An Interview With A Former Elements Player

[Aves]

Picking an informed type over an uninformed type is wise.
Seniority brings longer period to gather data.
Passion towards ranting about the game (suggestions and feedback) is a sign of being focused on the topic at hand.

I respectfully disagree. How is one player's perspective 'better' than that of any other player's perspective when assessing an issue with an indeterminable answer? It is true that a more senior member may hold more knowledge of the game or have more accurate information, but it doesn't make the views of the 'newbie' less valid. A newer player may bring insights on issues that older players have ignored simply because they are used to seeing something. While a 'newb' may have less knowledge of the game's mechanics, his/her views could demonstrate how entering the game at this point in time differs from the beginning of a veteran. I do concede that interviewing less experienced players is more likely to produce misleading information about the game, but as Jeff clearly shows, players who have spent a decent amount of time can also be misinformed.

1) The issue does not have an indeterminate answer. It has an answer based on the aggregate opinions of the consumer base.
2) Both expert and new player perspectives are important. A veteran might be able to remember being a new player but most new players cannot foresee the their future perspectives. So seniority can be used as a very rough and crude method to have correlation with empathy with other perspectives via memory.
3) I did not list seniority as the only valid variable. I structured it in the form of Quality, Quantity & Focus. Jeff does not fall high in any of those categories.

1. I say indeterminable to reflect that no one person can present the 'right' answer, because there is no one answer that can be sufficient. Your term of 'aggregate opinion' does describe this better.
2. I do agree with most of your case here, but a veteran's perspective of being a newb can radically differ from the experience of current new players. For example, FG grinding with 11 FGs and 2 turn sundials in a much smaller metagame is hardly comparable with today's experience in developing.
3. Ah, I see now. I'd assumed that you meant holding seniority and being informed were part of the same thought, not as separate points, for some reason. And I agree that Jeff was rather lacking in those areas.

[Exeneva]

Whether the community regards Jeff as lacking in quality is the opinion of the community. Based on the age of this game, I assure you there are probably plenty of people like Jeff who have played this game for some time, then left with some sort of bad aftertaste.

Suppose I posted an interview that had way more positive points but didn't remove the negative points Jeff mentioned. Would this change the responses that would have occurred in this thread? Not really - everyone here would hate and discredit my interviewee, poking at what they see as flaws in his interview. Some of the people here even have had the audacity to say that I learned nothing from my interview with Jeff, which couldn't be farther than the truth.

If you've ever taken a class in statistics, you learn that more doesn't mean better, it just means more rounded out or slightly more averaged. Out of 1 million people, you can survey around 8% of the population and still get a good idea of what the population is like, as long as you have chosen your subjects wisely. Jeff represents a type of former Elements player, and based on one comment on the blog itself in which the interview was posted, Jeff isn't the only person who felt the way he did about this game when he left.

I've mentioned multiple times I am interested in follow-up interviews. I even have one scheduled for this weekend. But the truth of the matter is that anything this interviewee says about Elements that is negative is going to be placed under major scrutiny by the players here, unless the interview is conducted in an overwhelmingly positive light.

[Jeff]

Hello, this is "Jeff".  I would like to address certain points that have been raised about me.

Jeff oversimplifies his description of EtG

Naturally.  Take a person who has not played more than a few games over the last year and view him through a lens that has never played the game before.  You should EXPECT oversimplification.

Jeff fails to mention X, Y, or Z, and therefore played at a low level/was lying about the time he played in

False.  The only cards I even talked about were weapons, removal, and pillars.  I should not have to mention every single card type to prove my credibility.  As for pendulums, I was aware that they existed, but at the time I was playing they did not do much to contribute to the viability of duo-colored decks.  Specifically, my complaint was that there were no pillars that could reliably and efficiently produce quanta of 2 different elements, as I found that pendulums overall gave neither the single-minded efficiency of mono nor the versatility of rainbow.  I apologize for the misunderstanding

Jeff claims that removal is both too cheap and nonexistent at the same time.  How can this be?

