I chose not to immediately respond to this any more because I don't want to flame or be flamed. I probably was a bit too flamboyant when I originally tried to make my point and I apologize if that was the case. So let me try to make my point as objective as possible and just hear me out.
I've played many games in my life and count myself as a solid gamer. In that time I've noted observations that crop up when playing certain games, games that tend to do really well. What I've noticed is that in every game I've ever played there is a certain "barrier" to achievement prominent in the good ones that is lacking in the bad ones. That barrier can range from time to skill to intellect to any combination thereof or possibly others not readily seen. For instance, one of the best games I've ever had the opportunity to play was NWN online. The game itself never had the following WoW has, but it did see a lot of play back in the day. But to excel at the game one had to be very good at two specific things- skill in building a character and skill in playing it. You'd be surprised at how different the two could be and not many could do both well. The barriers in NWN were simple- a deep understanding of the game mechanics to build a character well and the ability to think very quickly and react accordingly. If one lacked in either they were doomed as a character. Another game with a large barrier, though it is not as pronounced, counterstrike source. Anyone can point and shoot, but to do so accurately and quickly is a very difficult skill, one that can be learned, but even then not mastered. The point is these games, and I argue any that people truly find amazing, tend to have these inherent barriers in game that make the game worth playing.
As an example to the contrary, I used to play Warhammer Online a lot. Played it from the get go and then for some time after. What I noticed there was Mythic (the company that made and ran the game) tried so hard to balance the game that they inadvertently imbalanced it. It was made so, in my opinion, that any 12yr old finger ninja could play the game proficiently and it simply came down to a numbers game, which inevitably meant most everyone wanted to be a good guy and thus those people playing bad guys were always outnumbered and summarily dead a lot.
Here in Elements, the game has one barrier to excellence- grinding for upped cards. It's what keeps players involved in addition to an excellent community full of fun events. But the grind is what players, all players, have to work through to gain a certain level of success in the game. If that level gets dropped, the barrier that keeps those 12yr old finger ninjas separated from those that are willing to take the time to push on to the end, as is, will blur. And it will continue to blur as the level continues to drop. What happens in a few months when new players come and the old ones that pushed for this change leave and those new players say "grinding for cards sucks, let's lower the cost to something more reasonable" thereby further diminishing the barrier to a point that it becomes nonexistent. The precedent in lowering the cost now after the game has been out for a 1.5 years without issue concerns me for those reasons.
As to effects of making game changes that profit the game, I am in total agreement. I have long been an ardent supporter of getting new cards in game so as to increase the deck building meta game and increase the amount of tournaments and general fun to be had. I am not opposed to changes in game, but I am one of those guys that looks at every change with a magnifying glass to the best of my ability to try and ensure those changes don't inadvertently apply a negative effect to the game. I'd rather question and be wrong than not question at all and wish I could have been right. If the change comes about after lengthy discussion and review, I'll support it.
And for the record, this has nothing to do with me personally. I am not supporting or denying this change as a result of my direct personal beliefs, though I can see where people might see that. I am against it at the outset because I feel it will harm the game's integrity by diminishing a distinct and prominent barrier of the game. That barrier is what makes this game worth playing to the very end. If those barriers were lowered such that anyone could just log in one day and a month later have all the upped cards with little to no trouble, what would be the point of grinding? Yes, we all hate grinding, but it's the grind that makes those who have feel a certain sense of accomplishment. When people in chat go "I have X cards upped!" that's a badge of accomplishment they get to wear proudly because they've earned it. It's the pride and effort those people have put in the game and the grind that makes Elements a fantastic game, though I doubt many will agree with me at the moment.
Long story short, I am not trying to be vindictive or elitist when I say I don't agree that lowering costs on upgrading is a bad thing. I say it because ultimately it's the one barrier that keeps this game strong, though that is not readily seeable. And yes, I am aware that the suggestion is only to lower costs on pillars, but as I noted above, pillars have their own unique, subtle power in the game in that they can dramatically speed up the play of a deck. What I am most concerned of here is that it will set a precedent that others in the future will use to justify further cost reductions and I believe that IF any cost reduction does occur, it's done so with meticulous scrutiny so as to not upset the balance and barriers of the game. And as I said at the outset, it is not my intention to flame or be flamed, only state a concern and try to point out potentially harmful effects such changes may bring about. I love playing this game and I think the community is great. I just hope you all see that the argument I bring about is one of constructive criticism and not just some random naysayer.
Peace.
