I like the idea of conferences, ban, and the creative deckbuilding behind it. However, I think it would be best if either the conferences were balanced or they were decided randomly instead of by score. If players with a lower score have advantages in the event, there will be incentive to stop playing Elements until the event starts, thus to keep your score at a lower amount. This is counter-intuitive since PvP Events are designed to have more people playing Elements. This is what players like me did for BL, and it's why the score restrictions in BL were removed. And now I should probably explain why the conferences are imbalanced.
It's clear that the player with more Elements they can use is going to have an advantage. More often than not, the players from the Independent conference will have this advantage.
The Major conference will play 3.67 elements on average and cause their opponent to only use 83% of their elements.
The Mid-major conference will play 4.5 elements on average and cause their opponents to only use 92% of their elements.
The Independent conference will play 5.33 elements on average; their opponent's elements will be unaffected.
The players with less score will have a big advantage. I find this a problem.
There's an easy fix to this that can still keep the theme.
First, game elements wouldn't be the same as either of the player's player elements, just like in Team PvP. This not only decreases luck, but it causes the bans system I have in mind to give no advantages based on score (or lack of it).
The bans would have to be chosen after the game elements are posted. Players would then have 24 hours to send their bans. After that, matches would start.
With this system, the event would last 5 more days. However, element distribution is less luck-based and there are no advantages to quitting Elements.
Lastly, the template looks great.
