What should we do next?

[OldTrees]

Post your ideas for what we should do next here.

[moomoose]

well, we know that zanz is looking into shard ideas, maybe we could weed through existing cards in levels 0-3 which could be made into shards, or come up with more shard ideas after the submission phase of the competition is over, or something of the sort.

[OldTrees]

I think that you guys should create a "Joint Card Set" Idea-Factory-recognized competition, where players create 2-5 cards that not only flawlessly provide balance with themselves but individually provide a least a little bit of synergy with existing cards. This is because everyone yells and balances about how an individual card idea fits into the rigid meta-game we have now, but some existing cards just screw up the meta-game big time when removed, such as the existence of Deflagration and Steal keeping SoG, Dimensional Shield, and other nasty permanents from being OP. We can't expect to find true ingenuity by just branching out from Old Trees, true ingenuity comes from planting a new one.

[majofa]

I'd like to delve farther into the 'Mirror' quanta concept. We know that zanz is against creating a whole new element, however, this gets around that. The cards would be listed in the 'Other' section and wouldn't be incredibly hard to balance like all those cards that use quanta. It would be use quanta of your MARK.

We don't have to get to elaborate into it.. just show a few cards that demonstrate that it can be a viable option.

[The_Mormegil]

I'm also with moomoose for the Shards idea.

[ZephyrPhantom]

I'm also with moomoose for the Shards idea.

Agreed with doing something Shard-related as well. We should try to help select the 8 shards that would be the best to put in the game, as well as seeing that changes occur to the current Shards that keep them useful and balanced.

[ZephyrPhantom]

Apologies for double post, but :

[14:42:06] TimerClock14: Hey Zblader. I haz a proposal for you. :3
[14:43:35] TimerClock14: I was just looking over the "what should we do next" topic in the idea factory.
[14:44:25] TimerClock14: Even though you guys look like you've decided on doing shard-related stuff next, I wanna suggest another idea: Defining the metagame.

[OldTrees]

Apologies for double post, but :No need to apologize for reasonable double posting in the IF.

[14:42:06] TimerClock14: Hey Zblader. I haz a proposal for you. :3
[14:43:35] TimerClock14: I was just looking over the "what should we do next" topic in the idea factory.
[14:44:25] TimerClock14: Even though you guys look like you've decided on doing shard-related stuff next, I wanna suggest another idea: Defining the metagame.

Definition: The Metagame is the set of decks able to compete with reasonable chances in pvp given the current rules of the game. The larger and more diverse the Metagame, the more players will enjoy the game for longer. Hence OP cards shrink the Metagame and UP cards fail to increase the Metagame.

Can this be expanded and/or dumbed down enough to deserve a separate thread?

[majofa]

There are many different tournaments with a variety of rules and restrictions. If we want to describe the Metagame, then we need to separate it into different categories: WAR, pvp1, pvp2, and others.

[OldTrees]

Another thing to consider about the metagame description:
Perhaps we should have a more qualified group work on such a description? I personally do not play enough pvp to be an authority on the manner any deeper than in a theoretical sense.

[The_Mormegil]

Another thing to consider about the metagame description:
Perhaps we should have a more qualified group work on such a description? I personally do not play enough pvp to be an authority on the manner any deeper than in a theoretical sense.

It might be appropriate, and possibly one of the best things to happen in this forum, IMO. I would LOVE to have a group of qualified PvPers and veterans of the game that cooperate on a massive work to define in practical terms "The Metagame". What works, what doesn't, why. Not only the best working decks, but also relations between them, like "Pandebonium is a very good deck because it destroys rushes. This rush here works against Pandebonium. These decks counter it. Pandebonium variations might include etc. etc." or "Unupped Gravity cannot rush because of this and this. The best you can obtain with unupped gravity is this and it is not competitive for this and this reason".

In fact, I think we could work briefly on a theoretical template then form a "Commission", finding intrested players and recruiting them temporarily for this project, to fill the Template and work towards a good definition of the Metagame. Then Deck Helpers (or somebody else, like, I don't know, a new Metagame Manager) will comment on successful new decks and update the Metagame Template accordingly.

Actually, I love this idea.  8)

[moomoose]

yeah, i dont pvp at all.  the only contribution i could make to such a thread would be posting the first post posing the question "what is the metagame?", after that ive got nothing.