Quantum pillars from 3 to 2 quantum ?

[brain9h]

I disagree with original poster, I think quantum towers are fine

[brain9h]

The popularity of rainbow decks increased ten fold after this forum was opened and Scaredgirl disclosed his (her?) deck, that is true. People who read the previous forum were aware of rainbow's capabilities mainly due to Cisco's posts on his success rates which I think were pioneer, but it was only after Scaredgirl made his (her?) post that things took off.

The underlying reason for such popularity is not, however, only due to the fact that it obviously works, but also to the fact that more and more people are quitting experimenting with the game and coming straight to the forums seeking for easy advice. This game places a huge barrier on experimentation by having such high card costs for the new players, and doesn't take long for them to realize its pointless to keep restarting every time a deck sucks. I'm not even speaking about upgrade costs, I'm speaking about simple cards, the cost of building a simple good mono-deck which requires lots of card buying is quite high, specially if you keep experimenting (changing) your deck often. The cost of changing deck colors entirely hovers around 1200 electrum, which for newbies who play level 2/3 AI is is a lot of investment. Even the fact that the trainer URL is public but not divulged on the game itself is a bizarre barrier for newcomers.

[Chival]

in my opinion rainbow isnt that good in pvp, if your facing them in the top50 and getting owned thats not because they are rainbow decks, Theres a bug with quantum towers when the AI uses them, when the AI puts a tower out they get 3x the number of towers in the stack in random quanta.

the reason you see so many identical decks in top50 is not because they are the best in pvp. Its because they are the best in false god grinding. A simple mono deck will rape a rainbow in pvp because they just start too slow. Dont judge decks by top50, the AI is cheating with rainbow

[Daxx]

I don't agree with altering the deck's function depending on who you're playing. It's not conducive to good deck-building strategies because it makes it impossible to test. Further, I don't particularly see the need to balance the game between people with better decks and people with worse decks - it seems rather artificial to me, not to mention the insane metagaming it would generate.

As far as rainbow decks being too powerful, I still think the suggestion made in the previous thread linked by perflubon (echoed by Scaredgirl above) has merit - make costly mono-colour cards more attractive, and make more of them. Given that rainbow decks don't generate any particular type of quantum very fast, this makes cards with costs around 12-15 much more difficult to play; they would, however, still be within reach of the mono-decks. That, and maybe having a look over Sundial for balancing purposes.

[Daxx]

Just to add my last two cents: for all trading card games, the strength of a deck it directly related to the "expected strengh value" you are able to summon in each situation (whatever the draw ordering for your deck). The expected strength value is defined as the card strengh (approximated here by its selling value) multiplied by the probability you've got the ressources (here, the corresponding quantums) to summon it for a given game turn. For Elements, it's quite easy to perform the maths as soon as you forget hasten cards which make the process a bit complicated. The effect of hasten cards can be included in the process, but it would require a computer simulation process instead of pure combinatorics computation. Of course, this implies that the selling value of each card is a good approximation of its strength...

Except we know that card prices and card quantum costs are not necessarily good indicators of their comparative strengths. Essentially you'd be basing your model on a false premise, which wouldn't solve the balance problem (in fact, it would be more likely to introduce more). Plus, it punishes good deckbuilding which is the antithesis of CCG game design.

[Ellimint]

Worst card at the moment is Sundial which has changed the entire game. 90% of decks in top-50 are rainbow and use Sundial. Why? Because Sundial keeps you safe early in the game when rainbow decks are most vulnerable.

No, it's because your awesome deck design has been picked up by the greater community and nerfed the top 50, as the AI has no idea how to play such a deck, or even the sundial card itself, properly.

[Evil Hamster]

OK to avoid derailing this thread with the socialism debate I created another one here:

http://elementstheforum.smfforfree3.com/index.php/topic,423.0.html

[Evil Hamster]

Quantum pillars are not overpowered. It's the fact they get to use the best overpowered cards from each element that makes it seem so. I think half the cards in the game need their casting cost increased to balance their in-game effect.

The reason you see so many of them in top-50 is because right now rainbow is the only effective way to farm the false gods for upgraded cards. It's actually good to face them in top 50 because they generally have very few ways to actually deal damage and the AI plays them stupidly. if you can manage to take out their 3 otyughs and one queen you've won- even if you have to sit and wait for them to deck themselves out by abusing their hourglasses because you can't get through their abundant defenses.

It's very simple. If you want to face different deck types- play level 3, challenge a FG or PVP. If you want to face FG-farming decks go up against top 50. That doesn't mean QP are overpowered at all. It just means with a 6 card limit rainbow is the only deck that can put up enough defense to hold off a FG until they get a chance to start fighting back.

I also disagree with your socialist assertation that "fairness" equals fun. You must be a product of the public school system.

One more point- the selling value of a card has no relation to it's strength. especially for the upgraded cards which are nearly all worth 1100-1200. Maybe for un-upgraded but many cheapo cards are better than the more expensive ones (dragons are particularly expensive for low strength)

[Evil Hamster]

I also disagree with your socialist assertation that "fairness" equals fun. You must be a product of the public school system.

HEY! I take offence to that...even if I do have somewhat socialistic views on some topics...>.>

Offence to what? Fariness being a socialist un-American concept or public schools indoctrinating children to believing that fair somehow means good?

[Levgre]

I don't think the quantum towers themselves are especially powerful.  With 12 different elements, it can take a very long time to get the quantum you need for certain cards, with as many as 4-5 towers.  The current top decks are as good as they are because of certain combos, supernova plays a big role, and, imo, a few op'd cards... (bonewall and/or sundial, I also think steal is way too cheap at 3 dark, 2 dark upgraded).

[Levgre]

If anyone think rainbow is not very good, and quite likely the best in pvp, they haven't played a good pvp rainbow deck + player ;p

[Parabol]

Ironically if Sundial was reverted to its bugged form that might deal with some of the issues people are complaining about.