A little frustrated - Is Elements too metagame driven?

[xdude]

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?

  This is almost always the case. I'd like more in-game strategy as well, but we don't have that. However, when we have PvP competitions (they have restricting rules) predicting and countering an opponent's deck is almost as important as deckbuilding.
  Yes. And this makes the game unique (I'd rather we have more in-game decisions too though...)
  Pretty much. That is because very few effects need you to think before using them.
  No.
  No.

Basically, rainbows will defeat pretty much any deck because the mix of everything will ultimately overcome any strategy.
I'd like to hear other opinions about this.

Light/Water stall. I can't recall losing with it unupped, especially not against a speedbow.

[Raptor6789]

i do think that the game places more emphasis on deck building than in game decisions. those two should be balanced so that if you have a bad deck, you can make some good decisions and take the win. or vice versa.

while rainbows do seem to be powerful, they tend to be slower than a mono deck.

[TheCrazyMango]

First off, +karma for not ragin and swearing and junk when you complain about the game. It seems like all the people who complain are swearing and stuff.
And second off, most of your points have been adressed, so there really isnt a second off.

[xdude]

First off, +karma for not ragin and swearing and junk when you complain about the game. It seems like all the people who complain are swearing and stuff.
And second off, most of your points have been adressed, so there really isnt a second off.

Those are idiots
But I agree, this guy seems like a valuable addition to the community.

[teffy]

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?

1. These patterns exist, but not for all combinations of decks in a battle you can imagine. Luck and skill also plays a role. I had many PvP games with close wins or losses, and some of them were surprises.

2. You can´t expect that a deck ,which has only 12 vanilla creatures (creatures without skills), 1 weapon , 1 shield needs lots of skills to be played. It´s deck and card dependant, how much skill-based and how much luck -based the games are. But in general: deck building is more important.


Skill decisions could be:
- Card order
-  Play card or wait. (especially Deflagration, Rain of Fire )
-  What´s the target of the spell ?
- activate skill or not ?.

3. Probably. But see that deck A can produce some TOP hands and some bad hands, deck B can produce middle good hands, but this almost always. Deck A could be an Immolation - Rush deck, or a deck based on Novas, or a deck with 6 Flying Druidic Staffs with adrenaline.
Deck B could be a deck with 12 creatures (e.g. Shrieker-Rush). So deck building has influence to the amount of luck you need.
4. Balanced decks exist.
5. No.

[Daytripper]

  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 know what that game is you were playing, that makes it a bit hard. From experience I can say this:

1) Not really. Rainbow decks are strong, but black hole can be hell on it. Then there are other defences. CC can be countered by strong or immortal units. Then again, shields stop immortals. Against buffed units there is reverse time, but again, using skeletons/mummies and your own hourglasses can fight the effect of reverse time. Then you have PC, which can be countered by using creatures or the PA. Ever played an earth quake deck to find the opponent had no pillars? Annoying stuff. This game is a lot like poker. If you know the deck of the opponent beforehand, you can set up a great counter. The games can be very fast also. If you get a bad hand, take your loss and play again.

2) The deck matters a lot, but there is a way to play it. If my opponent has no quakes, I need not worry about playing my pillars. Neurotoxin may play a role. There is planning your miracles and shielding, especially bonewall. It may be subtle but it matters a lot.

3) Everybody gets bad draws. The straightforward decks are less prone to bad draws, but they are quite simple. Just don't overextend the deck.

4) I don't know what that means. I myself can make balanced decks.

5) Not always. Rainbows may have an advantage that needs to be tweaked, but they can be beaten. The effect of them is after all random. You dont know when you can play your units. You may have more quantas overall, but most decks do not have a problem paying for their units, even if they have vastly less production.  Look around. If you want a counter to a particular deck, just ask for it.

 

[Tea is good]

It's funny, I'm pretty sure I'm terrible at elements game play. But I'm close to t50. Maybe intelligence within matches might need to become more important, but I'm pretty sure all ccgs have this problem.

[Scaredgirl]

Didn't have time to read all the replies so sorry if I'm repeating what was already said.

I think that many of the "problems" you talk about here are common problems (if you look at them as problems) with CCG's. Deckbuilding is usually the main focus, like it should be imo. If I wanted to play a game that is based on decisions, there's always chess.

