A little frustrated - Is Elements too metagame driven?

[BluePaladin25]

I'm getting kind of frustrated with Elements, but instead of going all RAGE and QQ I decided to start a topic to address what frustrates me.

Here's the question: Does Elements have a broken metagame? Are there too many situations where Deck Type A almost always beats Deck Type B? Do things depend more on what cards are in your deck and less on how you respond to your opponent's deck?

I say the answer to all of these is YES. As long as any given deck has decks it cannot beat without extreme luck, the metagame will always be more important to victory than the actual game.

On the flip side, there are match-ups where the win/loss ratio is 50/50. Which brings up another question: Is a lot of the game too reliant on luck? If I have an ImmoRush deck, playing against a Mindgate deck, and we each win half the time... Can anybody say that it depended more on how we played than it did on luck? If I lose 10 matches in a row to somebody using Dusk Mantle, where is the flaw? In my deck, or in the game itself? Or is it just the metagame taking over again? After all, decks with Momentum or PC won't have trouble with Dusk Mantle.

But every card you dedicate to PC is one less card that does damage. Every card you dedicate to CC is one less card that does damage. If you try to account for every possibility, you either wind up with a new weakness, OR your deck can't beat ANYTHING reliably. It is possible to make a deck that can beat nearly any deck. But people already complain about the prevalence of Rainbows.


TL;DR
  Too much of "Deck A almost always beats Deck B"?
  Card choice before match matters more than decisions during match?
  Luck matters more than decisions during match?
  Inability to make balanced decks?
  Rainbows > All?

Wow this is long. Disclaimer: I haven't PvP'd much, so some of this may just be my inexperience. However, I've been lurking the forums for a loooong time, so I think I know what I'm talking about. I will freely admit that I am wrong about each point if sufficient evidence is brought against it.

[TheIdioticIdiot]

Deck A always beats Deck B, but then Deck C or D always beats A, it balances out

in elements, deck>luck>decisions, if u only use one key card in your 60-card deck, you luck needs to be uber.. so... deck building matters the most

what? what do u mean by inability to make balanced decks, once you have enough experience, it's not hard

rainbow doesn't beat all, in terms of speed, cremate rush is better, in terms of control, fire stall is better, in terms of rush+control, see flash fire's evil deck (search it using the search bar)

[killybob]

1. deck A will not always beat deck B. all decks have weaknesses and strengths. the best example is a rush deck. they are generally strong until they meet a stall deck. now staller may beat the rush most of the time but then again that's what it's designed for. stallers are weak against other things again.

2.yes. that is what makes card games so uniquely fascinating. the idea is to put together a deck that overcomes improbability of success. there are, however, a few decisions to make in game. e.g. quinting a phoenix to avoid it being fractalled.

3.answered in ^

4.you don't always have to make your own deck. that's why there is a deck help section and the mono, duo, trio, quartet, and rainbow sections.

5.rainbows can often be defeated by rushes. rainbows maybe very powerful in the long run but most take time to get started. plus rainbow decks are mainly for FGs and ai5s because they are so inefficient regarding game length in ai1, 2, and 3.


really when you get frustrated you should take a break and either play something else or go on chat and talk to someone for relaxation. hope i helped.

ps - any addition and correction from more experienced players welcome in this post

[TheIdioticIdiot]

quinting a phoenix to avoid it being fractalled.

5.rainbows can often be defeated by rushes. rainbows maybe very powerful in the long run but most take time to get started. plus rainbow decks are mainly for FGs and ai5s because they are so inefficient regarding game length in ai1, 2, and 3.

he meant rainbow rushes I believe... not rainbow stalls

also, normally, when someone quints my phoenix, I am grateful, in this case, *RAGE*

[killybob]

well then if he means rainbow rushes (i presume that specifically being the PSNbow) then all i can say is you should either use a stall deck or  hope that (as is not unlikely) they will have bad luck. if in doubt you can always fight fire with fire...

lols to you TII

[Legit]

I've played more than 30 matches in Beginner's League, and I can honestly say in unupgraded PvP, the metagame is somewhat disappointing. There are certain decks that beat (almost) all others, and people use this to their advantage. Yes, I'm talking about rainbows. Now, I know I'm biased because I lost to rainbows and other rushes a million times, but hear me out.

The reason why rainbows are so strong is that they have a little of everything. In a rainbow, you can stuff the best cards from all elements that counter pretty much every strategy.

