Quantum pillars from 3 to 2 quantum ?

[perflubon]

I have a feeling we've already been talking about this - not yet in the 'Decks'-section though:

http://elementstheforum.smfforfree3.com/index.php/topic,87.0.html (http://elementstheforum.smfforfree3.com/index.php/topic,87.0.html)

[Scaredgirl]

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

You can't "rape" a rainbow with a "simple mono deck". Unless you have built your mono-deck to counter rainbow (for example permanent removal), you will most likely lose.

True those top-50 decks can be easy but it's a whole different ballgame when you face humans. With a couple of changes, that anti-God rainbow is very effective in PvP. And that fast PvP rainbow deck is one of the best decks I've ever played. Very simple, very effective.

Usually it's that damn Sundial. If the rainbow players gets a couple of those early on, you are in big trouble.

[Scaredgirl]

This slight modification would drastically change the relative ratio of strengh between rainbow and mono/dual deck, and I guess it would offer much more variety in the weekly Top50 winning decks... and consequently much more fun when playing.

A mid-term solution could be to generate 3 quantums on even-number turns, and 2 quantums on odd-number turns...

Slight modification?! Taking away 33% of it's power is anything but "slight".

And that mid-term solution is way too complicated. How would you write the text in the card? "During even number turns you will get.."

I actually thought about this last night. 3 different options come to my mind:

1. Nerf Quantum Tower
What if Quantum Tower cost one random quantum to play (like upgraded Purify etc.)? This would make Quantum Tower a little bit less effective, but not too much. Only problem I see with this are the Devourers.

2. Make cards more expensive
This is a pretty simple solution. Just make cards more expensive so it will take rainbow a longer time to be able to play them. Right now it's very easy to make a fast rainbow deck that will own most of the other decks out there. This wouldn't be possible if cards were a bit more expensive.

3. Make expensive cards more powerful
Make high cost cards (Dragons etc.) more powerful. This would give an advantage to mono decks. In this game it seems like most the low cost characters have some kind of cool abilities while high cost characters have nothing. For example Dragons could have "Fire Breathing", "Dive" etc.


That first idea kinda sucks but but other 2 would be pretty good I think.

[Scaredgirl]

I agree that your solution 2 or 3 would be interesting, but it involves a whole new game design, in order to correctly balance the cost vs. power for each card, which means a lot of beta testing and so on...

On the contrary, the modification I propose can be implemented in one line of code by the developpers, and I'm quite convinced that it would improve fun for players... But hey, I'm not the lead developper, so...

You are making this issue bigger than it is.

There is nothing wrong with Quantum Towers. They work perfectly when they give 3 random quantum. If they gave only 2, they would suck big time. And randomly choosing 2 or 3 is equally bad because card games already have too much luck involved and this would just add to that.

Problem is not Quantum Towers, problem is the other cards. There are way too many cheap awesome cards like Otyugh, Steal, etc. that rainbow decks can easily use. Like I said before, I think it sucks that most expensive cards like dragons only do damage and have no abilities.

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. Also it lets you draw more cards which is another huge advantage to rainbow decks.

Here is my anti-Rainbow deck that is very simple yet it destroys any top-50 rainbow deck out there. All you need really is protected Pulverizer and you will win.



So you see rainbows can be beat, and there are already many decks that can do that. If they did a huge nerf on Quantum Towers, rainbow decks would probably become very weak.

What I would like to see is:

- Sundials last for only 1 turn
- Supernovas cost 3 quantum (maybe..)
- Bone Walls only get ONE extra layer when a creature dies
- Some OP cards made more expensive
- Most expensive cards in game made better (and maybe also 1-2 quantum more expensive)
- Use of upgraded Pulverizer cost 2 quantum

These changes would balance out the game pretty well I think.

[Scaredgirl]

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...

Computer simulation process.. combinatorics computation.. what?

Yeah.. we COULD do that. Or maybe just make all the cards that EVERYONE knows are be OP, a little less effective?