I don't know a single CCG where "decisions during match" play a bigger role than deckbuilding + luck. If you are looking for a deck that can potentially beat any other deck out there as long as you make good decisions, then I have to disappoint you by saying that deck does not exist.

If you think that skill plays very little factor, then no offence but you might not have enough experience with PvP. In fact, you said it yourself..

I haven't PvP'd much

It is true that some decks could be easily played by a below average chimp, because all you need to do is press things that are highlighted. But many decks are very challenging and you need much more strategy and good decisions.

If you want a more challenging decision making process, try these kind of decks:

"Frack You!" (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,5818.msg66917#msg66917)
"Frack You Too!" (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,11176.0.html)

They are pretty old but you'll get the idea.

[DrunkDestroyer]

One of the better argued posts I've seen on this section, and I find myself agreeing with quite a bit here.

The main point I'm getting here is the lack of thought in-game, which I find myself missing sometimes too. This isn't necessarily true for certain rainbows, but come time and balance, hopefully this will fix itself.


The basic problem now IMO is how simplistic decks are asked to be. If I was a very new player wanting to make a mono air, I might be reccommended something like this. (dramatised for effect)

by DrunkDestroyer

Hover over cards for details, click for permalink

Deck import code : [Select]

5oc 5oc 5oc 5oc 5oc 5oc 5oc 5oc 5oc 5oc 5oc 5oc 5oc 5oc 5oe 5oe 5of 5of 5of 5of 5of 5of 5og 5og 5on 5on 5on 5on 5op 5op 8pr

That should say enough on it's own. However, even a simplistic mono deck has a few ways it could do things, where cards can have multiple uses and effects.

by DrunkDestroyer

Hover over cards for details, click for permalink

Deck import code : [Select]

5oc 5oc 5oc 5oc 5oc 5oc 5oc 5oc 5oc 5oe 5oe 5of 5of 5of 5oh 5oh 5oi 5oi 5ol 5ol 5ol 5on 5on 5oo 5op 5op 5pu 5pu 5pu 5pu 8pr

The problem here is that it is clearly going to be ineffective. (And it doesn't have as much playing around space as one would like with the different types of cards and strategies)


If we go one step further, we can start to get some pretty interesting possibilities. Let's say we duo with fire...

by DrunkDestroyer

Hover over cards for details, click for permalink

Deck import code : [Select]

5f6 5f6 5f7 5f8 5f9 5f9 5f9 5fb 5fb 5fb 5od 5od 5od 5of 5of 5oi 5ol 5oo 5oo 5oo 5op 5op 5pu 5pu 5pu 5pu 5pu 5pu 5pu 5pu 8po

If we ignore the clear quanta and damage problem, we can see that even duoing has diven us a lot of room to play around. Use our rage potions on dragons, and then Sky blitz, or use them on things that can bypass your wings. Which of the things are most likely to need deflagging? And there are even more cards which could have been thrown in there to help out. And with every patch, we tend to get new cards, and usually at least one element gets something that can be used in a mono, and therefore every duo. More options = more thought and everything. Eventually duos/trios will near rainbows in terms of choices and adaptability. (Hopefully)

The biggest problem now is making decks like these viable. 6x 6x 12x Pillars isn't getting anywhere.

[Marvaddin]

When I played MtG, I never felt screwed by luck.

Man, you are lucky. When I used to play MtG, like 5-6 years ago, I lost a lot of games due to not drawing lands, or the opposing situation, known as "mana flood". And the times I had 4 of a card in my deck, was needing them, and none comes until Im dead? 4 cards in 60 is usually more luck dependant to get good draws then 6 cards in 30. And of course experienced already same things here, but MtG has also a lot of luck involved.

In fact, cards here are much less versatile. Most cards have just 1 use, with a few exceptions like Holy Light. The lack of attacking and blocking (attacks are automatic, and there is no blocking, except shields) surely makes the game a lot simpler and skill related than MtG. Of course there are game decisions, like "should put in play my Destroyer without a quint?", but especially playing rushes, no decisions to make, draw cards and use immediatly.