Rainbows will beat rush decks. Turn two and you're looking at a Forest Spirit, Lycanthrope, and a Graboid, and you can bet there will be more of that coming your way. The opposing rush deck will play creatures, and they will die to a Lightning. A mono rush deck has no hope to defeat a Rainbow rush deck.

Rainbows will beat stall decks. Sure, you might be able to kill the creatures. But then you have to worry about Arsenic, which kills many stalls. Then the burrowed Graboids. You can't touch them, and your opponent can all evolve them at the same time and finish you after they nibble at your health. Got a nice shield and weapon in your stall that you think will stop rainbows? Meet Deflagration. Honestly, I've tried a variety of stalls against rainbow decks and none of them have a good enough win percentage.

Basically, rainbows will defeat pretty much any deck because the mix of everything will ultimately overcome any strategy.

/rant

I'd like to hear other opinions about this.

[TheIdioticIdiot]

^^
my aether/fire stall has won me a lot of games in BL
recently, light/fire stall has been popular, and it beats graboid bow a lot
I have a trio (Winged Phoenix), consisting of phoenixes, immolations, photons, wings, and some customizable accessory (deglag, rage pot, fire pillars, and whatnot), which does beat graboid bows about 60% of the time

[Newbiecake]

Fire Stalls are Bolts/Farenheits/SoGs/Buckler right? Can you should me an example of one TII? My next destination is a Fire Stall that I've been longing to build.

Rainbows are boring. It's always the same few cards that becomes the skeleton of the deck. True, some variations are made, but it's always Supernova, SoGs, etc.

[TheIdioticIdiot]

Fire Stalls are Bolts/Farenheits/SoGs/Buckler right? Can you should me an example of one TII? My next destination is a Fire Stall that I've been longing to build.

Rainbows are boring. It's always the same few cards that becomes the skeleton of the deck. True, some variations are made, but it's always Supernova, SoGs, etc.

fire stall is easy to build...
upgraded:
6 sog, 3~4 bucklers and fahrenheits, 6 lances, crap ton of towers and additional CC
unupgraded:
aether version:
6 dim shields, 6 lances, 5 aether pillars (aether mark), some fahrenheits (2~3), and crap ton of fire pillars (add a nova and a reflexive shield if you want)
light version:
6 sanctuary, 3~4 bucklers and fahrenheits, 6 bolts, ~10 light pends (fire mark), crap  ton of CC and fire pillars, add 1~2 miracles and/or reflexive shield if you want

[Ekki]

Back on-topic:
What is the point of this thread?
1-

Here's the question: Does Elements have a broken metagame? Are there too many situations where Deck Type A almost always beats Deck Type B? Do things depend more on what cards are in your deck and less on how you respond to your opponent's deck?

The cards that are in your deck are the way in which you respond to your opponent's deck. After that, you can't do too much unless you can see your opponent's deck, but I think that isn't the way in which most CCG's work.
Also:

Deck A always beats Deck B, but then Deck C or D always beats A, it balances out

I say the answer to all of these is YES. As long as any given deck has decks it cannot beat without extreme luck, the metagame will always be more important to victory than the actual game.

You can see the actual game as deck-designing. What else could it be about? Third person RPG?

2-

On the flip side, there are match-ups where the win/loss ratio is 50/50. Which brings up another question: Is a lot of the game too reliant on luck? If I have an ImmoRush deck, playing against a Mindgate deck, and we each win half the time... Can anybody say that it depended more on how we played than it did on luck? If I lose 10 matches in a row to somebody using Dusk Mantle, where is the flaw? In my deck, or in the game itself? Or is it just the metagame taking over again? After all, decks with Momentum or PC won't have trouble with Dusk Mantle.

The game is reliant on luck because it's a CCG. Every single CCG has a RNG god/devil, so they're all reliant on luck.

3-

But every card you dedicate to PC is one less card that does damage. Every card you dedicate to CC is one less card that does damage. If you try to account for every possibility, you either wind up with a new weakness, OR your deck can't beat ANYTHING reliably. It is possible to make a deck that can beat nearly any deck. But people already complain about the prevalence of Rainbows.

So, you're saying that you can't do everything after complaining about deck A always beating deck B? Or are you just complaining about decks doing everything after you explain why it's impossible? Deckbuilding is that. You focus on strategy A, so you lose against strategy B, but you win against C. Please forget that there are crappy strategies (30 pillars is auto lose, duh). If you combine strategies A, B and C you're doing everything, but you're most probably doing crap with them.

