nerf combo. deck: 30->40 V cards: 6->5

[zupermannd]

I have played this game nearly a year, during that time I have seen several awesome new card (that's good) in fact some cards is not pleyed very often anymore, they are outmatched to some other comboes, I think it is sad that so many card is not used

I will suggest that the limited of each card change from a maximum of 6 card in a deck to 5, or the total minimum of cards in decks is raised from 30 to 40 cards. Of corse in the long time I will suggest both, but first there need to be come more cards.

it will hurt very much, on deck that are based of very few cards, but that is what I want, I think it will be more interesting battles if the deck is more compleks. And I think it will be easyer to balance the power of the diferent cards, then each card is made "less important" for the decks useing them.

before you write: please don't make a fuss about it, just becaurse your deck will be very weekend, it will hurt the same amout for your opponent.

[Dragoon]

I've liked this idea for a long time.  Some of my favorite PvP formats is 30/3 and 40/4 (30 cards min/3 card max and 40 card min/4 card max).  Like you said, as the card pool begins to fill out I think this format becomes more and more viable.  I never really liked the idea of 6/6/18 kind of decks.  It's basically seeing who RNG is going to be nicer to.  I think the actual dueling could become more strategic with larger decks and fewer copies of cards.

[LongDono]

I thought about this idea awhile ago, but only the card limit to 5. It is an awesome idea, but false gods would need to be changed because lets face it, many false god decks might just auto die.

[zupermannd]

I thought about this idea awhile ago, but only the card limit to 5. It is an awesome idea, but false gods would need to be changed because lets face it, many false god decks might just auto die.

You are right, of course the false good should be nerfing after this, but I do not think it is urgent if the change is small, like 40/5

I've liked this idea for a long time.  Some of my favorite PvP formats is 30/3 and 40/4 (30 cards min/3 card max and 40 card min/4 card max).  Like you said, as the card pool begins to fill out I think this format becomes more and more viable.  I never really liked the idea of 6/6/18 kind of decks.  It's basically seeing who RNG is going to be nicer to.  I think the actual dueling could become more strategic with larger decks and fewer copies of cards.

I am happy, that other people has the same thourth as me, even if I think a maximum of 3 identical cards is too less.

Does it mean that if noone write more the game will change soon? or how does it work with this suggestion?

[LongDono]

Suggestions are just that. Those that work on the game will decide it in the end, post prolly don't matter. Topic are just there so people can talk about it, and I am sure this saves zanz the trouble of finding the flaws in an idea and fixing them because they have already been talked about.
If they see this and like it there is a chance.

[omegareaper7]

i do like the idea a little, but i think its fine as is, i think this could very well hurt more then help.

[zorzz]

This will favor rainbow decks a lot: in rainbow deck it's quite easy to replace creature with similar creature from another element.
Not so in mono decks.  Switching strategies for 30 cards  decks is already painful. Switching strategies for 40 mono deck will be nightmare
Actually 40/5 will completely eliminate monodecks as we know them now: playing mono will become from "what creature should I put in deck" to "what creature should I replace with spell/permanent/pillar" since 6 creatures per element * 5 same creatures max = 30 cards. Not enough to fill the deck.

[Belthazar666]

Thing about making decks 40 cards, is, you can't have a deck type anymore. You're pretty much going to have to use different cards that don't go together, or can't complete things. Especially with 5 of each card. Elements has many different simple deck types, and that's what's great about it. As there isn't a way to get out cards you need specifically, or many ways to draw cards period; you'll be stuck. Want a mono death poison deck? Sure, add in some Flesh Recluse. No, you can't keep the poison/arsenic/bonewall only.

Flying weapon decks? Forget it, they won't be of use with just 5 animate weapons, or 6 in a 40 card deck.

Life will also significantly fall. Life wants it's creatures out fast, (Frog, Cockatrice.) with only 10 of those in a 40 card deck, you need to take other strategies.

So on and so forth.
What you suggest is good for tournaments, it tests peoples skills in ways the game doesn't actually allow without being handicapped against other players. However, I don't think this should be done with the actual game. Tournaments make things like this fun, and in my opinion it should stay that way.

[Daytripper]

I think rainbow hurts more than anything else. Once you play it well, you have a lot more quanta than anyone else. Rainbow can also use hourglasses freely. Now if you take a 40 card deck without any time in it, just see how slow it is. That's the reason that most decks have to be small.

Now, if you want those slow and strategic games, you need to remove rainbow and any drawing cards as well. Add a 5 card max to that and it would slow the mono rushes as well, though some more than others. (Some elements have only 2 midrange attackers, or barely, which makes it a larger imposition.)

So it is all feasible, but the question is, do people want a slower game? I personally don't care much for the 5 turn games with a quick, but small reward. I prefer longer games but with a better chance of a reward if won.

[twinsbuster]

in MTG, there are 60 cards deck and 4 same name cards limit
and there are always powerful combos

[The_Mormegil]

in MTG, there are 60 cards deck and 4 same name cards limit
and there are always powerful combos

True, but most of them rely on both drawing and card manipulation (see Diabolic Tutor).

[Belthazar666]

MTG also has cards that let you pull others from your deck, Elements doesn't.