[Official] Shard of Focus | Shard of Focus

[Atico]

PC are always OP. Earlier it was frustrating for me, when I had 2 HG and GoP/Nightmare deck stole always both. I spent 8 and have nothing. He spent 6 and have 2 HG. Fantastic... Now it is funny for me, that we allow on this. Yesterday I have tested my SoFr. I put 3 on board. Next turn - AI stole all SoFr and his vampire gain critical hit. I spent 9 quantum, he spent 9 quantum - I have nothing, he has got all.

Interferencion on my field should be difficult, nearly impossible. In this game it is too easy. Opponent should blocked my by shields or cards ability, but no by tones of PC or CC. What we have today? I can kill 90% creatures for 1 quantum or delay for 6 turns. I can kill all Yours permaments very easily. I can destroy Your quantum. I can destroy Your counters. And all cost 1-3 quantum. Put Dragon for 10-12 quantum and kill by 1. We have 12 elements and no one didn't get for me defending against opponent CC and PC. I must always playing against CC, PC etc.

But people like this. In 1.31 topic they talk about... next PC, for water. Yes, please give next PC and next CC. Having permaments today is very problematic, after this shard problem is higher. Only Rejuvenation idea shows how PC or CC should work. Not kill/destroy but turning into other skill.

Protect permaments by mark (when they are from the same element as mark) didn't solve this problem, but can help. I am waiting for card "leave me alone" which allow for me playing normal this game.

I didn't want to say that we should have CC and PC in game. Of course we need this. But it should be difficult to use - for example weapons or expensive creatures.

[Alchemist]

 OP cause for 5 quantum and 1 card you get 4 cards (3 deflag + BH). It also makes gravity nymphs and pulverizers UP. Nymph has 1|3, so much easier to kill than 0|15. And pulvy is harder to play than SoF, cause it requires specific quanta to get in game, it ability has cost of 2, and it's a permanent card - so it stands no chance vs SoF. And another PC card got nerfed by SoF - butterfly effect, cause you need at least 7  to destroy 1st permanent, and pay 3  for each other destruction - and no BH.

[OldTrees]

PC are always OP. Earlier it was frustrating for me, when I had 2 HG and GoP/Nightmare deck stole always both. I spent 8 and have nothing. He spent 6 and have 2 HG. Fantastic... Now it is funny for me, that we allow on this.

Control needs to cost less than the thing it removes / mitigates. Otherwise it would be useless. If Explosion cost 4 then Hourglasses would never explode. SoF is too cheap even taking this detail into account.

You believe that interference should be more difficult. I have a more complex view. I see the ideal case being where players have the option to increase speed at the cost of certainty (protection from interference) or to increase certainty at the cost of speed. We need more PC but we also need to add more anti-PC.

[Atico]

PC are always OP. Earlier it was frustrating for me, when I had 2 HG and GoP/Nightmare deck stole always both. I spent 8 and have nothing. He spent 6 and have 2 HG. Fantastic... Now it is funny for me, that we allow on this.

Control needs to cost less than the thing it removes / mitigates. Otherwise it would be useless. If Explosion cost 4 then Hourglasses would never explode. SoF is too cheap even taking this detail into account.

You believe that interference should be more difficult. I have a more complex view. I see the ideal case being where players have the option to increase speed at the cost of certainty (protection from interference) or to increase certainty at the cost of speed. We need more PC but we also need to add more anti-PC.

Sorry, but I can't agree with You. Sometimes PC can be profitable also when it will cost 5, 8 or 10 quantum. Destroying Eternity, DimShield etc often determines result of the game. Cost of playing Eternity or Dim Shield hasn't got any significance to cost PC. It is always worth to destroy it also when Explosion will cost 5 .

