Tiers

[Pineapple]

No matter how you view it, not judging elements as a whole is relative at best and a huge mistake at worse. is not just Antlions; it is Graboid/Shriekers too. is not just Mercenaries; it is Black Hole too. Certain cards within an element are imbalanced but not the element as a whole. Restricted environment is wrong too, because elements don't have exact the same number of cards in the first place and, moreover, not every card is versatile enough to be used in every deck.
 Unrestricted enviroments are best to consider balancing imho.

You're advocating for judging elements as a whole, right?

Unrestricted environments are best to consider balancing cards but we're talking about elements, not individual cards. Furthermore, in an unrestricted environment rainbows, aether, death, fire, and entropy have the most answers to threats while gravity and water have the least.

[ARTHANASIOS]

Furthermore, in an unrestricted environment rainbows, aether, death, fire, and entropy have the most answers to threats while gravity and water have the least.

Rainbow is very RNG-based; it can counter a deck or not even harming it at all. Aether, Death, Fire, Entropy have great powers but great weaknesses too. Same goes with the rest of the elements.
Counters need two things to work; to have them in your deck and to draw them at the right moment. The most answers to threats a deck has (eg. rainbows) the less reliable to draw them at the right moment are. You can't have everything in this game. You counter something hard and you're countered hard by something else; you counter something 'softly', you're countered 'softly' by something else.
Anyway, we can keep this discussion forever, but I really doubt I will change my mind. Also, I don't think a relatively new member can convience ETG elders, like Higs or Pineapple, about adopting his point of view. Because of this, I am unwilling to continue this discussion.

[deidmann]

Furthermore, in an unrestricted environment rainbows, aether, death, fire, and entropy have the most answers to threats while gravity and water have the least.

Rainbow is very RNG-based; it can counter a deck or not even harming it at all. Aether, Death, Fire, Entropy have great powers but great weaknesses too. Same goes with the rest of the elements.
Counters need two things to work; to have them in your deck and to draw them at the right moment. The most answers to threats a deck has (eg. rainbows) the less reliable to draw them at the right moment are. You can't have everything in this game. You counter something hard and you're countered hard by something else; you counter something 'softly', you're countered 'softly' by something else.
Anyway, we can keep this discussion forever, but I really doubt I will change my mind. Also, I don't think a relatively new member can convience ETG elders, like Higs or Pineapple, about adopting his point of view. Because of this, I am unwilling to continue this discussion.

Whoa, buddy. I have no intention of making you or any other important member think as I do. What I say is merely my opinion, whether its logical or not. I don't hold grudges to disagreers.
And why shouldn't we keep discussions? This is a forum , right? To discuss things?
Why is "restriction" the prefered way of keeping powerful cards in check? Why not make all cards powerful in their own, but hopefully not niche, ways.

[ARTHANASIOS]

Lol, I wasn't meant to insult anyone either. But anyway, I don't feel like continuing this discussion, for now at least...