Terror in the Shadows – Feedback

Irgy

Ohboy wrote:

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?

It should change so that you're not placed under a social obligation to do something that you don't like. We get enough of that rubbish in real life, now it's in our games too...

Ohboy

Irgy wrote:

Ohboy wrote:

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?

It should change so that you're not placed under a social obligation to do something that you don't like. We get enough of that rubbish in real life, now it's in our games too...

You realise you can quit your coalition right.

Pqmtg-

majincob wrote:

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?

For crying out loud. You are doing this to yourself. Don't do it if it's not fun for you. There's a price to staying in top. Mark Rosewater was not talking about competitive leagues.

Next you're going to tell me sports are badly designed because the optimal way to reach the top of your chosen sport is to train hard and not play fun pick up games instead.

majincob

Pqmtg- wrote:

majincob wrote:

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?

For crying out loud. You are doing this to yourself. Don't do it if it's not fun for you. There's a price to staying in top. Mark Rosewater was not talking about competitive leagues.

Next you're going to tell me sports are badly designed because the optimal way to reach the top of your chosen sport is to train hard and not play fun pick up games instead.

But this is a game not a sport. I love the game and I'm competitive, so I shouldn't have fun? That doesn't make any sense. I will always give feedback to make the game more fun, because I think it's a great game and I want it to last, and I think that making the game more fun will make it last longer.

fox1342

majincob wrote:

Pqmtg- wrote:

majincob wrote:

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?

For crying out loud. You are doing this to yourself. Don't do it if it's not fun for you. There's a price to staying in top. Mark Rosewater was not talking about competitive leagues.

Next you're going to tell me sports are badly designed because the optimal way to reach the top of your chosen sport is to train hard and not play fun pick up games instead.

But this is a game not a sport. I love the game and I'm competitive, so I shouldn't have fun? That doesn't make any sense. I will always give feedback to make the game more fun, because I think it's a great game and I want it to last, and I think that making the game more fun will make it last longer.

But not competitive enough to both have fun and be the best. Imagine my violin as there's no icon for it.

Feagul

Pqmtg- wrote:

majincob wrote:

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?

For crying out loud. You are doing this to yourself. Don't do it if it's not fun for you. There's a price to staying in top. Mark Rosewater was not talking about competitive leagues.

Next you're going to tell me sports are badly designed because the optimal way to reach the top of your chosen sport is to train hard and not play fun pick up games instead.

There's a reason there aren't poorly designed secondary objectives in competitive games/sports. Comparing those to practice is just silly. Imagine an NFL team having to fill their roster with college and high school players, run X number of plays with them in the game, and still win the game against other fully NFL rosters--just to be considered truly competitive.

I'm astounded that so many people appreciate bad design in these parts, though. Carry on, I guess.

majincob

fox1342 wrote:

But not competitive enough to both have fun and be the best. Imagine my violin as there's no icon for it.

The un-fun aspect for me is losing my awesome team-mates because the game became un-fun/un-managable to them.

I enjoy a good challenge, and I make decks that can meet objectives and crush it, but really? Would it make anyone happier if the challeges were twice or three times as hard?

Corn_Noodles

majincob wrote:

I enjoy a good challenge, and I make decks that can meet objectives and crush it, but really? Would it make anyone happier if the challeges were twice or three times as hard?

If the goal of making challenges harder is to differentiate the leaderboards a bit, I think that's good. I don't know if harder challenges is the right way to achieve that goal, but I'm glad there might be something that'll break up the ties at the top a bit.

majincob

Corn Noodles wrote:

majincob wrote:

I enjoy a good challenge, and I make decks that can meet objectives and crush it, but really? Would it make anyone happier if the challeges were twice or three times as hard?

If the goal of making challenges harder is to differentiate the leaderboards a bit, I think that's good. I don't know if harder challenges is the right way to achieve that goal, but I'm glad there might be something that'll break up the ties at the top a bit.

I agree about differentiating the leaderboard, but a more robust match-making system would be more fun. At least for me. When everyone was playing vs shteev, there weren't so many perfect scores now were there?

rob443

Corn Noodles wrote:

If the goal of making challenges harder is to differentiate the leaderboards a bit, I think that's good. I don't know if harder challenges is the right way to achieve that goal, but I'm glad there might be something that'll break up the ties at the top a bit.

Actually i like the ribbon system of the Terrors events the most. Didn't see many (any?) players at the top of my bracket with the same score at the end of the event.

They could possibly give the bonus objectives a little more weight by giving 2 and 3 pts instead of 1 and 2 or maybe even more. This would instantly bring more variance to the final scores of all players.

Rootbreaker

Corn Noodles wrote:

majincob wrote:

I enjoy a good challenge, and I make decks that can meet objectives and crush it, but really? Would it make anyone happier if the challeges were twice or three times as hard?

If the goal of making challenges harder is to differentiate the leaderboards a bit, I think that's good. I don't know if harder challenges is the right way to achieve that goal, but I'm glad there might be something that'll break up the ties at the top a bit.

I don't mind this as a goal, but Terrors in the Shadows already had a low number of ties, using much easier to achieve goals. It's not like there were 6 people in first place of platinum with perfect scores - at least not in any bracket I've been in.

The most annoying part of these objectives to me is that there are a few cards like From Beyond that look like they'll make the objectives much easier, and there's still no way to acquire cards individually for large numbers of runes or crystals. Despite getting rare cards in pretty much every green quick battle, and buying ~10 big boxes of BFZ when it came back on sale recently, I still don't have a From Beyond.

