum rewards.

I guess ideas like these could serve to prevent abuse.

[xdude]

I wonder if Zanz has any vision of how PvP should be changing in the future... I guess he has

But I suppose there could be some ways to prevent abusive use of 'War Rooms'. For example some rules similar to those that exist already:
1. You cannot win nymphs ans marks from spins.
2. You cannot win upgraded cards from anyone but AI6 and AI5 occasionally.
3. Spinning a pillar is less probable (as far as I remember it tries 10 times to choose a non-pillar before a pillar can be chosen by the algorithm).

You could try to prevent abuse with rules like:
1. Chances to win a rare from PvP can never exceed 5% (before each spin chances to win a rare are calculated and if it exceeds 5% than rares are treated similar to pillars)
2. In some versions of PvP you can not win rares at all.
3. PvP without winning rares (or maybe rooms where rares are not allowed), could be cheap to enter with high electrum rewards, but PvP where you can win rares would be expensive to enter and with low electrum rewards.

I guess ideas like these could serve to prevent abuse.

OR you could take the slot-system out and include a gamble system.

[finkel]

I tried a devouerer+fractal deck in pvp, and raped every fire deck I came up against. My lightning bolts/drain lifes took care of any creatures he managed to play, and my devourers starved him of any quanta.

Monodecks are extremely vulnerable to quanta-denial.

[Xinef]

I tried a devouerer+fractal deck in pvp, and raped every fire deck I came up against. My lightning bolts/drain lifes took care of any creatures he managed to play, and my devourers starved him of any quanta.

Monodecks are extremely vulnerable to quanta-denial.

Duo and trio decks can be even more vulnerable to quanta-denial unless they use special tricks to generate the other quanta (supernovas, leaf dragons, RoLs, devourers etc)

And rainbows are vulnerable to black hole quanta denial.

So, who isn't vulnerable? (quantumless deck? I've seen it somewhere)

[finkel]

Speed rainbow, assuming you build up two entropy quanta to chain supernovas and play a shitload of creatures. Of course, they're extremely vulnerable to creature control.

[Jove]

i agree ofc...all my decks are 1,2 or 3 color decks, and quanta denial is doom for me.  tbh, i have less chance of beating any deck with scramble, than any fire deck lol.  However, i don't mind losing to scramble a couple times a day.  Only if i see a quanta denial decks 8-10 times in a row...consistantly, will i fuss about scramble  

[yaladilae]

yala, yes it is "overpowered".  the one diff in the phoenix and every other scenerio you mentioned there (except the golems) is that every single one of those creatures can be killed by a single DD from aether, fire, wind (even reasonably so with black, and any other color which has DD i am forgetting).   3 frogs, all with adrin...and one is left with no creatures, when faced with a deck having 3 DD spells.  Conversly, it would require all 3 of those same DDs to remove 1 phoenix.   -That- is the diff, and its no small diff, to a very high number of well made decks.  Certainly, reverse time and freeze lose no functionality, against phoenix....but for half the colors, the phoenix plays effectivly like a 7/11 dragon....that costs 7, rather than 10.  This is not complicated... and i am not new, to pvp, MMOs, or CCCs.  Yes, it is a common reality in these games...but that does NOT mean we, as the community, must accept it, simply becuz it is common.  It is common, but should not be incumbent.         

The point is, dont remove the stupid phoenix, keep it down, keep it ash.

Other then that, nothing much to advise you about that

They are powerful, but not super gamebreaking