4-

TL;DR
  Too much of "Deck A almost always beats Deck B"?
  Card choice before match matters more than decisions during match?
  Luck matters more than decisions during match?
  Inability to make balanced decks?
  Rainbows > All?

I don't get this ??? but the fact of Rainbows>All is something that MUST be fixed, and that hopefully will be fixed. The balance is important when A>B, B>C, C>A (a bit more complicated, but you get it). One strategy shouldn't do great against all the others. It should have lots of weaknesses. But as I said, the game is always developing.

Well, you're mostly speaking about CCG's stuff, so if you don't like it, you can always play other kind of game (not being rude)

Wow this is long. Disclaimer: I haven't PvP'd much, so some of this may just be my inexperience. However, I've been lurking the forums for a loooong time, so I think I know what I'm talking about. I will freely admit that I am wrong about each point if sufficient evidence is brought against it.

You may be wrong, but I'm glad this can be put in doubt. Someone you don't see stuff that happens too regularly, even when it isn't OK, so discussion=good.

[BluePaladin25]

Lots of great responses here. I'll use Krathos' post as a framework, since you laid it out so nicely.

1.

... Well, I guess I've just been spoiled by MtG. I'm used to having a deck and saying "Alright, I can do this if I'm playing against a Blue/Black Denial, but if I'm playing against Ponza I'll want to do this instead, etc." I'm used to playing a game where your cards can be used in a variety of situations against a variety of opposing decks. Just to give you some idea of what I meant by my complaint about the metagame.

Of course MtG had a metagame, where certain decks were worse off against others. But there were always ways to pull off a win against your deck's weaknesses (in my experience anyway), and you still had to be on guard against decks your deck is good against. With Elements, a Momentum deck can outrush lots of stuff, but then it's got nothing against a deck with Lobo or heavy CC. (Again, kinda inexperienced here so most likely wrong )

2, and 3 later.

Yes, all CCGs have luck. Again, I guess I'm spoiled by MtG. Bad luck in Elements can kill you much easier than bad luck in MtG. Likewise, a good hand in Elements can nearly guarantee you the game, whereas a good hand in MtG would still need some great draws behind it to have a shot at a quick victory, and even then your opponent would often have time to prevent an easy win. With MtG, I never felt that an upset was the result of luck; in my experience, what mattered more was skill and planning.

When I played MtG, I never felt screwed by luck. If I couldn't draw a card I needed, I just needed more of that card in my deck. I felt in control of what my hands and draws would look like while deck building. I suppose it's the same with Elements, but this spills over into the third part of your post. You either have a 30-card deck that can fulfill its single purpose ASAP, or a 60-card deck that can handle multiple scenarios but is likely to get rushed or shut down. If you want to make a deck that can handle most deck types, you'll need to get consistently good hands and draws just to stand a chance of winning regularly.

Also, I'm just miffed by the potential power of RNG-based cards in Elements. (Yes, mainly Dusk Mantle.)

4.

This one is obvious. You CAN make a fast deck that can handle most other decks and pack CC, PC, and enough offensive and defensive tools for almost any situation. But it's gonna be a rainbow. And as you know, the forum community doesn't really like rainbows. As it stands, however, they're the closest you'll ever get to a deck as versatile as MtG decks were.

----- ----- ----- ----- -----

@Krathos: Maybe you're right, maybe I should quit. It's just I had so much fun back when I had the money to play MtG that I'm looking for another CCG that can fill that void. My experiences:

Pokemon TCG: Never really played the card game, but played the GBC game. Enjoyed it, as even THAT let a deck stand a good chance against it's weakness.

Yu-Gi-Oh!: A pile of manure dominated by overpowered cards and deck types. Hard to believe I own 3 yugioh GBA games. 

Alteil: If I could figure out why I lose all the time, it might be fun.  ??? As it is, I think the whole game is engineered in such a way to force players to spend money on it before they can achieve a decent variety of cards. At least Elements doesn't force you to be stuck with your starter deck for MONTHS if you suck.

Note to self... make shorter posts.

[Blazing Moonwalker]

Ii think a big problem is the lack of cards we currently have, but that will be slowly fixed as the game moves along.

Even so, the metagame will probably never be perfect, but Zanzarino is working on it.