But there are fun decks to use. The old timebow, for example, with some additions like Mind Gate, the nymphs you have, etc, can be fun to play. Want a good challenge, with variety, and no metagame? Go play AI5. They also have some bad and useless cards, so not that spanking show FG do. They usually start slowly, so you can set a deck designed for fun. And you are not obligated to play a rainbow. Some elements, mainly Fire and Darkness, can be strong even mono / duo. Darkness, for example, has PC (steal), CC (drain life, liquid shadow), healing (vampires, drain life, dagger), quanta denial (steal, devourer)... Im sure it could be fun.

In fact, I think most people use rushes because of the grind aspect of this game. The upgrades are expensive, so people need win a lot in the shorter time. So, people use rush decks, because winning or losing, they do it fast.

[(...)]

EtG is a card game
1. Depends of deckbuilding
2.same
3. Luck is involved in any card game
4. still deckbuilding, maybe a bit from card balance but we get patches often
5. generally yes, but still depends from deck

[BluePaladin25]

When I played MtG, I never felt screwed by luck.

Man, you are lucky. When I used to play MtG, like 5-6 years ago, I lost a lot of games due to not drawing lands, or the opposing situation, known as "mana flood". And the times I had 4 of a card in my deck, was needing them, and none comes until Im dead? 4 cards in 60 is usually more luck dependant to get good draws then 6 cards in 30. And of course experienced already same things here, but MtG has also a lot of luck involved.

In fact, cards here are much less versatile. Most cards have just 1 use, with a few exceptions like Holy Light. The lack of attacking and blocking (attacks are automatic, and there is no blocking, except shields) surely makes the game a lot simpler and skill related than MtG. Of course there are game decisions, like "should put in play my Destroyer without a quint?", but especially playing rushes, no decisions to make, draw cards and use immediatly.

But there are fun decks to use. The old timebow, for example, with some additions like Mind Gate, the nymphs you have, etc, can be fun to play. Want a good challenge, with variety, and no metagame? Go play AI5. They also have some bad and useless cards, so not that spanking show FG do. They usually start slowly, so you can set a deck designed for fun. And you are not obligated to play a rainbow. Some elements, mainly Fire and Darkness, can be strong even mono / duo. Darkness, for example, has PC (steal), CC (drain life, liquid shadow), healing (vampires, drain life, dagger), quanta denial (steal, devourer)... Im sure it could be fun.

In fact, I think most people use rushes because of the grind aspect of this game. The upgrades are expensive, so people need win a lot in the shorter time. So, people use rush decks, because winning or losing, they do it fast.

OOH I really want to pick this one apart.

Thing is, when you lose a game in MtG due to luck, it's usually over quick. But when both people are really able to get their decks working, the games tend to last longer, and you spend more time PLAYING. If I lose a huge drawn-out game, it's cool. Quick victories and defeats are boring. It's like when you get a volley going in a tennis match between a pair of skilled players - even when it looks like someone's about to win, the other manages to hit a ball he totally should have missed, and we're right back to the game. The tension, the constant attempts to one-up the other player: THAT'S what I enjoy about CCGs. (By which I mean MtG.  See end of post.)

As for 4/60 being more luck-dependant than 6/30: You ALMOST have a point there. But as you said, cards in Elements are less versatile. If I'm in a situation in MtG where 3 different cards in my deck will help me, you've got 12/60, the exact same odds. But I'd often find that different cards could help me in different ways. Not just that, but MtG had more options for drawing more cards, or even searching your deck for specific cards. There's a reason Rebel decks were so popular in certain cycles; if you need a SPECIFIC card, you can just look for it and luck doesn't mean a thing.

Finally, there's the ability to act during your opponent's turn through instants and creature abilities. Without that, the game would have severely lacked depth and strategy. Can you imagine MtG without cards such as Counterspell or Boomerang?

@DrunkDestroyer: Ah yes, what duos and trios could be given the opportunity. I'm going to talk about MtG some more, but whatever: there, duos and trios were the MAJORITY, with monos and rainbows in short supply.

I've considered making a  deck that could fill the myriad roles of a mono-blue MtG deck, but I'm having trouble figuring it out. If you can find a working trio I can use as a reference for balancing quanta between 3 elements, I'd be grateful for a link.

----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Hmm, the longer this thread goes, the more I'm realizing I'm looking for a substitute for MtG, and it's unlikely I'll ever find that.