Are Quantum Towers Too Powerful?

[Uzra]

I'd go as far as the mono towers give 3 when they come in and 1 per turn.

2 per turn would be slightly too much.. sadly.. unless... they were limited to 6 per deck and renamed to be a different card so you could still use the current day towers.

[Uzra]

Probability is a factor in all decks, not just rainbow.  The difference magnitude of how much a deck relies on chance that you assert is not only lacking enough statistics to make a case that it's fair and evens outs, but it's also entirely besides the point.

I 'could' see your case if quantum towers produced 3 quantum of any ONE random element (which might be a good Idea).

Even if you have had the experience of 20+ of each element and only 4 of one element being produced in a game, this is not only a rare incident, it's extremely rare.  About as rare as a mono deck drawing too many towers or not enough towers or none of a vital card.

I, reluctantly, play rainbow exclusively for now.  I don't want it nerfed vs gods.  I just want a fair battle Vs other decks in pvp.  If you think it's fair in pvp as it is, I would suggest you have a bias.

[Uzra]

Quantum Towers effectively make 95%+ of mono and duo color decks obsolete.  This would be criteria for overpowerness in a world of just PvP decks.  However the only effective decks for farming gods rely on quantum towers.  If you want gods to be as farmable as they are now you need to leave the quantum towers alone.  If at the same time you want non-rainbow decks to have a chance in pvp, you will need to upgrade all the other towers.

If you still aren't convinced consider this.  If you wish to make a deck that will only use 3 different elements, your best option for quantum generation isn't to have a mix of 3 kinds of towers.  It is to have all quantum towers.  Just for tri-element decks, one goes all quantum.  It's clear that either the quantum towers are over powered (and thus the gods too difficult), or the reg towers are too weak.

[Uzra]

You (most of you) have seemed to have lost track of the objective.  It's not to have mono win VS gods, It's to have mono win VS rainbow in PvP sometimes as apposed to never. (excluding random bad luck draws).

[Uzra]

Once the game expands a bit more (which it most likely will), then we'll see more strategies, more strength in mono- and duo-color decks due to a larger variety of cards per element....

This is simply not true.  When more cards are added, rainbow decks with scale more than the mono or duo element decks.  Consider any scenario you like, all creatures, mass shields, it doesn't matter.

Rainbow gets 3X the quantum per turn that mono and duo do.  Evening out the elements in your rainbow deck, effectively makes it as powerfull as a mono that got 3 quantum per tower.  with 4 lands rainbow gets 48 quantum in 4 turns, mono gets 16 quantum in 4 turns.  Adding variety to mono does not change this fundamental problem and also adds more precise variety to rainbow.  Literally compounding the problem.

Thinking it over again, I think the easiest way to balance everything would be to nerf false gods a ton, and nerf quantum towers.  The only other alternative is to increase the cost of every card in the game so that mono actually lets you play things faster than rainbow which is not the case now.

[vice123]

I seriously don't think you deck is meant to have ONLY ONE color. When you pick a starter deck - just look at what you get - at least 2 colors. Every color has its cards. Limit yourself to a single color - risk getting beaten by everything.

[vice123]

I think quantum towers are just fine. They are in no way overpowered. It is the versatility of the rainbow deck itself that is overwhelming - the combination of pillars, novas, dials, hourglasses and other cards from each element. And a rainbow deck is best suited for farming gods - it has the needed versatility.
Try playing a mono deck with quantum pillars instead of the respective element pillars and you'll see they're not overpowered

[Uncle Jellyfish]

*pats Uzra on the back* It's okay. XD Actually, when I asked about the bias:

A bias? Towards what?

I was actually asking what you thought I was biased towards, since in your previous post when you accused me of being biased, I had no idea of which side I was being accused of being biased towards. >.<" I wasn't trying to be sarcastic. =/

[Uncle Jellyfish]

Extremely rare? This actually happens to me more than winning. Either my luck is very bad, or in over 400 games against the gods, something is amiss.

You have awful luck.  I must have played 200 or so games. I don't know if it ever happened or even came close to happening. So that's 20 MINIMUM of everything during a game except for one element having <6, and often... you sure?

