Card Usage Statistics

[Lex]

I do agree with Essence, Jumbalumba and plastiqe.

If zanzarino is going to nerf quantum towers he should not "adjust" cost of firefly queen and hourglasses as they are on top only because being an important part of rainbow deck.

As former player of many TCGs, one of the problems I see in Elements is not a big set of cards to choose from. Standard basic edition/set of any TCG has 250-350 cards in just a few "colors" - that gives ~40-50+ different cards per "color" - it is much easier to make mono decks.

At the current state, rainbow deck just has the best options, and "best" = "many". Mono decks are just much less viable just because they are lacking of cards to spread their wings.

[Xinef]

I have to also agree with Essence, Jumbalumba, plastique and Lex.

First of all nerfing quantum pillars would be against the rule SIMPLE=BETTER... I guess new players would be confused with quantum pillars like they are with adrenaline
And quantum pillars are not overpowered. Rainbows are popular not because of the power of quantum pillars. They are popular because defeating false gods needs the strengths of all elements. And changing quantum pillars will not change that, so it will be harder to win with a rainbow, but still necessary to use a rainbow, because nothing else works against most false gods.
If every time you fight a false god you would know which one you will fight, mono/duo/trio decks would be used against false gods... in fact I guess mostly duo decks. But the fact that most of the time you don't know which FG you will face means you either need an universal deck (and only rainbows are universal), or you need to forfeit some games while easily winning against other (which is probably more boring than fighting a close match agaist every FG).

So I think the only solution to make non-rainbow decks more popular is to make more cards that work well in mono/duo but poorly in rainbows (due to high cost, or preferably due to synergies). And generally every element should have some form of creature control, permanent control, healing etc... or a way to work well without these against FG.

[Clathius]

Rainbow decks are at their weakest early in the game before they have the quantum to play much.   Reducing quantum generation would hit Rainbow decks the hardest when they are the most weak.

Increasing the casting cost of hourglasses and other rainbow deck cards, which are most needed early in the game, is again a huge nerf to rainbows.

It is interesting that the reflex is to nerf popular cards.  The cards are popular because there is essentially one deck type that is useful for FG.   IMO the mindset should be:  why is this the only deck type that works for FG and what should be done about that?   The answer of course is because only that deck type can counter the advantages of the FG:  card draw and quantum generation.   My FG deck has 1 offensive card and rest is towers or defense/control. 

If you want more variety in decks, you need more variety in FG "rules".   Because of the different rules for FG, in relation to player decks, they are all essentially rush decks.    For example, it is impossible for a player to make a rush deck that can do 2-1 damage against an opponent with a card draw and quantum advantage.

>>>It is not the cards that are creating the rainbow monopoly, but the special FG rules. 

[jmizzle7]

I don't think FFQ should get a nerf. Maybe Quantum Pillars at 2.5 would be good, with QTs still adding 3 when they enter play.

[icybraker]

50 % chance of generating 2 rather than 3 quanta.

Towers generate 3 random quanta once they are played, but still have a 50 % chance of normally generating 2 rather than 3 quanta.

This sounds like a fair compromise for me.

[Essence]

I honestly agree with Xinef regarding Quantum Towers.  The only times you really see them played are in FG decks or the rare Speed Rainbow in PvP.  To mitigate the popularity of Rainbows, the FG rules that force rainbows into focus ought to be reexamined.   Without FGs, Rainbows would be no more popular -- and quite possibly less so -- than Graboid Rush, Pest/Dragon, and the other popular mono speed decks.

[dustnapyle]

great job on all of these stats, even though some of them were pretty predictable.  Keep up the good work
 

[Laxaria]

In all my understanding of balancing content in the game, it has less to do with making particular strong cards weaker, but making them weaker comparatively. You don't need to nerf Hourglasses or Quantam Towers if you can make alternative cards that are just as capable or slightly more useful. Like, instead of using Hourglasses to draw, I could have a water creature that let's me draw a card with water quanta. I completely new way of playing and mitigates the effective "rarity" of card drawing only being in the Time element.

