Banning Supernova, Quantum Tower, and SoG from Arena (Yet another new poll)

[The_Mormegil]

Majofa's idea is awesome and solves more problems than just rainbow decks. It creates a new dimension to deckbuilding that actually forces people to think about each of their decks. I support it 100%.

Just a sidenote: since rainbows are still a part of this game, I think the elements chosen by the Oracle should be 3-5 OR 12, with different chances (like, 1/13 chance of getting 12 colors lit).

[Xenocidius]

Or simply 1-12, each with even probabilities. In other words, 12 allows for any deck, 11 allows for a rainbow with no cards from 1 element (cards with abilities using that element's quanta could be used though), etc.

And what about the Mark? Would any element be allowed for that?

[petersenk]

Also the idea with a restricted color pool does not necessarily need to apply to all the leagues there are (and still, the oracle might still open up all colors for you ocasionally, no?). Why not have more such leagues with different rules? Maybe as some "global" side-ladders or something, where anyone is free to participate.

[Marvaddin]

I loved zse idea, better than majofa's.

Im all up to balance the skills, by the way. No need to add more levels, I think, because players shouldnt be able to create super decks. Double draw cost could increase, while HP and mark cost could decrease, and add this skill of using more elements. Wants double draw and lots of elements? Ok, but then you will pay a lot and sacrifice amount of HP and upgraded cards. However, I just think duos should be allowed for free.

[Calindu]

New idea:The oracle cards needs to be playable.

[SriVastra]

The only problem I see with Majo's idea is what if it picks three elements that you have few or no cards in?  I don't imagine a lot of players have full sets of everything.  Especially if you're indecisive like me and keep selling all your higher end cards to buy new decks that wind up sucking.

I do like the idea of buying extra colors with points.  I'm a little iffy on letting the oracle choose more than one color for you though.  If you get lucky, it'll choose all the colors you need for your "usual" no-brainer deck and we're right back to the first problem.  I don't want to see 1st place taken up by a bunch of beefed up rainbow lovers who got a lucky spin.

Maybe give the hp penalty for keeping your deck around a boost?  I mean, 2hp after a day is nothing.  It doesn't get noticeable until 5 days in when you lose 32, and even that isn't usually a huge deal since most rainbows run 6 phase shields and several sundials.  That way, you would be hard pressed to keep your deck around for more than a couple of days.  Even if you did get a lucky spin for your colors and pile all your points somewhere else, it wouldn't last long.

[UTAlan]

I am completely against any of these limitations on Oracle/Arena. The more restrictions you put on this, the less creativity you can have in your deck building. Yes, some people will just throw their card into an oracleBow and not have any fun with it whatsoever, but that is their choice. If they can stay in the top 500 of their league with an oracleBow, by all means have at it. In the long run, the ability to make unique, strong decks will give the most rewards over time.

[Hodari]

Of the ideas so far, having the number of colors allowed be something you have to spend points on seems like the best.  An even better option though might be to simply add a few more counters for rainbow decks.  Then if rainbows become too popular people can just add those counter cards to their decks and this will force things to balance out again.  What about something like a card which deals 1-2 damage to your opponent for each different type of quanta they have in their pool?  Against a mono or duo this would hardly be noticeable and even a trio would be about the same as a thunderbolt, but against a rainbow 12-24 damage each would add up pretty quickly.

[ggabriel2]

I am completely against any of these limitations on Oracle/Arena. The more restrictions you put on this, the less creativity you can have in your deck building.

As counter-intuitive as it is, restrictions tend to help creativity. The old proverb that necessity is the mother of invention speaks to this; unique problems beget unique solutions.

That said, anything that outright bans entire types of decks is going to be a bad solution. It's only putting off the problem; whack rainbows, and there will probably just be a couple of other common archetypes that take over (cremation rush and life rush already seem fairly popular, and a rainbowless environment would likely consist of the same few popular mono decks over and over again.) Not exactly a big improvement. Randomized restrictions from the Oracle are a better solution, since at least that way you're forcing diversity. The best solution would probably be one that encourages but does not require diversity. Introducing more counters for specific deck styles would be one possibility, although again, focusing too much on nerfing particular problem decks is not going to fix diversity issues in the arena itself. I still think the ideal solution here would probably involve having the arena give a slight boost (in terms of ratings or payout) for decks with a more unique construction vs. carbon copy decks that are essentially the same as a bunch of others already in the same league.

[bucky1andonly]

Please discontinue this topic.  Let people play what ever deck they want to.  It is ridiculous to limit people when the rewards are so high.  So if you think the arena will become easier from banning cards, well, you wont be earning as much either. 

[ggabriel2]

Let's all stop acting like hitler and discontinue this topic.  Let people play what ever deck they want to.  It is ridiculous to limit people when the rewards are so high.  So if you think the arena will become easier from banning cards, well, you wont be earning as much either. 

Ok, you got us. This thread is in actuality a genocidal plot and we are all in fact acting like Hitler here.

If you're going to liken a discussion of ways to encourage creativity in an online game to mass murder, though, could you at least pick a more creative example? When people are brainstorming suggestions (not demands!) about ways to spur the development of a more interesting and ultimately more challenging playing environment, perhaps you could liken them instead to Pol Pot, Tito, or Leopold II. That way you still get across the idea that the other side of the debate is literally comparable to many of the worst mass murderers in history, without falling back on the boring old standby of Hitler.

But then, you've firmly established that you are personally against any form of creativity and have repeatedly announced your intention to resist any change in favor of boring old standbys, so your lack of originality in your insults is probably to be expected.

[bucky1andonly]

hitler was a dictator, what part of that did you not get?  he wanted things HIS WAY and you people want the arena YOUR WAY.  like there was no problem with the jews, there is no problem with the arena.  so just leave things alone.

But then, you've firmly established that you are personally against any form of creativity and have repeatedly announced your intention to resist any change in favor of boring old standbys, so your lack of originality in your insults is probably to be expected.

this makes no sense.  banning cards limits creativity.  think before you speak.