Quantum pillars from 3 to 2 quantum ?

[Ellimint]

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.

Coincidentally(?) the Sundials and Scarabs were added around that time.  Scarabgirl.

[Evil Hamster]

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...

I see what you're getting at here, but let's imagine two players with access to all cards upgraded and as many rares as they like. They have the same resources. If one of them builds a better deck, they suffer because they end up becoming less efficient compared to their opponent. If the other builds a bad deck, they are rewarded because their deck becomes more efficient. Do you see what I mean? There's probably a better way to explain this, but at 5am it's probably not going to occur to me right now.

huh?

[Scaredgirl]

Do you see what I mean?

I'm not sure to understand. If both players have access to the same resources, there is no reason to include some handicap for any of them, so the player with the best deck is likely to win the duel.

In my idea, the handicap should not be computed according to the quality of the deck, but according to the resources available to each player. And yes, this can be seen as a socialistic point of view... or at least as a "fairtrade" point of view. With such a mechanism, a player that optimizes his deck according to his resources is rewarded, which is exactly what good deckbuilting means.

In the current game, the player is only rewarded according to the number of hours spent on farming. Of course, the economical model of any physical CCG is to have the players buy as much boosters as possible, and similarly the economical model of any online CCG is to make the players spend hours on the site. Farming is a straightforward solution to achieve this, but there are many other solutions.

Any kind of handicap system would be a really bad idea.

The solution for the gap between newbies and pro-gamers is easy. When you click "PvP", it finds an opponent of your caliber. If it doesn't find one, it keeps looking until it does.

Even better solution would be to remove upgraded cards altogether but that's not going to happen.

[Scaredgirl]

Any kind of handicap system would be a really bad idea.

Handicap systems exist in many strategy games (even in good-old chess or go tournaments, you have an official handicap system) and nobody complains...

Even better solution would be to remove upgraded cards altogether but that's not going to happen.

Of course it's not going to happen, because the game is based on farming. An alternative could be to create a "non-upgraded PvP" and a "upgraded PvP" ? The non-upgraded PvP would be rather fairtrade, as everybody could buy most of the cards he wants within a couple of lvl3 farming hours (except the rare cards, of course)... So, no handicap is needed and the deckbuilting strategy would really be prominent.

Seems that this topic is more and more located in the wrong place... No moderator has complained yet... so far, so good 

Yeah, this game is based on farming. But it wouldn't have to be like that. This game could be based on building better decks than the other guy, and in this situation there would be no need for a handicap.

[sciroccorics]

Do you see what I mean?

I'm not sure to understand. If both players have access to the same resources, there is no reason to include some handicap for any of them, so the player with the best deck is likely to win the duel.

In my idea, the handicap should not be computed according to the quality of the deck, but according to the resources available to each player. And yes, this can be seen as a socialistic point of view... or at least as a "fairtrade" point of view. With such a mechanism, a player that optimizes his deck according to his resources is rewarded, which is exactly what good deckbuilting means.

In the current game, the player is only rewarded according to the number of hours spent on farming. Of course, the economical model of any physical CCG is to have the players buy as much boosters as possible, and similarly the economical model of any online CCG is to make the players spend hours on the site. Farming is a straightforward solution to achieve this, but there are many other solutions.

[sciroccorics]

But now I'm curious: how would you measure the resources available to each player?

Exactly the same definition as for any tax collecting department: your patrimony !!

Here it means the sum of the selling price for every card you own (not only your current deck) plus your remaining unused electrums...

[sciroccorics]

Any kind of handicap system would be a really bad idea.

Handicap systems exist in many strategy games (even in good-old chess or go tournaments, you have an official handicap system) and nobody complains...

Even better solution would be to remove upgraded cards altogether but that's not going to happen.

Of course it's not going to happen, because the game is based on farming. An alternative could be to create a "non-upgraded PvP" and a "upgraded PvP" ? The non-upgraded PvP would be rather fairtrade, as everybody could buy most of the cards he wants within a couple of lvl3 farming hours (except the rare cards, of course)... So, no handicap is needed and the deckbuilting strategy would really be prominent.

Seems that this topic is more and more located in the wrong place... No moderator has complained yet... so far, so good 

[Uzra]

How bout upgraded quantum pillars give one random quantum when they come into play (towers) and upgraded mono pillars give 3 of that color when they come into play?  Small change IMO.

[Cisco]

120 points for starters and the challenge of course, since I fully ecpect more gods to be added in later additions. But more versality in t50 since it takes out a lot of reason to play them, some will go back grinding t50 wich in turn makes for other decks instead of only rainbow.

[Cisco]

90% l3 is not good at all. This game is constantly changing  still a lot to do to make it more interesting and better. I never played magic and have no idea what you suggest. But I´m not for this game to be a diffrent version of another game. It has it´s own style and that is good. the community after such a short time is already huge and will contin. to grow, so If you leave it´s no loss. No pun intended

[Cisco]

evil hamster what you suggest is a weaker vs of phase shield. If you see the mana cost between the two, you will see it still would need to cost more.

[Cisco]

laf good for you .What I said came more out of the comment I quit. heard it to many times. That´s why no big loss. as for 90% l3 just means you got loads of space to improve and are far from actually taking the game in all the way. 
 evil hamster your right it´s up for discussion, although it is simply the best card for rainbow and one of the main reasons it´s overpowered right now. Simply making no changes to the card and only raising the cost will make a diffrence in my oppinion.