Tilikum

I think the bonus objectives are thrown in there so you want to get cards from the latest block. It's probably just added benefit that they break all the ties. It isn't fun, though, spending money and time on making a powerful and unique deck and then **** it with the same spirit cards everyone else is jamming in their deck. Then you have to play with your food and prolong the match to cast them all.

I'm not saying they should remove them and I respect everyone's competitive spirit but it is a marketing ploy and nothing else.

Irgy

Ohboy wrote:

Irgy wrote:

Ohboy wrote:

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?

It should change so that you're not placed under a social obligation to do something that you don't like. We get enough of that rubbish in real life, now it's in our games too...

You realise you can quit your coalition right.

Yeah, sure. I could quit the whole game too. That's not a sign of good design though is it?

The point is they're going to great lengths to reward you for and encourage you to join a coallition, and then creating painful grindy events. Maybe I want a game that's fun and rewarding rather than having to choose one. It certainly seems like a good idea from a design point of view. Irrespective of the need to motivate payment - since paying players get stuck in the grind as much as anyone else if they want to be involved (and are rewarded for paying through different mechanisms).

Currently you can't join the Avacyn event unless you're in a coalition, and if you're in one you suffer the obligation. Yes it's a choice but it's two bad options where there could be just one good one.

Ohboy

Irgy wrote:

Yeah, sure. I could quit the whole game too. That's not a sign of good design though is it?

The point is they're going to great lengths to reward you for and encourage you to join a coallition, and then creating painful grindy events. Maybe I want a game that's fun and rewarding rather than having to choose one. It certainly seems like a good idea from a design point of view. Irrespective of the need to motivate payment - since paying players get stuck in the grind as much as anyone else if they want to be involved (and are rewarded for paying through different mechanisms).

Currently you can't join the Avacyn event unless you're in a coalition, and if you're in one you suffer the obligation. Yes it's a choice but it's two bad options where there could be just one good one.

Pick a coalition that doesn't require you to jump the hoops you don't want to. Not every coalition makes you grind every single game out to stay in.

Joining an elite group will always mean more effort. This is true in every game. The game is fun and rewarding. It's the people you choose to hang out with that are making it less fun for you. Find new friends that enjoy the game the same way you do.

Feagul

majincob wrote:

Corn Noodles wrote:

majincob wrote:

I enjoy a good challenge, and I make decks that can meet objectives and crush it, but really? Would it make anyone happier if the challeges were twice or three times as hard?

If the goal of making challenges harder is to differentiate the leaderboards a bit, I think that's good. I don't know if harder challenges is the right way to achieve that goal, but I'm glad there might be something that'll break up the ties at the top a bit.

I agree about differentiating the leaderboard, but a more robust match-making system would be more fun. At least for me. When everyone was playing vs shteev, there weren't so many perfect scores now were there?

Shteev's decks were one trick RC / Harness ponies that folded like a house of cards. I'll gladly play them again for easy wins!

madwren

Feagul wrote:

majincob wrote:

Corn Noodles wrote:

majincob wrote:

I enjoy a good challenge, and I make decks that can meet objectives and crush it, but really? Would it make anyone happier if the challeges were twice or three times as hard?

If the goal of making challenges harder is to differentiate the leaderboards a bit, I think that's good. I don't know if harder challenges is the right way to achieve that goal, but I'm glad there might be something that'll break up the ties at the top a bit.

I agree about differentiating the leaderboard, but a more robust match-making system would be more fun. At least for me. When everyone was playing vs shteev, there weren't so many perfect scores now were there?

Shteev's decks were one trick RC / Harness ponies that folded like a house of cards.

Like most decks in PVP.

shteev

Feagul wrote:

Shteev's decks were one trick RC / Harness ponies that folded like a house of cards.

RC and Harness is two tricks. You wait until I get a Drowner of Hope, *then* I'll be building one trick pony decks.

Feagul

shteev wrote:

Feagul wrote:

Shteev's decks were one trick RC / Harness ponies that folded like a house of cards.

RC and Harness is two tricks. You wait until I get a Drowner of Hope, *then* I'll be building one trick pony decks.

I wish you would hurry up and get it so that they would get their heads out of the sand and re-balance it.

shteev

Pqmtg- wrote:

For crying out loud.

You know I love you.

Pqmtg- wrote:

You are doing this to yourself.

And that's why it really hurts.

Pqmtg- wrote:

There's a price to staying in top.

Right let's just stop here and dwell on this one for a while, because there's a lot to take in. You accept the fact that playing at a high level exacts some kind of punishment on the player. And do you applaud the dev team for making that decision, when clearly they could have made the game fun at a high level? Are you a high level player? Do you have to pay the price of being at the top, like we do? Or, are you a low level player? And you just like to see others suffer? What I'm asking is, are you a sadist or a masochist? Because so far all you've done is just disagree with other people... you haven't made your own position clear.

Pqmtg- wrote:

Mark Rosewater was not talking about competitive leagues.

Well, he was talking about the design of a game which is played in competitive leagues without any specific modification for doing so, so yes he was.

Pqmtg- wrote:

Next you're going to tell me sports are badly designed because the optimal way to reach the top of your chosen sport is to train hard and not play fun pick up games instead.

You are aware that they change the rules of sports, right? Especially if they become boring or unpopular?

jackvett

shteev wrote:

responding to a couple o' fellas

"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him." —Proverbs 26:4

or, to employ some elegance:
"Don’t argue with idiots because they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."