My claims were that permanent removal was too cheap, and that creature removal inadequately handled the most dangerous threats (not nonexistent).  As Exeneva has had MTG experience, you can imagine how a misunderstanding could have arose (hint: in MTG, permanents includes creatures).  Again, I apologize.

However, my point still stands.  Permanent removal as a whole was too cheap.  Explosion cost R, which was simply not enough.  I noticed that it has since been nerfed to RR, which proves my point.
Creature removal was lacking.  The biggest and most common threats were typically high health (Elite Queen, flying weapons, dragons) or untargetable (Elite Shrieker, Elite Immortal, or anything with Quintessence).  One of the most obnoxious threats, in particular, to a rainbow control player like myself, was a Dune Scorpion with Unstoppable, which could literally hit on the first turn (not that playing it on any other turn would make it any more removable, because of the lack of instants in EtG).  Not entirely coincidentally, I quit not all that long after Dune Scorpion was introduced.

Jeff is a n00b

Proof, please.  Oh wait, you can't, because all you have are things that I attempted to explain to someone who has never played EtG before.

Jeff says weapons are overpowered, but they aren't

Perhaps they aren't, but, in my opinion, the fact that they can shut down entire decks when left unanswered (Eagle's Eye, Eternity, Pulverizer), do not have true answers across all the elements (Life, Light, Time, Water, Air, Aether, Death, Gravity, and Earth, IIRC, did not have weapon removal), is detrimental to the game.

Jeff overestimates the power of Hourglasses

In rainbow vs rainbow, the biggest determining factor in who won and who lost was the number of hourglasses one could keep on the field.  It was nigh impossible to win that matchup if your opponent had 1 and you had 0.  Obviously, Elite Otyugh and Elite Queen and Nymphs are powerful cards, but even they can be easily handled when you are drawing 3-4 cards a turn.  Hourglasses were reason rainbow decks were so strong.  Drawing multiple cards a turn allows rainbow decks to bury mono decks in a matter of turns in a way that would not otherwise be possible, given the ineffectiveness of creature removal.  There are other cards that make the rainbow deck good, but in the end, the only way to answer everything is to play all the answers, and the only way to ensure that you draw the right answers is to draw a lot of cards.  How do you draw a lot of cards in EtG?  You guessed it: Hourglasses.  If you think that the key card of a massive portion of the metagame is not itself incredibly powerful, then I don't know what to say to you.

Jeff thinks that playing with cards that he finds OP is fun, therefore he is a n00b

I guess all vintage players are n00bs, then?  No?  You never get a kick out of playing Ancestral Recall?  Sorry, is enjoying playing with Cockatrices and Graviton Mercanaries your idea of pr0?
Have I made my point sufficiently clear by speaking in questions?

Jeff is inexperienced in card games

I have played MTG for 8 years now.  For at least 4 of those years, I voraciously read every article on SCG and MTG, including all of the articles on game design.  I regularly frequented FNMs and got addicted to MTGO for as long as my wallet held out.  My friends and I playtested competitive decks.  I also had experience with L5R and YuGiOh, although given the expense of MTG cards (and perhaps some MTG elitism), I did not own any of those cards.  I played Elements for around a year.

I love card games.  I study card games.  I go to tournaments to play card games.  When I'm with my friends, I even breathe card games.  Inexperienced?  I don't think so.

