The Metagame: a multi-purpose community project

[ralouf]

Yes but I currently don't see how to do it But that's sure we need to change some things

[OldTrees]

Another solution would be to introduce more things that take advantage of the limited(finite + a few Quantum Towers) quanta supply speedbows have.

Yes but I currently don't see how to do it But that's sure we need to change some things

More limited vs less limited quanta supplies. The more limited quanta supply is hurt more by additional costs. Make cards that prompt your opponent to use extra quanta. Speedbows will run out of quanta faster than Pillar based decks. How can you prompt additional costs? Devourer, Reverse Time and Black Hole already exist. Taxation (pay X per Event) and Absorption (lose X per Time) could be expanded ...

[dragonsdemesne]

You could also go a slightly different route, and have a card that read something like "deal 2X damage to any target, where X is the number of quanta types in opponent's pool with at least 1 quanta", so it would do 2 damage vs a mono, 4 vs a duo, and as much as 24 vs a rainbow (assuming quanta in the oponent's pool)  That might be going too far (perhaps 1X instead of 2X) but denial isn't the only way to go.  (not that there's anything wrong with OldTrees' ideas, I'm just saying it's not the only approach)

[OldTrees]

Nice addition dragondemesne. Scaling effects like that would be a way to target rainbow decks. It would not be as specifically against speedbow decks but that can be a design feature if stallbow decks are also a problem.

[mwaetht]

I've been thinking. What if we had Pillars and Pendulums (or even just Quantum Pillar) say, "Generate 1 quantum/3 random quanta per turn if this is not your only pillar/pendulum" or something like that? It's not much of a nerf to most decks, since they typically have enough pillars and pendulums to not start with only one; even if that's a concern, we could leave most pillars and pendulums the same and only put the extra clause on Quantum Pillar. Since most speedbows rely heavily on mulligan to get even one Quantum Tower, with a clause like this speedbows will be left with the questionable stability of a PSNbow but none of its strengths.

Such a clause would likely only hurt decks with very few pillars and pendulums (though it buffs Earthquake).

[OldTrees]

I've been thinking. What if we had Pillars and Pendulums (or even just Quantum Pillar) say, "Generate 1 quantum/3 random quanta per turn if this is not your only pillar/pendulum" or something like that? It's not much of a nerf to most decks, since they typically have enough pillars and pendulums to not start with only one; even if that's a concern, we could leave most pillars and pendulums the same and only put the extra clause on Quantum Pillar. Since most speedbows rely heavily on mulligan to get even one Quantum Tower, with a clause like this speedbows will be left with the questionable stability of a PSNbow but none of its strengths.

Such a clause would likely only hurt decks with very few pillars and pendulums (though it buffs Earthquake).

So 2+ Life Pillars would produce 6+ rather than 2+ ?
1 Quantum Pillar would produce 1 rather than 3 ?

The first is a significant nerf to most decks. (I must have misunderstood your idea)
The second feels rather small of a nerf given the current power of speedbows.

[mwaetht]

I basically say, Pillars/Pendulums only do stuff if you have more than one of them.

One life pillar? You get no quanta per turn.

One life pillar, one water pillar? One quanta each from and per turn. Two life pillars? Then you get two each turn. Nothing new here.

Two Quantum Towers? Six random quanta per turn. One Quantum Tower, one Quantum Pillar? Still six random quanta per turn.

But if you have only one pillar/tower/pendulum, you generate nothing.

I basically made this affect more pillars and pends than just Quantum Pillar for elegance, but it can be changed to negate only Quantum Pillar if necessary.

[The_Mormegil]

Introduction of extra costs is mainly a denial ability. The problem is that denial is actually LESS powerful against rainbows. Take Devourers. Play a SNova and you have enough leftover quanta to feed a devourer for ages. Also, a single QT produces as much quanta to burn as 3 pillars. I can't see this as an actual advantage unless it takes the Black Hole approach of X quanta/element.

[OldTrees]

Introduction of extra costs is mainly a denial ability. The problem is that denial is actually LESS powerful against rainbows. Take Devourers. Play a SNova and you have enough leftover quanta to feed a devourer for ages. Also, a single QT produces as much quanta to burn as 3 pillars. I can't see this as an actual advantage unless it takes the Black Hole approach of X quanta/element.

Thats why a taxation effect would work better.
Say: 1 mark quanta per attacker or they don't attack.
Speedbows have very limited mark quanta pools and have many attackers. This would destroy their mark quanta and reduce their attacks.

[The_Mormegil]

Thats why a taxation effect would work better.
Say: 1 mark quanta per attacker or they don't attack.
Speedbows have very limited mark quanta pools and have many attackers. This would destroy their mark quanta and reduce their attacks.

True, but it would also kill many mark-only decks, such as Momentum Dunes or CP Wyrms to make an example.

However, this could be an intresting card idea.

[OldTrees]

Taxation is a broad mechanical theme. Even quanta taxation can be twisted to change its effect on parts of the metagame.

I know I have seen a taxation card recently.
Dimensional Inhibitor: http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,35558.msg478325#msg478325
Taxation (Trigger, Cost, Punishment): (Attack, 1 quanta of creatures element, no attack) Author: majofa

[The_Mormegil]

Update: I have added majofa's review to the OP.

We are now at three different views on how the game should be altered. This is enough to start a bit of discussion.

For startes, I'll point at a problem I see with both majofa and plastiqe's solutions: by limiting themselves to only cards in the game now, they are cutting off some better possibilities. For instance, tey can't add more PC to the game, which is something that would certainly benefit it more than adding the odd passive to Blue Crawler (not to say Aquatic isn't nice, it's just there as an example).
So the question is: is a comprehensive rebalancing viable or effective without adding cards? Is adding cards preferable? Does it make certain matters easier, even besides PC?