/* Note: By "over-powered" I mean something strong enough to deserve a mega nerf, like sundial got. Reducing sog to 3 healing per turn (or even 4) would constitute a mega nerf imo, but if we maybe increased its cost to 3 other, well that wouldn't be nearly as bad. However, in some cases, increasing the cost by 1 WOULD count as a mega nerf, namely quicksand (since it's then unsplashable, which would severely hinder deck building options). */
I don't think anything is OP. I'll explain my reasoning here:
First off, defining an over-powered deck: An over-powered deck is a deck that has solely one or two counters and can destroy any other deck.
The presence of an OP deck results in a pvp skew of using one of three types: the OP deck, its few counters, and other decks that can beat the counters but not the OP deck. AKA, a rock-paper-scissors game where 2/3 of the decks are the same 2-3 decks.
Now let's define an OP card:
1) For a card to be OP, you must be able to create an OP deck USING that card. Reasoning that "well this card is OP but I can't think of a way to capitalize on the OPness" is very wrong.
2) For the corollary of this, to identify an OP card you must identify that most integral and strongest part of this OP deck.
Now, here's my reasoning for none of these cards being OP: THERE IS NO PVP SKEW. In the metagame, which I count as championship league (all upped cards, and everybody is a good deckbuilder), no single deck dominates with only a couple counters.
______________________________________________________________________
Another commonly held belief is that when a card is used in so many different deck archetypes (I'll use sog as an example), it is OP. They sometimes point to the sundial example for this.
I can see similarities between the past situation of sundial and the current situation of shard of gratitude. Both were/are the quintessential stall card, and almost every stall deck involved them. However, this wasn't a function of how overpowered they were, and instead a function of their accessibility: both cost either other or 0 quanta to play (upped). Now, as soon as sundial was nerfed, it was made not as effective except in its own little niche and instead sog stepped up to the plate.
So you may be thinking "okay, but now sog is OP and needs to be nerfed". Which I disagree with. Pre-sundial nerf, if a rush deck didn't have permanent control, it was nearly impossible to out rush a stall deck using sundials, since you could essentially chain sundials due to the card drawing ability (1 sundial = 2 turns without damage taken and 4 cards drawn). Basically the only way to counter it was bring a deck with perm control, bring a deck with quanta control (only earthquake at the time, or pests in some cases), or use another stall deck yourself. However, nowadays, sogs can be countered much easier. It isn't nearly on the same level as sundial was. Rush decks can out rush them because they don't provide card drawing, and can't completely stop a creature's attack. Each sog does, after all, only heal 5 per turn. It's rather easy for a rush deck to do 30 damage per turn, and that's how much the sogs will be healing endgame, when a common rush deck may have 70+ damage out.
Just because sog is used just as much as sundial was doesn't mean it's just as strong.
Another note is that nerfing sog because it's used in so many stall decks nerfs those stall decks as well, which is not a good thing since none of those stall decks are overly powerful.
______________________________________________________________________
Does a card being powerful really constitute OPness? Every game has and needs powerful cards. I won't use any real life examples, because of the differences between RL and online game dissemination (real life, all the OP cards can't be collected up and changed like the online games can). However, a game where all the cards are the same power and one deck isn't stronger than another makes for a boring game. In the metagame where everyone uses strong decks, every single match would be a coin toss. You might as well just use the coin flip at the beginning of the match to determine who wins.
In the game as it is, however, where some decks beat one deck and lose to another but the deck it beats can beat a few different decks and those decks lose to (etc etc), it is full of picking and counter picking and is more mind games than a coin toss. Every good deck *usually* uses a few top tier cards, but that doesn't mean the top tier cards are OP. It means they're powerful.
______________________________________________________________________
One final point is that nerfing some of these cards would result in another card becoming OP, and nerfing that would make another one OP, and so on, setting off a chain reaction of OP ness
.
Example:
1) Black Hole is nerfed.
2) Speed rainbows grow in prominance since they don't need to worry about black hole as much anymore.
3) So because of speed rainbows prominance, supernova is nerfed.
4) When supernova gets nerfed, suddenly decks using quicksand become a whole lot stronger against rainbows since supernova can't counter it as effectively.
5) Quicksand is nerfed due to graboid rush prominance.
6) The absence of the quicksand threat makes some stall decks a lot more powerful, namely decks that use sogs and need a lot of quanta.
7) So then sogs are nerfed due to their sudden strength.
8) And it goes on and on... Until eventually, you're right back where you started and black hole needs another nerf.
______________________________________________________________________
In addition, this poll has inherent flaws.
1) First, we must accept that many of the people voting in this topic may only have 1-3 decks and so can't take an objective look at a card's OPness. They view everything through that filter and compare how every card does against their decks. Maybe all their decks require high quanta usage, so earthquake completely ruins it. While they may not think of all the other decks and archetypes that earthquake can't touch, they automatically assume it's OP. And then go vote for it.
2) Not judging a card by the decks it's used in. I've seen someone say earthquake is OP because it destroys 3 cards for 1. Yes, that seems strong in theory, but in practice, it really isn't due to the abundance of decks that use supernovas or low quanta usage or no/limited pillars. Because the cards it destroys are quanta generators, it may not be able to stop the deck from playing creatures if it is a deck requiring low quanta usage (speed poison or life rush) or even mid quanta usage if the deck is played right. And saying "it destroys 3 cards for 1" isn't entirely accurate. It destroys *up to* 3 *pillars* for 1, which isn't nearly as strong.
3) The name of the topic. Some newbs make look at it and go "okay, so all the cards in here are OP, so now which 3 are the strongest imo? those are the ones i'll vote for!". "Most Overpowered Card" implies that all the cards contained in the topic are OP, but at different levels. Though it says "Which are OP?" at the top of the actual topic, many newbs wouldn't read that. Change it to "[POLL] Which Cards are OP?".
...I think I'm done. *Steps off soapbox*.
Poll