Jeff is biased and only goes over the negative elements of Elements, and therefore his opinion is invalid

As I mentioned before, I read quite a bit about game design.  Elements is, in my opinion, (hate incoming) poorly designed as a card game.  The game is heavily geared towards making new players enjoy an online card game.  The simplistic gameplay makes the game quite easy to pick up from the get-go, and the amount of grinding necessary to pay for upgrades and acquire rare cards makes people keep playing.
However, in my opinion, Elements fails to offer a competitive field for experienced players to prove their skill.  Poor game design led the game to a place where the metagame breaks down into essentially, rainbow decks, gimmicky (untargetable creatures, pillar destruction, poison, etc) decks designed to exploit weaknesses in rainbow decks, and aggro decks that prey on gimmicky decks.  Playing gimmicky decks never appealed to me, as they generally lose to anything other than rainbow; aggro generally gets stomped by rainbow decks; and losing to gimmicky decks as rainbow is one of the most infuriating experiences I have ever had in a card game.  It was essentially the same as the metagame revolving around Affinity in MTG (there were only Affinity decks, anti-Affinity decks, and anti-anti-Affinity decks), which drove many people to quit competitive Magic.  That is the main reason why I quit Elements.

So yes, it is quite safe to say that I am biased against Elements.  If I weren't, you would be reading "An Interview with an Elements Player".  I learned that Exeneva was creating his own online card game, and I quite literally jumped at the opportunity to offer advice to him, hoping that he could make a game that could correct the mistakes made in EtG.  That is why I emphasized the weaknesses of Elements.  I want a game I can genuinely enjoy.




I hope that this has properly explained my position.  If anybody here has any further objections to my adequacy as an interview subject, object away, and I will be happy to respond.

[mesaprotector]

Jeff, thank you for clarifying. I accept that everyone can have their own opinion, and you do make some good points. I don't think anyone would say that the metagame right now is perfectly balanced, for example.

Everyone else, does it really matter whether you agree with Jeff or not? The interview wasn't meant to be "15 Deep Truths about the game Elements", just an overview. So let's move on.

[Macchiavelli]

So I noted that the goal of the interview is pretty much to look at marketing possibilities and choosing an unsatisfied interviewee is not such a failure in that. As an interview that should be published, like a review on the game, the interviewee is not the most informed person. But it was not the goal to review the game. Still I do understand people here, that do not like the interview, because publishing it online, without any other statements and no comment from the developers of the game in question, makes it something like a review and not the most positive on that.

Anyway regarding the interview, it shows pretty much, that elements has the same weaknesses that MtG has since its beginnings. They are pretty much one-dimensional games, which does not mean that they are bad, but their shallow learning curves make them popular for many players. Magic has managed to incorporate different strategies into an overall simple game mechanic (I am not up to date, what combos are dominating the game right now), but always had to nerf, ban or restrict cards. The good thing about an online game is, that these nerfs immediately apply to every player and cannot be argued about. Elements does use this strength in an exemplary fashion, also looking at the active community here.

So I rummaged a bit around on your page, not enough to get into the game mechanics but to understand the intention. Your statement that the game should benefit from the game mechanic problems of previous games, for me that is just common sense. Your also state that the concept of MtG is pretty much the only way a CCG can work, one can argue that point, especially since there are games out there with totally different goals, that offer different win conditions and that sometimes not even rely on combat. Don't know if you remember Mythos, Shadowrun and my alltime favourite (before Wizards bought it and the Olympic Comittee sued it) L5R (and in its follow Burning Sands and Deadlands).

I liked that you mentioned Vampire(Jyhad):The Eternal Struggle, which I remember fondly (especially since after its second cancellation, some US seller found out, that the Copyright of the Jyhad name was only for the US and sold displays for 30$ a pop to our favourite local gamestore). What you forgot, that here the energy is also the life of the player. The mechanic to always have a full hand was arguably one of the strengths of the game.

[OldTrees]

Hello, this is "Jeff".  I would like to address certain points that have been raised about me.

I hope that this has properly explained my position.  If anybody here has any further objections to my adequacy as an interview subject, object away, and I will be happy to respond.

