Do you like the idea of Shards?

[TheonlyrealBeef]

I do not like shards, at all.

To start with, I do not like rainbows, any and every card in the other category should, in my opinion, be worse on standard than every similar card in every element. The cards Short Sword and Shield are perfect examples of perfect other cards from my point of view. Elemental shields and weapons tend to be better, but the other cards have the advantage of being cheap. Quantum Pillar is the perfect example of how I think an other card should not be. It generates more quanta than any other Pillar and is therefore better unless you use less than 4 elements. If Quantum Pillars were to generate just 1 Random quantum each we'd be talking more equal, the fact that the quanta generated is random is made up for with the fact you draw your pillars consistently. Don't even get me started on (Super)nova.

And then there were shards...
They are the most overpowered cards the game has, but are not allowed to be used by normal ai levels or competitive pvp. Just that is detrimental for the game. But the fact that they are other, in a meta where Rainbows are superior over Monos, Duos and Trios, the latter of which are usually ridiculed for their worthlessness, makes them all that much worse. I really wouldn't mind seeing them go away. Instead, can't we have something that promotes Trios?

[Xenocidius]

Perhaps ALL random quanta costs (or just shards) should instead have the effect of General quanta (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,27033.msg418975#msg418975) costs?

General quanta: Takes its quanta cost from a single, random quanta pool.



For example, if you have 2 of each element you couldn't play a 3 card. But if you had 3 of each element, it would drain one of your quanta pools.

This means that 3-cost shards, for example, are nearly as hard to play in a rainbow as 3-cost elemental cards.

I like the concept of shards, but the implementation seems ... crude. Most of the current shards have balancing issues, Shard of Focus being a ridiculously extreme example. Simply rebalancing the shards would help them and the game a lot.

[Tiko]

[...] Instead, can't we have something that promotes Trios?

That. It'd be a 'dream-come-true'..

[The_Mormegil]

[...] Instead, can't we have something that promotes Trios?

That. It'd be a 'dream-come-true'..

Lots of good ideas here. (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,25097.0.html) In particular, this idea is one of the most balanced and intresting solutions. (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,25665.html)

[/offtopic]

Anyway, it seems to me that those who are supporting the concept of Shards are those who like the idea of a serie of other cards that are able to provide some benefit to every element, while being particularly useful for their own element. However, I see it this way.

If shards are overpowered, when compared to in-element cards, then that aim is not reached, as the shards themselves will become the center of the competitive decks, whether they are based or even use the proper element, or not. For instance, death has nothing to do with Shard of Sacrifice's power when used in SPlat, nor in ToaST. One other example is Shard of Focus as of now, or Shard of Gratitude before the nerf. Those cards are not adding to the game, they are taking away from it.

If shards are underpowered, they are not going to be used. Shroedinger's Cat-like cards are not adding to the metagame, and Shard of Patience is a brilliant example of that. Take away Shard of Sacrifice and you'll have the same problem with Shard of Divinity, most likely. These cards are not helping towards that aim too, since they will not be beneficial to even a single element (not even their "intended" one). See how even Fracsalia is not enhanced by Shard of Patience.

If shards are useful with their intended element, but not useful at all without it, then they might as well be cards of that element. That way, they are not rainbow friendly. If shards are useful outside their element and stronger inside it, then you have very powerful cards that benefit every element and are rainbow friendly. That means those cards are either too powerful in their element or too powerful in rainbows.

The "likable" shards are somehow strong yet balanced in their own element, and useful but not overpowered in other elements and rainbows. I should note that this situation is painstrikingly difficult to reach from a balance point of view.

Now, how is that different from using cards from another element in rainbows, duos or trios? For rainbows everybody will probably agree that it'd be a lot more balanced. For monos, you will be able to use balanced cards (they ARE balanced in their own element, aren't they?) at the cost of changing around the quanta balance and being slightly less reliable (therefore, you won't be able to use them quite as effectively). And for duos? You'd be forced to use a trio, thus being a lot less reliable and effective. But instead of going for that terrible goal of the perfect balance between all factors, wouldn't the game benefit more if you just added 12 elemental cards and a card to quanta-balance trios (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,25665.html)? You'd be having the same effect as your aim implies AND gain SIX HUNDRED AND SIXTY trios (seriously, 660 new deck types in one go!). How is THAT worse?

[mega plini]

you conviced me mormegil, Im going to revote my vote (hope it is possible, I havent checked yet).
At the beginning I thought:"Yeah, Shards are cool!" But then I ran into Shard of Sacrifice, which wasn't all that fun to play against. The only shard I realy like is Shard of patience but it could be a  card as you said. So now I'm going to vote against the Shards.

Crap, just found out I can't revote my vote anymore

[plastiqe]

Pretty sure I ticked that option when I made the poll.. but if you can't change your vote then just be a man and accept responsibility for your decisions.  : P

Edit: I'm able to re-vote.

I'm thinking of making a similar topic about how when you start off in Elements you're a Mono but by endgame you're a Rainbow.

[Higurashi]

Changing your vote was not enabled. I enabled it upon seeing mega plini's post.

[ggabriel2]

I don't like rare cards in general, too much of an accessibility barrier for new/casual players.

Rare cards that introduce new mechanics or do things that would be ridiculously impractical to do otherwise are worse.

Rares that have unique powers that make them complete game-changers are the absolute worst.

Most of the old rares were pretty reasonable design for rare cards. There were non-rare cards that duplicated their functions, and in some cases duplicated the actual rare cards themselves! The rare cards were just more repeatable, more efficient, or more widely usable, but generally not overwhelmingly so. Even the old shards were pretty good: you could use Jade Staff + Flying Weapon as a pseudo-SoG, Stoneskin was an version of SoD, and in most cases there wasn't much difference between using an old SoR and just including an extra quanta source to fuel your powers. A lot of the new shards pretty much toss that out the window.

[plastiqe]

We've got new forums and the full set of shards now, so I put the poll back up.

[pervepic]

Yes, because I like when new cards are added; even though I don't know what new Shards do, since I don't have them yet and was too lazy to play beta. And I like rainbows too, most interesting decks to build. Basically there is no reason not to make some events that allow Shards. But first some time is needed to get all of them 

Btw, the only card I don't really like is Singularity, which I saw accidentally last night (and lost because of that). This doesn't add anything to the game, it's not a new card one can have, but rather an artificial (but still creative) nerf which complicates things unnecessarily imo.

[Fayceless]

I like the idea of shards, but not their current implementation.  When there were just a few, it was fine, but with so many shards, it's gotten ridiculous.  Shards need to be tied much, much, more strongly to their element (like the water shard, Patience) with so many of them out there.  Sacrifice stacking is impossible to counter.  Can be beaten, yes, but not countered in any way, which is a real problem for many decks - "win buttons" aren't fun.  Focus is yet another permanent control, of which I feel there are too many already - gravity doesn't need it.

Plus, shards need to be a lot more expensive, considering they don't require any specific element.

[yaladilae]

The only shard i like is shard of wisdom, and that can easily be made into an aether card...