Why we shouldn't be trying to nerf or counter Rainbows.

[Lanidrak]

This is a good post, karma+ SG.

I've noticed it too, a lot of people are simply just adding 'anti-rainbow' or 'ideas for mono-gravity' etc.

On top of understanding the basic principle of effective deckbuilding (Diversity vs Efficiency) - it will help to take a step back and notice the simple cards in the game which have really powerful abilities. The first step of this is to realize that Creatures with Abilities are powerful.

You are limited to 6 cards in a deck, but a creature with an ability can use it as much as it likes.

So, Otyugh's Devour, an instant kill spell; Maxwells Paradox, another instant kill; and my favorite of all Fallen Druids's Improved Mutate, which gives you the ability to turn a random critter into a 1) better creature and 2) with an ability.

So, that's Gravity, Entropy and Life - for Devour, Paradox and Mutate respectively. But even then, there is a high chance that your Mutations are going to be one of the 9/12 elements you cannot use. So, a logically progression from a Trio deck (Gravity, Entropy, Life) would be to use Rainbow. Then, moving on from this, it is logical also, since Maxwell's, Otyugh and Druid don't cost very much, to expand your rainbow deck using other low cost cards... Quintessence, Plate Armour, Firestorm etc... Are all very handy cards to have in a deck.

Okay okay, so I've pretty much repeated what has been said before. But, admittedly I didn't read everything so don't shoot me!

What I'm getting at is, we need to either:

1) Vastly increase the cost of certain creatures/creature abilities

2) Give certain elements really high cost creatures with awesome element specific abilities.

Imagine if each and every Dragon had an ability which was just amazing? Typically a Dragon doesn't make its way into a rainbow deck - because they generally cost more than 10 quanta. How about if we say you can only use a Dragons ability if it is your mark.

This is pretty much what the Nymphs are. But, there is nothing really stopping a Rainbow player from successfully including them into his or her deck.

[ScytherLoL]

Good idea Lanidrak. You could operate your dragons in a similar way to the Hammer which deals one extra damage if you have an Earth or Gravity Mark.

This way a Dragon could cost 10 to play still but unless you have the Mark for the dragon it would only do say 8/4 rather than 10/4 or something like that.

I suppose it doesn't make a huge amount of sense as a Rainbow would just choose the mark to suit its dragons but would be a start.

I would say that the same coding could be used to establish the abilities as well as it is dependent already on your mark but not too sure how that would work.

Thanks

Scyther

[xdude]

Actually Nymphs won't really fit in rainbows because they're expensive and also have very expensive abilities.

[ScytherLoL]

Yeah I would say the Nymphs would struggle in a Rainbow, the only way to really pull them would be to have Water Mark and go for the Tears but even that costs too much.

Still this is a great idea in formation and hope it comes to fruitition.

Scyther

[skp]

I don't think that every element should eventually be able to do everything.  That blurs the line between the elements too much that there isn't much individuality between them.

If you really want to encourage duo/trio decks and/or less rainbows, I think implementing either one or both of these would help a lot:

1. add the MtG equivalent of multilands and/or easier access to quanta -- a pillar card which in some way provides more than one type of quanta, whether that be providing alternate quanta each turn (ie alternating between time/aether), providing more than one quanta each turn (probably too powerful), allowing easy conversion between colors (ie provides 1 death quanta, once per turn spend 1 death quanta to gain 1 life quanta), etc

2. add a new mechanic to decrease the cost of a card if one or more pillars are in play.  For example, change explosion to cost 4 fire quanta, but add in the mechanic: explosion costs 1 less fire quanta for each burning tower or burning pillar in play, maximum 3 quanta reduction.  This makes spashing cards much less useful.  Another similar mechanic would be to reduce the casting cost of a card by the number of permanents of that color in play, instead of just restricting it to pillars/towers.

[ScytherLoL]

Hmm interesting idea on the pillars I suppose that the quantum pillar is designed to fill that gap at the moment but may need some tweaking (it has been discussed lowering it to only 2 random quanta).

I don't think we should have every element be able to everything and am not suggesting that just a change to the way each one does it, at the moment each deck has it's own weakness as a mono which is great, the idea here is to make it less palatable to have a rainbow deck and more viable to go mono.

I would say that card cost reduction through pillars would make it too easy to mass cast spells and maybe using the same mechanic as Farenheit in reverse (ie card cost (3-X)+2 where X is the number of quanta you have divided by 5)

But great ideas and just to note we try to avoid mention of that card game here although it is proably the leading game currently we hope some day to surpass it.

Yours

Scyther

[skp]

I don't see why it would be wise to ignore other games in the same genre.  If World of Warcraft hadn't looked at Everquest to see what worked and what didn't work, I think WoW would have been a much less successful game.  Similarly, it is quite rare to find a game that is truly unique and would not become a stronger game by looking at what works and doesn't work in similar games.

With that said, I think the quanta design by itself differentiates Elements enough that no one should have to worry about becoming a copy cat of any game that I know of.

[ScytherLoL]

I'm not saying ognore the game by any means as it has some great engines that we could use in time and development after consideration.

We all look at oter games and see what works and what doesn;t and then try and bring it here just most of us don't say where we got it form is all.

Still you have some good plans and ideas and I look forward to hearing more from you.

Yours

Scyther

[Glitch]

I don't think that every element should eventually be able to do everything.  That blurs the line between the elements too much that there isn't much individuality between them.

Ah, but some things are needed in all decks. Fire has no healing and no defense, so if you're someone like me who likes those things, you're going to duo it.

And take Earth.  It's "thing" is burrow, which is like a worse version of Aether's immortals.  It's going to need to borrow some of the other 12 concepts to survive.

And water.  What's it's "thing"?  Poison?  Lobotomize?

In a perfect world, every single duo will be possible.  And for that to happen, elements will need to have more overlap if they're cards are ever going to build off of each other like they could.

[ScytherLoL]

Yes Glitch once again you hit it on the mark, we need to have more synergy and cross over not only within the element itself but also with others. Some of the obvious cross overs are already covered but why not have more and develop other cards that are specific to working within a duo deck even.

Thanks

Scyther

[Glitch]

Which is why I'm trying to compile a master list of the synergies we already have.

[ScytherLoL]

Oh awesome + Karma for your effort

Thanks

Scyther