So You want PC for all (or for the most) elements. Great. So You want to see situation, when putting shield on a field without protecting = always destroying? More PC = more difficult to use permaments. Sorry, but it is stupid when game force me to playing permaments only in duo - permament+anti PC. I have better idea - remove permaments instead of giving new PC, result is the same but less frustrating

[Mathematistic]

PC are always OP. Earlier it was frustrating for me, when I had 2 HG and GoP/Nightmare deck stole always both. I spent 8 and have nothing. He spent 6 and have 2 HG. Fantastic... Now it is funny for me, that we allow on this.

Control needs to cost less than the thing it removes / mitigates. Otherwise it would be useless. If Explosion cost 4 then Hourglasses would never explode. SoF is too cheap even taking this detail into account.

You believe that interference should be more difficult. I have a more complex view. I see the ideal case being where players have the option to increase speed at the cost of certainty (protection from interference) or to increase certainty at the cost of speed. We need more PC but we also need to add more anti-PC.

Sorry, but I can't agree with You. Sometimes PC can be profitable also when it will cost 5, 8 or 10 quantum. Destroying Eternity, DimShield etc often determines result of the game. Cost of playing Eternity or Dim Shield hasn't got any significance to cost PC. It is always worth to destroy it also when Explosion will cost 5 .

So You want PC for all (or for the most) elements. Great. So You want to see situation, when putting shield on a field without protecting = always destroying? More PC = more difficult to use permaments. Sorry, but it is stupid when game force me to playing permaments only in duo - permament+anti PC. I have better idea - remove permaments instead of giving new PC, result is the same but less frustrating

It is the lack of anti-PC that is the problem.

[Atico]

Yes, it is ALSO problem, but I don't want to have situation when I MUST use anti-PC to use shield or other permament. When all of us can have PC (SoF and other cards) then in each game I can lose my permament. It is incredibly bad.

PC and CC should be rare. PC maybe very rare. PC and CC should be difficult to use - only by weapons, maybe shields, big creatures. Cards like Lighting, Explosion, Steal, Rewind, Quicksand (!!), BlackHole should be never in this game! I know that now it is impossible to do because a lot of players will be protesting. Simple raising cost of Explosion make frustration in "fire fans" but they know that Explosion for 4 will be still powerful and useful card.

CC from Eternity, EE, Lobo, Skull Buckler - good and acceptable.
PC from Trident, Pulvy - good and acceptable.

CC and PC from easy to play cards (1-3 quantum cost) are bad and this destroy game. Maybe in Elements 2.0 we will see more tactic, less destroying...

[BluePriest]

Currently in trainer.
....
Shard of focus HP reduced to 1
Shard of focus turns into a black hole when HP>45
Upgraded shard of focus cost increased to 6
Upgraded shard of focus generates upgraded black holes

Bug fix:
....
- Shard of focus turns into a black hole only when the accretion skill is activated
....

[OldTrees]

PC are always OP. Earlier it was frustrating for me, when I had 2 HG and GoP/Nightmare deck stole always both. I spent 8 and have nothing. He spent 6 and have 2 HG. Fantastic... Now it is funny for me, that we allow on this.

Control needs to cost less than the thing it removes / mitigates. Otherwise it would be useless. If Explosion cost 4 then Hourglasses would never explode. SoF is too cheap even taking this detail into account.

You believe that interference should be more difficult. I have a more complex view. I see the ideal case being where players have the option to increase speed at the cost of certainty (protection from interference) or to increase certainty at the cost of speed. We need more PC but we also need to add more anti-PC.

Sorry, but I can't agree with You. Sometimes PC can be profitable also when it will cost 5, 8 or 10 quantum. Destroying Eternity, DimShield etc often determines result of the game. Cost of playing Eternity or Dim Shield hasn't got any significance to cost PC. It is always worth to destroy it also when Explosion will cost 5 .

So You want PC for all (or for the most) elements. Great. So You want to see situation, when putting shield on a field without protecting = always destroying? More PC = more difficult to use permaments. Sorry, but it is stupid when game force me to playing permaments only in duo - permament+anti PC. I have better idea - remove permaments instead of giving new PC, result is the same but less frustrating

If Deflag cost more than DimShield, people would play DimShield to counter DimShield rather than play Deflag to counter DimShield. Replace DimShield with the permanent of your choice.
People do not Lightning Bolt Damselflys.

