Terror in the Shadows – Feedback

24

Comments

  • bk1234
    bk1234 Posts: 2,924 Chairperson of the Boards
    I've gone against Sarkhan twice.

    That being said, I haven't had to build sub-par decks to meet objectives -- the decks I built are holding up just as well in QB.
  • Feagul
    Feagul Posts: 114
    bken1234 wrote:
    I've gone against Sarkhan twice.

    That being said, I haven't had to build sub-par decks to meet objectives -- the decks I built are holding up just as well in QB.
    I think there's a sizable gap in what works well in QBs vs. gold/platinum Nodes of Power. When I used to build decks specifically for secondary objectives in the Terror in the Shadows events, they were noticeably weaker than their optimized Nodes of Power counterparts. I don't know what your collection is like--just stating that there are cards that I find more powerful/preferable to run than what is required for the secondary objectives. On the flip side of the coin, if I run into a deck that is still set up for Terrors in the Shadows in a Nodes of Power event, it is usually an extremely easy matchup.
  • Cragger
    Cragger Posts: 316 Mover and Shaker
    https://goo.gl/photos/sqbCFsUSTA1B984X7

    I have faced Warcin at least 20 matches so far this event. Any planeswalker.
  • EDHdad
    EDHdad Posts: 609 Critical Contributor
    Personally i like the Terrors events the most. The simple reason for that is that the quick game play (enrage) and the 5 max nodes allow me to both work fulltime and play all of the possible games of the event.

    I do really like Enrage, and would like to see it implemented in Quick Battle, Story Mode and other Events. But it frequently screws up the secondary objectives.
  • Corn_Noodles
    Corn_Noodles Posts: 477 Mover and Shaker
    EDHdad wrote:
    I do really like Enrage, and would like to see it implemented in Quick Battle, Story Mode and other Events. But it frequently screws up the secondary objectives.
    I think that's the whole point behind it. It helps differentiate scores instead of everyone piled up at the top of the leaderboard with the same score.
  • Pqmtg-
    Pqmtg- Posts: 282
    Corn Noodles wrote:
    EDHdad wrote:
    I do really like Enrage, and would like to see it implemented in Quick Battle, Story Mode and other Events. But it frequently screws up the secondary objectives.
    I think that's the whole point behind it. It helps differentiate scores instead of everyone piled up at the top of the leaderboard with the same score.


    Exactly. I don't understand why people here complain about challenging games. The point is not to let you win every game easily.
  • yunnnn
    yunnnn Posts: 168 Tile Toppler
    Corn Noodles wrote:
    EDHdad wrote:
    I do really like Enrage, and would like to see it implemented in Quick Battle, Story Mode and other Events. But it frequently screws up the secondary objectives.
    I think that's the whole point behind it. It helps differentiate scores instead of everyone piled up at the top of the leaderboard with the same score.

    If anything, they should make the challenges harder to do, so that we don't have to deal with tiebreakers.

    In my gold bracket, there are multiple other people with perfect scores. What this means is:
    I have to wake up at 9am (event start) and do the first round of nodes asap. Then,
    I have to wake up at 5am (last round of nodes) and do them asap.

    I'd rather not have to set a ridiculous alarm clock just so I can beat the tiebreakers. This aspect of the game is incredibly tedious, and it leads to player burnout among the top players.
  • Buret0
    Buret0 Posts: 1,591
    The fight for 10th place and the mythic was really tight in the coalition battles today. We were in 10th all event, then dropped out of 10th in the last hour. One guy had an excuse, he was in Vegas, but we had some people who left hundreds of points on the board. That's a lot of work for a rare.
  • EDHdad
    EDHdad Posts: 609 Critical Contributor
    Exactly. I don't understand why people here complain about challenging games

    20 wins for a prize = fun challenging game.

    70 wins for the exact same prize = long boring grind.
  • Pqmtg-
    Pqmtg- Posts: 282
    EDHdad wrote:
    Exactly. I don't understand why people here complain about challenging games

    20 wins for a prize = fun challenging game.

    70 wins for the exact same prize = long boring grind.

    Let's just do 1 win for the prize. Half the people get to be tied for first.

    You prefer 20 games. I prefer 70. It's not fun at all to have 20 people tied for first with perfect scores.
  • Feagul
    Feagul Posts: 114
    Pqmtg- wrote:
    EDHdad wrote:
    Exactly. I don't understand why people here complain about challenging games

    20 wins for a prize = fun challenging game.

    70 wins for the exact same prize = long boring grind.

    Let's just do 1 win for the prize. Half the people get to be tied for first.