Thank you for clarifying your perspective. I have only 2 criticisms.
1) Card advantage vs Cost efficiency
As you were very much aware, Elements operates on the suboptimal Quanta system rather than the Mana system of Magic. The relaxation of the time restriction on energy usage has had many ripples that differentiate the value system of Elements from that of Magic. In magic, you had to use or lose your energy. This promoted a strong incentive on playing cheap cards so they hit the field early. Cheap cards come with the side effect of requiring large numbers to achieve the same field position as fewer more expensive cards. Elements does not have the biasing incentive towards cheap cards so few expensive cards can compete with many cheap cards. Strategies using more expensive cards (relative to expected energy production) gain little to no advantage from drawing because they start with a surplus of cards. Strategies using cheap cards (relative to expected energy production) gain a lot from drawing because they start with a shortage of cards. This results in incentives to balance energy usage during deckbuilding [QI] rather than gain cards during a game. Most of your experience was with your Rainbow Stall. Such a deck is designed to have cheap cards relative to the 3 per tower production and thus found Hourglass to be a very valuable card. Immolation Rush actually sacrifices unneeded card advantage to gain more quanta for its expensive cards relative to the finite source of quanta.

2) Does Elements have too little removal (in the elements with removal) or does Magic mitigate imbalances with excessively available removal?
From my experience playing and researching Magic, I have often come across the fallacy of "It's not overpowered, it dies to Swords". Yes it does die to Swords. However balance is not measured by objective resilience but rather by power relative to alternate options. "Storm Crow" and "Huntmaster of the Fells" both die to Shock. That does not change the fact that Storm Crow is drastically underpowered compared to newer cards. Well, what effect does abundant removal have on cards that are demonstrably overpowered? It reduces the impact of the overpowered nature on the metagame. The effect of a card is relative to its resilience. The effect of the relative difference in power between two cards is related to the resilience of that card type (2hp in this case). With removal being very common the effect of the imbalance is mitigated. Thus the smaller the imbalance between cards, the less removal is needed to soften the effect of the imbalance on the game. This then leads to the next relevant difference. Magic is structured around gaining an advantage. Elements is structured around building a position. This design shift would be expected to have less abundant removal so creatures and permanents stick around longer. Note the game is still young and the single developer is still adding more removal to the elements that do not have enough. Furthermore, Elements places a higher emphasis on Indirect counters (Shard of Gratitude vs Unstoppable Dune Scorpion).

In general you had good points hidden in the required oversimplification. Your interview is far from worthless.

[Jeff]

1) Card advantage vs Cost efficiency
As you were very much aware, Elements operates on the suboptimal Quanta system rather than the Mana system of Magic. The relaxation of the time restriction on energy usage has had many ripples that differentiate the value system of Elements from that of Magic. In magic, you had to use or lose your energy. This promoted a strong incentive on playing cheap cards so they hit the field early. Cheap cards come with the side effect of requiring large numbers to achieve the same field position as fewer more expensive cards. Elements does not have the biasing incentive towards cheap cards so few expensive cards can compete with many cheap cards. Strategies using more expensive cards (relative to expected energy production) gain little to no advantage from drawing because they start with a surplus of cards. Strategies using cheap cards (relative to expected energy production) gain a lot from drawing because they start with a shortage of cards. This results in incentives to balance energy usage during deckbuilding [QI] rather than gain cards during a game. Most of your experience was with your Rainbow Stall. Such a deck is designed to have cheap cards relative to the 3 per tower production and thus found Hourglass to be a very valuable card. Immolation Rush actually sacrifices unneeded card advantage to gain more quanta for its expensive cards relative to the finite source of quanta.

I only said that hourglasses are incredibly strong, perhaps too strong, but not that they eliminate the possibility of decks without hourglasses.  There are plenty of decks that don't rely on drawing lots of cards.  While I would say that those decks are unreliable and are incapable of really adapting to the metagame (a harsh thing in a game where completing a deck can require more than a month or two of grinding), I'm sure that there are plenty who swear by them.  Personal preference.

