LakeStone wrote: - You can now sell card duplicates for runes. Commons sell for 20 runes Uncommons sell for 40 runes Rares sell for 200 runes Mythics sell for 1000 runes To sell your duplicates, you can go into your inventory and tap the “Convert duplicates” button. While we may or may not add a new function for duplicate cards in the future, we do not currently have any plans to do so.
Hibernum_JC wrote: There was a mistake on our part when writing the patch notes - the data used to compare the stats is different than what it was in-game (there was an inconsistency that is now actually resolved). Regardless of the previous data, the new information is what will be in-game at the time of the patch. As for Chandra, the goal was also to reduce her board control a little bit - Red is adept at dealing fast damage to Planeswalkers, but not so much to the board (she needs to spells to deal with the board, which are a more finite and limited resource). Her 2nd ability now costs more so she lost board control, but gained a lot of direct damage, which accomplishes two things: it puts her more in-line with her intended design and it speeds up games. Chandra's 3rd ability now is an actual, real finisher, and is meant to shorten games. As stated before in multiple threads, we want to speed up the game (including when playing as slower Planeswalkers) so this is a step in that direction. We will see if game length actually massively changes or not - we hope it does, but we'll see if it actually does or not.
Hibernum_JC wrote: scydrex wrote: The second card is Languish. I was playing a Quick Battle and I hit two creatures with it. One was a 4/4 that had become 5/5 because of a Chief of the Foundry in the battlefield. Languish killed the Chief as it was supposed to, but the other creature, which should have died as well, since it was not receiving +1/+1 anymore, remained in play as a 1/1. . Cruel Revival is a peculiar case - it's a question of Black's "Pay for power" design motto. In this case, the cost is requiring a Zombie in your graveyard. It fits very well with the idea behind Black as a whole. As for Languish, this is actually working as designed. Both creatures are getting damaged simultaneously, and everything resolves at the same time. What you're seeing happen is the following: Both creatures are hit with -4/-4. Both creatures receive 4 points of damage, killing the Chief and leaving the other 5/5 as 1/1. Chief dies, so the buff is removed. The thing is that when receiving damage, you always reduce the buffed portion of Toughness first. So the 5/5 is basically a 4/4 with 1 extra Power and 1 extra Toughness. When it receives 4 points of damage, the 1 extra Toughness gets removed first. That's why you end up with a 1/1 at the end - stat buffs are always removed before the card's actual stats. I don't know if that made sense, and I'd be more than happy to explain it a different way if it's too complex
scydrex wrote: The second card is Languish. I was playing a Quick Battle and I hit two creatures with it. One was a 4/4 that had become 5/5 because of a Chief of the Foundry in the battlefield. Languish killed the Chief as it was supposed to, but the other creature, which should have died as well, since it was not receiving +1/+1 anymore, remained in play as a 1/1.
alextfish wrote: Hibernum_JC wrote: scydrex wrote: The second card is Languish. I was playing a Quick Battle and I hit two creatures with it. One was a 4/4 that had become 5/5 because of a Chief of the Foundry in the battlefield. Languish killed the Chief as it was supposed to, but the other creature, which should have died as well, since it was not receiving +1/+1 anymore, remained in play as a 1/1. . Cruel Revival is a peculiar case - it's a question of Black's "Pay for power" design motto. In this case, the cost is requiring a Zombie in your graveyard. It fits very well with the idea behind Black as a whole. As for Languish, this is actually working as designed. Both creatures are getting damaged simultaneously, and everything resolves at the same time. What you're seeing happen is the following: Both creatures are hit with -4/-4. Both creatures receive 4 points of damage, killing the Chief and leaving the other 5/5 as 1/1. Chief dies, so the buff is removed. The thing is that when receiving damage, you always reduce the buffed portion of Toughness first. So the 5/5 is basically a 4/4 with 1 extra Power and 1 extra Toughness. When it receives 4 points of damage, the 1 extra Toughness gets removed first. That's why you end up with a 1/1 at the end - stat buffs are always removed before the card's actual stats. I don't know if that made sense, and I'd be more than happy to explain it a different way if it's too complex I urge you to reconsider this design choice in a future patch, and get someone who understands the real Magic: the Gathering Comprehensive Rules to consult with your design team. In general, when a MTGPQ card looks like it does the same thing as its corresponding MtG card, it should do. When a creature like Chief of the Foundry dies, its buff should be removed from the creatures' "base" power and toughness. I'm fine with you redesigning cards for the different gameplay needs of MTGPQ, such as making Chief affect all creatures not just artifact creatures. I'm even fine with removing the "up to" from Cruel Revival's text like you've done, though it could really do with better wording to make it clear that it needs a dead Zombie. But Languish vs Chief and something else really should remove 5 toughness from the other thing, whatever order they're in. It's incredibly counterintuitive to anyone who knows MtG to have MTGPQ work this way, and there's nothing in the rules text of either card to suggest it'll behave differently from MtG.