I favor soft PC (non removal) over hard PC (removal). I doubt you would be so frustrated about a card that delayed target single permanent for 1 turn for 1-2  .

I also favor the existence of anti-PC (in all elements). This lets players choose how risky they want their deck to be.

I think your prediction is inaccurate. Consider the relationship of Creatures, CC and anti CC. Creatures are still played and players enjoy the freedom to choose how much risk to take. This choice is part of strategy. It may not be tactics but it is close.

[Atico]

When they play mono-duo fire or darkness they haven't got any choose between Explosion or DimShield. They can ONLY use explosion. And paying 4-5 for Explosion will be still worthy deal. In my one FGdeck I pay 7 quantum for one use of PC and it was big deal for me (Butterfly Effect).
Very easy test - Add for Life card like Explosion which will cost 4 . I guarantee that it wouldn't be underused card.

I know that today I can't choose between "less and difficult PC" or "more anti PC". Zanz can't throw out few cards so I must support option "more anti PC". And I give easy change - Mark determines protecting permaments. Good change, maybe few cards needs nerf (like DimShield) but overall I like this concept. Giving new cards of course also help, but it is difficult to win game using only defending (protecting) cards. I have only 30 cards in deck, about 10 are Pillars. Packing anti PC, anti CC didn't solve a problem. The best example is with Sanctuary. This card is fine, but it didn't protect as should. It is really stupid when deck which Sanctuary counter can steal or destroy it

Maybe it will be good change (as rewards in Trails) to giving Sanctuary at the start (as bonus) for Player which use Light Mark. Of course other elements should give other bonus - like Time and extra draw or seeing next five cards, Life and +20 HP etc. There are a lot of ideas how solve this problem. Adding next ProtectArtifact is the worst way.

[Laxadarap]

When they play mono-duo fire or darkness they haven't got any choose between Explosion or DimShield. They can ONLY use explosion. And paying 4-5 for Explosion will be still worthy deal. In my one FGdeck I pay 7 quantum for one use of PC and it was big deal for me (Butterfly Effect).Very easy test - Add for Life card like Explosion which will cost 4 . I guarantee that it wouldn't be underused card.

I know that today I can't choose between "less and difficult PC" or "more anti PC". Zanz can't throw out few cards so I must support option "more anti PC". And I give easy change - Mark determines protecting permaments. Good change, maybe few cards needs nerf (like DimShield) but overall I like this concept. Giving new cards of course also help, but it is difficult to win game using only defending (protecting) cards. I have only 30 cards in deck, about 10 are Pillars. Packing anti PC, anti CC didn't solve a problem. The best example is with Sanctuary. This card is fine, but it didn't protect as should. It is really stupid when deck which Sanctuary counter can steal or destroy it

Maybe it will be good change (as rewards in Trails) to giving Sanctuary at the start (as bonus) for Player which use Light Mark. Of course other elements should give other bonus - like Time and extra draw or seeing next five cards, Life and +20 HP etc. There are a lot of ideas how solve this problem. Adding next ProtectArtifact is the worst way.

Ok, what your saying here is that PC would be basically eliminated in rainbows.  The only efficient fix would be SoF, which goes great in rainbows, yet you are complaining about this as well.  Should rainbows just be unable to deal with any permanents?

[Atico]

@Laxadarap - I can reserve this question and ask - Why today rainbows must have easy way to PC? Explosion, Steal, SoF and more...
Yes, PC should be difficult to use, especially for rainbows. Rainbow decks has got too much advantages, they didn't need "easy PC". Life, Air, Time hasn't got PC, so technically there is no problem to disable PC for rainbows.

What is more - Steal in mono darkness maybe isn't the biggest problem in game as Steal in rainbow deck. When mono darkness steal Hourglasses or Mindgate then both players can't use it. But when rainbow use Steal...