2) Does Elements have too little removal (in the elements with removal) or does Magic mitigate imbalances with excessively available removal?
From my experience playing and researching Magic, I have often come across the fallacy of "It's not overpowered, it dies to Swords". Yes it does die to Swords. However balance is not measured by objective resilience but rather by power relative to alternate options. "Storm Crow" and "Huntmaster of the Fells" both die to Shock. That does not change the fact that Storm Crow is drastically underpowered compared to newer cards. Well, what effect does abundant removal have on cards that are demonstrably overpowered? It reduces the impact of the overpowered nature on the metagame. The effect of a card is relative to its resilience. The effect of the relative difference in power between two cards is related to the resilience of that card type (2hp in this case). With removal being very common the effect of the imbalance is mitigated. Thus the smaller the imbalance between cards, the less removal is needed to soften the effect of the imbalance on the game. This then leads to the next relevant difference. Magic is structured around gaining an advantage. Elements is structured around building a position. This design shift would be expected to have less abundant removal so creatures and permanents stick around longer. Note the game is still young and the single developer is still adding more removal to the elements that do not have enough. Furthermore, Elements places a higher emphasis on Indirect counters (Shard of Gratitude vs Unstoppable Dune Scorpion).

I would say that the main difference in creature removal in EtG and MTG is that the few creatures in EtG that demand removal don't die to it, while their are many creatures that demand removal in Magic.  So while there actually is plentiful removal in EtG, the most of the creatures that they kill aren't even worth the effort (it's gotten to the point where I don't even bother with point removal anymore).  Most creatures are underpowered, so removal must be underpowered, and as a result, the few creatures that are worth killing don't even die.  I really prefer how it works in most MTG games: most creature decks work by overloading removal through card advantage, and even though they might die, it is generally worth it, as there is no way that the opponent can kill them all.  It makes for a very challenging set of decisions for the player with removal, which does very good things for the game as a whole (obviously, giving players skill-intensive choices to make is good for a competitive game).

In general you had good points hidden in the required oversimplification. Your interview is far from worthless.

Thank you

[OldTrees]

2) Does Elements have too little removal (in the elements with removal) or does Magic mitigate imbalances with excessively available removal?
From my experience playing and researching Magic, I have often come across the fallacy of "It's not overpowered, it dies to Swords". Yes it does die to Swords. However balance is not measured by objective resilience but rather by power relative to alternate options. "Storm Crow" and "Huntmaster of the Fells" both die to Shock. That does not change the fact that Storm Crow is drastically underpowered compared to newer cards. Well, what effect does abundant removal have on cards that are demonstrably overpowered? It reduces the impact of the overpowered nature on the metagame. The effect of a card is relative to its resilience. The effect of the relative difference in power between two cards is related to the resilience of that card type (2hp in this case). With removal being very common the effect of the imbalance is mitigated. Thus the smaller the imbalance between cards, the less removal is needed to soften the effect of the imbalance on the game. This then leads to the next relevant difference. Magic is structured around gaining an advantage. Elements is structured around building a position. This design shift would be expected to have less abundant removal so creatures and permanents stick around longer. Note the game is still young and the single developer is still adding more removal to the elements that do not have enough. Furthermore, Elements places a higher emphasis on Indirect counters (Shard of Gratitude vs Unstoppable Dune Scorpion).

I would say that the main difference in creature removal in EtG and MTG is that the few creatures in EtG that demand removal don't die to it, while their are many creatures that demand removal in Magic.  So while there actually is plentiful removal in EtG, the most of the creatures that they kill aren't even worth the effort (it's gotten to the point where I don't even bother with point removal anymore).  Most creatures are underpowered, so removal must be underpowered, and as a result, the few creatures that are worth killing don't even die.  I really prefer how it works in most MTG games: most creature decks work by overloading removal through card advantage, and even though they might die, it is generally worth it, as there is no way that the opponent can kill them all.  It makes for a very challenging set of decisions for the player with removal, which does very good things for the game as a whole (obviously, giving players skill-intensive choices to make is good for a competitive game).

