Quantum pillars from 3 to 2 quantum ?

[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...>.>

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

It was a joke, but I was going on the fact that a lot of people condem socialistic views on some topics as un-American. =/

[Uncle Jellyfish]

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

This is a VERY good point. Stopping the opponents attack for one turn, while stopping the user's attack for two turns would be an appropriate modification for the Sundials (or, I guess, a DEmodifcation). This would most likely help balance out the Sundials without having to nerf them completely.

[vice123]

 Why not try to play your mono deck with quantum pillars instead of your pillars - see how overpowered they really are.
 Can't you make the simple math that quantum gives 3 mana for 12 elements, so what you get is 0.25 from each element each turn. Your regular pillars gives you a whooping 1 element every turn, and not only that, but it server as a mini-nova with the extra 1 mana from the tower version.
 If you want the keep crying - blame the all the colorful cards in game, because this is rainbows power.

[vice123]

I have a suggestion too.

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

[wckz]

Hmm...
You're saying Quantum pillars give 0.25 Per Element...
But you're also saying Regular Pillars give 1 element...
Why not use the per element used in the quantum o.o You feel like you're allowed to divide that in 12, but not mono pillars?

[wckz]

I agree, it's because of ScaredGirl's propaganda (ULTIMATE )

[wckz]

Suggestion: Take off quantum pillars, give decks automatic +3/+6/+9 random quantum per turn.
Result: Let's mono decks fuel their special ablities without going rainbow.

Disagree with the above post ^

Rainbows are a bit unbalanced, and so similar, it's boring.

[wckz]

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

This is a view that alot of hackers and cheaters share...
Is hacking/cheating to make yourself invincible fair? NO! Is it fun? According to you, it is.

For example, in some PVP games, they have godmodes that make them unable to die.
Fair? No...Fun? To the cheater...?

[ctuchik]

Quantum Pillars are slow. Rainbow decks are slow as all hell. So why do they work? 100 HP takes quite a while to go through, and delaying is stupid easy in this game at the moment.

Since rainbow has access to all the good delay cards (Sundial, Phase Shield, Bone Wall) and all the good cards to speed up a deck (Sundials, Hourglasses) it can easily set up a powerful endgame (mutated army with empathic bond).

If rainbow either looses some of it's ability to delay (nerf sundials) or looses it's huge card advantage (nerf sundial) it won't be nearly as powerful. 

[Daxx]

But as we've already established, card selling prices aren't a good indicator of expected deck strength, and I don't think they're intended to be (especially since rating cards like this can only be done not only in context of the rest of the deck, but on the current metagame).

[Daxx]

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.

[Daxx]

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.

Ah, right, I see now. I was assuming your balancing formula was related to the deck list of each player.

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