kore wrote: pandabear wrote: Heyo I played a few games. Here is what I noticed. Harbinger is still an instant win. There is no way to come back from having your biggest creature bounced and effectively unable to be cast, ever. With current mana costs and average creature costs of 10-12 this is a 8 point mana swing and a free 4/4. I immediately forfeit any game with a harbinger out. Blues mana generation is way too good. 2/1/1 is insane. He also has the fastest deck out there, even with the nerfs, the only deck that is reasonable to be subpandabear, would you elaborate on the Blue deck (specific cards) to which you're referring? I find that the slower rate of damage mitigation via bounce or disable (greater mana costs and limitations) doesn't allow Blue to bring its far weaker creatures, with respect to damage cabability, online before the opponent overwhelms. Without direct damage, damage mitigation is the name of Blue's game. Sure, I could put in some Colorless damage support, but then I'm not playing Blue support.
pandabear wrote: Heyo I played a few games. Here is what I noticed. Harbinger is still an instant win. There is no way to come back from having your biggest creature bounced and effectively unable to be cast, ever. With current mana costs and average creature costs of 10-12 this is a 8 point mana swing and a free 4/4. I immediately forfeit any game with a harbinger out. Blues mana generation is way too good. 2/1/1 is insane. He also has the fastest deck out there, even with the nerfs, the only deck that is reasonable to be subpandabear, would you elaborate on the Blue deck (specific cards) to which you're referring? I find that the slower rate of damage mitigation via bounce or disable (greater mana costs and limitations) doesn't allow Blue to bring its far weaker creatures, with respect to damage cabability, online before the opponent overwhelms. Without direct damage, damage mitigation is the name of Blue's game. Sure, I could put in some Colorless damage support, but then I'm not playing Blue support.
kore wrote: So Rewards dictate position in the Leaderboard? So there is less incentive to increase PW level because it better guarantees matches against higher-level, weak-AI opponents? I know I'm being very vocal, but I am also one of the users that was urging patience to everyone awaiting a fix to everything else.
kore wrote: So Rewards dictate position in the Leaderboard? So there is less incentive to increase PW level because it better guarantees matches against higher-level, weak-AI opponents?
loroku wrote: kore wrote: So Rewards dictate position in the Leaderboard? So there is less incentive to increase PW level because it better guarantees matches against higher-level, weak-AI opponents? Position in leaderboards dictate rewards. Maybe that's what you meant? Cupcaking your account (intentionally under-leveling) has been a very strong tactic in Marvel PQ since the beginning. I'm not sure how they handle MMR in this game yet, so I don't think anyone knows yet if it's a good idea here. I'm also not sure how much planeswalker level (or the sum/average of all your planeswalker levels) affects anything, either.
pandabear wrote: YOU CAN DISCARD CARDS NOW NOONE TOLD ME! I don't even care about anything else now. This changes everything. Nerf everything I play to the ground idc, we can finally utilize card draw!
Hibernum_JC wrote: pandabear wrote: YOU CAN DISCARD CARDS NOW NOONE TOLD ME! I don't even care about anything else now. This changes everything. Nerf everything I play to the ground idc, we can finally utilize card draw! Yeah, that snuck in as a little thing we forgot to mention in patch notes. It's pretty big, too
kore wrote: As one's Rewards accumulate so does one's position in the LB. Thus, maximizing the number of Rewards one earns per match leads to rising in the LB faster. I've never played MPQ, but in MtGPQ (as of this moment) the disparity between one's level and their opponent's level dictates the potential Rewards earned. ... Thus, if I play a low-level PW with decent cards and/or PW abilities I will be matched with everyone else's higher-level decks, maximizing Reward potential. But if I'm high-level, or even mid-level, the pool of decks with levels lower than mine means lower Rewards-earning potential.
loroku wrote: kore wrote: As one's Rewards accumulate so does one's position in the LB. Thus, maximizing the number of Rewards one earns per match leads to rising in the LB faster. I've never played MPQ, but in MtGPQ (as of this moment) the disparity between one's level and their opponent's level dictates the potential Rewards earned. ... Thus, if I play a low-level PW with decent cards and/or PW abilities I will be matched with everyone else's higher-level decks, maximizing Reward potential. But if I'm high-level, or even mid-level, the pool of decks with levels lower than mine means lower Rewards-earning potential. I guess the idea is that you're taking on harder opponents and thus you're going to lose more? Hmm. But on the other hand, losing does nothing. (And defensive losses do nothing, from all I can tell.) And cards > level by a mile. So it's technically better to be a lower PW level, so that your rewards can be earned more quickly. So yeah I guess a lower level PW is better then? Or there's more to all this we don't yet understand.
Oberoni wrote: Super-good idea: Let's try playing for a few days before weighing in with strong opinions. In cases like this, I don't care much for theory.
Hibernum_JC wrote: kore wrote: So Rewards dictate position in the Leaderboard? So there is less incentive to increase PW level because it better guarantees matches against higher-level, weak-AI opponents? I know I'm being very vocal, but I am also one of the users that was urging patience to everyone awaiting a fix to everything else. Just as a FYI - there's nothing wrong with being vocal. I'd rather vocal people that I can get feedback from than completely silent players where it's very hard to pick their brains As for the leaderboard rewards, we're aware of the problem. We plan to fix it in our next minor patch!