I pretty much agree with what Essence and the others have said. It is not about nerfing particular cards or strengthening particular ones, but to increase synergy inside the own unique Element. For example, with the exception of Ball Lightning, how does Fractal synergise with Aether? Light as an element will have greater synergy now that Light Nymph and RoL work well with Hope. The nature of some cards (FFQ, Sundials, Pulverizer, etc) means you need 2 elements to use it effectively. The Rainbow deck capitalises on the fact that 2 or more elements are needed to utilise the cards that synergise the strongest. Nerfing any of the standard requirements of the rainbow will see some of us using the Nmphomania deck or mono-aether.

In effect, the best way to reduce the usage of particular cards is to let different cards be used in the same effect. Of course, much of your problem as a developer, zanz, is that you need to balance the level of high and low content. While many of us are farming False Gods day in and day out, you still have to cater to those who are starting the game or are still on AI3. IMHO, it should be fairly noted that balancing is not about making cards stronger or weaker, but making them perceivedly stronger or weaker against other cards.

[Xinef]

I think that it is good that some abilities like drawing additional cards, mutation, on-creature-death effects etc. are available only to a single element. That is in fact what distinguishes elements.

But it would be great if different elements had different ways to achieve similar effects. For example instead of giving a card-drawing creature as Laxaria suggested, why not give it a creature that allows you to rearrange the top 3 (top 5 when upgraded) cards of your deck? It would serve a similar purpose - allowing you to draw that particular card you need right now, but would make it somewhat different from what does.

[Ashebrethafe]

Rainbow decks are at their weakest early in the game before they have the quantum to play much.   Reducing quantum generation would hit Rainbow decks the hardest when they are the most weak.

Increasing the casting cost of hourglasses and other rainbow deck cards, which are most needed early in the game, is again a huge nerf to rainbows.

How about a progressive nerf to the quantum pillars/towers? For example, they could still produce 3 random quanta per turn, but as the total number of quanta a player has exceeds X, Y, and Z, start consuming a random quantum as well -- so that overall quantum production per turn can drop to one (mark's), but the chance of playing (or activating) any specific card never drops to zero.

If the quanta to be consumed are selected randomly from all the quanta the player has (as opposed to all the types of quanta the player has), then such towers would also tend to decrease the difference between the number of quanta of each type. I don't know if this is how "other" cards and Discord's ability currently work (is this information available elsewhere on the forum?)

On a complete tangent, I think I was responsible for a handful of those 1000 draws of unupped Shards of Gratitude, with my terrible original deck that happened to win one from a top50 deck (which I have now deleted). More, if you counted me as drawing the Shard again each time I played it -- when I happened to win with it in my hand, I would completely drain my quantum pool before finishing my turn.

[plastiqe]

Let me preface this by saying that I don't play FG's anymore, and also I was out drinking tonight since it's St. Patricks Day.

The problem with rainbows is that because of the way FG's are set up they're basically the only viable PvE deck that can take on all of them.  Mono decks might be able to take one one or two FG's, but they'll never be versatile enought to beat them all... and no mono deck should be able to do that.  Nerfing popular rainbow cards is certanly an option, and in my opinion cards like Hourglass (1 to draw a card) is rediculously overpowered.  But really, if you want there to be other options in fighting the False Gods there needs to be more quantum sources.  I'm talking about some kind of dual or trio pillar that enables duo and trio decks.

If you had the baseline source of quantum available for these types of decks, then you can start balancing cards around combining only a few elements.  Until then, every existing card and every new card made has to be balanced around it's possible inclusion in a rainbow deck.

[orgolove]

Do you really want a solution?


I suggest REMOVING the quantum pillars.

In a game with 12 different mana types, being able to play every mana type every game is pure ridiculous.

I suggest adding "triple" lands that can only be put in at max 6, like the normal limit. What do I mean? Add a set of lands that add two mana of a combination of three different mana types.

i.e. An example:
Pillar of Earthly Delight
randomly add one of the following: Earth and Life, or Earth and Gravity, or Life and Gravity.

The biggest failure, in my opinion, is letting the Quantum pillar be a "land" type. If you had limited it to 6 per deck, just like any other cards, you would have a lot more variety.