    You prefer 20 games. I prefer 70. It's not fun at all to have 20 people tied for first with perfect scores.
    70 games is fine by me if it's not tied to a freemium mechanic (recharging nodes) for zero reason whatsoever.
  • Pqmtg-
    Pqmtg- Posts: 282
    Feagul wrote:
    Pqmtg- wrote:
    EDHdad wrote:
    Exactly. I don't understand why people here complain about challenging games

    20 wins for a prize = fun challenging game.

    70 wins for the exact same prize = long boring grind.

    Let's just do 1 win for the prize. Half the people get to be tied for first.

    You prefer 20 games. I prefer 70. It's not fun at all to have 20 people tied for first with perfect scores.
    70 games is fine by me if it's not tied to a freemium mechanic (recharging nodes) for zero reason whatsoever.


    You mean other than to get people to play the game at least twice a day?
  • Feagul
    Feagul Posts: 114
    Pqmtg- wrote:
    Feagul wrote:
    Pqmtg- wrote:
    EDHdad wrote:
    Exactly. I don't understand why people here complain about challenging games

    20 wins for a prize = fun challenging game.

    70 wins for the exact same prize = long boring grind.

    Let's just do 1 win for the prize. Half the people get to be tied for first.

    You prefer 20 games. I prefer 70. It's not fun at all to have 20 people tied for first with perfect scores.
    70 games is fine by me if it's not tied to a freemium mechanic (recharging nodes) for zero reason whatsoever.


    You mean other than to get people to play the game at least twice a day?
    There were other mechanics in place that incentivise that exact behavior prior to the introduction of events. There's an 8 hour timer on free packs (up to three reasons to log in each day) and the timing of events relative to Quick Battles encourage playing at different times each day. I'd argue that is a weak reason for the current event structure, but it may very well be the reason. icon_e_smile.gif
  • Pqmtg-
    Pqmtg- Posts: 282
    Not sure why you would think there's an "enough" point when it comes to encouraging play.

    The best result for them would be people playing every waking hour.
  • Feagul
    Feagul Posts: 114
    Pqmtg- wrote:
    Not sure why you would think there's an "enough" point when it comes to encouraging play.

    The best result for them would be people playing every waking hour.
    That's not the ideal way to build a Skinner box, FYI. The animals will become bored in their captive environment, and if you've seen bored captive monkeys...
  • EDHdad
    EDHdad Posts: 609 Critical Contributor
    It isn't that it's 20 games or 70 games or 1 game per event. It's that, for the first 20-25 wins, you get something every 4-5 wins - some runes, some crystals, some cards. Then this comes crashing to a halt and you get to play 50 straight games for no additional benefit.

    The "additional" part of "additional benefit" is the key difference, in my mind, between "fun" and "grind".

    And the reason this matters is because I don't want to let my coalition down. When it was just me playing in an event, I was fine stopping after maxing out the incremental awards.
  • Plastic
    Plastic Posts: 762 Critical Contributor
    EDHdad wrote:
    It isn't that it's 20 games or 70 games or 1 game per event. It's that, for the first 20-25 wins, you get something every 4-5 wins - some runes, some crystals, some cards. Then this comes crashing to a halt and you get to play 50 straight games for no additional benefit.

    The "additional" part of "additional benefit" is the key difference, in my mind, between "fun" and "grind".

    And the reason this matters is because I don't want to let my coalition down. When it was just me playing in an event, I was fine stopping after maxing out the incremental awards.

    Then maybe you need to find a coalition that's okay with members stopping when they max their personal progression. icon_e_wink.gif
  • Ohboy
    Ohboy Posts: 1,766 Chairperson of the Boards
    EDHdad wrote:
    It isn't that it's 20 games or 70 games or 1 game per event. It's that, for the first 20-25 wins, you get something every 4-5 wins - some runes, some crystals, some cards. Then this comes crashing to a halt and you get to play 50 straight games for no additional benefit.

    The "additional" part of "additional benefit" is the key difference, in my mind, between "fun" and "grind".

    And the reason this matters is because I don't want to let my coalition down. When it was just me playing in an event, I was fine stopping after maxing out the incremental awards.


    So it's your choice and you hate the choice you make, so the game should change so you don't hate it as much?
  • Tilikum
    Tilikum Posts: 159
    +5 Ribbons if you match all your gems using only your left ring finger.
    Really separate the men from the boys.
  • majincob
    majincob Posts: 732 Critical Contributor
    Ohboy wrote:
    So it's your choice and you hate the choice you make, so the game should change so you don't hate it as much?
    Exactly. The game should change so that the optimal thing to do is also the fun thing to do. Why do people act like this is a so counter-intuitive? Do I need to quote Mark Rosewater again?

Categories