Solving Speed Rainbows

[Demagog]

Well, unless my memory is faulty, I didn't say nerfing the deck was required. That was one method of problem solving I mentioned. Another was for more counters to be created.

The point of this thread is to determine: a) if speed rainbows are problematic; and if yes, then b) what can be done to correct the issue(s).

In my opinion, the number of these decks in PvP, and the fact that they are a must-have (not really, but people believe they are), hint towards a problem. The obtainability of the deck is greater than many others, yes, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a top tier deck that people will still use heavily even when they have ten other PvP decks.

@Kuross: I agree.

[redium]

First, there is nothing wrong with speedbows being one of the best, it would only be a problem if it was THE best.  You honestly cannot expect there to be a large pool of competitive decks in a game with so few cards.  If we had as much cards as Magic the Gathering and this issue existed it would be a whole different story.

What did you think about the ideas I mentioned?

With things as they are, it is perfectly understandable that people tend to upgrade rainbow cards first and build speedbows, control rainbows etc etc. Boring? Yeah. But that doesnt mean rainbow needs a nerf. It means elements need more cards and good, viable alternatives.

Agreed.

[Demagog]

First, there is nothing wrong with speedbows being one of the best, it would only be a problem if it was THE best.  You honestly cannot expect there to be a large pool of competitive decks in a game with so few cards.  If we had as much cards as Magic the Gathering and this issue existed it would be a whole different story.

What did you think about the ideas I mentioned?

With things as they are, it is perfectly understandable that people tend to upgrade rainbow cards first and build speedbows, control rainbows etc etc. Boring? Yeah. But that doesnt mean rainbow needs a nerf. It means elements need more cards and good, viable alternatives.

Agreed.

Yes, having few cards does mean some decks will be better than others. But we need to address the problems, if any, so we will know what should happen next. If we just blindly added cards to the game that, even though balanced, did not affect the overall metagame, we wouldn't be making much progress.

And I think your ideas are fine and logical methods of solving the problem.

[redium]

Excellent, we are close to the same page.  Like I said previously, new cards that have synergy with mono, duos, and trios. As well as speed and cost or quanta production, both are absolutely essential.  Just not too fast.

 Every element being meta worries me though, I could only agree if it were to certain extents and kept with the identity of the element.  If not, all the elements essentially become gray and lose their theme.  Another viable option is to make the elements individual traits boosted yet be mono or duo exclusive.  This in theory would make people think twice about using an all around deck VS a mono or duo deck being so great at its own mechanism that it becomes just as attractive, powerful, and fun.  Rol/Hope was a fine example of this (minus its easily manipulated weakness.), as well as lavarush.

I agree, mindless additions, overly meta, and stand-alone cards, will be wastes.  I would also like to see more variety in pvp matches, more fun that way.

[Malduk]

To have more variety, we need more cards that have effect on deckbuilding. Also, Tottenham just scored, so grats to all Spurs fans. Anyway... 

IMO, new quanta generators would do wonders for elements. Make trio decks viable and you'll see LOADS of new decks, which would definitely lower the need/popularity of rainbows. Pendulums are nice, but they just improve some duo decks really. I cant even count how many times I tried to build trio deck, just to end up building full rainbow or simply abandoning the idea.
If we had a quanta generator that generates quanta based on different towers you have in your deck (say you have 1 entropy, 1 darkness tower, that card would generate entropy and darkness even if you didnt draw those towers yet), or something like that, building larger variety of decks would be perfectly viable. As it is, you either produce ALL quanta (novas, quantum pillars, immolation) and build rainbows, or you produce 1-2 quanta type (element towers+mark, pendulums).

[redium]

I cant even count how many times I tried to build trio deck, just to end up building full rainbow or simply abandoning the idea.

This, oh so much.

If we had a quanta generator that generates quanta based on different towers you have in your deck (say you have 1 entropy, 1 darkness tower, that card would generate entropy and darkness even if you didnt draw those towers yet), or something like that, building larger variety of decks would be perfectly viable. As it is, you either produce ALL quanta (novas, quantum pillars, immolation) and build rainbows, or you produce 1-2 quanta type (element towers+mark, pendulums).

Great idea as well.

[jmdt]

Pendulums are nice, but they just improve some duo decks really. I cant even count how many times I tried to build trio deck, just to end up building full rainbow or simply abandoning the idea.

So true.  Trios with pendalums generally end up working better with novas and going rainbow.

[plastiqe]

Speed Rainbow should be an oxymoron.  In theory, when you build a deck that uses cards from every element it's supposed to be slow to set up because you need so many different types of quanta.  There is supposed to be a tradeoff there, you get to use any card from any element but the deck takes a while to get set up.  Compared to a mono deck which should be faster because it only has to worry about one type of quanta.  With Supernova that is not the case, the rainbow deck can use cards from any element *and* it's often faster than the monos.  So what can you do?

Vote against Supernova! (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,10216.0.html)

Vote for Implode! (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,6848.0.html)

[redium]

Faster?  Not so, as jmdt`s ttw thread has shown.  More well rounded?  Yes.  The problem lies not in speedbows or novas but others lagging behind.   

[jmdt]

Faster?  Not so, as jmdt`s ttw thread has shown.  More well rounded?  Yes.  The problem lies not in speedbows or novas but others lagging behind.

Yeah a full blow speed only speedbow still isn't as fast as an immo rush of shrieker rush and is about equal in speed to a life rush.  No one (other than me, lol) actually plays a version like this.  The PvP control version I tested was signifigantly slower and was much more prone to bad draws.  Speedbows aren't really that fast for the most part.

It generally takes 2 turns before a speedbow can do much.  If you go second, it is possible for an immorush to 3 turn you before you ever play a card.  I never have seen a problem with speedbows.

[Nume]

You also have to consider that while the speedbow type is popular, its not like everyone is using the same decks. One of the big draws of the speedbow style is that its so entirely customizable. Anyone can start with the basics and just basically pick and choose what cards they want to put in it, and have some success with it. To me thats a good thing, so I really dont see the issue. Also its definitely not an overpowered style, as it doesnt even do that well in most competetive pvp. Its just a fun, beginner-friendly deck that requires minimal upgrades to work (also since its so customizable its often possible to just use whatever cards you happen to win from FGs rather than having to pay to upgrade cards).

[JennyP81]

At the end of the day can these "speedbows' hang with the gods like any traditional rainbow deck.  I don't think so.  Case closed.