scydrex wrote: I understood your explanation for Languish perfectly, JC. I'm just saying it works very differently from the card game. I don't think dealing 4 damage should be treated the same as giving a creature -4 toughness. I haven't tried it, but I am guessing hitting a Erebos's Titan with two languishes on the same turn (with no creatures on your side in play) wouldn't kill it, which would be wrong. I noticed that some abilities work quite differently in this game. Then other abilities have different names. I had to figure out that Prevent Damage meant indestructible. Why not just use the word "Indestructible"? I think it sounds more elegant. If you do treat damage and -X counters for toughness as the same thing, you will run into a problem when creatures with protection from black are introduced into the game. A 1/1 with protection from black would ignore a Languish and keep on beating you up. Another issue I have has to do with Hexproof on creatures like Gaea's Revenge. When you activate abilities such as Grave Mist, it does not take any damage. I have not tried killing one by playing Fleshbag Marauder and sacrificing a previously played creature, but I would guess that would not work either. Does Gaea's Revenge stay in play if someone plays The Great Aurora? It does not target either. I would guess it does get destroyed. I don't have either card, so I cannot test my hypothesis. In summary, I think it would be helpful if you could create a page where you explain how Puzzle Quest magic differs from the traditional card-based game. Veteran players of the card game may be at a disadvantage, assuming something will work like they are accustomed to, then being surprised when they don't (like in the case of Languish). I have lost more than one game because I expected the rules to work like in the card game and it turned out to work differently. If you think your interpretation of the game works better, then great. But at least provide us the rules explicitly somewhere, to minimize mistakes while playing.
span_argoman wrote: Just a brief response to scydrex, I've been playing QB using Chandra pretty much exclusively and my win rate (even including all the disconnect and crash losses from the early phases of QB) out of ~2,000 stands at 93.2%. So I doubt Nissa and Jace are the only ones who can 'dominate'. Also the same planeswalker and deck controlled by a player and by an AI are going to have vastly different win rates. I've heard of others talking about playing Gideon to good effect though I haven't witnessed it myself so maybe it isn't that imbalanced between the planeswalkers, except maybe poor Liliana lol. In any case Jace and Nissa are both being nerfed in the upcoming patch, so I think we should wait and see if that addresses your concerns.
scydrex wrote: Do you keep Planeswalker vs. Planeswalker statistics? Say, in matches of Planeswalker A vs Planeswalker B, Planeswalker A has won 65% of the matches. I don't know if you want to share those statistics with us users, but at least that can help you look at what adjustments may be necessary. I suspect that Nissa and Jace have been dominating so far.
scydrex wrote: Second question: Will we ever get lifetime rankings, based on number of wins and winning percentage? You could do it by country as well as a worldwide ranking. You could also have an average placing in Quick Battle Events.
loroku wrote: "Average" placing in Quick Battles is also easy to interpret: 250. It might skew a little higher (240?) thanks to many shards not completely filling, but if there are 500 placement rewards and everyone can only get 1, then the average is 250. Oh wait - did you mean average per person? Yeah I wouldn't want that, either, since crashes and lack of time are probably bigger factors than skill in QB.
scydrex wrote: First, by rewarding players who have devoted a lot of their time to the game within a single month (something I am sure they would like to encourage in any case). This reward may mean a simple ranking list, , , or boosters.
Second, they could create an achievement list, something many other games feature already. Things like "Win your 100th match" or "Win a game with 1 life left" or something like that. When certain milestones are achieved (like having played 100 games, regardless of result) there could be rewards as well.
Keegan wrote: span_argoman wrote: Just a brief response to scydrex, I've been playing QB using Chandra pretty much exclusively and my win rate (even including all the disconnect and crash losses from the early phases of QB) out of ~2,000 stands at 93.2%. So I doubt Nissa and Jace are the only ones who can 'dominate'. Also the same planeswalker and deck controlled by a player and by an AI are going to have vastly different win rates. I've heard of others talking about playing Gideon to good effect though I haven't witnessed it myself so maybe it isn't that imbalanced between the planeswalkers, except maybe poor Liliana lol. In any case Jace and Nissa are both being nerfed in the upcoming patch, so I think we should wait and see if that addresses your concerns. "I've won 2,000 matches with Liliana at an 85% win rate. She's my QB tank." ~ No one ever
EDUSAN wrote: as a bonus note, im completely blown away (in a bad way) about how they decided to add 1 discard card to the rank 2 of liliana's 1st skill instead of removing 1 discarded card from rank 3...