It is very difficult discussion, but necessary. There are too much destroying cards in game. Few elements has got PC and CC (like Fire), Life has got nothing. And here is a question - add PC/CC for Life or throw out PC/CC from Fire. All Players know that Zanz didn't throw Explosion, so they want to see PC for Life, Water to balance the game. I suggest third way to solve this conflict - making PC and CC harder to use. How? Raise the cost, protect by Marks or other concept.

OldTrees mention about taking risk by Players. OK, I accept this sentence and I give next reason for "buff" marks - Player should choose level of risk when he choose mark. Light, Life, Air should protect me against destroy tactics. Fire, Darkness should promote destroying but gives more risk.
You want to use PC? There is no problem, choose Fire mark, but opponent can also use it.
You didn't want to play against PC? There is no problem - use Life Mark. You can't use PC and opponent also.
You didn't want to play against thousands of BlackHoles, Pests or Quicksands? Choose Light.
You didn't want to see tones of CC? Choose Air
You want to draw cards faster/or see next 5 cards? Choose Time
etc.

[Laxadarap]

@Laxadarap - I can reserve this question and ask - Why today rainbows must have easy way to PC? Explosion, Steal, SoF and more...
Yes, PC should be difficult to use, especially for rainbows. Rainbow decks has got too much advantages, they didn't need "easy PC". Life, Air, Time hasn't got PC, so technically there is no problem to disable PC for rainbows.

What is more - Steal in mono darkness maybe isn't the biggest problem in game as Steal in rainbow deck. When mono darkness steal Hourglasses or Mindgate then both players can't use it. But when rainbow use Steal...

It is very difficult discussion, but necessary. There are too much destroying cards in game. Few elements has got PC and CC (like Fire), Life has got nothing. And here is a question - add PC/CC for Life or throw out PC/CC from Fire. All Players know that Zanz didn't throw Explosion, so they want to see PC for Life, Water to balance the game. I suggest third way to solve this conflict - making PC and CC harder to use. How? Raise the cost, protect by Marks or other concept.

OldTrees mention about taking risk by Players. OK, I accept this sentence and I give next reason for "buff" marks - Player should choose level of risk when he choose mark. Light, Life, Air should protect me against destroy tactics. Fire, Darkness should promote destroying but gives more risk.
You want to use PC? There is no problem, choose Fire mark but opponent can also use it.
You didn't want to play against PC? There is no problem - use Life Mark. You can't use PC and opponent also.
You didn't want to play against thousands of BlackHoles, Pests or Quicksands? Choose Light.
You didn't want to see tones of CC? Choose Air
You want to draw cards faster/or see next 5 cards? Choose Time
etc.

First of all, rainbows need PC because the ones that can't afford are rushers.  If say a phase shield is drawn, and they have no cc, they automatically lose 3 turns.  3 turns is more than enough for a game to end, and rushes lose all their advantages.  That is 1 permanent to dissamble an entire strategy.

As to your idea of buff marks, it completely disregards protect artifact.  In many decks, like padimmshields, an earth mark is required for PA.  If you add in these buff marks, you could make one of these with shockwave, immortal creatures, immortal shield, 12 cc.  Not quite OP, but a bit hard to defeat. 

Another point is that I know a few experienced players who feel that the game is too permanent based, this would make it even more so.  Some of the most annoying decks for bronze farmers are aetherstalls, mostly because people farming use speedbows/immorushes.  When you make it even harder to pack in PC, its a major problem.

In rainbows PC cards are balanced.  Most plan on having 1 or 2 cards from each element, and our current PC (many rainbows don't use weak enough creatures for BE),  is fire (which you have to sacrifice destroyers or MP for) or darkness (many people use steals anyway, but you lose gargoyles).  There is only 3 elements in the game with PC (not counting pulvy).  And now add in rainbows w/ SoF (I don't feel sof is effective in other elements, costs too much).  We don't really need more anti-cc imo.