[sciroccorics]

Going a step further:

The idea of randomizing the quantum generation by pillars could even become a practical solution to counter-balance the difference of strenghs between decks on PVP fights. The strengh of each deck can be easily estimated by summing the sell cost of each card and dividing the resulting value by the number of cards. This quantitative estimation of each deck can be used to tune the random generator for the quantum generation in the following way: mono-color (resp. rainbow) pillars randomly generate from 1 to 2 (resp. 2 to 4) quantums per turn, and the statistic law of this random generator is controlled according to the relative strengh of the two decks. So a wizard player (with a full deck of upgraded cards) fighting a newbie would get very restricted pillars, while the newbie gets boosted pillars.

Some testing should be done to find the statistical law that improves "fairness" but, here again, the idea is to improve fun, whatever the level you have reached...   

[sciroccorics]

Hi eveybody,

I discovered Elements about 2 weeks ago and played quite a lot since then. Using my experiment from other TCGs, I started with a mono-deck, then a dual-deck and finally a rainbow deck. Unfortunately after two weeks, I find the game quite boring, because rainbow decks are so much powerful compared to others that all "good" players have built up approximately the same deck, and consequently the game becomes very repetitive.

What I like in TCG is the fact that different users may explore many different deck builting strategies, and you never guess the deck content when fighting a new player. This is not the case here...

After having thought a little bit about it, I came up with the following simple suggestion:

>>> Why not reduce the Quantum Pillar to generate only 2 quantums per turn, instead of 3 ? <<<

This slight modification would drastically change the relative ratio of strengh between rainbow and mono/dual deck, and I guess it would offer much more variety in the weekly Top50 winning decks... and consequently much more fun when playing.

A mid-term solution could be to generate 3 quantums on even-number turns, and 2 quantums on odd-number turns...

Any comment about this proposal ?

[sciroccorics]

Except we know that card prices and card quantum costs are not necessarily good indicators of their comparative strengths.

I totally agree, card prices is only a first approximation, but any (better) strengh evaluation would of course improve the process.

Plus, it punishes good deckbuilding which is the antithesis of CCG game design.

I do not agree with that one. What is fun in deckbuilting within CCGs is trying to get the best deck with a given amount of resources. If you duel someone who has access to higher resources (after having farming for hours), his/her deck would obviously be more powerful (unless he/she is a complete foul) and the result of the duel would be quite obvious. Moreover, there will be no fun either for the looser/newbie, nor for the winner/wizard. But if you counter-balance the difference of deck strenghes by some "fairing" process, the duel would be much more chalenging for both players. And of course, if the wizard wins despite his/her handicap, he/she should be rewarded accordingly, and not just a bunch of electrums...

[sciroccorics]

I have a feeling we've already been talking about this - not yet in the 'Decks'-section though:

http://elementstheforum.smfforfree3.com/index.php/topic,87.0.html (http://elementstheforum.smfforfree3.com/index.php/topic,87.0.html)

Oops. Sorry, I didn't saw the previous topic. I'm a newbie to the forum, so I misunderstand the classification... Sorry again...

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...

[sciroccorics]

Slight modification?! Taking away 33% of it's power is anything but "slight".

And that mid-term solution is way too complicated. How would you write the text in the card? "During even number turns you will get.."

I meant "slight" in the sense that only one card has to be changed to totally renew the gameplay. The mid-term solution I have proposed can also be implemented as: "randomly generate either 2 or 3 arbitrary quantums per turn", which has statistically the same effect.

I actually thought about this last night. 3 different options come to my mind:

1. Nerf Quantum Tower
2. Make cards more expensive
3. Make expensive cards more powerful

I agree that your solution 2 or 3 would be interesting, but it involves a whole new game design, in order to correctly balance the cost vs. power for each card, which means a lot of beta testing and so on...

On the contrary, the modification I propose can be implemented in one line of code by the developpers, and I'm quite convinced that it would improve fun for players... But hey, I'm not the lead developper, so...

[Site Administrator]

I have a suggestion too.

>>> Why not stop complaining your mono s*** doesn't work and learn to play? <<<

I also have a suggestion.

CALM DOWN!

Maybe people like mono-decks.

[Uncle Jellyfish]

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...>.>