MArcomage

The problem with this card is that there are a wide range of dragon options for it to fetch. For instance, you could have an alliance-dragon deck and it fetches the Forest Dragon, which is pretty worthless. So I have a few suggestions:
1.a. Dragon egg should fetch a Dragon with the most common keyword in hand. (If none match, then get a random Dragon as it is currently)
1.b. Add other keywords to the rare dragons that only have "dragon" as theirs (except Dragon squadron as that's technically a group of dragons).
2. Forest dragon should do damage based on the #Nature cards + #Dragon cards in hand.

Eh, I don't really mind the randomness. I do however think that it's a little overpriced, compared to scepter of summoning.

I don't like the first suggestion because I don't believe someone should be able to create a situation where they know (and can ensure) that one specific dragon card will be hatched.

Well, there are plenty of dragons and we could put a few with the same keyword, ensuring you don't just get one type. We already allow Nature to receive 1 of 4 cards, so I don't see why we can't do the same with dragons. Plus, if you don't have a proper keyword, you'd get a random one anyway.

Thats a balance problem of Nature, not a reason to make Dragon egg more specific. Id say we should create a greater variety Rare Nature cards, and make Dragon egg a lil cheaper.

I like the few number of nature cards because that's what makes it good. Otherwise, you're drawing who-knows-what that you can't play anyway. So what's the point? To have a rare to play a legend with?

It's rather short sighted to assume that a rare is useless, just because it's not the one you hoped for.

Hands filled with earthquakes don't too much...

Ha, I know right? Poor, poor, earthquake. Worst rare in the game.

They make good draws. ^^

It's good to take the survivor award (the only award I didn't get).
anyway I think it must exist or nature deck will be overpowered.

It's only good in 4 conditions:
1 - you have a legend you can play in hand
2 - you have a vulture you can play in hand
3 - you have a ton of wall and you need to get your enemy's down
4 - enemy has 15 tower

I have Earthquake in at least one of my decks. It seems like it's on par with other Rares that cost less than 20 resources -- very useful in the right situation, decidedly not otherwise.

In an attempt to steer the discussion back to the original topic, it's always seemed fitting that Dragon egg pulls from the entire Dragon pool with no way to influence it. Such is the nature (and mystery) of an egg. If it were to be altered to something where what you receive is partially determined by, well, anything, I'd feel it should no longer be a simple Dragon egg and instead be a summoning ritual of sorts. Additionally, the change to the Dragon keyword effect that refers directly to the drawing or presence of the egg makes me think that it shouldn't be altered too significantly.

(( Edit: Changing topic title to include the comparisons made to similar Nature effects in the discussion ))

5 - You have plenty Tower, but no wall, so it only costs you 15 Def, but sill deals 45 Def Dmg to your opponent.

The range of dragons is just too big to make it that helpful. There are 13 different rare dragons to choose from and there is a dragon for each type of resource and others with drastically different combinations. There's just too much variety when the egg is used. The other egg draws one of three cards for you so it's actually useful. Predictability is key to success in most decks.

"I have Earthquake in at least one of my decks. It seems like it's on par with other Rares that cost less than 20 resources -- very useful in the right situation, decidedly not otherwise."

.. Really? Unless your wall is less than 30 and less than your opponent's, the net effect on you is _negative_ (that is, you're paying a good number of gems for an effect that hurts you as much as it hinders you), which is kind of ridiculous for a rare. When you compare it to other "kamikaze" cards like rescue and resistance, or the old death wave, it doesn't come out very well. I wouldn't take Earthquake if it were an uncommon (which is a really bad sign for a rare). I wouldn't take it if the price were cut in half. I wouldn't take it on a boat. I wouldn't take it with a cat.

"Unless your wall is less than 30 and less than your opponent's"

This is usually the case for that deck, yes.

Like Rescue and resistance's decreasing effect, it's a finisher, plain and simple. There are dozens of scenarios when you wouldn't play it, true, but there are those when it wins the match. And if it's not going to win the match, save it until it is.

Eh. In the best case, you have 0 wall, and your opponent has 30 wall, so you're paying 16 gems for a "profit" of 30 wall damage. In the best case! And if you're playing it as a finisher, then the wall damage is worthless! I mean, if you want a finisher, Dark Ritual is strictly better.

Yes, but if we got rid of every tower-attack card that doesn't hit as hard as Dark ritual, we'd have none left. It doesn't mean that those that strike for less are any less useful in their own right.

To be clear, I'm not trying to claim that Earthquake is a great card. It's not. I'm contesting the suggestion that it's the worst Rare available, and I'm presenting the fact that I have it in deck and have used it effectively to support my claim. The existence of other similar cards (that are also in that deck) doesn't change that. In my opinion, there are other Rares that should be considered first for such a distinction, others that also require odd or specific scenarios to be worth playing them.

Regarding it as a Nature card and its being drawn when other Nature cards would be more useful, I don't really have anything to say to that.

"Yes, but if we got rid of every tower-attack card that doesn't hit as hard as Dark ritual, we'd have none left. It doesn't mean that those that strike for less are any less useful in their own right."

But Dark Ritual and Earthquake serve the same niche (at least if we take it to be true that, as you said, Earthquake is a finisher), have about the same cost, have the same rarity, and one of them is better by a wide margin. That seems wrong to me. I think cards of the same rarity should be about equally powerful.

To take a contrived example, I think it would be poor design to have, say, an uncommon no-keyword card that does 15 damage for 10 recruits, and an uncommon no-keyword card that does 18 damage for 10 recruits.

Now that I think about it, I may have spoken too quickly in declaring Earthquake the worst (which says a lot about the balance of certain rares). There are two rares that are definitely worse. However, I'd put Earthquake squarely at third or fourth, which still places it in "Never going to take in my deck in a million years" territory.