Elements is more focused on building position than MTG. Thus cards like Firefly Queen, Lava Golem or Quinted Otyugh that act as roots for a position are designed to cost more but have higher resilience. (See Planeswalkers or EDH generals) To destroy a position should take more than just one card. Or if it does take only one card that card should have one of an incomplete result (Regeneration/Damage Reduction), a high cost(Fire Storm) or a slow rate(Snipe/Fire Shield).
From your perspective you should consider these position roots as card advantage similar to Mitotic Slime where they create card advantage be requiring multiple cards to remove them.

However this highlights a good point. Magic and Elements have a different feel in as much as Magic is a war of attrition and Elements is a fight of giants. This difference will draw different sections of the gaming community based on personal preferences. The "fight of giants" Elements players would love Mono Green Token decks and "war of attrition" Magic players would love Fire Stall. Ideally any game should attempt to be flexible enough to accommodate both while still being focused on which ever one the community tends to want.

[KeeperofDreams]

I'm going to jump in now.
Background with CCGs:  I was old school MtG, boy has that game changed through the years: But I was Revised to Ice Age player.  At 4th edition I had a nice I'm stealing your deck and taking it home deck, because we all still played anti:  Playing a Vesuvan Doppelganger on a Tempest Efreet and then tapping that token picking a card saying this is now mine and the token is now yours forever, thank you, was quite evil.  I've also played the Mechwarrior, Star Trek, Vampire, Rage, and have a very evil Doom Trooper deck somewhere around too.  Background with EtG, one year.  But all this really does not matter because I've come to say this:

HOW DARE YOU ATTACK JEFF WHEN YOU KNOW HE IS MOSTLY RIGHT!!!
Most of us have complained or pointed out in the forums some place about balance issues, every time a new card or two comes out something becomes totally out of balance, or is everyone forgetting about SoSa's now?  Are the many threads revolving about what to do with Graboid/Shrieker my imagination?  Oh, Oh, here's a point he makes, duos and trios aren't that viable...  wait, I remember several discussions on wishing to make that happen....   all of a sudden somebody points that out and there is a problem?  Seriously?  Cognitive dissidence getting in the way?

There are only a few hundred cards for this game, (no upgrades don't count for most, with the exception of those that radically do something else) for 12 elements. It's far from mature, nor the maturity that you would expect for being around for years now.  There is a reason for it, it's a pet project by one developer that he does on the side funded only by donations who does not want to make it into anything bigger and so does not want help, it's zanz's creation and that's the way it is.  It's not yours, it's not this communities, it's zanz's.

With that said, is it still one of the best if not the best FREE ONLINE CCG?  I think it is, but let's not forget what it is.

[OldTrees]

HOW DARE YOU ATTACK JEFF WHEN YOU KNOW HE IS MOSTLY RIGHT!!!
Most of us have complained or pointed out in the forums some place about balance issues, every time a new card or two comes out something becomes totally out of balance, or is everyone forgetting about SoSa's now?  Are the many threads revolving about what to do with Graboid/Shrieker my imagination?  Oh, Oh, here's a point he makes, duos and trios aren't that viable...  wait, I remember several discussions on wishing to make that happen....   all of a sudden somebody points that out and there is a problem?  Seriously?  Cognitive dissidence getting in the way?

He was right that the game had faults and had imbalance.
His specific example were either
spot on (Quanta system is inferior to mana system, answers should be available to all elements)
or they were old (lack of duos and trios which started to appear with pendulums but the metagame took awhile)
or they were IMO wrong (weapons were significant but not overpowered,  fight of giants vs war of attrition)

The personal attacks were wrong. Criticizing his credibility with evidence was understandable but most of the criticisms lacked sufficient evidence by relying on everyone already agreeing with their assertion.

[KeeperofDreams]

OldTrees, you have been the voice of reason throughout most of this thread.

