And just because there is a way to counter a card does not mean it is fair and balanced
You're completely right. However...
I'm talking about multiple counters. Like at least three ARCHETYPES (not just decks. archetypes.)
And the presence if a MULTITUDE of counters does indeed mean it is fair and balanced.
So... How many counters are there to say quint? There's spell, two creatures that give quints, and several with built-in immortality.
Counters are shields, and only shields. Thorn Carapace being the only really effective counter to actually kill the creature. Fireshield is too slow, gets you killed probably anyway, Permafrost only works IF RNG likes you to stall long enough, and IF creatures attack is higher than barrier. Counter to those shields are again perma control and momentum.
Counter to quinted momentumed creature doesnt exist.
Also, its not Oty that was ever OP, its quinted Oty.
Now, how many decks/archetypes actually use Carapace?
Finally, why is
so important for Fake Gods, cheating decks? It is because cards like Quint and Fractal are there. You call them "powerful", I call them "too powerful". They are, by your definition, integral and strongest part of decks that can actually beat AI that draws 2 cards, and has triple the mark quanta generator. Rol/Hope deck is not great because of Hope, its because of fractal. Rainbow FG decks are not great because of whatever, its because of Quint, Supernova (by far strongest quanta generator in the game), and finally best stalling cards - SoGs. All 3 cards are way more powerful than other cards in those decks.
Now, if those cards get a nerf, grinding FGs would be near impossible, and in all honesty, I dont even care if those are nerfed. On the other hand, I would LOVE to see a real, direct counter to quint. If there is a way to make ANY mortal creature immortal, there damn sure has to be a way to make them mortal again short of hoping your shield kills them.
Now, there is no "I-WIN" card in Elements, and thats good. But calling everything balanced because of it is naive and boringly passive way on looking at things.
Fog shield gives 40% miss for 1 quanta, Dusk gives 50% for 4 quanta. How is that balanced? Is it because
sucks and
doesnt?
Steal got nerfed by upping cost by 1 quanta? Steal destroys your opponents permanent AND gives it to you. Insanely cheap.
Explosion costs 1 quanta? 1 quanta you can use right after you place your tower to destroy something called "permanent"? Gay. Sole reason why Fake Gods with that card are a nightmare. Sure, I'll wait that 7 quanta to play my Permafrost/Carapace... oh wait, boom.
Finally, there's something called Protect Artifact; really cheap spell. Except actual card spot in your deck is worth a lot more than couple of quanta. And when packing Explosion is very well justified, packing 2 cards per permanent and hoping to draw both is not.
Basically, "hard control" (destruction) of permanents is way too cheap in this game, and when faced against deck that has those, your only hope is that your deck does not rely on permanents. THAT is not a counter. That is something you have to hope you guessed right.
Actually it is complete opposite of that.
At current metagame, winner is often decided before the match. Who managed to blindly pick a "perfect counter". THAT is boring.
Finally, balance of cards does not mean all decks are completely equal.
Blindly? There's nothing blindly about it. I know some people have spread sheets (I don't) of every championship league match they've played to discover tendencies, such as Terro trends towards speed rainbow in the first match and then goes to fire stall (I have no clue if this is accurate). Or you use mindgames on your opponent to make them think something, like one time maybe taking a long time to switch decks and never actually switching. Or very loudly stating "lemme have a minute to switch" and take a long time, and then actually switch hoping they'll assume you're bluffing.
As I said, blind rock-paper-scissors. I think Demagog? or someone, numerate their decks and let you pick a number before a match. Now, if deck A counters deck B, it doesnt really matter if your deck is actually optimized better for draws/quanta usage, it doesnt matter HOW you play your cards, your deck is countered before match begun by a blind number picking and the game is decided. That is a boring metagame for me. Part of that showed in the war too. And in the war, you actually had a decent idea of what you'll be facing.
If the cards would be more balanced among themselves, optimizing decks and actual card playing skill would become much more important.
Maybe, that's where micro nerfs come in. Currently macro nerfs aren't anywhere close to being needed.
And currently, actual card playing needs no almost no skill at all. The skill is in the deck building. In fact, in some ways, things such as quicksands prowess or supernova's power results in the only skill needed (play 1 tower at a time against earth decks, black holing at the right time, etc). Otherwise playing the cards is largely skill-less.
Nerfing some cards like sog or quicksand (well, nerfing them in a large way) would greatly reduce the possible deck choices. And I'm not even talking about hugely competitive decks. I'm talking about niche decks that are just for fun or can compete but not at a high level (things like pharaohs for instance).
No one here is discussing magnitude of possible nerfs. No one here is even discussing nerfs. People here are discussing balance. Zanzarino is the one that should consider nerfs.
Also, making cards more balanced among themselves, will not reduce possible deck choices, it will actually give you MORE possible deck choices. It is the only logical thing to conclude, as more cards will be "viable". If you DONT have to pick Fractal/Quint/SoG to fight Fake Gods, then you'll have more options in building deck. There are shitload of decks that are just not good enough because they are not as fast as Shrieker/Immo/Supernova decks. Say we live in a crazy crazy world where most powerful cards actually get nerfed to be more in line with other cards. Would that give you less building options or more building options?
Finally, balance of cards does not mean all decks are completely equal.
Of course not. It means that in the metagame when all decks are optimized, or even for beginners who just get optimized decks off the forum, the decks WOULD be equal.
And if you're saying that some cards still counter other cards, well, why change anything save for a few minor cost adjustments? Since that's how it is right now, after all.
No, wrong logic. Balance does not mean equal decks. Yes, I'm saying some cards still counter other cards. Why NOT change something if it will give more versatile and interesting gameplay? Why being content with some card stats that are actually pretty arbitrary, without any real and serious testing of their actual influence on the gameplay? Testing phase in trainer serves just to see if those cards are broken or not. If not, they are implemented. That is all balancing this game has.
Game
works as it is. However, it IS possible to make it better. Having cards that are completely unusable in competitive play, or cards that are a must in competitive play is... 1) waste of cards, 2) boring as hell.
Poll
