Emrakul's Corruption : ribbons for secondary objectives

Ithilglin

The secondary objectives in Emrakul's corruption are high, meaning you need time to fulfill them. Time equals more efforts.
If you want to fulfill them, you even need sometimes to kill your own creatures because you need to postpone your victory. But by doing that, you take the risk to loose the battle.

An easy win, with your strongest decks, gives you 5 ribbons.
Making efforts gives you only 1 or 2 more ribbons. Even worse, you take the risk of loosing the five ribbons with a defeat. Risking 5 for wining 2 ? Where is the logic ?

So I suggest another repartition of ribbons such as 2 for victory, 3 for the eldrazi objective, 2 for the third one. Of course you can propose another repartition.

Why doing that ?

- It would make that event less victory based and would rewarding the players who make the effort of changing their deck for the event and trying to fulfill the objectives.
- It would motivate the players to play decks non optimized only for quick victory ( red or black + Olivia ? Surprise ! Liliana + prized amalgam and full zombies ? Greater surprise !)
- It would shows that getting the best mythics cards is not all in MtGPQ because powerful mythics are not the best cards for playing 8 eldrazis, supports, werewolf or vampire

To resume it would changes.

And, as the number of ribbons is just a parameter to change, devs could implement it easily.

So, what do you think ?

BayTamago

Honestly, I would rather see a reduction in the secondary goal requirements (4 Vamps/Werewolves, 6 Supports, 6 Eldrazi) purely because the time and risk it takes to chase the secondary objective when you have a limited number of attempts is simply too much.

However, I can also get behind an increased number of ribbons for going out of your way to retool your deck for an objective. I would favor an increase in secondary ribbons as opposed to a redistribution though. I've already switched my Blue node to an Eldrazi J2 and am working on getting BR vamps with Sarkhan going for the BW Vamps node. However, the ability to save multiple decks per planeswalker is practically required for this to be feasable long term.

Edit: It would be nice to hear from the devs that this issue has been at least seen. This event has been terrible each time that they run it, and the forum has the same 2 posts everytime it happens - Fix the secondary objectives and get the servers working. I'm glad the latter wasn't an issue this time.

The customers are trying to help the devs retain players (aka income) for them, and they seem to not be terribly interested in interacting with players on this forum. Game companies die when customers aren't acknowledged after they bring an issue up repeatedly with no results.

Ohboy

Ithilglin wrote:

The secondary objectives in Emrakul's corruption are high, meaning you need time to fulfill them. Time equals more efforts.
If you want to fulfill them, you even need sometimes to kill your own creatures because you need to postpone your victory. But by doing that, you take the risk to loose the battle.

An easy win, with your strongest decks, gives you 5 ribbons.
Making efforts gives you only 1 or 2 more ribbons. Even worse, you take the risk of loosing the five ribbons with a defeat. Risking 5 for wining 2 ? Where is the logic ?

So I suggest another repartition of ribbons such as 2 for victory, 3 for the eldrazi objective, 2 for the third one. Of course you can propose another repartition.

Why doing that ?

- It would make that event less victory based and would rewarding the players who make the effort of changing their deck for the event and trying to fulfill the objectives.
- It would motivate the players to play decks non optimized only for quick victory ( red or black + Olivia ? Surprise ! Liliana + prized amalgam and full zombies ? Greater surprise !)
- It would shows that getting the best mythics cards is not all in MtGPQ because powerful mythics are not the best cards for playing 8 eldrazis, supports, werewolf or vampire

To resume it would changes.

And, as the number of ribbons is just a parameter to change, devs could implement it easily.

So, what do you think ?

The logic is that those are bonus objectives. Effort does not always have to come with an equal reward. It's a bonus.

This game is not unique in this. How many games have Easter egg endings that take ridiculous effort for an alternative ending?

The events are already currently full of decks that can hit all bonus objectives comfortably for a perfect score. Just winning every game and ignoring the objectives will cause you to fall outside top 25 most of the time. It's certainly not victory based as you claim.

Ithilglin

I never said it's only victory based, and as I myself play the top, I know you can't reach it, even in silver, with simple victory.

But I know two other things :

- I see a lot of whining from platinum players about Emrakul's corruption, mostly because of the objectives. And all that it is proposed is easier objectives, so a more victory based event.

- I also see, as a relatively new silver player, more decks of casual players than most of the people coming to that forum who are almost only platinum ones.

So :

- a large part of top players don't like the event and want less difficult secondary objectives.
- the casual players don't even try to reach secondary objectives.

For my part, I like that kind of event precisely because the secondary objectives make it less victory based. So my proposition is first a response to the current Emrakul bashing.

I've only proposed a change in the number of ribbons because it's only a change in one parameter so even D3 devs can implement it easily, quickly and without new bugs. In my opinion, that event is in midstream : it's not purely victory based but victory by itself still gives a lot of ribbons. If I had to choose, I would even give 0 point for a victory without secondary objective achieved.

You do have a point for the top tier players but I think you miss one purpose of my proposition : push lthe casual players to build a deck for the event and not to rely on the same deck for each situation. And for that, the consequence of a defeat should be less important than a victory with no secondary objective.