However, I also disagree with you.
Duos and Trios are still infant, most still rely on rainbow support or stall to get a win going because of the extended build out time.  The problem comes from the quanta system itself that you agreed with is broken.
The quanta system is what's needed to support the duos and trios efficiently pendulums are rather inefficient.
Also some weapons are overpowered, too many games I've played are won or lost on the play of discord alone, it will devastate any duo or trio attempt, early enough can crush mono too...  I've won many of games on just having a discord out.  As for wrong fight of giants versus war of attrition, I remember a lot of that when I started out.  Mono unupped a year ago played a lot like that.


My view point can be summed simply by:
This game to become a really good game is:
A.) A completely reworked quanta system and card cost system, something like, No more nova/cremation, quantum tower can stay though, but allow pillars to produce 2 of quanta, and have dual pillars that produce 1 of each, and totally shift the card costs.  Don't allow a person to save onto more than 10 quanta of each element.  Have cards, that require dual or random element cost casts as well.
B.) A good two thousand more cards, or 5 times the amount we have right now, about 200 per element with a large variety of abilities and every element having some sort of way of handling core concepts.  Develop subcatagories.
C.) Reconcept the FGs a bit and have each FG have at least one card you can't purchase, get rid of spins except for FG, get rid of upgraded cards, those upgraded that do something radically different should just be regular cards, make cards more expensive in the shop, and introduce bundling of random cards in the shop.  So for 5000 Electrum I could buy two dragons and a shard that I want for a deck idea or I could by 30 random cards that I have no idea what I'm getting, but I need to quickly expand my options.   
 
Examples for B.)
Perms: Electrum Hour Glass could be considered a Time/Perm/Machine so time might have a perm counter like rust where the effect would say put a time bubble around target machine that accelerates time around it, in two turns target machine is turned to dust/destroyed.  Aether might have a phase perm spell, that all perms in place phase out of play for one turn.  And thing's like Feral Bond might be Life/Perm/Bonded,  and so steal might not be able to steal a bonded perm but other perms but sanctuaries and sundials, those are fair game.  Light could for example have a blinding light spell that blinds the other player for one turn, preventing them from being able use their weapon or shield, etc...

Sadly I don't think either of these will happen, it's a lot of coding and art work, etc... and for one developer it'll take 5 years...

Other concepts,
You mentioned field control, more abilities, like light, might have a guard of some sort where any cards to the side of the guard gain unable to target status, forcing people to have to destroy the guard first.  Field control is a very interesting and allows for a very complex dynamic that could be played up more.  Imagine how useful flooding would be, if you could choose where you place your water creatures.  Etc...
We also only have a couple deck manipulation cards, more of these would be good too.

[OldTrees]

OldTrees, you have been the voice of reason throughout most of this thread.

However, I also disagree with you.
Duos and Trios are still infant, most still rely on rainbow support or stall to get a win going because of the extended build out time.  The problem comes from the quanta system itself that you agreed with is broken.
The quanta system is what's needed to support the duos and trios efficiently pendulums are rather inefficient.
Also some weapons are overpowered, too many games I've played are won or lost on the play of discord alone, it will devastate any duo or trio attempt, early enough can crush mono too...  I've won many of games on just having a discord out.  As for wrong fight of giants versus war of attrition, I remember a lot of that when I started out.  Mono unupped a year ago played a lot like that.

My view point can be summed simply by:
This game to become a really good game is:
A.) A completely reworked quanta system and card cost system, something like, No more nova/cremation, quantum tower can stay though, but allow pillars to produce 2 of quanta, and have dual pillars that produce 1 of each, and totally shift the card costs.  Don't allow a person to save onto more than 10 quanta of each element.  Have cards, that require dual or random element cost casts as well.
B.) A good two thousand more cards, or 5 times the amount we have right now, about 200 per element with a large variety of abilities and every element having some sort of way of handling core concepts.  Develop subcatagories.
C.) Reconcept the FGs a bit and have each FG have at least one card you can't purchase, get rid of spins except for FG, get rid of upgraded cards, those upgraded that do something radically different should just be regular cards, make cards more expensive in the shop, and introduce bundling of random cards in the shop.  So for 5000 Electrum I could buy two dragons and a shard that I want for a deck idea or I could by 30 random cards that I have no idea what I'm getting, but I need to quickly expand my options.   
 