Yes, I'm sure. In fact, it's usually two or three elements that will go the entire game with less than six quanta, unless I draw a Supernova and one of those lacking elements isn't Entropy

A bias? Towards what? Currently, I play a rainbow deck. I like it, it works, it has the ability to be changed and upgraded to provide more variety, but it's built for the Gods, so it's not going to be changed. I've no problem with rainbow decks. All I'm trying to point out is that compared to mono-element decks, rainbow require much more luck, and may not work as effectively as mono-element or dual-element decks (though, as of now, dual element decks have problems with getting quantum). Honestly, I'd prefer to use a dual-element deck, but that's beside the point. It's a personal preference, not a bias.

So you went for 'pvp is fair'.  <-- that is not a personal preference, that's an objective statement.  Your arguments are unconvincing.

Number of differnet element cards in deck --- Best choice for towers (regardless of viability)
mono --- reg towers
duo --- your mark as the minor element and most of the towers as the main element.
trio ---  your mark minor, and splitting up all the towers exclusively to the other two elements , or 100% quantum towers, both about as effective.
4 or more --- 100% quantum towers

*points at red highlight* I never said anything like that. Reread my post. PvP isn't fair. It never will be until we can get an area set up that allows us to create matches, or join existing matches (the name of this area escapes me at the moment, sorry), so that we are able to see the score and mark and win/loss ratio of other players, and decide whether or not we want to play against them. However, I think that first and formost, the PvP bugs and desyncing problems should be fixed first.

If that's doesn't scream out that something is wrong, maybe you love how things are now and now want them to change, AKA bias.

Please don't assume things about me, you don't know me. This isn't the first time you'd done it either. In fact, you seem to do this whenever we're conversing in the same thread. You do it with Brian9h, too. I understand that you believe you're right and that this self-rightous crusade is the only way you seem to handle issues on here, but when you start telling us who we are, really, it hurts your influence. People will stop listening to what you have to say when you start acting this way. Remember, when you ASSUME, you make an ASS out of U and ME. ;-)

[Uzra]

I'm sorry and I don't want to drag this on anymore but I think there's some misunderstanding..

If you think it's fair in pvp as it is, I would suggest you have a bias.

If you think it's fair in pvp as it is, I would suggest you have a bias.

A bias? Towards what?

You seemed concerned that I thought you had a bias (towards how things are now for PvP) which, if you read back, including the part before the red (can't take things out of context) then I think it'd seem to anyone that you think it's fair in pvp as it is.  Cause if you didn't the whole bias thing wasn't addressing you to begin with...

So that's where I came to believe you thought pvp was fair as is.

[Uzra]

Extremely rare? This actually happens to me more than winning. Either my luck is very bad, or in over 400 games against the gods, something is amiss.

You have awful luck.  I must have played 200 or so games. I don't know if it ever happened or even came close to happening. So that's 20 MINIMUM of everything during a game except for one element having <6, and often... you sure?

A bias? Towards what? Currently, I play a rainbow deck. I like it, it works, it has the ability to be changed and upgraded to provide more variety, but it's built for the Gods, so it's not going to be changed. I've no problem with rainbow decks. All I'm trying to point out is that compared to mono-element decks, rainbow require much more luck, and may not work as effectively as mono-element or dual-element decks (though, as of now, dual element decks have problems with getting quantum). Honestly, I'd prefer to use a dual-element deck, but that's beside the point. It's a personal preference, not a bias.

So you went for 'pvp is fair'.  <-- that is not a personal preference, that's an objective statement.  Your arguments are unconvincing.

Number of differnet element cards in deck --- Best choice for towers (regardless of viability)
mono --- reg towers
duo --- your mark as the minor element and most of the towers as the main element.
trio ---  your mark minor, and splitting up all the towers exclusively to the other two elements , or 100% quantum towers, both about as effective.
4 or more --- 100% quantum towers

If that's doesn't scream out that something is wrong, maybe you love how things are now and now want them to change, AKA bias.

[Evil Hamster]

I second scaredgirl's opinion. The problem is not the towers themselves- every card should be re-evaluated based on cost vs effect. There are so many cards with huge effects for low quantum cost and rainbow simply gets to choose from all the best of the overpowered cards from every element..