Quite surprised no one else thought of this. I completely agree. Balancing should be based on player against player aspects, instead of player against computer, since it really doesn't matter how we play against the computer, anyways.
There is just one problem with that. To get an upgraded deck (you NEED one if you don't want to lose games due to weaker cards), you have to play the computer, and you have to play A LOT. Like for a week or two or even more, depending on how much you play and how good you are. If gameplay against computer is not balanced and getting that pvp deck is too hard....that is a great problem as that is the part the players will see first.
I've played a lot, and already have a score of 40998, but I'm yet to play my first PVP game because I'm still upgrading cards for the PVP deck. All my electrum so far went to the anti false-god deck. If people need to spend 2-3 weeks grinding against the computer before they stand a fair chance for PVP...then balance against the computer matters.
Of course this could be fixed by matching players from a similar score range against each other, and making PVP earn you a good income of cards (including upgraded cards if the opponent plays those), but it doesn't work that way now.
Though I guess they need to draw 2 cards each turn, or they could be too easily locked with eternity-creature-denial (though fixing AI might solve this problem)
Drawing two cards is their greatest problem. If you have to beat an opponent with such an advantage you either need very overpowered cards (they don't exist, so this method doesn't work, and it would completely ruin the game balance anyway), or a similar advantage of your own (hourglass is about the only one at the moment and it just got nerfed, so you need to have a time mark even more than before.). No need to worry about Eternity, just that isn't enough to win. You also need to clear his board of creatures and have enough time quanta to use it every turn, and if necessary the AI can be improved to avoid playing a creature when that would lock him that way. In addition, gods with permanent control can just destroy it anyway, others destroy your pillars(Seism) or drain your quanta(dark matter),or rush you with creatures quickly(most gods), or have creatures immune to eternity(divine glory, elidnis). An eternity lock deck wouldn't give you better win percentages than a rainbow deck does now, especially if the AI gets fixed. Considering the strength of their shields and miracles, even if you manage to lock them, you might deck out before winning. It would still require skill and experience to win, it wouldn't become an eternity lock deck=auto win thing.
And I do think a deck that can win at least 80-90% of time against ALL gods is necessary to keep the game fun. You get a card every 3-4 games only, so a low win percentage means they are even worse income than lots of quick, 1 minute games against top50 or AI3.
At the moment, the only way I can get that kind of win percentage (or at least close to that) is by auto-quitting the 4-5 gods that are a problem for the time-rainbow deck I'm playing. I'd love to play other decks too, but there simply isn't anything that can produce a comparable result. The nerfs didn't help either, it just slightly lowered the win rate of the time rainbow, while making other decks a even worse, so it basically reduced the number of choices instead of increasing them by making those cards hard to play in any other deck (It's not a big difference for the time rainbow to spend 1 more for a hourglass and eternity, but it is a big one for a mono-time or an entropy rainbow. Same for Pulverizer's higher cost, I'm sure it hurts entropy rainbow a lot more.)