Examples for B.)
Perms: Electrum Hour Glass could be considered a Time/Perm/Machine so time might have a perm counter like rust where the effect would say put a time bubble around target machine that accelerates time around it, in two turns target machine is turned to dust/destroyed.  Aether might have a phase perm spell, that all perms in place phase out of play for one turn.  And thing's like Feral Bond might be Life/Perm/Bonded,  and so steal might not be able to steal a bonded perm but other perms but sanctuaries and sundials, those are fair game.  Light could for example have a blinding light spell that blinds the other player for one turn, preventing them from being able use their weapon or shield, etc...

Sadly I don't think either of these will happen, it's a lot of coding and art work, etc... and for one developer it'll take 5 years...

Other concepts,
You mentioned field control, more abilities, like light, might have a guard of some sort where any cards to the side of the guard gain unable to target status, forcing people to have to destroy the guard first.  Field control is a very interesting and allows for a very complex dynamic that could be played up more.  Imagine how useful flooding would be, if you could choose where you place your water creatures.  Etc...
We also only have a couple deck manipulation cards, more of these would be good too.

You may or may not have more experience than me. However I believe that duos have matured. Trios are not categorically competent but some instances exist. More importantly you misunderstood what I mean when I say the quanta system is suboptimal. I merely mean that the mana system is inherently easier to balance with its restricted energy production, use or lose mechanic and natural filtration system. Zanz is trying not to copy MtG so he uses the quanta system instead.

Some weapons are Overpowered. Jeff claimed that card advantage weapons (Owl's Eye, Pulverizer, Eternity) were categorically overpowered. Neither of us commented on Discord.

I did not understand this section.

As for wrong fight of giants versus war of attrition, I remember a lot of that when I started out.  Mono unupped a year ago played a lot like that.

A summary of my disagreement with Jeff is: Jeff felt that removal should be more effcient so the game would run (as a default) like a war of attrition. I disagreed and said that designing a game with less efficient removal (and more emphasis on non removal answers) would result in a fight of giants (as a default) which is another viable feel to a game. You can deviate from the default of course. The discussion was whether a fight of giants is a viable designed feel for a game.

List of criticisms
A
1) Removing cards that turn card disadvantage into quanta advantage would be foolish. That would remove a section of the metagame and the game derives value from the size of the metagame. It would be better to balance nova/cremation than it would be to remove them.
2) Quanta limit of 10? You should not double rate of production at the same time as cut the maximum (from 75 to 10).
3) By random element did you mean or did you mean of only 1 element.
4) Zanz has vetoed costs that require 2 specific elements. Costs will remain [Integer, Type (or untyped)]
C
5) Don't waste time making cards for a multiplayer game that cannot be used in multiplayer
6) Upgrades and spins reward people that like to play vs AI. Don't remove reasons some people play the game.
7) Don't make the game harder for new players by increasing grinding time to do anything competent (aka increasing the cost of cards)

In general the game has problems but they are most fixed in 4 steps (no order)
1) Add more quanta distributions. This would be in the form of card with quanta production or quanta manipulation. Here (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,25097.msg381479#msg381479) is a link to a competition for designing these types of cards along with the comments from the judges. Quanta Locket (in the Armory) is a great example of this category.
2) Add more volume to the metagame. Things that do something unique not just do something uniquely. Crusaders not Steam Machines
3) Continually balance cards that become imbalanced
4) Finish the distribution of answers until every element has an answer to everything including other answers and all answers fit their elements.

A step towards this might be to rely more on the suggestions from the community but that is up to the developer.